Why the hate on Ayn Rand?

I.e.,basically her philosophy is comparable to a hybrid of two distorted caricatures? Heh. I think I like that. A lot, actually.

(Machiaveli's treatise too isn't actually a honest-to-god advice that it's good to be a self-serving dictator, but mocking the Medici family who had couped the Florentine republic and restored a totalitarian rule, tortured Machiaveli for his involvement in the republic, and threw him out of town. Machiaveli's views both before and after that were actually pro-republic. The Prince is basically a pamphlet ridiculing the Medicis, and originally circulated only among friends of Machiavelis, who would know what it's about.)
 
Phrost said:
Assuages guilt; feelings of pride, accomplishment, satisfaction; increases social status amongst people who are aware (or made aware) of the donation; funds a cause that ultimately helps your goals or furthers your ideology; complies with your moral or religious imperatives...

...and so on.




Absolutely. But that doesn't mean it is always a bad thing, by default, as many of us have been taught. Hell, I remember being instructed that "JOY" meant "Jesus first, others second, and yourself last"; and this was in a 4th grade public school in the eighties.

But ultimately, we only do things that increase pleasure or avoid pain. And that's the very definition of being 'selfish'.
Click to expand...

You do realize, of course, that if you're correct (every action we take is a selfish action), then the Randian principle (one ought always to act selfishly -- in a suitably enlightened sense, of course) cannot be a moral principle at all.

That is, if the descriptive theory of egoism is correct, then the normative theory of ethical egoism is utterly redundant. All it says is: One ought to act in the way one always acts in any case.

If every act is selfish, the Randian ethical theory is pointless.

To put it another way, the Randian prescription would be no more significant than a moral law that one should never square the circle using straightedge and compass. Saying that morality requires selfish motivation is meaningful only if it is possible to be otherwise motivated.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
Actually, I think that's an oversimplification. She makes it perfectly clear that altruism is irrational, incompatible with reason, and only supportable by mysticism BS. E.g.,

"Now there is one word—a single word—which can blast the morality of altruism out of existence and which it cannot withstand—the word: “Why?” Why must man live for the sake of others? Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that the good? There is no earthly reason for it—and, ladies and gentlemen, in the whole history of philosophy no earthly reason has ever been given.

It is only mysticism that can permit moralists to get away with it. It was mysticism, the unearthly, the supernatural, the irrational that has always been called upon to justify it—or, to be exact, to escape the necessity of justification. One does not justify the irrational, one just takes it on faith. What most moralists—and few of their victims—realize is that reason and altruism are incompatible."​

So, yeah, she won't stop you from giving away your money or time to help others, but she's basically calling you an irrational idiot if you do. She's not technically calling it "wrong", she's calling it, basically, stupid.
Click to expand...

Rand makes herself sound even worse than she is, and makes it easy to take potshots, because she uses a number of terms in confusing ways. For her, selfishness='enlightened self-interest', not 'wanting more than that to which you're entitled'. Altruism is not helping others because you want to, it's helping others with no reward whatsoever, not even satisfaction. To most people, sacrifice is giving up something of lesser value to attain something greater; like working two jobs so your kid can go to college. To Rand it was the other way around, giving up something you value highly for something you value less.

Another big mistake of hers was, in rejecting the collectivism she was exposed to as a child in Russia, she rejected...did not even recognize...normal human social behaviors, instincts, and impulses like empathy and reciprocity. She tried to base her moral system on a foundation missing half its bricks.

I was very interested in Rand as a teenager and young adult. My first exposure was when I shoplifted The New Intellectual and quit stealing because I finally read an argument against it that didn't boil down to 'God doesn't like it'. And y'know, I still think reality really does exist independently of consciousness and that our senses, though limited, let us perceive something of the way things actually are. Her perspective is very limited, but it's not entirely worthless.
 
phiwum said:
You do realize, of course, that if you're correct (every action we take is a selfish action), then the Randian principle (one ought always to act selfishly -- in a suitably enlightened sense, of course) cannot be a moral principle at all.

That is, if the descriptive theory of egoism is correct, then the normative theory of ethical egoism is utterly redundant. All it says is: One ought to act in the way one always acts in any case.

If every act is selfish, the Randian ethical theory is pointless.

To put it another way, the Randian prescription would be no more significant than a moral law that one should never square the circle using straightedge and compass. Saying that morality requires selfish motivation is meaningful only if it is possible to be otherwise motivated.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is precisely what I was getting at (though much more slowly).

Yet another way of looking at it is the objectivist claim that one ought to pursue one's own self-interest. Some contend this by asking, "What if I enjoy the act of helping others?" The common answer is, "Then helping others is clearly in your self-interest, as you get something out of it."

And then the vacuous nature of the whole ordeal becomes obvious. So one ought to act in accordance with one's values. But this is already how we determine the way we're supposed to act! This is like telling someone they ought to value what they value. Thanks, Rand. You're a big help.
 
Dinwar said:
It therefore follows that you have the right to stop a child abuser, specifically because the abuser violated the rights of that child. You are not necessarily obligated to do so, but you are not forbidden to do so by O'ist philosophy either.
Click to expand...

I think this is the point others were making.

You can stop it, if you want to.

But you have no moral or ethical obligation to stop it. If you choose to simply ignore it, as it isn't your problem, that's perfectly in line with the philosophy.
 
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Ayn Rand's views on William Edward Hickman:

In 1928, the writer Ayn Rand began planning a novel called The Little Street, whose hero was to be based on "what Hickman suggested to [her]." The novel was never finished, but Rand wrote notes for it which were published after her death in the book Journals of Ayn Rand. Rand wanted the hero of her novel to be "A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."[3] Rand scholars Chris Matthew Sciabarra and Jennifer Burns both interpret Rand's interest in Hickman as a sign of her early admiration of the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche.[4][5] Rand also wrote, "The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal..."
Concerning the hilited portion of the quote above, what the hell was she talking about when she said, "It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal..."? Did she seriously believe that the people who were appalled at this monster killing and dismembering a kid (when he could have just as easily given her back for the ransom money, by the way) actually had worse crimes in their own lives? WTF??!!!
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
I.e.,basically her philosophy is comparable to a hybrid of two distorted caricatures? Heh. I think I like that. A lot, actually.

(Machiaveli's treatise too isn't actually a honest-to-god advice that it's good to be a self-serving dictator, but mocking the Medici family who had couped the Florentine republic and restored a totalitarian rule, tortured Machiaveli for his involvement in the republic, and threw him out of town. Machiaveli's views both before and after that were actually pro-republic. The Prince is basically a pamphlet ridiculing the Medicis, and originally circulated only among friends of Machiavelis, who would know what it's about.)
Click to expand...

That seems to sum it up.
 
UNLoVedRebel said:
I certainly didn't find that to be the case; we'll just have to agree to disagree. But you are in the minority. Out of the 5 dozen or so novels I've read, The Fountainhead was easily the worst. Many others have cited an Ayn Rand novel as the worst they've read.
Click to expand...

I struggled through Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged when I was a kid - my dad went through a reactionary phase after getting into a scuffle crossing a picketline, so my early reading material was a stack of these libertarian bricks.

I found them pretty cheesy, but I gave them a second shake in my 30s when it became evident that I had to keep on top of this material dealing with skeptical colleagues. My adult self found them even cheesier.

I can't say they're the worst books I've ever read, but I slot them slightly above L Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth in my hierarchy.



ETA: "Author Tract" - yes, that's it. That's why it reminds me so much of Hubbard's work.
 
Last edited:
Hellbound said:
I think this is the point others were making.

You can stop it, if you want to.

But you have no moral or ethical obligation to stop it. If you choose to simply ignore it, as it isn't your problem, that's perfectly in line with the philosophy.
Click to expand...

And most sane people would view folks who allow children to be molested as monsters.

What would Rand have to say about the Catholic church turning a blind eye and even enabling child molestation?

Not much.
 
I hate Ann Rand because she's a mediocre hack and she slept with her student, that creep Alan Greenspan.

And I hate Greenspan because he's a tool of the financial elites.

Oh God, the thought of sleeping with either one...where's my barf bag...
 
Story of Ayn Rand in a nutshell:

Atlas Shrugged -- then philosophers in general did the same.
 
Dilb said:
That is a completely ridiculous definition. That sort of behaviour is completely impossible. Even in an extreme case, like dieing from smoke inhalation after rescuing your arch-nemesis from a fire, you can say it wasn't 'altruistic' because while you were doing it you had the smug self-satisfaction of moral righteousness.

All that shows is this 'perfectly-selfless altruism' is not actually a good definition of altruism. You can bemoan the 'incorrect' use of altruism by people if you like, or you can figure out what people actually mean when they talk about altruism.

Let's not forget that Rand has a strawman definition of altruism anyway

This is, in the most charitable interpretation, the most extreme version of ethical altruism I've ever heard of. Even then, I'd be hard pressed to find a modern philosopher (as in last couple of centuries) who claims altruism implies you have no right to exist for yourself.
Click to expand...

You are correct. Pure altruism is an impossibility. However, if you hold the position that an altruistic action is inherently more ethical than an action motivated by self-interest without regard as to what the action is, then it follows that the most ethical actions are ones in which the actor does not benefit in any way. BTW I've actually read posters on this forum that hold this position. I don't think it's an accident that Auguste Comte, the 19 century French philosopher who originated the term was admired by Karl Marx.

Also note that while a lot of people claim to admire Mother Thresia, dam few want to be live their lives like she did.
 
Last edited:
MontagK505 said:
...snip...

Also note that while a lot of people claim to admire Mother Thresia, dam few want to be live their lives like she did.
Click to expand...

And yet a lot would - for example flying around the world on private jets, staying in top class hotels, resorts and the homes of the wealthy and powerful, access to the best medical care money can buy for free, the worship of not just her closest followers but also from world leaders and the like! Her life was a pretty good one if you measure it by "material" means. Obviously what would suck, if you had an ounce of compassion for others, would be if you had to follow the "spiritual" side of her life.
 
TraneWreck said:
I don't think we're disagreeing, or at least I don't disagree with anything you or doc has said.

Rand's philosophy is almost a hybrid of Machiavilli and Dostoevsky's misinterpretaion of Niezsche's Ubermensch: it's a might makes right theory, but what's more, it's the MORALIZATION of that position.

We could argue that it's a fact about the world that people in power can do terrible things and get away with it, but Rand thinks this is natural and good.

Thus, the idea that all restraint on such behavior should be removed and the Galt's, the ubermensches, should just be allowed to run wild.
Click to expand...

What Machiavelli have you read? The Prince by any chance?
 
brenn said:
Because both christians and left-wingers (OK, most people in general) maintain their beliefs about everything from religion to their own moral character by avoiding reality. Those who correctly explain reality to them are generally not well liked. Ayn Rand explained entirely too much for most people to accept and, therefore, the majority of people are not fans. This thread will be an example, since this forum mainly seems to attract left-wing nuts and christian nuts.

Most people prefer to fool themselves with fantasies instead of making an effort to understand ("skeptics" included, when it comes to understanding themselves).

I will now use my psychic powers to predict that this thread will turn into people giving examples of altruism/selfessness without making the effort to understand how rational self-interest motivates precisely the conduct they cite. These same people will equate self-interest hedonistic (simple, common definition version) excesses.

...Ok, I'm not psychic, I am really basing my prediction on the shallow and simplistic responses in this thread so far.
Click to expand...


Why are Rand supporters uniformly such abrasive, dismissive, nasty people? Honestly, you can read a hundred such threads and all philosophy aside, the Rand proponents are the ones being nasty on a purely personal level, as in the post above.

Not sure what the deal is there.
 
MontagK505 said:
You are correct. Pure altruism is an impossibility. However, if you hold the position that an altruistic action is inherently more ethical than an action motivated by self-interest without regard as to what the action is, then it follows that the most ethical actions are ones in which the actor does not benefit in any way. BTW I've actually read posters on this forum that hold this position. I don't think it's an accident that Auguste Comte, the 19 century French philosopher who originated the term was admired by Karl Marx.
Click to expand...

That's a rather silly system, to say that the degree to which an action is ethical or selfish is a zero-sum game. Is it really more ethical to give away everything you own and starve to death, rather than keeping yourself alive and employed and giving away even more? Comte said live for others.

Far more reasonable would be saying the most ethical action is the action that benefits others the most, regardless of it's impact on yourself (even then I don't think many altruists really ignore the impact on yourself entirely, but that might be my personal bias for utilitarianism coming through). There are all sorts of situations where cooperation improves things for everyone. This is the entire revelation of altruism as an evolutionary behaviour: making things better for your family or society makes things better for you too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom