Objectivism - The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

[Tethlis]

Hi. I just wanted to know if anybody here sympathises with Ayn Rand's philosophy. If so, do you follow it orthodoxly, or do you think theres room for change? If the latter, what change?

[Guderian]

I think Ayn Rand was a delusional egotist who ignored the reality of social influences on the individual.

[Rowan11088]

I think Ayn Rand was a delusional egotist

You're correct up to there, and I think even a supporter would agree. But as to her philosophy, I have a hard time finding anything distinctly wrong with it. Her novels should not be taken seriously as a portrayal of the relative numbers of "good" and "evil" people in the world, or of the intensity with which either upholds or ignores her ethics. But that aside, I think that an intelligent interpretation of her theory is an excellent moral code. The best ideas often come from the worst people, you know.

[Guderian]

I do agree with her thoughts on using reason as a means of self control, perception and analysis, but she was hardly the first person to come up with this. I don't agree with her views on philosophy, self interest (well I do abit, I belive everyone is motivated by self interest but it ends there), and using reason as absolute moral code based on self interest. You can probably guess how I feel about her views on capitalism :wink:

[Tethlis]

Haha. Yes, I can guess those views. I agree with what was said about her ignoring certain things. Her ardent supporters at ARI seem to portray her as a perfect human being, which she wasn't. Something that interests me is the danger that many people succumb to when reading her work. There are a lot of orthodox objectivists out there who use Galt and Roark as examples of how to be. But there is one problem - both her characters are infallible. They never have to picks themselves up after a mistake. Sure, they pick themselves up after losing their job or whatever, but nothing to do with an actual mistake. A further mistake these people make in interpreting her books is that Rand seemed to have a desire to show her characters as metaphysically great - they were just born that way. Theres a great quote from somewhere in the Fountainhead that describes Roark as not being aware of others, because he hasn't got the capacity to be aware of them. Something like that. Such a view, or portrayal, is ridiculous. Personally, I think her books don't portray objectivism as is ought to be. I'd say the fantasy author Terry Goodkind does a far, far better job of that.

[Rowan11088]

But I think it's misleading to criticize her characters for being too "unrealistic". How could they be metaphysical role models if they weren't, in a sense, 'perfect'? Jesus is the role model for Christians, and I don't think he ever made a mistake either; he was born essentially infallible and chose exactly the path that he took. People don't complain that he's "unrealistic" because the whole point is that no one entirely lives up to the standard; it's just the attempt to get as close as possible that counts. Same thing with Rand, IMO.

[Tethlis]

The thing is that Ayn Rand deliberately portrayed those people the way they are to serve as a model of how humans can and ought to be. Problem is, we can't be like that. The result is that many objectivists do take them literally, and thus feel bad when they don't achieve perfectness. However, according to objectivism there is no such thing as perfectness (in this sense). She says in her journals that she doesn't want to give the impression that Roark is metaphysically gifted in some way, but I reckon she fails in that.

[Darth Wong]

Ayn Rand's moral philosophy was devoid of content. It claimed "enlightened self-interest" as a principle, but given its complex justification of self-interest as an ultimate moral goal, it had no real way of explaining where the "enlightened" part came from. It was simply implied that humans had some intrinsic need to behave altruistically on occasion, so altruism sometimes fell under the "self-interest" umbrella: this has always struck me as a fantastically disingenuous evasion.

[Tethlis]

I'm confused as to what you mean. You say it is devoid of content, but then admit it has a complex justification for self-interest. As to an intrinsic need to act altruisitically, where exactly does it say that? It holds altruism to be sacrafice of value someone else, where sacrafice is understood to mean you give up a value and get a lower value, or no value, in return. The only example I can think of that you are referring to is the notion of dying to save your loved one and the like, which is not a sacrafice of a value for a non-value. Life without the loved one would be unbearable.

[Darth Wong]

I'm confused as to what you mean. You say it is devoid of content, but then admit it has a complex justification for self-interest.

Correct; it attempts to claim that morality derives entirely from self-interest and produces complex justification of that claim, but then it throws in "enlightened" in order to patch up all of the huge holes that are opened up by this argument. I call that "devoid of content" since its most important facets (the exceptions to self-interest) are totally unexplained.

As to an intrinsic need to act altruisitically, where exactly does it say that? It holds altruism to be sacrafice of value someone else, where sacrafice is understood to mean you give up a value and get a lower value, or no value, in return.

Correct. And when examples of the need to do this are raised, objectivists will invariably invoke some sort of hopelessly clumsy explanation to try and pretend that your own self-interest is actually being somehow indirectly served through altruism.

The only example I can think of that you are referring to is the notion of dying to save your loved one and the like, which is not a sacrafice of a value for a non-value. Life without the loved one would be unbearable.

Sheer nonsense. As an engineer, part of my code of ethics is that I must "blow the whistle" on threats to public safety that are committed by an employer or client, regardless of any financial costs that I may incur as a result of this action. Don't tell me you aren't imaginative enough to think of situations where altruism is good. The "whistle blower scenario" is one of the oldest ethical dilemmas out there.

[Rowan11088]

Correct; it attempts to claim that morality derives entirely from self-interest and produces complex justification of that claim, but then it throws in "enlightened" in order to patch up all of the huge holes that are opened up by this argument. I call that "devoid of content" since its most important facets (the exceptions to self-interest) are totally unexplained.

Correct. And when examples of the need to do this are raised, objectivists will invariably invoke some sort of hopelessly clumsy explanation to try and pretend that your own self-interest is actually being somehow indirectly served through altruism.

Sheer nonsense. As an engineer, part of my code of ethics is that I must "blow the whistle" on threats to public safety that are committed by an employer or client, regardless of any financial costs that I may incur as a result of this action. Don't tell me you aren't imaginative enough to think of situations where altruism is good. The "whistle blower scenario" is one of the oldest ethical dilemmas out there.

It's not about self-interest, and then exceptions to self-interest. There IS a continuous moral framework that encompasses every "good" action from the perspective of objectivism. Also, you have to consider that throughout "Atlas Shrugged", and I would assume "Fountainhead" too (though I've only read the former), there are numerous characters who are technically acting in their own self-interest, but do so by trying to elicit charity from the "good" characters, rather than trying to 'make it on their own'. Self-interest comes in many forms, and not all are endorsed by objectivism. Similarly, in the "whistle-blowing" scenario, objectivism would expect a "good" person to have a general respect and attachment to the human race as a whole, and thus feel inclined to avoid any catastrophe to any part of it. In other words, a truly "good" person derives a self-interested contentment from doing their job and protecting others.

Another way to put it, is that all actions that humans engage in are self-interested in some sense. You wouldn't do something unless it was self-interested, it's just not always obvious HOW. Giving money to a poor person gives some a sense of satisfaction; others, it relieves a sense of guilt that would arise if they did not contribute. If someone didn't feel guilty about not helping the poor, and got no satisfaction from it, they would never give any money away. Objectivism's stance, then, is not one of self-interest, but a type of selective self-interest, that encourages others to rely on themselves and have fulfilling lives, rather than try to eke out an existence off of the fruits of others' labor. And this is not out of altruism, but (Rand would argue) merely because to do otherwise is to indirectly harm another person, which is considered wrong even from the self-interested point of view.

[Darth Wong]

Another way to put it, is that all actions that humans engage in are self-interested in some sense. You wouldn't do something unless it was self-interested, it's just not always obvious HOW. Giving money to a poor person gives some a sense of satisfaction; others, it relieves a sense of guilt that would arise if they did not contribute.

This is exactly the sort of disingenuous sophistry I was talking about before; you perversely define self-interest in such a manner that altruism might be pulled into the "self-interest" umbrella for reasons you cannot explain. WHY should anyone feel a sense of guilt about not helping others if self-interest is the only valid moral principle?

By doing this, the people who advocate "enlightened self interest" are cheating; they are quietly incorporating the principles of other ethical philosophies into their own, by considering them as factors in peoples' self-interest. But if someone had no ethical philosophy other than self-interest, he would never help anyone at his own expense.

[Rowan11088]

This is exactly the sort of disingenuous sophistry I was talking about before; you perversely define self-interest in such a manner that altruism might be pulled into the "self-interest" umbrella for reasons you cannot explain. WHY should anyone feel a sense of guilt about not helping others if self-interest is the only valid moral principle?

By doing this, the people who advocate "enlightened self interest" are cheating; they are quietly incorporating the principles of other ethical philosophies into their own, by considering them as factors in peoples' self-interest. But if someone had no ethical philosophy other than self-interest, he would never help anyone at his own expense.

I think you're misunderstanding the point here. The objectivist stance is that everything humans do is in self-interest, unless of course they make a mistake or miscalculate. This is not the tenet of the philosophy; for, from an objectivist stance, all philosophies that are actually followed must incorporate self-interest, or else they would never be taken seriously. Objectivism is not unique in this. The difference is that objectivism first advocated accepting and embracing the principle of self-interest, and secondly focusing on the productive aspects of it rather than the parasitic/destructive. True "altruism", meaning doing something for others at expense to yourself, INCLUDING any personal satisfaction or possible gain you could ever have from the action, is not a rational human action and is thus incredibly rare. Objectivism does not advocate this. But it does advocate serving your self-interest in the most efficient way, which in the long run is a path of self-respect, respect for others of authentic ability, and hard work at that which you are skilled in. That better for you?

[Darth Wong]

No, because you still add the "satisfaction from helping others" term, which is just a cheater's way of adding altruism into the mix.

Creating an ethical philosophy around self-interest is an utterly pointless exercise, and "devoid of content" is just about right. All creatures will naturally tend to act in their own self-interest anyway, so what's the point of elevating this to a moral principle? Systems of morality exist in order to help you make difficult decisions, not to rubber-stamp that which you would want to do anyway.

[Tethlis]

As an engineer, part of my code of ethics is that I must "blow the whistle" on threats to public safety that are committed by an employer or client, regardless of any financial costs that I may incur as a result of this action.

Now, in saying this are you saying that you chose to make that part of your ethics, or that you had to incorporate it as part of your contract of work? If the former, then its your choice, and that does not mean that it is a correct moral principle. If the latter then you have to look at why that is part of the contract in the first place.

No, because you still add the "satisfaction from helping others" term, which is just a cheater's way of adding altruism into the mix.

Satisfaction from HELPING doesn't correlate to altruism. Helping and altruism do not have the same meaning.

All creatures will naturally tend to act in their own self-interest anyway, so what's the point of elevating this to a moral principle?

Precisely because it is part of who we are.

Systems of morality exist in order to help you make difficult decisions, not to rubber-stamp that which you would want to do anyway.

Do they?

[Darth Wong]

Now, in saying this are you saying that you chose to make that part of your ethics, or that you had to incorporate it as part of your contract of work? If the former, then its your choice, and that does not mean that it is a correct moral principle. If the latter then you have to look at why that is part of the contract in the first place.

Do you understand that the engineering code of ethics has nothing to do with any employment contract? It is a code of ethics that an engineer either accepts or refuses to accept. If he refuses to accept it, then he should not be an engineer.

Satisfaction from HELPING doesn't correlate to altruism. Helping and altruism do not have the same meaning.

From Merriam-Webster:

Altruism:
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

Helping another with no benefit to yourself is altruism. And you are talking in circles: if you derive satisfaction from doing something that you know is ethical, that hardly changes the fact that you need some kind of ethical system other than self-interest in order to feel this satisfaction in the first place.

Do they?

Yes, when they're useful ethical systems. Self-interest is a tautology, not a useful ethical system; rubber-stamping what you would naturally want to do anyway is an utterly pointless exercise. I refer you once again to the "whistle blower" ethical scenario. It's funny how many times I've pointed out the whistle-blower scenario to people who advocate "enlightened self interest" as a moral principle, and I never get a straight answer.

[Tethlis]

Actually, no, I didn't understand that that particular ethics has nothing to do with contracts. Why? Because I am not and don't know anyone who is an engineer. However its interesting that you say someone who doesn't accept it should be an engineer. By what standard? Altruism? Or a selfish love of life perhaps?

As to your second point, I am not saying that you derive pleasure from doing something because it is ethical. I'm saying (as is objectivism on my understanding) that my deriving pleasure from something is ethical if it meets certain criteria. I derive pleasure from something for many reasons other than it being selfish. A person can perfectly well help the homeless and still be an objectivist.

As to the definition of altruism given, there seems to be a blurring between how direct the selfishness is. Objectivism holds (as Rowan pointed above I think) that the ultimate reason ought to be selfish. Love of life may be such a ultimate reason, or any number of other things. For example, on your definition, me running around to help my girlfriend, making myself breathless, tired, hungry, ill or whatever, may be seen as altruistic. However when you look to the fully picture you see that it is done because of love; a love which stems from ultimately selfish roots (this requires going into the objectivists view of emotions and values, which I'm sure you are familiar with - indeed, I am sure you understand the point I am making here).

A straight answer to the whistle blower scenaria. I'll give it a shot. A selfish person would blow the whistle because they love life and don't want to see a proliferation of harm (though, it should be understood that this is only one reason why a selfish person would do it - different people can have different reasons). As I think Rowan said above, its perfectly acceptable for a rational egoist to love life and a happy, beneficial cooperation among humans. Why? Because it improves that standard of their life. Loosely put, theres 'more postives in the air.'

[Vladimir Lenin]

Yes:

Hence my Signature, name, and Avatar.

I do seriously believe in it. Quite a lot actually, in fact I would say I follow Objectivism orthodoxly.

Ayn Rand, was a brilliant woman, made mistakes, and a few flawed views on race.

[Sleeper]

Ayn Rand needed to get out, not more, but ever.

[Justinian]

Serious necropost...