Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mutagen]

While I wouldn't call myself an Objectivist in the way of those that deify Rand and refuse to acknowledge her own contradictions and flaws, I'm very much in agreement with her basic premises and what I interpret to be the spirit of her philosophy.

I agree with her at the most basic levels (particularly metaphysics and epistemology) I only have problems with some of her ethics (mainly regarding sexual psychology and her anti-homosexual bias) and her advocacy of a minarchistic government (I think anarcho-capitalism is philosophically consistent in actuality) 

As to the spirit of Objectivism as I interpret it, it is one of objective inquiry, not prejudice. In keeping with that spirit, I am curious to know about what objections or counter-arguments are out there to rational self-interest as opposed to altruism in ethics, for example.

For all of you who are familiar with Rand's Objectivism, what kind of objections do you have with it?

[Frumple]

Honestly, a critical analysis of randian objectivism via philosophical objectivism would probably be interesting. "Objectivism qua Objectivism", ha.

But I know very little about rand's babbling and want to know less, and also am entirely too rusty on anything that would fall under what I'd call "real" objectivism, so I'll not really get into anything involving it. Just making a personally amusing observation.

As an aside, though, to avoid strawmen you might actually want to state what you see her basic premises to be, and what you interpret the spirit of her philosophy as. Instead of just assuming folks know, or would be on the same page even if they did call themselves objectivist.

[EveryZig]

Like most (possibly all) broad philosophical concepts, Objectivism means very different things to different people. You have said what your version of objectionism is not, but it would be more helpful if you were to elaborate on what your version of objectivism is.
A few points to explain your views on to begin with (you don't have to to discuss all of them as some of them can be lengthy issues on their own):
- The existance of and/or justification for systems of morals, and the general goals of your system of morality if any
- Altruism, what it entails, and whether or not it is desirable
- The (general) meaning and boundaries of:
-- Deserving
-- Freedom
-- Duty
-- Self-interest
- The proper response to poverty

[Mutagen]

My OP was very vague and I apologize for that. It's been clarified.

[Zrk2]

Personally I think anyone who hates on Objectivism should read The Fountainhead, as it presents her case for personal morality much better than Atlas Shrugged and also doesn't get into the hyper-objectionable stuff that most people jump right to.

[kaijyuu]

I'm a bit of a collectivist, as I think one's personal responsibility pales in comparison to one's responsibility to others. So yeah, that's my objection: if we all helped each other we wouldn't have to help ourselves.

[Zrk2]

Ah, but should people be forced to help each other? That is the crux of the issue.

[kaijyuu]

Well duh. That's what responsibility entails.

[Shakerag]

That feels ripe for abuse. 

Also, why should someone who disagrees with someone else's choices and actively tells another person not to do something have to help them when something bad happens due to said choices? 

"Hey, Timmy, don't put your hand in the wood chipper."

"Fuck you!  You can't tell me what to do!"

*GRNNNBHHLLLLSSHHHH*

"Uh, hey, you're responsible for helping me with my mangled hand now."

[kaijyuu]

That feels ripe for abuse. 

Also, why should someone who disagrees with someone else's choices and actively tells another person not to do something have to help them when something bad happens due to said choices? 

"Hey, Timmy, don't put your hand in the wood chipper."

"Fuck you!  You can't tell me what to do!"

*GRNNNBHHLLLLSSHHHH*

"Uh, hey, you're responsible for helping me with my mangled hand now."

And the opposite isn't ripe for abuse?

"Uh oh, I accidentally put my hand in a woodchipper!"

"Fuck you, help yourself, lazy asshole."



(and serious mode, that sort of stuff in your example happens all the time with kids in real life (though maybe not that serious of a problem), and of COURSE you should help them out when they make stupid mistakes and hurt themselves)

[cerapa]

That feels ripe for abuse. 

Also, why should someone who disagrees with someone else's choices and actively tells another person not to do something have to help them when something bad happens due to said choices? 

"Hey, Timmy, don't put your hand in the wood chipper."

"Fuck you!  You can't tell me what to do!"

*GRNNNBHHLLLLSSHHHH*

"Uh, hey, you're responsible for helping me with my mangled hand now."

So....

I shouldn't call an ambulance when someone sticks their hand into a woodchipper?

[Flying Dice]

Uh. Yeah. Collectivism in some form is the basis for society; Hobbes wasn't always right, but his ideas about government and civil law were fairly accurate. When you take part in a society, you're implicitly agreeing to abide by the rules of that society, to help other members of it, etc. To take a Randian (or similar) stance while living within human society is remarkably hypocritical. It doesn't work out too well, either individually or collectively, to refuse to help other citizens but then demand help when in need of it.

That aside, it takes a pretty crappy excuse for a human being to willingly ignore the suffering of others when helping them doesn't provide any sort of material gain. Just my opinion there.

[KaelGotDwarves]

But the question is whether the rich, capitalist, hard working Übermensch owe anything to the poor, lazy, welfare-gobblers that keep pumping out more kids.

[Mutagen]

Ah, but should people be forced to help each other? That is the crux of the issue.

This is the distinction that people seem to fail to grasp most often. Rand did not ever say that helping others is wrong; the heroes in her books even risk their own lives to help each other. The key point is that they do so out of their own, desire, not out of any kind of duty imposed upon them by force.

The question I would pose is whether the ends justify those means? Is it so undesirable to leave it up to individuals to decide what to do with their own money, time, and resources as they see fit?

[Zrk2]

One of my english teachers had his crowning moment when he asked "Is that is? Does the means justify the ends?" I found that that is a good way of considering Objectivist ethics. Is the means of always respecting the rights of everyone worth the (sometimes) dire straights they end up in?