Print

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

[Flying Dice]

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?

By participating in a society you accept the conditions it imposes, good as well as bad. Participating in any sort of non-anarchic society obliges you to accept the responsibilities along with the privileges. Money, notable resource, and free time are all derived from collective effort; without society money does not exist, resources consist solely of whatever you can gather and make with your own two hands, and your free time is essentially nil due to the constant need to gather and protect what little you can. Participating in society does require you to surrender a certain degree of freedom and material wealth, but it is also what allows freedom (in the sense of living in a state of non-constant fear and paranoia) and notable material wealth to exist. You can't reap the benefits of society without also accepting the responsibilities thereof. If you truly wish to use your own time and resources without constraint, I would suggest living in uninhabited wilderness or a stateless region.

Which is, incidentally, why I tend to find objectivism so... objectionable. It tends to be used by the wealthy to justify not contributing to society despite the fact that they are wealthy because of society. In short, it is a more modern and "acceptable" excuse than "Hey, I'm part of the nobility you dirty peasants.".

[Nadaka]

The problem with objectivism is that it is not objective. It fails to account for the fact that society exists, and everyone is a part of it. The conclusions that are drawn from "objectivist thought" are not evidence based. Rather, it starts with the conclusion and formulates a rational for justifying it with carefully selected framework. The whole thing is nothing more than an attempt to excuse acting on greed alone, even to the point where that greed runs counter to the self interest that it claims as its purpose.

[kaijyuu]

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?

If it results in the unnecessary suffering of others, then I give a resounding "hell yes, that's undesirable."

Is the means of always respecting the rights of everyone worth the (sometimes) dire straights they end up in?

As opposed to people facing those dire straights all alone?

Also I think you're getting means and ends mixed up there. "Always respecting the rights of everyone" is the end, and the "responsibility to help others" is the means.

[KaelGotDwarves]

As a guy who strongly dislikes objectivism in its purest original form-that the universe is consisting of objects that are discernable and that people are objects, I acknowledge it as a viable philosophy with a name now marred and ruined by association with John Galt wannabes and rabid Randian fans.

[da_nang]

Today in Philosophy class: Moral Objectivism.

"Good day students, welcome to today's class on Moral Objectivism. Let's start off easy, shall we? Is it right to steal? Yes, Daniel."

"Stealing deprives the owner of an item. The owner then grows unhappy from it. Therefore, it is immoral."

"True, true. In certain cases. Yes, Amanda?"

"But what if the 'thief' is starving and is doing it to save himself? An act of self-preservation. Therefore, it is not necessary immoral."

"Good point, Amanda. Yes, Nick, you've got an answer to add?"

"Objectively? 'From what ethical viewpoint?'"

"..."

[Fenrir]

As a guy who strongly dislikes objectivism in its purest original form-that the universe is consisting of objects that are discernable and that people are objects...

A quick Wikipedia search reveals this.

Objectivism, in this context, is an alternative name for philosophical realism, the view that there is a reality, or ontological realm of objects and facts, that exists independent of the mind. Stronger versions of this claim hold that there is only one correct description of this reality.

Is this what you mean? I suspect not, as I do not see why you would dislike it.

[Nadaka]

As a guy who strongly dislikes objectivism in its purest original form-that the universe is consisting of objects that are discernable and that people are objects...

A quick Wikipedia search reveals this.

Objectivism, in this context, is an alternative name for philosophical realism, the view that there is a reality, or ontological realm of objects and facts, that exists independent of the mind. Stronger versions of this claim hold that there is only one correct description of this reality.

Is this what you mean? I suspect not, as I do not see why you would dislike it.

There is an ocean of difference between the fundamental concept behind objectivism and the conclusions reached by "objectivists" who follow Ayn Rand.

[Zrk2]

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?

If it results in the unnecessary suffering of others, then I give a resounding "hell yes, that's undesirable."

Is the means of always respecting the rights of everyone worth the (sometimes) dire straights they end up in?

As opposed to people facing those dire straights all alone?

Also I think you're getting means and ends mixed up there. "Always respecting the rights of everyone" is the end, and the "responsibility to help others" is the means.

However by forcing others to help you may be violating their rights.

[cerapa]

I like to think of society as a prisoners dilemma.

Cooperation results in a medium result for everyone.
Isolated cases of selfishness results in a better result for the selfish people and a worse result for other people
And if everyone acts selfish then everyone gets a bad result.

Objectivism epitomizes selfishness and therefore lowers results for everyone, and the problems get worse the more objectivists there are.

I actually tend to rank philosophies on how well society would hold together if everybody would be one. A world filled with communists would be communist and a world filled with objectivists would be killed by wolves.

[kaijyuu]

However by forcing others to help you may be violating their rights.

Such as...?


Side note: when two rights seem to conflict, it's always the restraining one that wins. IE, freedom from harassment overrides freedom of speech. Dunno if that's pertinent to your argument or not, just pointin' it out.

[KaelGotDwarves]

As a guy who strongly dislikes objectivism in its purest original form-that the universe is consisting of objects that are discernable and that people are objects...

A quick Wikipedia search reveals this.

Objectivism, in this context, is an alternative name for philosophical realism, the view that there is a reality, or ontological realm of objects and facts, that exists independent of the mind. Stronger versions of this claim hold that there is only one correct description of this reality.

Is this what you mean? I suspect not, as I do not see why you would dislike it.

Pure objectivism from a philosophical and more importantly sociological standpoint ignores the concept of 'humanity'. Humans are objects, nothing more, and emotions, thoughts, subjective realities, and ideas of justice are thrown out as unimportant details.

That isn't to say that pure subjectivism gets us anywhere, because it doesn't. We would be able to know nothing for certain.

I consider myself a social constructivist. That humans are social creatures that build concepts of reality that are shared.

[alway]

The other MASSIVE problem with the randian silliness is its being based on the 'Just World' fallacy. To simply acknowledge that random shit over which you have no control can screw you over or benefit you, regardless of how hard you are trying, is to completely undermine the entire basis of the 'got mine, screw you' mentality of randian objectivism. And yet, not only is this the case, but outside of 'self help' books, it's largely agreed that, if anything, a majority of how well you do in life depends on such random circumstances. To equate doing poorly with moral failure is to willingly blind one's self to the reality that shit happens.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

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?

Individuals have limited scope, unequal resources, and are generally incapable of making the kind of collectivist decisions that objectivists so loathe, not necessarily because they are individuals, but because by definition they can only really see their own viewpoint and have a deep-seeded desire for self-benefit that will cloud their judgement, and that is only overwritten by a strong desire to commit self-sacrificial actions.

This is the reason for our attempts to create a collective consensus by taking an pooling an amount of money, time, and resources from each individual and then deciding altogether how we all can benefit the most from it. This does not deprive the individual of all independent action as only a portion of these resources are taken for this purpose, and without doing so all collective action is either impossible or at best unstable and fickle (coughcoughandrewryancoughrapturecough).

[Nadaka]

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?

If it results in the unnecessary suffering of others, then I give a resounding "hell yes, that's undesirable."

Is the means of always respecting the rights of everyone worth the (sometimes) dire straights they end up in?

As opposed to people facing those dire straights all alone?

Also I think you're getting means and ends mixed up there. "Always respecting the rights of everyone" is the end, and the "responsibility to help others" is the means.

However by forcing others to help you may be violating their rights.

Forcing someone to repay their debt is not a violation of their rights. Every individual is a product of society and owes his very existence to the social framework provided.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Then truly, nadaka, we are all in debt to society for making us who we are and we shall never be able to repay.

Ho hum, how does that quote go?

'A good society becomes great when men plant trees whose shade he shall never sit in. '