Posted on 04/22/2003 5:25:25 PM PDT by RJCogburn
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. — Ayn Rand, Appendix to Atlas Shrugged
In her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and in nonfiction works such as Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand forged a systematic philosophy of reason and freedom.
Rand was a passionate individualist. She wrote in praise of "the men of unborrowed vision," who live by the judgment of their own minds, willing to stand alone against tradition and popular opinion.
Her philosophy of Objectivism rejects the ethics of self-sacrifice and renunciation. She urged men to hold themselves and their lives as their highest values, and to live by the code of the free individual: self-reliance, integrity, rationality, productive effort.
Objectivism celebrates the power of man's mind, defending reason and science against every form of irrationalism. It provides an intellectual foundation for objective standards of truth and value.
Upholding the use of reason to transform nature and create wealth, Objectivism honors the businessman and the banker, no less than the philosopher and artist, as creators and as benefactors of mankind.
Ayn Rand was a champion of individual rights, which protect the sovereignty of the individual as an end in himself; and of capitalism, which is the only social system that allows people to live together peaceably, by voluntary trade, as independent equals.
Millions of readers have been inspired by the vision of life in Ayn Rand's novels. Scholars are exploring the trails she blazed in philosophy and other fields. Her principled defense of capitalism has drawn new adherents to the cause of economic and political liberty.
Hence it is immoral.
But of course the entire debate is about whether one can, through reason alone, objectively demonstrate that it is "immoral."
The reason you say that it's immoral is because you say it's absolutely wrong to initiate force. But you have yet to demonstrate this, and it's probably not possible to do so.
For example, if I (according to the requirements of objectivism) base my moral concepts on what I can observe, then I would have to accept that the evidence points to a morality based on "the good of the species." From that perspective, we conclude that the rights of individuals are, in fact, subservient to those of the "collective," (i.e., the species).
Now, any truly objective morality has to be open to scientific proof, and to that end I could point to evolutionary theory as a scientific basis for my claim. We may thus conclude that the interests of society are twofold: a) making sure the "good" genes are propagated; and b) making sure the "bad" genes are not. The rights of any individual in such a system would presumably be conditional on the the "quality" of their genes.
As a matter of fact, if we go solely by the evidence and what our reason can derive from it, one is forced to conclude that objectivism's claims are made despite the evidence -- its claims are self-contradictory.
If, in the face of this, we nevertheless claim the primacy of individual rights as a matter of objective fact, we must provide a basis for that claim -- something that says, "it's that way, despite the evidence to the contrary."
You already know where that leads.
And in America you're free to choose which community you prefer or even to expatriate yourself.
Indeed it is.
Either rights are absolute and inalienable, or they are not rights.
Wise statecraft must find ways to protect both the rights of individuals, and the "general welfare" -- that is, what the broad society requires for its good order over time.
Morally just state, must act ONLY in defense of rights. Any actions of state which are not specific to the defense of individual rights, MUST in some way VIOLATE rights. (think it through, and find me an exception).
There is no "general welfare" that does not include the "specific welfare".
To say as much does not make me an ideologue of "the greatest good for the greatest number" school
I think it does, whether you recognize it or not.
Rights are not violated in America?
Rights are not violated in America?
The best system in the world versus the juvenile rationalizations of Objectivism. No contest.
Does the state violate rights in America?
Of course it does.
All the time.
It's been a pretty reasonable discussion so far.
Don't ruin it.
You ran from my point.
In America our representative forms of government have defended them to the extent that we have greater liberty and opportunity than mankind has ever known before.
It either isn't or history is not studied, because the world keeps repeating the same tired stupidities. I like the quote, though.
I would be interested in your opinion of Paul Johnson's A History of the American People. Have you read it?
I have the book, but it is well down in my stack of to-be-read books.
Hank
Bunk. It's been pissing and moaning about Christianity and avoiding discussion of Objectivism.
nudge-nudge, wink-wink
And again I ask... aren't rights routinely violated in America... by the state?
Isn't this happening with an increasing and alarming frequency?
You can continue to sing Yankee Doodle and pretend all is well, but it isn't, and I think you know it.
The founders of this land crafted something as yet unseen, and it was phenomenal compared to any system of government yet created.
But it was crafted with inherent flaws.
And slowly, over generations, opportunists and collectivists have exploited those flaws, creating problems with the foundation.
If something isn't done... the foundation will fail.
Singing Yankee-doodle as the foundation fails may make you feel better, but it won't stop it from failing.
That will take honest thought, and honest discussion.
That is true, and that is why the collectivists seek to make every community as much alike as possible.
Bunk. It's been pissing and moaning discussion about Christianity and avoiding discussion pissing and moaning about Objectivism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.