Ayn Rand and the Intellectuals

Sierra Times ^ | 5/1/03 | Ray Thomas

[Feiny]

I started reading "The Brothers Karamazov" one day....and found it impossible to put down. It took me a couple of months to read it because I had to re-read so many pages. Come to think of it, I think it is time to read that one again!

[spunkets]

" Crime often pays. If self-interest is the sole standard for judging"

Rand gave the noninitiation of force principle to forbid that sort of action. That principle in the foundation of her moral code establishes what is forbidden as criminal and defines an evil.

[r9etb]

What evidence is there that it is right to sacrafice others?

Look at nature: the principle of "survival of the fittest" is based on all manner of "sacrifices of others." For example, it's very common in many species for the new dominant male to kill the offspring of his predecessor -- which ensures the end of one genetic line and the propagation of another.

Similarly, many a Pharaoh died old, rich, and happy as a result of his ascendancy over his slaves and lackeys -- whose very lives were his to take at a whim. Given their undoubted successes, Ayn Rand would be hard-pressed to claim that Pharaohs' rational self-interest weren't served by their actions.

[galt-jw]

People who've read and studied the great philosophers don't count Rand among them.

Really? You must be very busy to have met, counted and catalogued all the millions who have studied philosophy! What a heroic sophist you are!

[Roscoe]

Rand gave the noninitiation of force principle to forbid that sort of action.

Altruism that dares not speak its name.

[Feiny]

Which reminds me of something very amusing I saw written in a bathroom stall:

"God is Dead"
~Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is Dead"
~God



Ahhhhh, Bathroom philosophy....it needs its' thread!

[stuartcr]

Is one necessary?

[Hank Kerchief]

But again, that's simply asserted, not proven,..

You're right. Just live by your whims. It'll all work out.

Just don't come to a objectivst with your hand our when it doesn't.

Hank

[r9etb]

It is morally up to each individual to look out for number one, but not only number one.

But the question is, why? Objectivism can "reject" things all it likes -- but it can provide no objectively true explanation for its rejection.

Suppose we take Rand's advice, and check her premises. We would expect to be able to demonstrate that they are true. But that's precisely what we find we cannot do.

At best, one can argue that objectivism produces "better" results than, say, Cambodian communism. But that is merely a relative comparison -- not a basis for an objective philosophy.

[Jhoffa_]

If you point to the logic of Objectivism, they say there is no logic. Then they go on to tell you that "there are no absolutes."

This remark summarizes liberalism in it's entirety.

They want to act in a completely illogical, contradictory manner and generally skew themselves all over the board. THEN if you point this out to them thy have nerve enough to make ridiculous statements like "Uh, well.. like, there are no absolutes"

That's pure emotion talking. People generally default to raw emotion when that's the only standard they can meet.

I never read any "Rand" (thought I have seen it mentioned allot here on FR)

I just may have to check her out.

[LexBaird]

" Crime often pays. If self-interest is the sole standard for judging"

Rand gave the noninitiation of force principle to forbid that sort of action. That principle in the foundation of her moral code establishes what is forbidden as criminal and defines an evil.

In other words, it's an arbitrary rule, axiomatic and unarguable in Randian philosophy. Just like the Word of God in a religious based philosophy. My, that's certainly objective.

[Hank Kerchief]

Crime often pays. If self-interest is the sole standard for judging, the only rational rule is "don't get caught".

According to whose values? The problem with is "evidence" is it presumes a value system already in place that automatically dictates what is good and bad. It never askes, good or bad for whom, and for what purpose.

First you must provide the value system. Then show how the evidence supports it.

Why do neither you or r9etb provide us with your system of moral values?

Hank

[Roscoe]

The problem is that Rand wants to cast some personal preferences as "rational" and others as "irrational".

Why?! Because I said so, that's why!!!

[spunkets]

" Altruism that dares not speak its name."

No it's not altruism. The principle recognizes that the nature of man is an individual being and preserves the essence of that being. Altruism is a suicidal form of slavery.

[Feiny]

Roscoe: I never mentioned altruism.

Objectivism holds that the fundamental standard for all relationships is the trader principle. This principle holds that we should interact with people on the basis of the values we can trade with them.

One clearly identifiable obligation is that of parents towards young children, who need to be looked after until they develop the ability to think rationally and independently. In having children of their own free will, parents take on this moral responsibility.

[Roscoe]

[Crime often pays. If self-interest is the sole standard for judging, the only rational rule is "don't get caught".]

According to whose values?

The values of those who have denounced altruism. (Assuming that they are rational and self-consistent.)

[The Green Goblin]

So many atheists love to use this as an example of why the God of the bible cannot be. But if the God of the bible is, and it is as it says, He is and He knows the beginning and the end. If heaven is as the bible says, and God so chooses to take those babies to heaven, they are/were much better off than they were living here among evil humans. God would know this.

That would still be a case or moral relativity, since it God would consider it moral for his followers to kill babies in some cases, but not in others.

[tpaine]

eBelasco:
I posted it in the form "Why would it be not in my rational self interest to become a dictatorial superman?" and got "That's impossible" as the answer.
-eB-



I guess they think that Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc., didn't exist.
101 -roscoe-


How weird a twist, roscoe.

Wanting to become a "dictatorial superman", is not a rational goal. Thus, -- "That's impossible" -- is the correct answer ~if~ you are a rational person.

Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, were not rational. Nor are you.

[r9etb]

No I haven't. I just covered this "nature" and Social Dawinism. Nature is not man and it is also not moral.

Here's the deal. If we're to evaluate the evidence presented to our senses by "reality," we cannot pick and choose which parts to pay attention to, and which to ignore.

What you're doing is claiming a) that we can derive moral principles from rational assessment of the evidence; and b) that any natural evidence is not to be considered.

This is dishonest -- fraudulent, even.

[Roscoe]

1. It is morally up to each individual to look out for number one, but not only number one.

2. Roscoe: I never mentioned altruism.

You invoked it, but without daring to call it by name.