Posted on 05/01/2003 8:44:18 AM PDT by RJCogburn
You been smokin' dope again, Bob? ;^)
In Rand's own words: 3. Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Now ... am I going to believe you, or my own lyin' eyes?
Back to what you said:
The motivations in her philosophy are whatever the individual holds as an interest, regardless of what that interest is.
So if I like to torture people, and take their stuff -- if that's my interest, you're saying Rand would support it? No, she wouldn't. She'd say that "my interest" is not a sufficient moral justification, because it acts against the interests of others.
Which of course contradicts Rand's claim that every man is an end in himself -- if this were really true, my interest in torturing you need not be affected by your reluctance to submit to it.
The problem is, following Rand's first two points (objective reality and "going by the evidence") leads me to conclude that there is no absolute injunction against torture, theft, murder, and so on -- the only constraint would be my self interest (Rand's point #3), and whether I thought I could get away with it.
And, of course, there's no particular reason to claim that "my interests" are the true measure of morality at all. The theory of evolution, which has a strong scientific backing, suggests that "the good of the species" might be a better choice. At the very least, this is a demonstrably valid alternative to Rand's "absolute" individualist morality. Logically speaking, the existence of a provable alternative means that Rand's findings are not absolute after all -- so much for her "objectivity."
The problem here is that objectivists expect us to accept their underlying assertions as true and absolute. For example, an objectivist favority is the non-initiation of force. I happen to agree with this -- but the sad fact is that one cannot objectively demonstrate that it is an absolute moral requirement. Indeed, the evidence suggests precisely the opposite.
Thus, if non-initiation of force is to be accepted as absolute, the basis for making the claim must come from a source other than application of reason -- from God, for example.
When you get right down to it, the problem is in the claims of absoluteness: they cannot be proved by this allegedly logical philosophy. And without such proof, the foundation of objectivism collapses.
Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem: Any adequate axiomatizable theory is incomplete. In particular the sentence "This sentence is not provable" is true but not provable in the theory.
If we accept this claim, then it means Rand's basis for objectivism is false.
Consider:
Rand claims that Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Now, suppose I consider hedonism to be in my own self interest, that my self-indulgence does make me happy, and that I suffer no ill-consequence from my hedonism. (One might consider Hugh Hefner as the poster boy for this point of view.)
If Rand were to state that this was, nevertheless, a Bad Thing, then she would have to base her claim on something other than individual self-interest and individual happiness. I would no longer be an "end in myself;" rather, I would be subject to some moral code other than my own self-interest.
Which contradicts Rand's original claim.
I occassionally go slumming in her works. A fun escape from reality.
So, a moral code has nothing to do with what is good for a human being. If a moral code is based on the nature of man, the requirements of human nature for happiness and success in this world, and the principles that must be followed to fulfill those requirements, that is without basis.
But a moral code that comes from the Koran (or anyone else's book) and teaches that women must be covered from head to toe, else beaten or killed, that is a moral code with a basis.
... moral code is always changeable depending on who is doing the deciding ...
Moral principles are not "decided" any more than the princple of chemistry are decided, they are discovered. They are determined by the nature of those beings to whom moral values pertain, rational/volitional beings, and the nature of the world in which they live.
It is religious moral values that change, because they are arbitrary, having no rational basis and dependent on the nothing but the whim of a deity, who can yesterday demand obedience to a levitical law, for example, but today condemnd that same practice as defying grace.
Hank
Splendid, Ms. Rand. Now try to prove that the claims of Objectivism are true. Start with the four claims in the link I provided. As an added challenge, please explain how the objective evidence, as explicated in the Theory of Evolution, does not contradict your claims.
By that logic, Rand is wrong, based on the evidence.
Conversely, her applications of reason resulted in a wonderful defense of capitalism.
She contributed much in her work on the subject of capitalism. I don't think her views on atheism did much harm. She came out of Russian society with the Russian anti-God ideas. However, she rebelled violently against the Russian anti-capitalist ideas.
I disagree.
Liberals, tend to loathe both her economic and political ideas, where as conservatives tend to agree with many of them.
The problem Conservatives have with Rand have more to do with her claims concerning the basis of her morality, and the implications of same as they're lived out -- ideas with which the Liberals often tend to agree.
As for me, personally, I think Rand's philosophy is fundamentally irrational. It cannot stand up to its own claims.
It's true, many of the principles of Objectivism cannot be proved to many people, possibly most people. So what?
The principles of the Calculus cannot be proved to many people, possibly to most people. So what?
In both cases, they are true, and the fact that most people are to stupid to understand the proof, proves nothing.
Hank
You would be wrong. That would be irrational. I will for the moment assume you did not intentionally obfuscate the obvious: The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Ayn Rand never said that is what all men do (most do not), or that they could claim to do this, (without actually doing it) and it would still count as rational self-interest. That's pretty simple. How could you miss this?
Hank
By that logic, Rand is wrong, based on the evidence.
What evidence?
Hank
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.