Posted on 05/01/2003 8:44:18 AM PDT by RJCogburn
HATING WHAT THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND Liberal intellectuals (almost a redundancy, that) hate author Ayn Rand.
They don't just dislike her, they hate her with a passion. The reason? Because she has single-handedly come up with a logical and reasonable philosophy that strips them bare and reveals all their scams and schemes so that people who know her philosophy (Objectivism) automatically spot one of their scams from a long ways away.
THEY CAN'T TELL YOU WHY
They don't subject her to the usual mild criticism or "shunning" to which they subject liberals who say something "slightly different" from "the norm." Their treatment of Rand and her works is visceral and vicious. There are many who merely dismiss her philosophy with the wave of a hand. But they cannot explain why they feel the way they do. If asked for a reason for their opposition to Objectivism, they can't answer and launch into a personal attack on her that amounts to a "fact-free opinion."
DENYING REASON AND LOGIC
If you point out the fact that Objectivism is a "philosophy of reason," they deny the existence of reason. 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." Of course, they don't even notice the fact that their very statement is a "statement of an absolute," and negates not only their entire philosophy, but the very statement they have made as well. I love being a proponent of a philosophy that allows me to "shut down" those who disagree with it so easily and completely, and with their own words.
I hasten to say that I do not accept all of Rand's opinions and that I am not an Objectivist. I am a "student of Objectivist philosophy" and am still learning all its facets. That could change later, although I don't think I'll ever agree that abortion is a good thing and that there is no "higher power" although I may not see that "higher power" the same way other people do.
OPPOSING BAD IDEAS WITH GOOD IDEAS
One professor said Rand was a "phony libertarian" who wanted to strip communists of their citizenship. She did not. In fact, she was one of the few people not on the Left who opposed the violation of the rights of communists and said so, in print. She said that stripping them of their rights "is an invalid means of opposing communism and that the proper way to oppose bad ideas was with good ideas."
To show you just how visceral and violent their hate is, there is a story told by Ronald Merril, in his book, The Ideas of Ayn Rand, where a woman's boyfriend was horrified when he saw her reading Atlas Shrugged and grabbed it, throwing it out the window. She watched as the gardener, upon seeing the title, threw it down and ran over it repeatedly. This is an excellent example of the violent reaction that her ideas often get from people who have never really investigated them, but have listened to what their liberal friends have said about her and her works. But again, if you ask them precisely what they don't like about her and her work, they can't answer and usually sneer some personal attack upon her.
IS OBJECTIVISM A "CULT?"
That's one of the criticisms that is most often hurled at Objectivism and its creator, that it is a "cult" that does not allow any dissention. That people have been, in effect, "excommunicated" for disagreeing with it in the slightest way. There is a certain amount of truth to that charge, but it only applies to the personal "circle of friends" she laughingly called her "collective." Rand wasn't perfect, although her mistakes are tiny when put alongside her ideas, which are destined to change the world, and already are. She did insist on complete agreement among those people and shunned those who disagreed with her. But that does not apply to those who believe in, and use her ideas to guide their lives, as I do. That's not a "cult, nor is it a "religion."
Objectivism today has two major factions, about even in strength. One faction is run by her "philosophical and financial heir, Dr.Leonard Peikoff. Peikoff was a member of her "collective" and, in my opinion, is an "opportunist," who took advantage of Rand's fall out with her original protégé, Nathaniel Branden and took over her fortune as well as the "mantle" as "The Voice of Objectivism." This faction, running the Ayn Rand Institute, and claims to be the only source for Objectivist information and ideas. But it is this group that operates somewhat as a cult in that Peikoff's contention that Objectivism, as Ayn Rand proposed it, was, and is, complete and not subject to any changes. To be an Objectivist to him, is to accept everything Rand said, as "gospel" and not deviate from it in any way. It is this which gives rise to the "cult" accusation.
But there is a second faction, run by Objectivist philosopher David Kelley, who started and runs the Objectivist Institute, a competing organization whose view of Objectivism is that it is not complete, and can be improved. It is this group who are not, and never will be, "cult-like." If you wish to associate with this group, you will never get any static whichever way you believe.
It is this division in "the ranks" that caused a severe setback in the acceptance of Objectivism for years. This division was worse than that created when Nathaniel Branden left. But the Objectivist Center has had a strong influence and the acceptance of Objectivism as an excellent guide for your life is rising again, as it must, because it is the only logical philosophy there is.
You may not agree totally with the basic tenets of Objectivism, but here you will not be met with a cold silence if you dare to suggest change. In the Objectivist Institute, you will be welcomed and your ideas debated respectfully. The concepts discovered by Objectivists are not subjective, but the final word on the details of Objectivism may not have yet been discovered. You might be the force by which we can improve the philosophy, no matter what Leonard Peikoff might say.
If you're still "drifting in a sea of opposing philosophies," and you don't know why what's happening in this world is happening, this philosophy will help you to understand. Things will become clear to you as never before, and you will be able to, as my older brother Bob said many years ago, "read between the lines" and be able to figure out why people do as they do. What brought me to Objectivism is my inability to understand why people like Nelson Rockefeller, who had more money than he could spend in three lifetimes, supported collectivism even though it was intent on taking his money away (If you want to know the answer to that, e-mail me).
But this philosophy answered most of my questions and therefore, I can follow it for the most part because it's a logical philosophy and its opponents can only stupidly deny the existence of logic to oppose it. They cannot give coherent answers as to why it is bad, so they make things up. If you want to know the truth, go to the source: The Objectivist Center.
I think Rand would agree with that statement completely:
Evil, not value, is an absence and a negation, evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us. - Galt's speechThe spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles. - Capitalism the Unknown Ideal: The Anatomy of Compromise
No it's not. The claim, after all, is that we must not "act Darwinian," because it's morally wrong. Well, why is it wrong, when it so clearly works well for other species? What is it about our (evolved) brains that automatically excludes us from Might Makes Right?
On what basis can you justify the fact that "decid[ing] for ourselves how to live" must exclude my taking advantage of those weaker than I am?
The answer boils down to this: because you said so.
Purportedly "objective" principles usually turn out to be remarkably difficult to defend when challenged. ;)
None of this is new, BTW. "Objectivism" is precious little more than a warmed-over version of the consequentialist theory of "ethical egoism", with some stuff about rationality glommed on to it in order to provide a fig leaf of appeal to some higher principle, and you add the non-initiation principle in order to avoid the most obvious trap of ethical egoism.
PMFJI, but you're invoking evolution by looking at other species. You could construct a valid moral code for those other species that way, but why should it be relevant to humanity? Man's nature as a rational animal with the rampant habit of reflecting on all our experiences on an abstract level with a view to the future fundamentally changes the equation from that of a lion.
Self interest, the interests held by the self, the individual, is what motivates folks. That's just a simple observation; it's axiomatic. It is not a basis, or a principle for a moral code though, it is simply a characteristic part of the essence of man, albeit a very important characteristic. The purpose of a moral code is to preserve the essence of man, every man equally, and to allow him to exist as he is. The noninitiation of force principle is a guiding principle in the moral code that does just that.
" However, consider the mother who sacrifices her life to save her child. It's a looooong stretch to call this an act of self-interest. It's much easier to call it what it is: altruism.
The mother acts in her self interest and she demonstrates this when she acts to protect the child. THere is nothing of interest she holds higher than her child's welfare, so she protects it. there is no altruism here. That would mean she held no interest in the kid and by some magical way, she was driven to protect it. There's nothing rational in altruism, it's a con.
"Ayn Rand's rules simply do not apply in this case -- the mom can't be "happy" if she's dead, and I know enough women who've lost children to claim that she can't be "happy" if she decides to let the kid die."
That's still the mother's interest, but as that interest by itself stands, her own happiness is what counted, not the child. BTW, animals protect their young. Humans are beings that protect other folks young, but it is always an interest held highly amongst those men.
" OTOH, if I say that "the good of the species" is the highest good, the mother's actions are clearly moral -- and we have the added benefit of being able to observe that such altruistic behavior has evolved in other species. In this frame of reference, we are free to consider the facts, and conclude that altruism serves to further our supposed moral purpose."
"The good of the species" is not an absolute, or objective principle. It is the subjective inteerst of some. It is purly subjective, because good and evil can only be defined by the principles and the moral code itself. There is no way to call something good before one has reference points. that reference frame is full of irrational propositions and concepts, that will lead to nothing, but men more adept in the various arts of coercion to conquer the wills of others.
Everyone must be free to choose under the moral code, as their interests lead them, or the code itself, along with its principles are not absolute. Any other code is subjective, becasue it elevates some as more equal than others.
This is an argument from results -- but results are not an objective measure of absolute right vs. everything else. In fact, it is an admission that you're comparing different sets of valid alternatives, and choosing the "best" of them according to some subjective measure. In that case, "objectivism" reduces to utilitarianism.
For me, it leave it just about where it leaves all claims for absolute truth (except my own, of course). I find I agree with much of it, can't subscribe to all of it.
You're saying that it is true to those who care to agree with its assumptions. Objectivism, however, claims that it is true -- absolutely true -- regardless of what we might think of its assumptions.
Isn't this pretty much true of all belief systems? Doesn't a theist proclaim the absolute truth of a god's existence regardless of what the atheist thinks? And doesn't the atheist tell the theist there absolutely are no gods and nothing the theist believes can change that?
Indeed. Whether altruism or self-interest is the moral action very often depends on the context and the specific action. Altruistically risking my own life to save another by rushing into a burning building is generally considered a moral action. Lighting a building on fire so that I can rush into it and save people is generally not a moral action, even if it is in my self-interest to do so. Confessing to a heinous crime that I didn't commit so that the guilty person can go free is probably not a moral action, even if it is altruistic. Confessing to a heinous crime I did commit is probably a moral action, even though it's also in my self-interest to reduce my penalty that way.
You're dancing like a madman now, Hank. My beliefs have nothing to do with the claims you are making about objectivism. I am challenging you to prove your claims -- which objectivism purports to be able to do.
I am also providing counter-examples which would pass objectivist muster according to Rand's requirement that Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
I'm deliberately using an example based on evolution, which is well within the scientific mainstream, and thus a reasonable candidate as an objective basis. And from the objective evidence used to support the theories, I have suggested that a reasonable moral code can be formulated based on the processes laid out in the theory of evolution.
This represents a valid counter-argument to Rand's claims, which you are, remember, supposed to be trying to prove.
If you do not wish to discuss and defend your claims, that's fine. Just say so, instead of trying to change the subject.
No, it boils down to: What kind of world would it be if this was the operating principle? Would "might makes right" set up a virtuous circle of increasing prosperity, or would it create a vicious circle where civilization never would have gotten off the ground in the first place? And which kind of resulting world would you rather live in?No it's not. The claim, after all, is that we must not "act Darwinian," because it's morally wrong. Well, why is it wrong, when it so clearly works well for other species? What is it about our (evolved) brains that automatically excludes us from Might Makes Right?
On what basis can you justify the fact that "decid[ing] for ourselves how to live" must exclude my taking advantage of those weaker than I am?
The answer boils down to this: because you said so.
See, that's where the "enlightened self-interest" calculation comes in: at the end of this proposed principle playing itself out in the long run. That's where the critique of self-interest-based morality always fails. Y'all keep confusing short term, ad-hoc self interest with enlightened self interest. When you're dealing with questions of principle, you're necessarily forced to examine the results of the being used by everybody in similar situations over time - i.e. being used as a principle. And on this level, might-makes-right fails badly, IMO.
Because to do so would make us hypocrites. We don't really believe that might makes right is an absolute. Thus we labor to predicate any exercise of might on other demonstrably (or at least as demonstrably as we can) rightnesses. We don't send our Army into Mexico or Canada not because we can't, but because we believe we'd be wrong to do so. Again, your "Might makes Right" premise is backwards.
So... your preferred alternative is to not judge a moral code by its results??? Then why should we even care?
By the same token, why should something that is true for every other species not be true for humans? You're claiming not only that it's not true, but that it's absolutely not true -- which you cannot prove.
You've invoked human reason as the discriminator between us and the animals. The problem with that is that it is possible to be rational and live according to might makes right. Indeed, it's hard to separate the two. So again, other than because you say so, why is it wrong for me to "act Darwinian?"
Why Refrain from Harming Others?
Morality tries to answer the question, "why shouldn't I harm others if I want to?" There are several reasons people can give for why you shouldn't initiate force or fraud on others. Let's look, as an example, at how I might convince you not to steal:
1) Enlightened Self-interest - If I tell you not to steal because in the long run it destroys that which makes a thriving civilization possible, then I'm giving you a long-term, indirectly selfish reason not to steal.
2a) Eternal Damnation - If I tell you not to steal because this life is really just an audition for a second, infinitely long life that begins when this one ends - and there's this all-powerful God who will punish you forever, then I'm giving you a long-term, directly selfish reason not to steal.
2b) Karma - If I tell you not to steal because you're going to be reincarnated after this life ends, and your status in the next life depends on your behavior in this life, then I'm also giving you a long-term, directly selfish reason not to steal.
3) Empathy - If I tell you not to steal because if you put yourself in the victim's shoes, wouldn't that feel terrible, then I'm giving you an immediate, directly selfish reason not to steal. This argument depends on you being able to feel empathy. (This is an effective tool for perhaps 98% of the population, and is one of the best tools for teaching morality to children. I think it's so effective because reason #1 is so compelling that it was selected for by evolution.)
4) Crime Does Not Pay - If I tell you not to steal because I & the government I support will getcha if you do, then that is an immediate, directly selfish reason not to steal (or at least to make sure you don't get caught).
5) Duty - If I tell you not to steal because "it's just wrong, period", then I'm invoking a reason that does not appeal to your selfishness at all. In fact, this argument doesn't appeal to any facts about the real world - it's essentially an arbitrary statement! This sometimes works with children if they recognize me as an authority figure. In that case they implicitly trust that I have a good reason to say it's wrong but for some reason I don't want to explain it to them. But adults demand explanations, so if I use this argument on an adult it basically amounts to me begging you to please please don't steal.
Notice that there is only one argument for moral behavior that does not ultimately appeal to your own self-interest, and that one is arbitrary! This is a pity, because at first blush #5 sounds like it should be the most compelling argument of all: It sounds so final & absolute.
Theists' moral systems are based on #2, and sometimes #5. Usually they will acknowledge the truth of #1, though they don't think that's enough of a reason to be persuasive. In practice their system would have to depend on #2, 3, & 4. Atheists' moral system is based on #1. We think that #2a & 2b are factually untrue (or unprovable & therefore moot). In practice our system depends on #1, 3, & 4.
Both atheism & theism have fundamental reasons for moral behavior - #1 & 2 respectively. But in practice both atheists and theists can agree that #3 & 4 must be supported by a healthy society.
The concept of wrong can only derive from rational action. As it stands in nature, survival of the fittest is neither right, nor wrong, but simply what is. To propose it as a moral code, is irrational and is not in accord with man's rational nature.
" I'm saying that it is possible to construct a moral code, the efficacy of which is supported by Darwin's observations. If you want an objective moral code, what more could you ask?"
It is not an objective moral code for humans, because it only benefits some, not all men. THe only thing objective about it, is that it can be observed in nature. It can never be called an objective moral code though. It's relative to those that propose and use it for there own purposes. In order for the code to be called absolute, it must be applicable to all and benefit all men. Else it's relative to particular men and not absolute.
Part of the problem is debating these as isolated issues. We are all chock full of conflicting interests. What I do today because the mood suits me may compromise what I'd like to do tomorrow. By sacrificing now, I can enjoy something I value more later. I've heard economics described as more now or much more later.
For some reason there seem to those believe none of us have figured this out. If drugs were legalized, we'd all be zombies tomorrow. If there were no speed limits, we'd all drive around with the accelerator floored. If God didn't tell us not to murder, everyday would be a blood bath. Their assumptions are incredibly wrong. People are just not like that.
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.