Ayn Rand and the Intellectuals

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

[general_re]

So... your preferred alternative is to not judge a moral code by its results???

The problem is that objectivism doesn't claim to be simply useful, it claims to be objectively true in its principles. Judge moral codes by their outcomes all you like, but that's a fundamentally utilitarian approach, not an objectivist approach. If the principles of objectivism are objectively true, we ought to be able to see them proven rationally, not by simply appealing to the consequences. Appealing to the consequences in trying to demonstrate the usefulness of a thing is perfectly appropriate. Appealing to the consequences in trying to prove the truth of a thing is, as you must know, a logical fallacy.

[r9etb]

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?

Let's see -- China, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Rome, Persia, Mayans, Aztecs, Incas -- all of which thrived by conquest, enslavement, and various forms of brutality, and all civilizations that somehow managed quite well to get off the ground.

And which kind of resulting world would you rather live in?

If a morality boils down to what world I would rather live in, then it is not objective. After all, you probably want your world to be different from how I want mine. In an objective world we takes what we gets, and live with it.

Don't forget: what I'm attacking here is the objectivst claims to have derived an absolute and objective morality.

[r9etb]

Because to do so would make us hypocrites. We don't really believe that might makes right is an absolute.

It's true that neither you nor I believe such a thing. However, there are plenty of people who do believe in might makes right, and plenty of people who've become quite wealthy as a result of it.

The bottom line questions are whether we can really say it's wrong, and if so, on what basis?

This is not an idle question -- if we're to effectively counter people like the Clintons, we've got to have a plausible response to their claims. Might makes right is horrible to contemplate -- and it's horrible precisely because it's so logically consistent.

Objectivism does not provide a logical alternative, both because it is so easy to show that it's self-contradictory, and also because it's contrary to many of the tenets of traditional morality that have proven themselves to be effective over centuries, and which people know to be true even if they cannot articulate them.

The task is to formulate a system whereby those traditional values are once again respectable. It's a tough problem if you want to compete with people who feel no obligation to play according to your rules, and whose alternatives seem a lot more fun than what we're offering.

[r9etb]

To propose it as a moral code, is irrational and is not in accord with man's rational nature.

What tripe.

[savagesusie]

Who is John Galt???

Just kidding. I loved Ayn Rand's books. She is a genius but I like the idea of a Higher Being!

[spunkets]

" Objectivism does not provide a logical alternative, both because it is so easy to show that it's self-contradictory, and also because it's contrary to many of the tenets of traditional morality that have proven themselves to be effective over centuries, and which people know to be true even if they cannot articulate them."

You've demonstrated neither. You've not pointed out the contradictions, nor have you pointed out where it's contrary to traditional morality whatever that is.

[tpaine]

Show me that personal preferences are objectively rational or irrational.
Prove to me that altruism is inherently irrational, and acting in one's self-interest is inherently rational.
257 -gre-


Who said preference has to be either? -- Or, that altuism has to be irrational?

However, acting in one's self-interest is inherently rational.. This is so self evident that to claim otherwise is ludicrous, to me. We learn this lesson at our mothers breast. - Don't bite the tit that feeds you.
You're simply playing word games with the self-interest issue.

[tpaine]

The 'traditional moralists' here at FR simply ~do not~ believe in the principles of a free private life, liberty under due process of law, or the unfettered pursuit of private property & "happiness".

Nope, we must abide by "the tenets of traditional morality that have proven themselves to be effective over centuries", -- those that they proclaim to be absolute.

---- "The utterly insufferable arrogance of power, and the need for it, is an absolute fact of the human condition. -- Nothing can be done about it. - Just as the poor shall always be with us, so shall we have these infinitely shrewd imbeciles who live to lay down their version of 'the law' to others."
-unknown-

[general_re]

However, acting in one's self-interest is inherently rational.

If that is an objectively true and rational statement, then we ought to be able to do more than just assert its truth - we ought to be able to prove the truth of it. Let's see if we can do as Rand says we should, and check our premises by proving the truth of it. I'll let you start. Heck, I'll let you finish it and do all the middle parts too ;)

[tpaine]

Whatever.

[unspun]

u: BTW, Randites ignore that Fascism is corporate management of government...

xm: True, and it is also a form of socialism just like communism is. The Nazis were the National "Socialist" Party. Both systems are socialistic, the primary difference being that communism is much more centralized. I'm not certain that AR understood this about socialism. Did she?

---

While I haven't taken the time to delve in detail into all the muck of Randism, I see a big gap in anything proposed by Randites, about how to check monopolies, oligopolies, and the Fascism that results. And yes, this sure becomes a form of socialism and moves sharply toward totalitarianism.

Frankly, I've also found a pretty blind eye given to the tyranny of monopolies by many actual conservatives too, including our champion, Rush.

---

Anyone out there care to explicate, how the atheist philosopher novelist who is the topic of this thread purports to prevent this degradation of free enterprise in the direction of shrugging oligopolistic Fascists, in her imported revisionistic concoctions?

[unspun]

You like that line, eh? ;-`

[unspun]

If that is an objectively true and rational statement, then we ought to be able to do more than just assert its truth - we ought to be able to prove the truth of it. Let's see if we can do as Rand says we should, and check our premises by proving the truth of it. I'll let you start. Heck, I'll let you finish it and do all the middle parts too ;)

A well evolved rationale. Creative, too.

[Hank Kerchief]

"So, what is man's moral purpose in your view?"

To seek knowledge.

Why?

Hank

[tpaine]

You bet.
- I'm jealous, and hope to find someone who knows the author.

[spunkets]

Monopolies and the like only exist, because of govm't support and protection. It's their use of govm't coercive force that enables it. That coercive force includes the ability to raid pockets and distribute wealth for the purposes of maintaining a support base in the electorate.

Rand's philosophy prohibits the theft of wealth and property, because it is a violation of the noninitiation of force principle. That alone would cut off the funding for the bribery that occurs every election cycle. That same principle would forbid the govm't from creating rules that eliminate the competition for large, well established orgs.

[Hank Kerchief]

I am challenging you to prove your claims,p> I have.

...you are, remember, supposed to be trying to prove.

Please quote the post where I said I was trying to prove anyting to anyone. The only thing I said about proof is that both the Calculus and the fundamental tenents of objectivism (not necessarily every facet of Rand's version of it, with which I myself have some dissagreements) have been proved, both logically and practically, but most people are too stupid to understand either.

Now you have graciously proved that assertion as well.

Thank you!

Hank

[general_re]

That's really my only point here. No matter what system of morality and ethics you evolve, it's ultimately going to rest on premises that must be taken as axiomatic because they are fundamentally unprovable, and objectivism is no different than any other system in that regard. Objectivism is a perfectly logical system, if you accept those fundamental axioms. If you don't, and prefer some other set of axioms, then it's not logical at all.

And that's true of almost all moral structures - almost everyone claims that their system of morality is grounded in objective truth, with the possible exception of consequentialist systems. If you accept the axiom that God exists and He has made certain pronouncements about morality, then a theistic system of morality and ethics follows perfectly logically from that. If you don't accept those axioms, that system of morality will not be logical to you. In that regard, objectivism is neither more nor less rational than any other system of morality.

[unspun]

You bet. - I'm jealous, and hope to find someone who knows the author.

;-` Bob Dole?

[VRWC_minion]

In the long run there is no such thing as monoplies.