Ayn Rand and the Intellectuals

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

[cgbg]

It seems to me that the conservatives who despise Rand are the Morality police,

If you read the Whitaker Chambers piece linked to earlier in the thread (1957, National Review, _the_ classic attack on Rand) you won't get support for your view.

Underlying Chambers critique as far as I can figure it out are a couple of assumptions that seem to be shared by a majority (maybe only a plurality?) of Freepers:

(1) A man-made or man-based morality is not really a correct moral system, since morailty comes from God alone.

(2) Man-made moral codes lead to totalitarianism if carried to extremes since man will revert to evil measures to enforce them if unconstrained by a correct moral system.

That seems to be the basis of Chambers claim that Rand was advocating "to the ovens go".

When I was younger the Chambers critique made no sense to me at all. I just didn't know what he was talking about and nobody I knew was able to explain it to me.

It looks like actually Chambers and Rand are fighting over a premise or an assumption on the question "Can there be morality without God?"

I believe that for either side to call the other "extremist" or "totalitarian" misses the point.

They have an honest disagreement on a fundamental assumption.

Both are very good advocates for their views and imho we need every man and woman on board for the ongoing battle against the dangerous Utopian leftists who have shredded our institutions and our culture.

[tacticalogic]

Now you're clearly not understanding the deep, complex, radical, meaningful, long-lost knowledge being imparted to us here.

Oops. Sorry, I overlooked the "radical" element. I'll try to do better next time. ;).

[laredo44]

Man-made moral codes lead to totalitarianism if carried to extremes since man will revert to evil measures to enforce them if unconstrained by a correct moral system.

This position is what I've been arguing against in my several "might makes right" refutation posts. Moral codes will only lead to totalitarianism if the assumption of might makes right is true. If, on the other hand, it is right that makes might, as I assert, we will not drift inexorably into totalitarianism.

Right makes might is the concept that right attracts adherents and wrong drives them away. Might becomes based on strength in numbers, and numbers are based on being right.

Liberty being right will "outdraw" totalitarianism which is wrong, and the might of the free will overpower the weakness of the tyrannt.

I certainly see history as proving this out.

[robertpaulsen]

"Could you please give define what the opposite of moral relativism is? Thanks."

Moral absolutism, which sees morals as fixed by an absolute. This absolute is usually religion.

If your absolute is not religion but the universe itself, then that is called Objectivism (Ayn Rand's philosophy).

Moral Objectivism defines moral behavior as that which tends to promote our survival as rational beings. Immoral behavior is that which tends to promote our destruction. Where survival is not at issue, moral behavior will tend to promote security and happiness, immoral behavior insecurity and unhappiness. Religion is not an issue.

There's a very good summary here.

[tacticalogic]

"Right makes might" is an inescapable consequence of any voluntary cooperative social structure - IMHO.

[exmarine]

Moral absolutism, which sees morals as fixed by an absolute. This absolute is usually religion.

If your absolute is not religion but the universe itself, then that is called Objectivism (Ayn Rand's philosophy).

This is incorrect. Moral absolutes do not come from religion, they flow directly from God Himself -they are PERSONAL in nature and come from a PERSON. The universe is a non-entity (not alive) and it is non-rational in the extreme to believe that morals can come from a non-entity. You might as well say that morals come from a tree! Ayn Rand's philosophy comes from HERSELF and it is relativistic (relative to HER).

[exmarine]

Moral Objectivism defines moral behavior as that which tends to promote our survival as rational beings. Immoral behavior is that which tends to promote our destruction. Where survival is not at issue, moral behavior will tend to promote security and happiness, immoral behavior insecurity and unhappiness. Religion is not an issue.

Really? Isn't sex outside of marriage detrimental to one's security and happiness? No doubt about it - yes. Ayn Rand had no qualms about that did she?

[exmarine]

This position is what I've been arguing against in my several "might makes right" refutation posts. Moral codes will only lead to totalitarianism if the assumption of might makes right is true. If, on the other hand, it is right that makes might, as I assert, we will not drift inexorably into totalitarianism.

Sorry, but this is a shallow argument. "right" must have a source and in the case of Randism, the source is Rand only. "Right" only has force if the "right" you are speaking of are the moral absolutes that flow from God Himself. IF "right" is from any other source, it has no power to make anyone "mighty." Men can be mighty but that might is directly related to wealth and military power. The REAL problem with "might makes right" is that it makes no distinction between power and goodness. God is good, and power wielded in fear of God will be a just might.

[robertpaulsen]

"What is your objection to Rands ideas..."

The objection is found in the complete quote:

"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Ayn Rand doesn't believe in God or religion. Without religious moral guidance, the "pursuit of happiness" is pretty wide open, wouldn't you say?

[laredo44]

"Right makes might" is an inescapable consequence of any voluntary cooperative social structure - IMHO.

My only moral absolute is liberty and I believe all good follows logically from that. Given the mass and complexity of humanity, it is understandable that its direction has not followed a straight line. But history's trend line points at a target whose bullseye is liberty.

[laredo44]

"pursuit of happiness" is pretty wide open, wouldn't you say?

As it should be.

[robertpaulsen]

"they flow directly from God Himself -they are PERSONAL in nature and come from a PERSON."

Yes, they flow from God. But morals are defined as "conforming to a standard of right behavior". That "standard" is set by religious teachings.

[laredo44]

"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Where would objection lie if the Declaration held Jeffersons original phrase, "endowed by their nature" rather than by "their creator"?

[r9etb]

Saddam Hussein was a "might makes right" kind of guy. But only so long as it was his might making the right. As soon as America's superior might threatened, he became a, "It's not right for America to use its might" kind of guy.

Well, yes -- that would be covered under the category of self-interest.

The point is, though, that we in this country are engaged in battle with people like the Clintons, and are faced with a situation where our liberties are steadily being eroded by governments at all levels.

The only way to stop this -- and then to reverse it -- is for a large majority of the population to behave and believe differently than they do now. But how does this change take place? Well, basically folks have to be convinced to change their minds.

Which brings us to objectivism. Objectivists claim that theirs is the only logical system, and so on; and that only a society based on Objectivist principles can succeed. They want the nation to act like objectivists.

The problem is, Objectivists make a lot of claims that are obviously false -- not the least of which is this stupid "we're logical and nobody else is" claim." Beyond that, their public face tends to be loud-mouthed and abusive (see this thread for some fine examples -- you being a notable exception).

And, of course, objectivist society is clearly not the only solution. It's obvious to any who look that the principles on which this country was founded, and the beliefs of the Framers, were definitely not objectivist. Sure, there are some common facets. But the Founders -- not to mention the population at large -- were religious, and they valued things like selfless devotion to public service. They believed that what one does in private, is of concern to the rest of us.

[robertpaulsen]

"As it should be."

So words like duty, honor, character, responsibility, trust, sacrifice, have no place in your world? They all interfere with an amoral "pursuit of happiness".

[laredo44]

Sorry, but this is a shallow argument.

So you say, then you go straight ahead and agree with me. Your concern appears to be over what is identified as "right" and not with the notion that might will follow. At least that's how I see your reply. If "right is properly identified, you seem to agree that might will follow. Am I misunderstanding you?

[exmarine]

Yes, they flow from God. But morals are defined as "conforming to a standard of right behavior". That "standard" is set by religious teachings.

And where do the "standards of right behavior come from" - God. Men are the teachers of religious teachings and, unless those teachings confirm to absolute moral principles from God, then the only remaining option is that the teachings are RELATIVE TO THE TEACHER, or to men, which would make religious teachings tantamount ot moral relativism. Morals have only two possible sources - man or God - that exhausts the choices.

Religious teachings in Christianity come from the Bible which contains the moral absolutes that come from God.

[exmarine]

Different people disagree on what is right, and they contradict one another. They all cannot be correct about true moral principles - logic does not allow it. Morals are either relative to man or God - there no other possible choices available. In the case of Ayn Rand, morals are relative to HER and her alone - she made up her own moral principles and in the instances where her principles agree with "true" moral principles from God, it is only coincidental since she did not believe in God. Some people agree with Ayn Rand but many others do not. Who is correct? You see, without universal moral principles (universal principles can come only from God), morals are reduced to mere opinions and preferences and none can claim any authority.

[robertpaulsen]

"Where would objection lie if the Declaration held Jeffersons original phrase, "endowed by their nature" rather than by "their creator"?"

That the unalienable rights are endowed by man's nature? Well, the objection would be that if man is the source of the rights, then man can remove these rights.

God gave us these rights; no mere man can ever remove them.

[robertpaulsen]

"Religious teachings in Christianity come from the Bible which contains the moral absolutes that come from God."

Religious teachings in Christianity come from interpretations of the Bible which contains the moral absolutes that come from God.

Unless you think that Leviticus should be taken literally.