RE: Of course, she didn’t. She was famous for her atheism. That did not, however, mean that she believed you could do as you please morally.
Therein then lies the incoherence of her philosophy.
If we all came from random collision of atoms and are eventually going to go to the same state, what objective or REAL reason is there to NOT do as we morally please?
What objective universal rule in her ultimate worldview makes her morality superior to others?
You seem to know about her philosophy a lot, well, please explain the above to me given her atheism...
A successful life.
What objective universal rule in her ultimate worldview makes her morality superior to others?
Morality is a very vague term. I don't know if you are asking about the morality [I would prefer the term "philosophy", but I'm not sure if that's what you mean] she preached or the morality she lived.
Now, if you are asking about her philosophy, then what I find most compelling is the virtue of selfishness. That each human's only moral obligation is to himself and to those to whom he freely obligates himself [family, friends, etc.]. She believed that the modern concept of sacrifice was morally corrupt.
If, for example, you wish to give food to the family down the street that is hungry, that's fine; an example of man's humanity towards man. But if you take food that would make your own family hungry to give to someone else, she would scold you for ignoring your primary moral obligation.
Now, a lot of people have taken this virtue of selfishness [a term she chose intentionally to be a provocative one] as meaning she believed you shouldn't help others. That isn't true. She just railed against the modern, welfare-state, faux altruism that claims we are all responsible for each other.
We are individuals and should not be slaves to others; either by government decree or church dogma.
Now, all that said, whenever I defend Rand's philosophy, I always feel compelled to add that I am not a member of the cult of personality that surrounded her and, to an extent still does. She was, in my opinion, an extremely brilliant woman whose logic I admire but whose personal life was chaotic and often didn't live up to her lofty ideals.
There are some aspects of her philosophy I strongly disagree with. Abortion is one. She was an early and vociferous advocate for abortion rights and I find that completely counter to her general philosophy of the rights of the individual.
Now, it might have been the times -- science hadn't advanced to the point it has now. Then again, it might have just been her personal feelings impeding on her common sense.
But you don't have to agree with every word a philosopher puts forth to still admire her. It's her thinking that intrigues me. My favorite book of hers is Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology wherein she lays out her theory of concepts and how humans learn.
It's an area of particular interest to me and I can't help but think every teacher in America should memorize it. It's just brilliant.
And if that's not your philosophical cup of tea, I would heartily recommend The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution. Her writings on the corruption of American education by the left were prescient -- and her non-fiction is as enjoyable to read as her fiction isn't.
OK. I probably haven't answered your question, but it was thoughtful and I tried to provide a thoughtful -- if, perhaps, incomplete response. If religious people can get past a long-dead woman's opinions of religion, then I think there is much in Rand's writings for them [you?] to like and even to learn from. Cheers.
A successful life.
What objective universal rule in her ultimate worldview makes her morality superior to others?
Morality is a very vague term. I don't know if you are asking about the morality [I would prefer the term "philosophy", but I'm not sure if that's what you mean] she preached or the morality she lived.
Now, if you are asking about her philosophy, then what I find most compelling is the virtue of selfishness. That each human's only moral obligation is to himself and to those to whom he freely obligates himself [family, friends, etc.]. She believed that the modern concept of sacrifice was morally corrupt.
If, for example, you wish to give food to the family down the street that is hungry, that's fine; an example of man's humanity towards man. But if you take food that would make your own family hungry to give to someone else, she would scold you for ignoring your primary moral obligation.
Now, a lot of people have taken this virtue of selfishness [a term she chose intentionally to be a provocative one] as meaning she believed you shouldn't help others. That isn't true. She just railed against the modern, welfare-state, faux altruism that claims we are all responsible for each other.
We are individuals and should not be slaves to others; either by government decree or church dogma.
Now, all that said, whenever I defend Rand's philosophy, I always feel compelled to add that I am not a member of the cult of personality that surrounded her and, to an extent still does. She was, in my opinion, an extremely brilliant woman whose logic I admire but whose personal life was chaotic and often didn't live up to her lofty ideals.
There are some aspects of her philosophy I strongly disagree with. Abortion is one. She was an early and vociferous advocate for abortion rights and I find that completely counter to her general philosophy of the rights of the individual.
Now, it might have been the times -- science hadn't advanced to the point it has now. Then again, it might have just been her personal feelings impeding on her common sense.
But you don't have to agree with every word a philosopher puts forth to still admire her. It's her thinking that intrigues me. My favorite book of hers is Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology wherein she lays out her theory of concepts and how humans learn.
It's an area of particular interest to me and I can't help but think every teacher in America should memorize it. It's just brilliant.
And if that's not your philosophical cup of tea, I would heartily recommend The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution. Her writings on the corruption of American education by the left were prescient -- and her non-fiction is as enjoyable to read as her fiction isn't.
OK. I probably haven't answered your question, but it was thoughtful and I tried to provide a thoughtful -- if, perhaps, incomplete response. If religious people can get past a long-dead woman's opinions of religion, then I think there is much in Rand's writings for them [you?] to like and even to learn from. Cheers.