Posted on 03/11/2005 6:17:42 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
"The Italians made a movie adaptation of the novel in 1942 called Noi Vivi, which was then banned from public viewing by Mussolini's government. I think the mvie stands as one of the best adaptations of a book ever made. It's faithful to the story, her philosophy, and is entertaining to boot."
I have a copy of that film and without the full ending, it just ain't complete!
I am a 50 year old man educated outside of America.
Love, Alex.
In your opinion, has the asbestos lawsuits and government intervention ever lead to the death of thousands? Could that industry of parasites be comparable to the hundreds of deaths being portrayed in the railway disaster?
Do you believe that a person can be best satisfied by charity or earning their own way with their own abilities. Is man more moral living off their own accomplishments or off of other people's efforts?
I admit that I haven't read everything she has written, and I have a lot of reading to do. As a result, I have never seen her official view on abortion. Where does she discuss it?
Of course people with right moral instincts prefer work. That is not the issue.
Objectivism teaches that people are charitable (they prefer the term altruistic) because they seek to maximize the pleasure they feel when they are charitable. From this they deduce that charity is an illusion, and morality is in enlightened self interest.
This teaching is nonsense, because it does not explain why people enjoy being charitable. Nor does it see any difference between one who enjoys being charitable and one who enjoys watching Gilligan Island reruns. A moral philosophy that cannot distinguish between behaviors as long as they comply with the non-agression principle is a useless philosophy.
I don't know where Rand discusses abortion, but she was pro-abortion. I don't know why. Most pro-abortion libertarians think that the mother owns the baby, or something like that. May be someone on this thread knows more.
The Libertarian Party platform says that they are against the government paying for abortions and they are against the government prohibiting them. Don't ask me to explain this either.
Nice to see sound, articulate reasoning on this thread. I was beginning to despair.
"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue."
--From Playboy's interview with Ayn Rand.
"What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that a man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altriuism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice--which means; self-immolation, self-abnigation, self-denial, self-destruction--which means: The self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
"Do not hide behind such superficilalities of whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whther you do pr do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the needs of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will say 'No.' Altruism says'Yes.'"
--From "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," Philosphy: Who Needs It?, p.74; pb 61.
...Quoted the above not to start an argument but to clarify that Rand did not directly equate charity with altruism. The issue is not whether you give or not, but WHY you give-- and whether anyone has the right to expect to receive your charity.
I will second that.
I gave a copy of Atlas Shrugged to my son-in-law and he has told me that it had a major impact on his approach to his job and his life. He recently returned the favor by buying a copy for the fiancee of my other daughter who is Hispanic. He in turn talked it up to a friend of his (who speaks very little English) but wanted to read the book. As is my policy, I offered to buy him a hardback version of Atlas Shrugged. In this case I had to find him a copy in Spanish. I found it at Amazon (the publisher is in Argentina), ordered it and received it in about a month. I will hand it too him next weekend.
Please let us know how it was received! I a Hispanic brother-in-law and and a brother of his who are ood friends of mine. They are "reflex Democrats" and simply repeat what their American "friends" have said about Republicans.
So, um . . . you kinda like this "Ayn Rand" person, eh, Ms. Hewitt?
Don't be shy . . . tell us what you really think!
I don't see how these fine points of objectivism matter. The fact remains that objectivism has nothing to teach us in terms of ethics.
She had a new idea with her attacking altruism, which she framed as premising the self as evil. I don't know of anyone before her to have thought of this.
New it is; the closer to the absurd a thought comes, the less is the chance that someone had thought about it before.
It wouldn't be charity -- or altruism, -- if by giving of myself I gave something bad. What is given in charity is by definition good, so the giver, who gives of himself, must be good.
Taking traditional altruism to heart, I was suicidal at the age of 12. My interpretation of Rand's ethics -- that there are TWO kinds of selfishness AND ONE OF THEM (involving, in part, something you might have heard of called "The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness") is THE GOOD KIND.
So she saved my life, and I will be forever grateful. If you've never faced the terror of having the purest of self-sacrifice demanded of you, and demanding it of yourself, you may never appreciate the intensity of my gratefulness, and it would be easy for me to disparage your antagonism as a form of hostility, or at least, unkindness born of ignorance.
I guess I have "Peikovian intrincism" whatever that is, but for which I am eternally grateful! I stand by my statement and will reiterate it as it applies to the Brandens equally as well as to Bill Clinton: known liars lie. All three are self-admitted liars who have repeated, elaborated and sustained numerous lies over long periods of time.
Traditional altruism cannot lead to suicide because a suicide does not transfer any good to anyone. You misunderstood altruism.
But, since you bring this up, the foolish Randian idea, that altruism is self-denigration, may indeed lead the altruistically minded to suicide.
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.