The Vindication of Ayn Rand

The Autonomist ^ | 03/11/05 | Cass Hewitt

[jackbob]

So a single act of kindness does not make a greedy man or an unkind man into a generous or kind man. But isn't that what you were arguing earlier in the exchange?

So what was that "quality of virtue" in 235?

I call a "point of order" to your question per your rules as set out in #234. As a radical Libertarian I have to "run" as you say from answering this question like its "holy water." But then again, I believe I've in effect already answered it.

[annalex]

isn't that what you were arguing earlier

No. Where? I may have referred to "kind man" where "kind act" would be more precise, but other than that I am fully aware that everyone this side of heaven is a mixed package.

I call a "point of order"

Thank you. Works every time.

[jackbob]

I call a "point of order"

Thank you. Works every time.

I just humored you, as it didn't work this time - guess you didn't get it. Sorry.

[annalex]

I'll "get it" when I get get a real answer and not evasions. What is that virtue?

[jackbob]

There's been no evasion by me. I was quite explicitly speaking of "kindness" as the only relevant virtue as of my last two paragraphs of #235.

I know that you choose not to see or hear any Libertarian when they generally speak of "kindness" as a good (see your #234). I did so, you couldn't handle it, so you turned blind to the obvious. Your ego is apparently all wrapped in some preconceived notion, that you can't or refuse to let go of.

[annalex]

I read 235. It raised more questions than answered, and I asked them.

So, to avoid more arguing over the past posts procedurally, is it your position that kindness is one of the virtues and so one is to pursue kindness along with other virtues?

[jackbob]

I do not agree that my #235 raised more "questions than answered," nor that you asked them.

...is it your position that kindness is one of the virtues and so one is to pursue kindness along with other virtues?

I've already stated kindness to be a virtue, and after your insistence, I have treated it as the only relevant virtue here in our discussion with out further objection.

But as far as the expectation that one "is to pursue kindness along with other virtues," that would depend on what is meant by "pursue," and under what criteria such a expectation is raised. Virtues such as honesty, fairness, consistency, are to be expected , requiring universal pursuit and are not ever deserving of thankful recognition. Where as virtues such as kindness, bravery, sympathy, are not to be expected, do not require universal pursuit, and thereby are always deserving of thankful recognition.

[Bon mots]

What about Alan Greenspan? he had been her pretoge money guy. He had several articles in her periodical denouncing the very activity that he does now.
In the 60's he fully supported the gold standard, and in fact, made strong arguments to redouble efforts to institute the gold standard.
Since, he has become the darling of the global money elite.

Yes. I always wondered about that too. I still have the book he co-wrote with Ayn Rand... I think it was "Capitalism - The Unknown Ideal".

[jackbob]

One additional unnecessary note: My words "never" and "always" are big words, on which spurious applications can be made. Also they can be challenged on peculiar circumstance, like thanking a child for being honest or criticizing bravery for recklessness. But those are circumstantial and not general, which was the sense on which I stated "never" and "always."

[annalex]

Very good. I agree. Do you consider this view of kindness to be a Randian position, a logical expansion of the Randian position done by you, or would you say that it contradicts the Randian position?

You realize that I need to reconcile your statement with Rand's celebration of greed and view on altruism as another form of greed.

[L,TOWM]

Be careful about taking it seriously as a political or economic blueprint, though.

If you really sit a libertarian down and try to paint them a picture of what the world would be like if the got everything they wanted, they deny it would be anarchy, or they resort to ad hominems.

The commies could never get their system to work because they never believed the end result of laziness from the removal of incentives.

Pure libertarianism will never work, either, because it ignores the disturbing human tendency to behave poorly without an external braking system. And the libertarians refuse to believe that many among us would turn into savages without rules and a coercive body to enforce them.

[jackbob]

I would say a little of all three. Some from Rand, some from my expansion of Rand, and definitely a lot in contradiction of Rand. But also it is from conclusions I've drawn from other writings on ethics unrelated to Rand or libertarianism. I have never studied ethics, and any insight I might have is limited to writings I accidentally fell upon, and impressed me.

You realize that I need to reconcile your statement with Rand's celebration of greed and view on altruism as another form of greed.

I plead ignorance here. Your meaning escapes me, and am thereby unable to answer.

[annalex]

OK, thank you very much for the exchange. Most libertarians I met derive their ethics form a mixture of sources as well.

[jackbob]

Please accept my apology. The meaning of what you ask is quite clear. My excuse is that I am responding while also doing paper work that has to be done before I go off to work. I will answer tonight after working a few hours. Business must come first.

[RightWhale]

On further reflection

I don't mention Atlas Shrugged in casual company anymore. There are two responses. One, some hippie starts yelling at me, or two some hippie starts explaining how he is moving to an island in the Gulf of Alaska and will withhold his considerable talents from society. Can't say why whenever I am in casual company and mention Ayn Rand suddenly there are so many hippies.

[jackbob]

Most libertarians I met derive their ethics form a mixture of sources as well.

Isn't that where everyone derives their ethics from (libertarian and non-libertarian)?

You realize that I need to reconcile your statement with Rand's celebration of greed and view on altruism as another form of greed.

As I just replied, I'll answer this tonight.

[annalex]

Please respond when you can, no rush. It is a coincidence that lately I was quick with my responses.

Traditional source of ethics is religion and religious people derive their ethics from that single source; I am one of them. Of course, there is some latitude in the interpretation of Christian ethics, and I would imagine a similar latitude exists in other religions.

On occasion, a philosophical system replaces religion. Marxists for example derive their ethics from the perceived needs of the working class.

I don't think eclectic personal ethics are all that common.

[jackbob]

You realize that I need to reconcile your statement with Rand's celebration of greed and view on altruism as another form of greed.

First off let me say I have never had a need to reconcile my opinions with Rand's opinions. She has never had a major influence on my points of view. As far as greed goes, my position, unlike Rand and her followers, is not of the view that greed should be seen as a positive. For me, greed is a neutral term, usually used negatively because of an often wrongfully implied excessiveness. Which by the way, is the reason I also usually choose to use the word greed as a negative.

Now for altruism. I have never said altruism is an another form of greed. What I have said is that it is phony and does not actually exist. I say it is self deceptive point of view, which feeds various selfish needs, and thereby is an unconscious form of selfishness. Unlike self centeredness (which I always view as a negative), selfishness to me is a neutral fact, viewable correctly as both negative and positive. I choose to use it as a positive most of the time, as it can make easy explaining more hard to explain concepts regarding various forms of profits earned from human action.

But now after writing this I must admit that since I do view altruism (practice by individuals, as opposed to advocated) as excessive, and thereby quite possibly instigated by an excessive want of certain forms of non-material profits, it may very well be a form of greed. But I have not thought this one through enough to assert it to be so.

[jackbob]

I do not agree that the traditional source of ethics is religion, at least not in America. Nor do I agree that most American religious people derive their ethics from any single source.

I also say that various philosophical, social, and professional systems of ethics have always existed side by side with religious systems of ethics, except where religion outlawed such systems, and of course where such systems in effect outlawed religion. Equally, I do not agree that most Marxists derive their ethics from any perceived needs of the working class.

And finally, I say that "eclectic personal ethics" are not only the most common, but are almost unanimous source for ethics in America today, yesterday and all the way back to our countries founding.

[RoarkMan]

You should try her nonfiction books for a concise delivery of her philosophy.