Objections of Randian Objectivism

I think as a whole it is laughable, and I challenge objectivists to not leave a cent to their children so the children can sink or swim according to the 'philosophy.'

Ray- You paint with rather a broad brush. Care to illustrate your point?

One of the great joys in life, IMO, is helping people that you care for. When I die, I will be pleased to give the funds to my son, whom I love dearly. Would it be more rational to leave it to some faceless strangers, who mean nothing to me?

It is a contradiction of the philosophy. Only by being creative and excelling above others can the wealth be properly had. It makes the receivers no different than the ones it belittles.

Would not that be on the altruistic side? If you 'care' for someone, then you would not be acting selfishly, but is acting for someone. If you're only acting for the pleasure you've habituated out of the act of helping someone, then you are acting with selfishness, but the action is not selfish itself.

Objectivists claim an existing objective world and claims to have reason as one of its highest values. However, egoism is no where close to being rational. Is it rational you ask if you leave the money for someone you don't care for? Yes, it is.

Firstly:It is a choice whether you 'care' for someone or not. If you only 'care' for someone because you happen to have the feeling, you wouldn't be acting with reason, but with conditioned emotions as your basis.

Second: These feelings are not fixed and can be arbitrarily changed. The question is what to attach the feelings to. That is acting with reason as your guide.

Third: The reason why you should care for people is because they are 'people'. It is rational to help someone in need, because a conscious rational being in need, needs to be helped.

Fourth: Universals/identities are part of the rational mind.

Fifth........... I could go on, really.

It is a contradiction for Rand to state that we should be selfish and yet treat people as an end, because that would also be considerate of people and is not aligned to the definition of selfishness (even objectivists themselves would differentiate between self-interest and selfishness).

I would also debunk objectivists notion of third category of people who acts with self-interest. For me, the rational thing to do is to act with 'everyone' in consideration (the rational middle ground between egoism and altruism).

I also do not understand Rand's hostility to philosophy. Instead of calling things that do not agree with her a mistake to her believe, she calls them 'evil.' That is a form of elitism that I despise.

Rand described what she perceived as a "general good will" towards humanity in general. That might mean that one might help a friend in need, or even a stranger in trouble. (For instance, tsunami victims).

Rational thought would preclude taking the food out of your own child's mouth in order to help a stranger.



http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Politics/Liberty/Selfishness.html

Like all philosophies, it only works in theory. Life is a combination of practicality and philosophy - abiding only by one or the other will necessarily lead to contradictions, no matter what the philosophy.

And I agree with phoenix.

I think that you hit the nail on the head. One of the weaknesses of Rand's philosophy was the absoluteness of it. As such, it attracted many "true believers", people who accepted what she said, wholesale. Her philosophy got a bad rap as being "cultish". As with any philosophy, one must temper all learning based on one's own observations and conclusions.

I am saying this as a person who was introduced to Rand's philosophy over forty years ago. As a young person, I WAS, at the time, overwhelmed by the sheer power of it. Time, maturity, experience and hindsight, has taught me to extract what I believe is the basic rationality of the philosophy, and to get past some of the faddish, quasi "religious" aspects of it.

"general good will" is not a selfish thing.



Yes, because the child need it as much as the stranger.


Here's a link criticizing Rand's definition of selfishness: Webpage Title

I would disagree with his categorization of three types of people as I see that there is more.



That's ridiculous. A slave is someone devoid of freedom over their bodies, the person who sacrificed himself to help the country chooses so himself and not so because someone forced him to do so.

Talk about a contradiction.

Ray, welcome to A2K.
I don't think you understand what Rand means by selfish. I'm extremely selfish but I'm also as charitable as the next guy, I just view it a little differently. I don't give because you tell me you need it and I don't owe anybody anything. I give because I think people need help and it makes me feel better about me to do so. The deed is the same, and the reasoning isn't much different, but I've made a rational choice to help because I'd like to live in a world where everyone does. I'm selfish that way... and it's my money. That is a huge difference because it eliminates the need for the elitist fool who doesn't produce anything telling me where my money should go. I have no use for him nor his directions whether he be church or state.

If you listen to the church or your government or any other societal group out there you'll hear them tell you you should use your time and effort and the money you earn for the good of society. If you ever stop to think of how they view society it is generally them, first and foremost, and then everybody except you. The most demanding persons are generally those who produce the least. Bill Gates is demonized as some kind of a monster by some. Strange treatment for the single greatest philanthropist on planet earth today, isn't it? Society thinks they're entitled to his wealth, with no recognition that it wouldn't exist without his effort. Where is the giant thank you for creating it? Rand simply recognized the truth of selfishness in human beings. The Pope's house is every bit as grand as the President's and they're both in the same league as Mr. Bill Gates'. The difference is; that Bill Gates earned his.

Now let's look at who should really be the role model, shall we? The United States Government is run by committees of do-gooders who've volunteered to represent society… and mostly produce nothing. They live like royalty at the public's expense and look down their noses at the commoners in similar fashion. Meanwhile, it is the most wasteful entity humankind has ever known. World famous it is for overpaying and for underachieving. The church claims to have the morality of the human race in its philosophy yet the child molesting priests have created an ugly stain not bested since witch burning was abolished. They too live the high life at the public's expense. Now take a peak over at the selfish man; Bill Gates. His business is as successful as any before it, operates at a perpetual profit and I don't recall ever hearing about him doing anything heinous to children or anyone else. Furthermore, he's created countless thousands of jobs that have fed millions of mouths and he donates millions more on top of that. Hmmm. Somehow the selfish man doesn't seem so bad to me.

Bill- You express things so much better than I do!

I think that there is a tendency for people to get their backs up at the term "selfish". The reason for that is that many people believe that the gain of one necessitates the loss of another. According to Rand, rational people relate to each other as "traders", not "looters or moochers", as she would say. Another way to look at the concept of "selfishness", a word which IS emotionally loaded in our society, is to describe it as "rational self-interest".

I believe that Bill Gates is one of the greatest people of the last fifty years. Through his innovation, he has changed the way that the world does business, learns, and has fun. And yet he is despised by many, whereas a politician who drinks at the public trough, or a preacher, who tells people how despicable they are, are lauded as great humanitarians.

Curious, ain't it?

Indeed Phoenix, curious indeed. I can't quote as accurately as you but I live by one of her selfish-trader-directives in that I always try to "exchange value for value to the mutual benefit of us both" in every transaction. In charity, I'm selective about who gets it and the value I receive is to live in a kinder world. Some folks want to read too literally and don't recognize the night and day difference between my volunteering it, and someone demanding it. I dissent from Randian thought in that I believe our government should take a greater role in providing aid to the world... but that's only because they loot so much in the first place and will continue to do so whether we help others or not. Were this not the case; I would strenuously object to the government collecting my charitable dollars at the point of a gun (which, in essence, is the hypocrisy I currently condone).

I also think its a pity that selfishness should need to be described as rational self-interest to avoid negative connotations. Hell, I think it obscene. Taking care of oneself should be a matter of pride, not shame. Interesting how for thousands of years the looters have gotten away with convincing the mainstream that they are more qualified to distribute the unearned wealth they steal. A quick comparison between the teachings of Christ and the truly awesome wealth of the Vatican should be all that's required to demonstrate that it represents the single greatest fraud humankind has ever known. How on earth people can be convinced their wealth is better directed by those too incompetent or unwilling to earn their own? I have no idea. <Occom Shrugs> :wink:

Rand never had a problem with people giving to charity, if it was something that they wanted to do. It was the concept that in order to be a "good" person, one had to give to any beggar who held his hand out, to which she objected.

In one of her early works, "Anthem", she sets out the core of her philosophy. When I first read it, I had an epiphany, and the passage still moves me to this day.To me, anything that she wrote later, was commentary and elaboration, of what was in this one chapter.

If one reads every word, slowly and carefully, one may understand what Rand is all about:

http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/mcnally/anthem/AnthemPartEleven.html

See, I'm the opposite. I read Atlas first, and then worked through her fiction in reverse order and each book seemed like a watered down version of the last. I did recall that passage as I re-read it, though. Reminiscent of, "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

I read Atlas and then Fountainhead (I think - the one with Roark, right?), and it didn't seem like the latter was watered down. It was just an individual/psychological perspective on the mostly social message in Atlas.

Yep, that's right. Same message on a smaller scale.

Bill-Basically, these two passages are espousing the same concept.

Rufio- Yes, you are right. "The Fountainhead" (yes, Howard Roark WAS the protagonist) did describe the psychology of the independent man. "Atlas Shrugged" was a more comprehensive philosophical discourse, with political and social commentary, disguised as a novel.

One of the things that Rand's detractors find objectionable, is her absolutist stance on many issues. I cannot disagree with that. She was an extremely strong person, and did tend to see things in a black and white fashion.

When I used to see her in person, she would dismiss any questioning of the tenets of her philosophy. Her rationale was that we were here to learn about Objectivism, not argue it. To a great extent, that attitude attracted some people to whom a cult like figure would be very enticing, and gave Objectivism a bit of a reputation of being simply another form or "religion", which it was not.

I look at her philosophy as an ideal, as something for which one may strive. As a person who thinks for herself, I have incorporated those parts of her philosophy into my life that I believe are rational and appropriate. The rest I have discarded, as the faulty thinking of someone who was, after all, simply a fallible human being.

That cult stuff is laughable. "The cult of thinking for oneself". Sign me up! L. Ron Hubbard once wrote in his own defense to such accusations "All I do is write books. The only way the printed word has any effect on anyone is if they agree with it" (paraphrased from 15 year old memory of Dianetics).

Someone once told me that Atlas Shrugged was modeled after the NT, based on it's plot elements and characters and so forth, sort of like Rand was trying to write an Objectivist Bible. I've never read the NT though, so I couldnt' say. I agree it does seem rather contrary to have a cult of individuality, but any popular idea can become one.