Objectivism

[Straha]

I just read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and I have been converted to objectivism. Now before I go further I do not believe the objectivist mantra of the perfect Rand etc. Now are there any pit falls to this philosiphy that I have been blinded off?

[Darth Wong]

I just read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and I have been converted to objectivism. Now before I go further I do not believe the objectivist mantra of the perfect Rand etc. Now are there any pit falls to this philosiphy that I have been blinded off?

Objectivism claims an entirely objective, rational basis for morality. That is a lie; any scheme of morality is always based on some basic assumptions. Schemes which claim not to require any assumptions are dishonest.

Judeo-Christianity-Islam's basic assumption is that "right and wrong" are defined in terms of pleasing God. Of course, they put it differently; they say that God knows what's right and wrong and he merely explains it to us. But at the core, the basic assumption is that right = obedience to God and wrong = disobedience to God.

Humanism's basic assumption is that "right and wrong" are defined in terms of human rights (which are assumptions in turn). I don't mean this as an indictment; I am a humanist. But I also try to be honest.

Objectivism's basic assumption is that "right and wrong" are defined in terms of advancing one's own interests, starting with one's life (which in turn stems from the idea that all natural life forms defend their own survival before anything else, as if natural = good and male black widow spiders don't copulate even though they'll die afterwards).

If you can get over this little dishonesty, go ahead. But the biggest egotistical flaw of objectivism is its claim that Ayn Rand alone has found a system of morality which need not depend on an emotionally based assumption.

[Straha]

Objectivism claims an entirely objective, rational basis for morality. That is a lie; any scheme of morality is always based on some basic assumptions. Schemes which claim not to require any assumptions are dishonest.

Objectivism's basic assumption is that "right and wrong" are defined in terms of advancing one's own interests, starting with one's life (which in turn stems from the idea that all natural life forms defend their own survival before anything else, as if natural = good and male black widow spiders don't copulate even though they'll die afterwards).

If you can get over this little dishonesty, go ahead. But the biggest egotistical flaw of objectivism is its claim that Ayn Rand alone has found a system of morality which need not depend on an emotionally based assumption.

Point 1: Makes sense, although objectivism contradicts itslef much less blatantly then some other philosiphies/religions

Point 2: In John Galts speach in Atlas shrugged he pointed out that animals work on an instincts first, self later while humans work vice versa thus allowing us to destroy ourselves. Thus the black widdow mates via instincts while the human acts in own good.

Point 3: I think I said it before, but I will say it again I don't believe the Ayn Rand is perfect blather that runs out of the ARI. And I think that there are other ways to work out morality other than objectivism. But I want to find the stuff for me.

[Darth Wong]

Point 1: Makes sense, although objectivism contradicts itslef much less blatantly then some other philosiphies/religions

Agreed. Most religions trip all over themselves, particularly Judeo-Christianity-Islam. I have always found it amusing how people can tie themselves in knots trying to explain why God is perfect and killing is bad, but God kills. Their favourite excuse is that the innocent go to Heaven anyway, which was the original basis behind the "Kill them all. God will know his own" mantra of the Crusades (now rephrased as "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out").

Point 2: In John Galts speach in Atlas shrugged he pointed out that animals work on an instincts first, self later while humans work vice versa thus allowing us to destroy ourselves. Thus the black widdow mates via instincts while the human acts in own good.

98% of the species in the history of the world followed their instincts to extinction (the rest are working on it). If humanity should ever destroy itself, it won't be the first species to do so.

Point 3: I think I said it before, but I will say it again I don't believe the Ayn Rand is perfect blather that runs out of the ARI. And I think that there are other ways to work out morality other than objectivism. But I want to find the stuff for me.

Fair enough.

[kojikun]

On the topic of Morality:

I'm whatever. I'm not sure what you'd call me, maybe a rationalist or realist. My moral philosophy is basically "Do what you want, just don't prevent me from doing the same". This is an amazingly simple statement that quite literally functions as a universal law. Think about it: why is murder illegal? Because its (usually) non-consenting. By my philosophy, murdering someone against their will would be preventing them from doing what they want, hence its wrong, but if they want to die and you're willing to kill them its RIGHT because the only parties involved are consenting (my philosophy also says FUCK YOU to anyone who bullshits about "emotional" attachments etc. i basically think "thats your problem that you cant accept MY decisions")

[Stravo]

Judeo-Christianity-Islam's basic assumption is that "right and wrong" are defined in terms of pleasing God. Of course, they put it differently; they say that God knows what's right and wrong and he merely explains it to us. But at the core, the basic assumption is that right = obedience to God and wrong = disobedience to God.

Originally posted by Darth Wong

I think that it oversimplifies matters to say that Judaeo Christian values are summed up by pleasing god. I think that the reason WHY we should follow the commandments and other moral strictures is explained to the masses as "Do this because god said so." I think alot of ancients realized that people followed rules more if there was a divine influence behind it, hence the divinity of kings, pharohs what have you.

The values themselves, the CORE values I'm not talking about no birth control and abusing young altar boys (whoops! My mistake) but the big ones: Thou shalt not kill, steal, cheat, lie are intrinsticly right. I can't think of a culture or society that flourished in whioch these core values were ignored. There is something right about not killing, it doesn't matter whether you are pleasing god or not, the reason is imprinted on our souls, killing anohter human being is wrong. Period. Stealing is wrong. Period.

These core values are easier to pass on and make commandements if you say God said so.

SIGH

So i guess in my long winded way what I am saying is that the reason "please god" is not the reason why these rules exist and we follow them, but "to please god" is the EXPLANATION of why they exist for people to obey and follow.

I'm sorry does that make sense?

[Durandal]

I think that it oversimplifies matters to say that Judaeo Christian values are summed up by pleasing god.

But, that's all that matters in Judaism and Christianity. Some denominations even go so far as to say that your actions are meaningless, and faith is all that matters.

I think that the reason WHY we should follow the commandments and other moral strictures is explained to the masses as "Do this because god said so."

That's only given by the Ten Commandments. God never commanded anyone to follow secular humanism. But, otherwise, correct. The only reason to obey the Ten Commandments, if you're a Christian or Jew, is so you can go to Heaven.

I think alot of ancients realized that people followed rules more if there was a divine influence behind it, hence the divinity of kings, pharohs what have you.

Precisely. The Ten Commandments are a perfect example of a political control scheme meant to keep primitive people under the thumbs of ambitious rulers. Moses sets himself up as God's sole interpreter, and then makes sure that the people follow God's will, which is communicated, conveniently, through him. Same with the pope, priests, bishops and pastors.

The values themselves, the CORE values I'm not talking about no birth control and abusing young altar boys (whoops! My mistake) but the big ones: Thou shalt not kill, steal, cheat, lie are intrinsticly right.

Of course. The Ten Commandments were designed so that people would accept them. You can't have the Ten Commandments not including basic stuff like killing, lying and stealing. Otherwise, no one would take them seriously. Moses just made sure to put honoring God at the top of the list, so that people would know that God came first, even over the lives of their fellow humans.

I can't think of a culture or society that flourished in whioch these core values were ignored.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam make up a large percentage of the world's religions, and they all have violent bloodshed in their history, and they are all in good standing today.

There is something right about not killing, it doesn't matter whether you are pleasing god or not, the reason is imprinted on our souls, killing anohter human being is wrong. Period.

What if that other human being is threatening your life or the lives of your loved ones?

Stealing is wrong. Period.

What if you're one of the poor bastards that got screwed by Bush's and Cheney's buddies at Enron, lost your retirement fund, lost your job, and have zero in the way of compensation, and you steal a little food for your family from the grocery store?

These core values are easier to pass on and make commandements if you say God said so.

Correct. However, Jesus imparted a way of independently reasoning moral decision making in the form of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is routinely ignored by Christians, however, as the Ten Commandments are a better vessel to maintain control over others. Jesus' Golden Rule was conveniently ignored during the Crusades and Inquisitions, and it is ignored by Christians who would apparently want others to push their religion on them with governmental endorsement.

SIGH

So i guess in my long winded way what I am saying is that the reason "please god" is not the reason why these rules exist and we follow them, but "to please god" is the EXPLANATION of why they exist for people to obey and follow.

The reason to do anything in the Bible is to please God so you can go to Heaven. Make him angry, and he'll smite you and send you to Hell. Nowhere does the Bible say "Be good for Goodness' sake," or "Do the right thing because it's the right thing to do."

I'm sorry does that make sense?

I see what you're trying to say, but there's just no evidence to back it up. There's not one scripture passage that directs anyone to do anything without the ultimate aim of pleasing God or glorifying him. People have been commanded to kill others in the Bible because it would please God.

[John]

As long as you realize that any and all moral values are SUBJECTIVE, and if you remember to lay aside emotional responses to other's staements, then you have a chance to be objective.

[Nick]

Objectivism's basic assumption is that "right and wrong" are defined in terms of advancing one's own interests, starting with one's life (which in turn stems from the idea that all natural life forms defend their own survival before anything else, as if natural = good and male black widow spiders don't copulate even though they'll die afterwards).

Point 2: In John Galts speach in Atlas shrugged he pointed out that animals work on an instincts first, self later while humans work vice versa thus allowing us to destroy ourselves. Thus the black widdow mates via instincts while the human acts in own good.

To follow on from Mike's post, the number one thing with any attempt to form a 'rational' basis for your morality is to make sure you know what assumptions you are starting from.

For me, most everything follows from the following two goals:
1. Have an enjoyable life, for as long as possible
2. Allow my descendants to also achieve 1.

The philosophy that flows from it ends up near enough to humanism as to make no significant differerence that I am aware of (essentially, I view other people respecting my rights as a prerequisite to an enjoyable life, and obviously, if others are going to respect my rights, then it is essential that I also respect theirs).

As for the comment that humans act out of self-interest rather than instinct, I'd say that, in general, it is inaccurate. If it was amended to say 'perceived short-term self-interest', then I'd probably agree with it. The ability to take the long view, and accept the incidental ups and downs of life with equanimity seems to be pretty rare. People who are able to accurately judge their own long-term self-interest are even rarer. (Hell, I deliberately try for it, and still finds occasions where it is necessary to ride out the short-term reaction before the rational, long-term viewpoint becomes functional again).

And of course, even when we do manage to be perfectly rational in our decision making, we are operating from imperfect information and imperfect knowledge of cause and effect - so our crystal ball gazing may give us a best guess as to what is in our long-term self interest, but there is still plenty of scope for getting it wrong :>

[kojikun]

On the subject of Moral Subjectivism:

This really isn't true. All "Morals" that man has created (religion aside, given its unfounded nature) are subjective, but there is one set of morals that is the one true universal set, the one true undeniably right moral system that most noone likes: NATURE.

Nature sets true morals, humans (and other sentient thinking beings) fuck with them because of our emotions etc. We follow one set of emotional responses to one end while destroying the other.

Killing isn't immoral. It's getting rid of potential threats to your genetic dominance, and also rooting out weaklings who cant defend themselves against attackers! By any Darwinists point of view, murder makes the species stronger. But the very emotions that helped us protect one another -- love, sadness, anger, hatred -- thos emotions say "No! Murder is bad!" because those emotions try to prevent the deaths of others so that the species has more people to reproduce, people who's protective emotions overpower the instinct to kill others, thus giving superior genes to the protectives. With government, the protective emotions of the masses have most usually dominant because government and religion has set up methods for preventing murder instinct. In doing so, however, it's allowed a place for non-logical and often non-beneficial things to happen.

Ever wonder why so many people take unkindly to "cheating" and "adultery"? It's because those emotions, the emotions that help us survive, tell us to be possessive so that out genes will survive. The more possessive people are guaranteed their genetic passage, right? But this little quirk which works well in nature where the unwanting mate can force away the other possessive mate, this doesn't work in society with its rules about violence and murder, but neither does beating the mate into submission. Unless you're allowed to by religion. The ancient Babylonian religion, and certain extreme versions of Islam, permit the beating, injuring, and possibly even killing of wives that wanted to divorce their husbands.

You'll find logical explanations for all out morals out there, but the one true set of morals is the one not clouded by human opinion: THERE ARE NO RIGHTS AND WRONGS.

That said, I still go by my "Do what you want, just don't prevent me from doing the same" moral rule, generally because I'm a nice guy, I don't like forcing my will on others, I know what it's like to be pushed around and fucked with.

[Nick]

On the subject of Moral Subjectivism:

This really isn't true. All "Morals" that man has created (religion aside, given its unfounded nature) are subjective, but there is one set of morals that is the one true universal set, the one true undeniably right moral system that most noone likes: NATURE.

You're missing the point. A moral code is designed to achieve some goal which is seen as being valued (pleasing God, self-advancement, an enjoyable life, whatever)

Nature doesn't have or represent any sort of moral code, because it doesn't have any sort of goals - it just exists.

Nature sets true morals, humans (and other sentient thinking beings) fuck with them because of our emotions etc. We follow one set of emotional responses to one end while destroying the other.

Exactly the opposite. Any sort of moral code is the antithesis of emotional and instinctual responses (we are trying to follow the code, rather than following our instincts or emotional desires).

Killing isn't immoral. It's getting rid of potential threats to your genetic dominance, and also rooting out weaklings who cant defend themselves against attackers! By any Darwinists point of view, murder makes the species stronger. But the very emotions that helped us protect one another -- love, sadness, anger, hatred -- thos emotions say "No! Murder is bad!" because those emotions try to prevent the deaths of others so that the species has more people to reproduce, people who's protective emotions overpower the instinct to kill others, thus giving superior genes to the protectives. With government, the protective emotions of the masses have most usually dominant because government and religion has set up methods for preventing murder instinct. In doing so, however, it's allowed a place for non-logical and often non-beneficial things to happen.

Actually, "murder is bad" is generally based on the concept of reciprocity. If I deem myself to have the right to murder someone else, then someone else may consider that they have the right to murder me. This leads to an environment in which every individual has to expend significant amounts of energy watching their own back, and limits the level of trust and cooperation which may be established.

In establishing a social grouping in which murderous behaviour is deemed unacceptable, humanity has created a situation in which the energy which would otherwise be expended on paranoia can be turned to other pursuits - such as finding more food for the tribe. It also fosters a capacity for trust, which allows the members of a social group to achieve things that could not be achieved by any member working alone.

So the bias against murder is an essential part of community formation - and community formation is a major contributor to humanity's current dominance on this planet.

That's a far cry from 'Murder is the natural way of things, and avoiding it has allowed non-logical and non-beneficial things to happen". Would you care to list what advantages society which was more condoning of murdering its own members would have over, say, a modern Western democracy? (History and the modern world are full of examples of such societies - but I wouldn't want to live in any of them)

You'll find logical explanations for all out morals out there, but the one true set of morals is the one not clouded by human opinion: THERE ARE NO RIGHTS AND WRONGS.

Actually, there are plenty of morals out there that you _won't_ find logical explanations for (usually faith-based ones).

However, trying to claim that the absence of morality is 'the one true moral code' is just silly. It's like saying that vacuum is the 'one true air mixture'.

A moral code is a human construct, founded around some goal which is deemed to be of value. For a lot of people, this central touchstone is their faith. Take away the human opinion, and you dont magically get 'the one true set of morals' - you get an absence of morality, a physical world which just happens, with no concern about 'right or wrong'. (You were right about that bit)

Morality is the grease which keeps the wheels of society turning.

That said, I still go by my "Do what you want, just don't prevent me from doing the same" moral rule, generally because I'm a nice guy, I don't like forcing my will on others, I know what it's like to be pushed around and fucked with.

See?

[lgot]

This really isn't true. All "Morals" that man has created (religion aside, given its unfounded nature) are subjective, but there is one set of morals that is the one true universal set, the one true undeniably right moral system that most noone likes: NATURE.

This not true.
First, Religions have morals as well, as anything. They have laws - and some give laws - to a society act. To be more simple, the Moses laws are results of the morality followed by him and his bunch of wanderers.
The most basic way to define moral is saying that moral vallues are the vallues created by men living inside a socienty when trying to solve conflicts of ethic nature.
Because Ethics are the only unchanged, no matter when or where, human's laws or principles. But they are very hard to be always followed, therefore yo have conflict. To solve conflict a society main find that solution as rules, creating the moral codes.
Its the most basic way to put. Nature have nothing and will never have to do with that. Nature does not need or do not follow ethic and moral. Its Humanity only.
Killing, for example, is moral, when you kill a criminal in texas. Its is not when you kill in any other state withou death sentence. Its not immoral to kill a enemy when you are in war. It was not, 100 years ago, to kill your wife if she cheated you. And kill the dude that did it also. And it is today.

Killing isn't immoral. It's getting rid of potential threats to your genetic dominance, and also rooting out weaklings who cant defend themselves against attackers! By any Darwinists point of view, murder makes the species stronger. But the very emotions that helped us protect one another -- love, sadness, anger, hatred -- thos emotions say "No! Murder is bad!" because those emotions try to prevent the deaths of others so that the species has more people to reproduce, people who's protective emotions overpower the instinct to kill others, thus giving superior genes to the protectives. With government, the protective emotions of the masses have most usually dominant because government and religion has set up methods for preventing murder instinct. In doing so, however, it's allowed a place for non-logical and often non-beneficial things to happen.

Nah. Murder does not make the species stronger, by any means of Darwin. Survival makes. He left well clear that sometimes might mean killing but other just , and mainly, good unique adaptations.
Among those, the ability to care for others is a adaptation that Darwin found important of human species in they way to survival. He found very interesting how those "feelings" are important because they helped man to survive. And the moderm teories still follow this line. Human's need to preserve the baby of someone who isnt your genetic's group helped a lot the specie to survive.
This muder idea is so wrong that from survival point of view, the great advantage of the cow was being tasty , so they could attract us and be in the entire world instead of some smaller land hunted by big felines.

[Darth Wong]

Good point about murder. I would also invoke the example of the dog, who proved that the meek sometimes do inherit the Earth (figuratively speaking). The dog is an example of evolutionary success caused by a trait which we might subjectively define as undesirable weakness: subservience.

Dogs are the descendants of subservient wolves who lacked the strength or dominance to become alpha. They took to scavenging for food around human camps some 30,000 years ago, and those among them who could adapt to human expectations (read: worship humans and obey them) became useful, necessary, and eventually, over countless generations, indispensable and even beloved by their human masters.

The result? The mighty wolf is an endangered species in North America, while more than a hundred million humble dogs roam the nation.

[Edi]

What of cats? They've been around a long while too, though not as long as dogs, and there's nothing subservient about them (I should know, I've got two of them at home!). More often it seems the cat graciously allows the human to serve it, instead of the other way around.

I guess the logical answer is that when farming became more widespread and grain storage attracted rodents, cats followed their prey and those who were bolder and less afraid of people succeeded because they found more food and humans found it beneficial to have free pest control services. And cats are cute, which was just an added bonus that contributed to them becoming also pets at some point.

Edi

[Graeme Dice]

Just about all baby mammals are cute, thanks to our wiring to see creatures with large round eyes in comparison to their heads in that manner. It's a safety mechanism to keep the borderline psychos from killing children I guess.

[lgot]

What of cats? They've been around a long while too, though not as long as dogs, and there's nothing subservient about them (I should know, I've got two of them at home!). More often it seems the cat graciously allows the human to serve it , instead of the other way around.

Nah, Wong's perfect explanation of the wolf will serve for the cat also. The cats that lived around men and are subservient enough to allow us to "cuddle" it are those we protected from predators, other cats, dogs etc.
Just watch for urban cats, those who live more are :
the wyld ones, who unatammed, jumping walls and running to fights, that end hit by a car, killed by some human that create birds or dogs or the fat one that allow your grandmommy to cuddle, give food, protect from disease and from time to time to reproduce with the cats your aunt keep in the same way ?
Think very well, they might not be as subservient as dogs, but they are much more than a Jaguar.
And with domestication they did somethign impossible by strength, be in places in the world where they wyld cousins cannt dream off. That is darwinism success. (the same goes for pigs, cows, birds, dogs, fishes. In the world of man, domestication is a suscessful cleaver adaptation)

[Patrick Degan]

I just read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and I have been converted to objectivism. Now before I go further I do not believe the objectivist mantra of the perfect Rand etc. Now are there any pitfalls to this philosiphy that I have been blinded off?

Objectivism claims an entirely objective, rational basis for morality. That is a lie; any scheme of morality is always based on some basic assumptions. Schemes which claim not to require any assumptions are dishonest.

Objectivism's basic assumption is that "right and wrong" are defined in terms of advancing one's own interests, starting with one's life (which in turn stems from the idea that all natural life forms defend their own survival before anything else, as if natural = good and male black widow spiders don't copulate even though they'll die afterwards).

If you can get over this little dishonesty, go ahead. But the biggest egotistical flaw of objectivism is its claim that Ayn Rand alone has found a system of morality which need not depend on an emotionally based assumption.

Objectivism has struck me as being one of the most subjective systems of "morality" imaginable. Of course, this may be an impression I've gained from arguing with too many Randroids on the internet. I've literally seen them post nonsensical drivel about how there is no such thing as the common good, the public commonwealth, and that altruism is socialistic.

One of the bigger flaws in the philosophy is that it ignores the reality of human civilisation, which is an enterprise that is not possible without cooperative, collective effort. Civilisation requires certain tradeoffs of individual interest and rights for the overall advancement of the community and collective security. Objectivism denies this concept, or at the least, the dedicated Randroids I've run into do.

Take, for example, Rand's absurd hero Howard Roarke in The Fountainhead. His entire attitude toward the people who commissioned him to design the Cortland Building flies in the face of the primary ethic of commercial enterprise: namely that the Customer is Always Right. Roarke insists upon the purity of his vision alone over the needs and desires of his own clients, who are buying the designs and the building. I can tell you, as a commercial artist, that you get absolutely nowhere ignoring the wants of your clients. When they quite rightly fire him off the project (which is what would happen in any real world) and build the Cortland their way, Roarke decides that his Pure Vision™ is worth blowing up the building. In the name of advancing his own interests as the primary good, he destroys the interests of the building's owners, the tennants who would have occupied the building, and had anybody died in the bombing, the interests and lives of those victims and their families who would have been deprived of their breadwinners.

That's about the most ass-backward system of morality you can get, and Rand's claims (or those of her diciples) to her philosophy's logical nature are laughable. Particularly as in her novel, she must claim that the only conceivable source of opposition to Roarke is the inevitable Giant Conspiracy of a hostile, statist society determined to crush the individual and make him the cog in the Great Socialist Machine.

I have not read the book, but I saw that ludicrous movie of The Fountainhead starring Gary Cooper which Rand wrote the screenplay and oversaw the production of. The one impression I got from the film, aside from the comedy of Objectivism, was how it was all about Roarke's effort, in the face of a Hostile, Statist Society™, to prove that he really has the biggest dick in New York.