Ayn Rand, Objectivism, Capitalism, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

LOL. She never praised Hickman, she condemn those willing to forgive him if only he'd show some remorse, if only he'd bow his head, if only he'd begged for God's mercy. Objectivism is not for the merciful, its for the just--to surrender justice to mercy is to condemn the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty, like Jesus. Ayn Rand held there is no greater injustice.

 

Actually that is a good comparison on the lack of sense in Rand's views.

 

Are you postulating that it is in one's self-interest to be a murdering butchering blood drenched monster? Or are you asserting that's what Ayn Rand proclaimed?

Ayn Rand: "The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander. This is the basic issue. It rests upon the alternative of life or death. The code of the creator is built on the needs of the reasoning mind which allows man to survive. The code of the second-hander is built on the needs of a mind incapable of survival. All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.

The egoist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men."http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness/6.html

Hmmm. Which is the selfish man: A fiend living off of human fear (Ted Bundy?), or a creative mind reaching for the best within (Steve Jobs).

Easy. Which type of soul would you selfishly rather be: Fiend or Creator? Objectively.

 

Starjet carries the field.

 

Irrational Straw man argument. False dilemma. And the "Cocktail hour gone wild" fallacy: Ayn goes into a lame mimicking and mis-interpretation of some kind of bar room Nietzsche living in her head while Alan Greenspan is on all fours barking like a dog.

 

One great thing about this board is that I find all kinds of logical fallacies in the wild (not the boring ones in textbooks), and sometimes even find new ones!

I want to make two distinctions by coining the term "Rational Straw man," and "Irrational Straw man" argument. All straw man arguments are designed to present the opposing view in a distorted and weak form so to be easily critiqued, but they are some coherent alternative position. On the other hand, an "Irrational Straw man" argument makes no sense at all, and steers to an endless chain of other fallacies. Terms "rational and irrational straw man arguments" coined here.

No, I won't call it the Starjet Fallacy. That would be cruel.

 

And so it goes, reason out the window, and the Cat-In-the-Hat dancing in Horton's ear with a Who listening to whom?

 

Ah, the blathering of a pretentious philosopher king as it devolves into a tyrant, strawman or otherwise.

 

Hmm. I see. Your argument is human souls have no right to liberty because they can't figure out to handle their garbage? Man, that's garbage, but it certainly is the prevailing view of the Progressive Left and the Alt-Right..

Ayn Rand: "In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire."--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ecology-environmental_movement.html

And, man, are they ever hovering over our dead carcass today.

Without profits, there is no life. Ask the Venezuelans. Or better still, ask Quent and Linda Cordair in California, USA.

Art Gallery Fights California Lockdown THE RIGHT WAY

 

Nonsense. Let's let Rand speak for herself,

"A social system is a set of moral-political-economic principles embodied in a society’s laws, institutions, and government, which determine the relationships, the terms of association, among the men living in a given geographical area. It is obvious that these terms and relationships depend on an identification of man’s nature, that they would be different if they pertain to a society of rational beings or to a colony of ants. It is obvious that they will be radically different if men deal with one another as free, independent individuals, on the premise that every man is an end in himself—or as members of a pack, each regarding the others as the means to his ends and to the ends of “the pack as a whole.”

There are only two fundamental questions (or two aspects of the same question) that determine the nature of any social system: Does a social system recognize individual rights?—and: Does a social system ban physical force from human relationships? The answer to the second question is the practical implementation of the answer to the first."

Obviously she recognized the benefits of social relationships among a free people, and what she is condemning is placing the individual (the smallest minority) as subservient to the needs, wants, wishes, and demands of a society ruled by an elite proscribing what is the common good.

 

Interesting contradiction here:

"The marketplace draws flies."--Nietzsche

"...if men deal with one another as free, independent individuals, on the premise that every man is an end in himself—or as members of a pack, each regarding the others as the means to his ends and to the ends of “the pack as a whole.”​

"...every man is an end in himself...." is out of Kant's "Critique of Pure Practical Reason." Rand is basically a parasite on many other incompatible ethical systems like Kant's deontological ethics. Kant’s second ethical maxim is – “So act as to treat humanity whether in the own person or in that of any other, always as an end, and never as a means.” Oh, thanks for honestly giving us the true source of Rand's concept. You're welcome.

But wait! Deontological ethics is the OPPOSITE OF RANDIAN EGOISTIC WANTISM. Egoism is oriented to the self, not the community--not the whole. There is no society.

There are at least four versions of psychological egoism:
1. Psychological hedonistic egoism
2. Pain Avoiding psychological egoism
3. Cynical egoism
4. Want egoism,

I have found the term “self-interest” used throughout this discussion thread, but no definition of what one’s true self-interest might be.

There is a school of ethical theory known as, “Interest egoism” which means “Everyone always acts so as to promote his own self-interest either immediately or long run, to the exclusion of everyone else.” However, this version of egoism fails on a number of grounds; for example, interest egoism is often defended with circular reasoning.

Secondly, Liberalism only believes in the egoistic "individual" and not in the person. All other persons are merely objects (expendable economic units), or the Other. The individual is routinely sacrificed of the marketplace...with force. That's why Wall Street and Ayn were friends.

Thirdly, Lying is a form of force. Lying will not stop in any organization of society so Ayn sounds very "Utopian" in the negative sense of impossible. Ayn provides no foundation for even the concept of "rights." She just pulling it all out of her butt. Just a collection of stolen quotes with her name on them.

No system. No methodology. No coherence. No credibility.

 

I find your argument disingenuous, like arguing science is too fixated on facts. Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, simply: To be happy and prosper, think; to do anything less is to betray your own nature..

 

I wrote, "But wait! Deontological ethics is the OPPOSITE OF RANDIAN EGOISTIC WANTISM. Egoism is oriented to the self, not the community--not the whole. There is no society."

I didn't say exactly how egoism and deontological ethics contradict.

For Kant, there are only two types of ethical maxims:

Categorical Imperative: is based on the moral axiom "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." The "universality" Kant is speaking of is the universality of reason which applies to all thinking. This is according to Kant an "absolute, unconditional requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is justified as an end in itself." So every human being should tell the truth, otherwise if everyone lied, for example, freedom would be lost since no person could make a rational decision in reasoning or ethics. Only actions based on categorical imperatives are moral acts according to deontological systems of ethics.

Hypothetical imperative maxims tells someone the best way a person could attain a certain end, but does not tell us what end to choose.

Randian Wantism, and egoism tells us to seek our self-interest which is the opposite of universal law. One person could dump industrial waste into a river that supplies drinking water for a population, but if everyone acted in the same manner no person could drink the water. The act of everyone dumping waste in the river cannot be a moral act since it cannot be made a universal law for actions. The more an action is based on a hypothetical imperative (achieving an end), the less it is a moral act.

The typical criticism of Kantian deontological ethics is "What if there is a conflict of duties?" For example, a murder comes to my door and asks if his victim is inside my home. A conflict of categorical imperatives: Should I fulfill the my categorical duty and tell the truth, or fulfill my categorical duty to protect a human life as an end in-itself?

Out of thin air the interest egoist proclaims a universal a priori prescription--even a Duty! (Categorical Imperative)-- "Everyone should seek their self-interest." If the egoist really believed in “self-interest” egoism they wouldn’t tell anyone because others acting in their self-interest is just more social competition against other egoists--that's not in your self interest.

 

The self interest of the moral man is not the expediency of the moment; nor is the expediency of the moment good for the immoral man. It is not in anyone's best interest to defecate on their soul, but it is in their best interest to honor their souls by living the life of a rational being. That's self-interest, like choosing chocolate pudding over a bowl of dog diarrhea.

 

You are accusing a philosopher who worships and admires the independent mind of preaching a dogmatic ideology. In essence your criticisms of Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism are attacks on validity of objectivity and the absoluteness of reality, which, ideally, any idealist of reason must adhere to. Which is best stated by her hero, John Galt in Atlas Shrugged.

John Galt "The most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgment of truth."
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/self.html

John Galt, "Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it—that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life—that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence."--From Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/independence.html

And lastly, there is nothing stated by Ayn Rand, or presented in her philosophy of Objectivism that says individuals have the right to dump waste in their neighbor's drinking water.

Perhaps you might be benefit from reading a short story by a writer that she admire, Henrik Ibsen, specifically, An Enemy of the People.

Christianity is dogmatic idealism, but Objectivism is certainly not, its Romantic Idealism, its heroic idealism--it's idealism dedicated to the joy of living on earth.

 

Any that know that the only way to have a monopoly is with the government's gun. In a free markets, if one wins the market, its because their damn good, not because they use the government's gun to destroy their competitors. And when they are not longer damn good, they will be replaced by their betters.

And don't include me in your "we"--I have no problem with philosophy, or in choosing which one to follow, Objectivism, the philosophy of reason.