What do you think of objectivism?

Post Reply New Topic

I am very much in agreement with these concepts.

I think point 3 is abhorrent crazy-talk.

How so? What's wrong with following your own self-interest as long as you aren't harming others?

Specific example:

Homeless man falls into river. He is drowning. This is obvious, for he is shouting, "Help! I am drowning!" I am there, and can swim.

Why should I save him? Recognition? I don't want to be in the papers. I also don't want to be wet. I'm not going to experience the negative sensation of wetness to save him, for it seems unlikely that I will be rewarded.

But, this is harming others, which is not what objectivists are supposed to do, I admit.

But, I contend that objectivism would tell me that I must ignore the man because I gain nothing good and something bad by saving him. I do not see any reason an objectivist could give for saving the man here without compromising their system.

Discussion of objectivism should really be in the PPR forum. I will move it.

And for my two cents worth, I detest objectivism. 'Rational self-interest' indeed! I'd prefer to live a life in service to humanity.

You can help others in rational self-interest. For example, I would save my loved one's life in order so that I may not lose him.

How exactly is it rational that a man should die on the basis of your dislike for wetness? The sensation of wetness you would go through is temporary whereas the death of a homeless man would be permanent. It's a matter of rationally prioritizing. I never said that objectivism is perfect but it is a pragmatic philosophy that often works in the real world.

I do hate how this philosophy has become a cult however.

1-3 do not seem terrible.

Most people implicitly accept 1, because they appeal to an objective external.

Most people also accept 2, simply because they have a difficulty figuring out to work the world without logic. This position seems more rejectable though, because some people think that logic is in part a fiction or at least occasionally misleading, and thus would argue for a more empirical understanding of reality.

3 seems relatively valid to some extent, as it is hard to say that the individual must sacrifice himself to an end entirely alien to this person. The major issue is that this ethical stand also disagrees with other ethical stands, such as the self-sacrifice strand of thought, where it is unethical to only regard one's personal interests, but rather one *must* weight the interests of others in order to be ethical. Objectivists would dispute this line of reasoning, and the validity of these intuitions, but it is hard to say that they do not exist.

4 leads to an issue of definition. How free is free enough? Any grand government rule could be argued to constrain individual liberty for the sake of a collective, so why not anarchism? But, is anarchism tenable? Not only that, but if an egoistic person believes that Keynesian policies are the only way that the economy will work properly, wouldn't the ethical view lead to that particular political stand through a loss-benefit analysis? After all, to claim that a philosophy should be taken as understanding all psycho-socio-economic systems seems hard to make, and it seems hard to reconcile natural rights with egoism, other than perhaps a fictionalist account. After all, once we justify natural rights, couldn't we justify a larger account of natural rights for a larger government?

Yes, the Rand cult is hilarious. Logical individualism became a cult, it boggles the mind.

Two problems:

1) The existence of reality as an absolute fact, does not mean that we can have absolute knowledge regarding reality. We can develop models to describe reality very close, but I see a point to have absolute knowledge.

2) Men's feeling result in facts: Burning incense or supposed witches is a result of "feelings, wishes, hopes or fears", but also quite real. When we want to assess reality, we had to assess to irrational element within us to.



Reason does not perceive reality directly, but via the senses. When have a flower in my hand I have different sensations via different channels: Smell, touch and look. My brain composes out of this sensation an model of what we call a "flower". This process is not part of our rational thinking, but elementary of gaining knowledge.

My basic mean of surviving the next five minutes is to breath. This is not a process done by my reason. Our instincts are also important for survival.



"Moral" has a function - to upkeep society by setting rules. I do think the wording "moral" is wrongly used.



The question of the "ideal political-economic system" is a pragmatic one. Setting up a system which is based on wrong presumption of the human nature will fail.

A majority of people want to have a certain security in their live: To make long term planning for their families and their own future. A total laissez-faire capitalism can't provide such a framework.

Point four suggests there is a mutual benefit and that no one is harmed or exploited in the exchange of goods and services. Overly regulated economies are generally inefficient and the people in those nations often live in squalor. One can point to the evils of Stalin and Mao. Of course, in a communist society, individual rights don't matter as much as what is perceived to be good for the collective. Tens of millions of lives were taken by the communist regime. As a result of Stalin's over regulation, many were imprisoned in gulags for "crimes" such as unexcused absences, or making jokes against the government. The incompetence of Chairman Mao's policies left tens of millions of Chinese dying of starvation. His Great Leap Forward will always be remembered as a deadly blunder that caused an agricultural collapse and thus famine.

Well, right, but it is more rhetorical than analytical. So, even though you can point to an empirical failure, you cannot establish the objectivist point that only laissez faire capital is right without delving outside of philosophy and into economics. Either that, or by making a natural law claim that seems outside of the egoist morality first posited.

Reality is independent of the consciousness. Although humans can only do so much, it's


A fear can be real but irrational at the same time. I would be in agreement.



You are subconsciously using rational thinking. You are using your senses as a tool to determine what is classified as a flower.



Many of our instincts serve a rational purpose. If you failed to breathe, none of your tissues or organs would receive the oxygen needed to generate ATP for cellular energy.


My definition of moral is independent of societal rules. If a person or animal deliberately harmed without any greater purpose ( such as justice or the need for food), that action is immoral.




In order for people to have their rights protected, we must have a culture that is not based on the mindless worship of authority. One must fight for his rights in order to have or maintain them.

Laissez faire capitalism would allow many people seeking independence to build businesses of their own. Laissez faire capitalism would end many of the statist restrictions promoted by those who own corporate monopolies. Competition is their worst nightmare so they often use the state as a means of ensuring their position.

You fall short your own standards: Rational I state that with a very high degree of likelihood there is something like "reality" and this reality existed prior my existence and will exist after my dead. But: I am unable to give here an absolute proof.

Further: Our model of reality is based on two fundamentals: One is the observation of reality, the other one are concepts of reality we are born with. We only realize flaws in our pre-born concepts, if they are proven wrong via the observations. One of this pre-set concepts is the existence of a reality and that this reality follows over time constant laws. We can say that this model has been proven right till know and by everything we know it will right in future, but this is a statement of an extreme likelihood, but not of absolute certainty.



When I learned something from the Stoics than that fear is never rational. Fear may be real in the sense that my body reacts in a certain way (sweating etc.), but fear is never something which stands a rational revision.



But even spiders do so too: A spider does compose from different senses the idea "fly" and "is food". So does a spider have reason?



Which rational reason I have to survive? Again: The Stoics discussed this question very intensively and came to correct answer that from the viewpoint of the reason the time of dead does not matter.

So setting the goal of surviving need an irrational element: Our instinct to survive.



How do you explain that moral standards changed over time drastically?



I am talking much more basic: A warm shelter, health care, enough food and little bit of luxury (wine, TV, etc.). A total free market economy can't guaranty this for everyone. But this is important for a lot of people.

Well... that's mostly a rhetorical response, as there is not a logical comparison. For example, what if we had a government that provided a small business subsidy? Then wouldn't we have a non-laissez-faire system that better promoted independence seeking by building small businesses?

Well, ok, but why can't one argue that laissez-faire capitalism wouldn't just lead to market-based monopolies? I mean, you can reject this point, but compared to the first 3 points, this last point seems ad hoc. It does not necessarily follow, as the first 3 are philosophical, but this point is economical. Because of that, I distrust this point, not due to disagreement, but rather because within this framework, it is ad hoc.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 06 Apr 2009, 11:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.