Either you didn't read, or you didn't understand the article. Neither would surprise me.Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Either you didn't read, or you didn't understand the article. Neither would surprise me.
Oh, I don't think she is forgetting emotion and irrational thought, so much as saying that we shouldn't we build our lives around them.
I agree somewhat that her view of humanity is a bit out of touch.
I think she over-estimates the virtues of her heroes, and exaggerates the vices of her villians.
I think her view that humanity is the few competent and the rest are a mindless mass of moral-less looters is absurd.
Of course a fictional novel will contain some amount of caricature, but her non-fiction seems to carry the same kind of tone.
Still, she has some interesting ideas, and exaggeration doesn't necessarily render the whole false.
If you dig through enough coal, you're bound to find a diamond here and there.
That might not make the coal mine a diamond mine, (as the previously maligned Internet Orc would have one believe), but it doesn't devalue the diamond either.
I was thinking these forums might be a nice example of how rational selfishness is not neccessarily a bad thing.
We exchange our time to reply in posts/threads that give us value in return, through stimulating our interests, conversation..etc.
Are we wrong if we don't give time to our fellow members by not posting in posts/threads that offer us no interest whatsoever?
I don't think so.
Yet, without being the least bit altruistic, we're able to thrive, with many interesting conversations, solely dependant on what each individual feels like responding to.
I think we practice rational selfishness in part, more than we think, regardless of what we think of Objectivism as a whole.
Or *maybe I'm just a big thick-head.
*probably
I do understand it. Her philosophy, however, is grounded on something that's simply not attainable by mere humans, namely pure rationality. As such, it is worthless as a guiding path.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Citation?
Charity and philanthropy are examples of empathy and humanitarianism. Objectivism, as Ayn Rand and her acolytes might say---would be first responders in rural areas, standing around and watching a home burn to the ground, because the homeowners hadn't paid the $75 annual fire response fee. This happens a lot in the US, most recently in Tennessee.
I don't mind donating to Volunteer Fire Departments or Ambulance services, but everyone should care if those "donations" can mean the difference between life or death.
Interesting definition.
Does this assume both traders are looking for a fair deal, not trying to get the most out of it? In other words if one of the traders is presented with an offer that he believes is more than the value of the product he/she is trading, the trader will not accept that offer, but will suggest a more fair price instead?The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Objectivism doesn't do a very good job at defining or trying to understand Altruism.
Kinda deja vu, since we tried to tackle these things years ago...but that was when Spawnie was active, during his academic philosophy years.
This is just one possible scenario, not a necessary scenario. It's not as if objectivism does not allow for "altruistic" or "unselfish" acts, but it has takes on unselfishness and altruism that serve to transform those terms into their worst possible most extreme meanings, coopting much of their positive meanings and attributing them to "selfishness". Act with integrity; this part of human life does not seem to be much more complicated than that.Citation?
Charity and philanthropy are examples of empathy and humanitarianism. Objectivism, as Ayn Rand and her acolytes might say---would be first responders in rural areas, standing around and watching a home burn to the ground, because the homeowners hadn't paid the $75 annual fire response fee. This happens a lot in the US, most recently in Tennessee.
I don't mind donating to Volunteer Fire Departments or Ambulance services, but everyone should care if those "donations" can mean the difference between life or death.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
So here's a question. Does the virtuous Randian man restrict the liberties of other people?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You're posing questions about business ethics now, when hiring physically challenged employees can impact Rand's profit margin. How does a functionally deaf person sound to the client phone caller? What if the physically challenged person adds five minutes to each delivery time, and another five minutes to return? After an 8 hour shift, that can add up.
The virtuous Randian might decide to hire a few people who slow business time--even when time is money---for purely altruistic and unselfish reasons In order to expand the liberties of others.
No.
Is it impossible for a fair trade between two parties to result in the restriction of a third party?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Of course it can, but it doesn't mean it's morally wrong. From what I understand of Objectivist they don't hold any inalienable moral rights, I don't think whether they're violating another person's rights factors into the decision making process of to do or not to do an act.Is it impossible for a fair trade between two parties to result in the restriction of a third party?
You very clearly don't understand Objectivism then.
IF it's possible, how should the objectivist relate to that trade?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Well let's think about it.
Example:
Naughty Dog signed with Sony to release the Uncharted series solely on the PS3.
Which means Microsoft is restricted from selling the Uncharted series on Xbox.
Is that unfair to Microsoft?
Should Naughty Dog be required to deal with Microsoft, though they feel they can't return the same value as Sony can?
Is Microsoft entitled to publish the franchise just because they have a gaming platform too?
Objectivism says Naughty Dog's rationally selfish decision to deal with Sony, who can return the value of their product the best in their minds, and not deal with Microsoft, who cannot, is ok.
They are not required to sacrifice themselves to Microsoft, because Microsoft needs to make a profit.
Does anyone believe that requiring Naughty Dog to work with Microsoft, though they won't get the same value in return is fair, or moral?
I sure don't, and the morals of the general principles won't change when you jump out of the video game scenario.
So yeah, that's my take of it.
You need to better define your terms. Right now they are nebulous and meaningless. What constitutes a restriction? What relation does the third party have to the first two? How does this transaction relate to an individual's liberties, and the restriction and/or expansion of these liberties?
That's from wikipedia, and essentially, I'd say Objectivist's are being naive here and assuming the full respect of individual's rights is consistent with pursuit of one's own happiness, very shallow understanding of firstly what it means for an individual to be happy, and secondly of context that varies from person to person. If you're Hitler he was much happier doing what he did then fighting his whole life trying to make sure the full respect for individual rights is upheld which he coudl have done.that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez faire capitalism
And this is what happens when you use excerpts from Wikipedia as a basis for your conclusions. What's worse is you didn't even read the whole Wikipedia article you cited, if you had you'd have seen:
The flaw is that you've not spent the time studying the philosophy in it's entirety, which leads you to make flawed judgments based on an incomplete understanding. When you read, "...that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest)," you don't understand the framework that Rand created that determines what one's own rational self-interest entails.
Obviously you believe in Objectivisms, if I get inclined to do some serious reading on it I will. I already dislike the embedded meaning of one's own pursuit of happiness holds. It doesn't seem in tune with what would make any given person "actually happy" Human are diverse beings and require different things for happiness and CONTEXT matters hugely to that. It's already fairly clear that when people "get there's" they don't much care about other people. The U.S. is concerned witht he U.S. doing well, the populace doesn't care much that people in Uganda do well. Many people would be able to happily live their lives without given a second thought to many human right violations around the world. That's why if you mean happiness in a different sense I could agree, but if you mean happiness in an individual psychological sense, I think it's very far off the mark to assume that principle being neccessary for it. Don't be married to Objectivism, the reality of the world is every beleif system is flawed and incomplete because the reality of the world is complex.
I'm don't consider myself an Objectivist, and I don't believe I've touted myself as an Objectivist, but I think many of the ideas put forth within Objectivism have merit. I will say that your understanding of what Objectivism is and means are deeply flawed, and in no way resembles the underlying meaning and thought behind the philosophy. It's akin to using an especially bad CliffsNotes analysis to determine the value and validity of a philosophy.
For instance, Objectivism says nothing about what should make you happy, (be it wealth, family, or charity) but everything about how you attain your happiness. It also places the responsibility for achieving your personal happiness on your own shoulders, not the shoulders of others. To wit, if I value charity, and donating to charity makes me happy, I should do so wholeheartedly. What Objectivism says would be immoral would be for me to mandate you donate to the charity I value by force.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 12-13-2011 at 03:52 AM.
I'll put this simply. You're right I can't speak clearly as to what the definition of "personal happiness" to a Randian is, I will say that it is clearly not the same as the traditional notion of personal happiness. I can identify cases clearly where upholding rights of either yourself or others is not neccessarily bringing that person overal personal happiness during their lifetime. I will say this. I do appluade the valuing of happiness of a Randian, I think not neglectiing yourself and valuing yourself is important, and worrying about your own happiness shows you view yourself as worthwhile, that's good. I also applaude the fact they beleive, whether correctly or erroneously, as I believe, that upholding invididual rights is of the utmost importance. I'm "happy" (haha) there are people out there in the world, for whatever reason, valuing equal and just rights for all.
Ideally I'd hope they'd do it for the same reason I'd push to myself to do it and call all others to do, and that's because it's inherantly and fundamentally morally right to do. To act for the sake of righteousness is the ultimate goal.
Rand's major "pet hate" was what she would describe as "parasites", the funny thing is that what a lot of people criticise Objectivist philosophy for is to do with Objectivism supposedly supporting these "parasites" rather than the "self-made man". There is a serious lack of understanding.
What were Rand's views toward children? Specifically, minor children who aren't in charge of, nor responsible for, their own life situations. Whether it's being poor, homeless, malnourished, neglected, abused, or ignorant.
She did some gymnastics to allow for children.
But this is still funny:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ayn_Rand
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
