Don't read "Atlas Shrugged"!

Every time I heard the Obama "They're tryin' to make a virtue out of selfishness" line, I nearly pissed myself.

^THAT was a much better book than The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged IMO. I'm with Jensenman. She had some wonderful ideas, they just didn't come through all that well in her fiction writing. I had to take The Virtue of Selfishness a couple of pages at a time, but it was worth it.

FWIW, her views on government were way more interesting to me than the whole anti-altruism thing.

SVreX wrote: I agree. I guess my core question is about the "selfish" world view she discusses as opposed to one that is focused on serving others. I find the later to be infinitely better in the long run, though I would certainly agree we've screwed it up a bit.

Are you familiar with "Game Theory"? It dovetails nicely with the concept of Enlightened Self Interest.

The basic concept is that, frequently the way to gain the most is to sacrifice a little.

So, if you are genuinely interested in creating the best environment for yourself, you will achieve that better by playing nice and helping out other people around you, and improving your own situation by improving someone else's.

You are "sacrificing" but doing it for selfish motivations, even though your actions might appear altruistic.

Say, you run a business and you have seen crime rates increase and a decline in the quality of workers in the area. You and some other business in the area might agree to a temporary tax, to start an afterschool reading program that gets kids off the streets and keeps them in school.

Common "selfish" logic would say that you're loosing money. But in reality, you're increasing business, property values, and improving the employment pool you can draw from, so you end up in a better situation when you're done.

You appear to have done something altruistic, but your actions improve the situation for you and your business. As a bi-product, you have improved your society.

It depends on whether you think it is more important to improve the situation around you, and maybe benefit in return; or if you think it is more important to improve your personal situation, and maybe see society benefit in return.

I forget exactly where I read it, but it comes down to there are no such things as altruistic actions: i.e. every action has an ultimately selfish reason. The example was if someone were to bring another out of the gutter, the selfish motive was that the good feeling obtained by the one lifting was the ultimate reason for the whole thing happening in the first place.

That's a basic tenet of Rand's as a justification for any thing that could possible be considered altruistic.

That makes some sense.

However, I wonder if it primarily makes sense to me and others on this board, because we are basically pretty well educated self motivated individuals with the where-with-all to accomplish stuff like that.

While I really mean no disrespect, I'm not of the opinion that a huge percentage of people can follow logic to a conclusion such as that.

The average person who steals something to put food on the table for their kids probably doesn't think or care how they have contributed to the crime rate which will adversely effect their kids.

The average child (say 7yo or so) is not capable of saving of saving his weekly allowance in order to be able to afford the larger purchase in 3 months, but would rather buy the crap at dollar tree today.

There are millions of incapacitated people who can't think about the logic of what their actions will become a year down the road.

I think this type of decision making is a bit of an intellectual posing which fails to recognize the reality of life for many people, in fact very possible the majority of Americans, judging by the way we vote.

If people cannot use logic and reason - their two most powerful weapons of survival - then the flaw is not with a philosophy that requires reason, but with the people who fail to use the best tools they have.

Ok, here's the plan:

Clone some LARGE predators, T-Rex or something and release into large urban areas.

Smart people will buy guns and hide.

Stupid people will buy cameras and go outside.

Shawn

Duke wrote: If people cannot use logic and reason - their two most powerful weapons of survival - then the flaw is not with a philosophy that requires reason, but with the people who fail to use the best tools they have.

So your suggestion is.....?

Extermination? That's been tried. Didn't work too good.

You are not really addressing who I am talking about. You are referring to those who won't use reason, I am referring to those who can't.

SVreX wrote: That makes some sense. However, I wonder if it primarily makes sense to me and others on this board, because we are basically pretty well educated self motivated individuals with the where-with-all to accomplish stuff like that. While I really mean no disrespect, I'm not of the opinion that a huge percentage of people can follow logic to a conclusion such as that.

Simple. They need to recognize us as the superior individuals, that we clearly are, and elevate us to higher positions in society based upon our superior reasoning capabilities.

They will be happy to have a blatantly stratified caste system because it is only reasonable to have society run by the more intellectually and productively capable.

[/sarcasm]

SVreX wrote: You are not really addressing who I am talking about. You are referring to those who won't use reason, I am referring to those who can't.

I said above that the truly incapacitated can be taken care of publicly. I don't have a problem with that.

You mentioned "the majority of Americans, given the way we vote" or words to that effect. I could hardly describe the "majority of Americans" as mentally incapacitated to the point that they are UNABLE to use reason. They may be unwilling, but that is a choice. The physical capacity is there.

Trans_Maro wrote: Ok, here's the plan: Clone some LARGE predators, T-Rex or something and release into large urban areas. Smart people will buy guns and hide. Stupid people will buy cameras and go outside. Shawn

Hmmm...

A T-Rex would be pretty easy to hunt in an urban area.

Let's do it!

Never mind the Rex was a lazy scavenger. shhhh, details, details

Duke wrote: If people cannot use logic and reason - their two most powerful weapons of survival - then the flaw is not with a philosophy that requires reason, but with the people who fail to use the best tools they have.

heard about this in a podcast (radio lab - choices)

a patient had a brain tumor removed and lost a lot of his emotional capacity. For instance, when shown several horrible and incredibly disturbing images the dude was unphased. So the ability to incorporate emotion into decision making was eliminated basically turning him into a spak. He made decisions purely on logic and on top of that, he had above average intelligence (even after the surgery). Because of this he had a very difficult time making decisions, he would deliberate endlessly on trivial things. For example it would take him 30 minutes to decide whether to use a blue or black ink pen to fill out a form.

I said "best" - not "only" tools. Nonetheless, that's an interesting anecdote, assuming it is true.

OK, so I don't know where I stand politcally, BUT

Is it just me or is Ayn a robot?

what does mrs. Rand have to say about military service?

Say person A does something that brings them great benifit but if a large amount of people do this thing it causes great harm to a great number of people.

It doesn't really matter whether person A contributes are not because the contribution of only one individual is negligible. So it is difficult to rationalize how it would be in there best interest to not do this thing. Also a great number of people could be in a similar situation that could harm person A. It is in person A's best interest then to prevent those people from doing that thing and it is in person A's best interest to be fair so the thing that brings them benefit must also be prevented. So it is in person A's best interest to take away the other folks and person A's own freedom of doing such a thing. May be Ayn is cool with this, I don't know.

The thing that really makes me chuckle about this is that really what is in a person's best interest is to be happy and the idea that our morality should be based on using pure logic towards an emotional goal. Especially since humans have proven themselves to be horrible predictors of what will make them happy. This is getting more into whether or not her philosophy is practical but what if what makes us happiest is to believe in and guide our lives by a religion or philosophy that is irrational.

It's not hard to poke holes in using one philosophy in absolute and she does contribute some good ideas. But is she really the first to propose that morality can be guided by logic and that altruism is often in ones self interest?

Duke wrote:

SVreX wrote: You are not really addressing who I am talking about. You are referring to those who won't use reason, I am referring to those who can't.

I said above that the truly incapacitated can be taken care of publicly. I don't have a problem with that.

So who decides where to draw the line on "truly incapacitated"? Hope I'm not the next guy in line.

Objectivism doesn't really exist. It's Rand's own word.

What's wrong with Mike Wallace's word, "Randism"?

Semantics game.

I like Wallace's word better.

Snowdoggie wrote: Her philosophy works well on an individual level. On a group level, it gets more complicated.

+1

SVreX wrote:

Duke wrote: If people cannot use logic and reason - their two most powerful weapons of survival - then the flaw is not with a philosophy that requires reason, but with the people who fail to use the best tools they have.

So your suggestion is.....? Extermination? That's been tried. Didn't work too good. You are not really addressing who I am talking about. You are referring to those who won't use reason, I am referring to those who can't.

(picks up big stick, whacks hornets' nest) It ultimately does not matter whether someone WON'T or CAN'T use reason. The end result is the same, it's quite possible the individual will cease to exist.

All right, but they are also voters, whose votes matter for the indiviual benefit of some very smart people.

Those smart people who want their votes are the same smart people who write laws about matters such as this.

SVreX wrote: So what happens when society has an obligation to include irrational people who are seemingly incapable of rational thought? Aren't there some who are factually NOT equipped for such reason? What about dumb people, or mentally incompetent? What about evil individuals bent on controlling others? I think her reasoning implies a hierarchy of individual value based on intellectual prowess or capacity, which then leads to those such "advantaged" individuals using that advantage to there own personal gain at the expense of others less capable of competing in that specific arena.

hey SVreX, sorry it took me so long to address your question. I did read the wiki entry re libertarianism and objectivism, and i still don't see where the objectivist philosophy disallows theism. perhaps we don't define "disallow" the same way. i take it to mean making something illegal, or trying to eliminate it. with that as my definition of "disallow," i stand by my assertion that objectivism does not disallow theism. i believe that the strongest reaction to theism that you'd get from an objectivist is that they'd exercise their rational mind and choose to not enter into a contract / interaction / etc with a theist, as they see theism as irrational.

regarding people who are mentally incapable of rational thought, either through genetics or environment, objectivism believes that their care and feeding are not society's burden by right, but that certain individual members of society may freely choose to shoulder those burdens. everyone comes into this world through the contribution of a male and a female member of the human gene pool, and it is those two gene pool swimmers who are primarily responsible for their offspring. after the parents, then the extended family. after the extended family, then charity.

at least, that's what i've gotten out of Rand's books and interviews. I'm by no means an expert on objectivism, but the people you describe as

[SVreX] those such "advantaged" individuals using that advantage to there own personal gain at the expense of others less capable of competing in that specific arena [/SVreX]

are certainly not living up to Rand's definition of objectivist behavior, no matter what name those people might assign to themselves.

Thank you for answering that in some detail, since I haven't had time. I think you nailed the ideas behind responsibility, charity, and theism pretty well.

In an Objectivist society, people earn what they are capable of earning. It's as simple as that. it sounds like a lot of you have the idea that Robber Barons are true capitalists, which is not the case. I see a lot of "rich get rich at the expense of the poor" talk, which isn't really the how it works.

Without intellectual and creative giants, we're ALL poor. It's not like inventors and producers steal wealth from their workers. That's why they are called creators and producers. The have a skill or talent or idea that produces something - in the end, it produces wealth. Economy is not a zero-sum game with a fixed amount of wealth that is only moved from person to person. Hard, intelligent work creates new wealth.

Your value to society is based on what you have to offer society. The lowest common denominator is unskilled physical labor. There is nothing wrong or demeaning about supporting yourself that way, but it is the most-available human commodity, therefore it earns the lowest wages.

No matter what your field of endeavor, once you have skills (either a physical craft or an intellectual ability) the product you can offer society becomes more valuable because quality is increasing and availability is decreasing. There are fewer master carpenters and fine artists and design engineers, so people who are great in their fields command premium wages.

So yes, people who are smarter or more skilled have an advantage over those who are not. This is not to be interpreted as some kind of Social Darwinism that says advantaged people have more rights or are "better" people. All people are created with equal RIGHTS - to be allowed to do the best for themselves that they can without theft or violence; to choose their own path and their dealings with society.

But they are not born with a guarantee of equal results. I don't see a problem with that.

It's interesting that a poster thought that Rand's views didn't come off well in her fiction. I'd say that fiction is where they present the best. Her non-fiction is preachy, and the logical flaws are hard to dodge. Whereas when clothed in Howard Roarke heroism, they seem quite natural and inspiring.

I actually see similarities between Randian libertarianism and Marxism. not in the core beliefs - which are diametrically opposed in many ways; but in their disconnect from reality (intererestingly, they are both products of the same region.) Both sound incredible if you buy in and accept the underlying assumptions. But mankind is generally neither heroic nor selfless. We're a mishmash - weak, unfocused, sinful.... political systems have to work with that reality.

WTH is going on in this thread? I keep seeing the dismissal of Rand's ideals because humans are flawed. So what if we are flawed. Do we assume we cannot succeed thus encourage and teach failure? No. We try to be the best we can and keep trying to be better. Trying to run a country by encouraging those around us to be the best they can is not a flawed system. Trying to run a country by saying everyone is an incapable moron is a sure fire way to run the country into the ground.