Objectivism - Morally Bankrupt?

[Ylena]

Starting this discussion because of something Ts'aah said in a political thread that I'm tired of: "This point of view fascinates me. Almost as much as Ylena asking people if they have actually read "Atlas Shrugged". Anyone subscribing to that mentality is morally corrupt at best. "

I'm going to quote Ayn Rand here on the basis of Objectivism. I'm honestly curious -- why would you consider this morally corrupt?

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

"Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. "

"Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. "

"Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. "

"The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ylena
with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his lifeI don't know what Tsa`ah meant (exactly) by morally corrupt, but I know joy is spelled J-O-Y. That's J(esus) O(thers) Y(ourself).

[Jenisi]

I don't agree with your sig.

[Tsa`ah]

My point was that Rand's philosophy shirks social responsibility.

What you have posted are excerpts and excerpts are not indicative of the whole of the philosophy.

I've listened to people attest that subscribing to said philosophy has freed them of guilt and the chains of obligation. What's the cost though? What does this freedom cost the world around you?

When the misfortune of others no longer becomes your concern you aid in perpetuating the cycle.

Ultimately what it boils down to is children. Children have no choice. Children born into poverty generally live the rest of their lives in poverty. They produce more children that will live their entire lives in poverty. There are the exceptions that escape the cycle, but those exceptions are not the rule.

When this suddenly becomes "not my problem", because your station differs and your success in a world of apparent "plenty" in comparison to the "dregs" of society then you in turn pass responsibility, often ignored, to your children.

The philosophy is not enlightened thought, its moral bankruptcy.

[Edited on 11-5-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[longshot]

Originally posted by Ylena
I'm going to quote Ayn Rand here on *

I stopped reading right there...

Right where the "*" is.

[Ylena]

Of course it's an excerpt, but it's a fair overview. Feel free to provide anything that you feel that I'm leaving out.

What's your definition of social responsibility? Why do you assume that ascribing to these principles excludes the possibility of improving the world around me?

I contribute time and money to a number of charitable organizations that I believe make a difference -- not out of a sense of obligation, but because I freely choose to do so. I would have more money and more time to donate to organizations that truly make a difference if the government would cease taking part of my income to fund social programs that by and large are a miserable failure in creating positive change. Why is it more "moral" for the government to confiscate my income and apply it where I choose than it is for me to decide where it does the most good?

The growth of federal/state social programs actually has exacerbated the problems you describe. It perpetuates the mindset that you're already "donating" through taxation, so the government will take care of that family down the street, and you don't need to do anything.

True charity is a choice. I utterly reject the concept that there is anything moral about confiscating the output of one person's labor to provide for another person.

I'm not wealthy. Far from it. Like most people, I'd be facing some serious problems if I lost my job tomorrow. However, if I did lose my job, I wouldn't expect that the government or anyone else was responsible for my welfare or that of my family.

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine."

[Tsa`ah]

Because we know that without taxes and social programs, those better off would indeed step forward to help out the less fortunate.

It doesn't work. That you choose to donate time and money of your own volition shows you have altered the philosophy. You choose to do so. You are not the rule, you are the exception.

I've read Atlas Shrugged; it is a socially irresponsible work. It is nothing more than an attempt to intellectualize selfishness.

[Gan]

<Why is it more "moral" for the government to confiscate my income and apply it where I choose than it is for me to decide where it does the most good?>

While Rand's perspective is interesting and attractive to some, I believe it only addresses the 'me' and not the 'we' in human nature/society. That half of the picture is great for indivudialism but in the end, when 'man' is older and more worldly it will only be half fulfilling as he looks around and finds out that he is alone if that was his mindset at the beginning of his journey.

Taxes, being just that, go to many many things that we take for granted. Such as the roads we drive on, the police/fire/emergency services that we rely upon for our protection, as well as the leadership needed to oversee the responsibilities of a collective of people (city, town, etc.) that no one else wants to do because they are consumed with furthering their own individual needs and goals.

So while I do not think its a moral bankruptsy I do believe it is a moral oversight not to consider that there other people we share this chunk of dirt with.

[Jazuela]

There are actually some religious groups that agree with Rand's overall philosophy.

The jist of it is, IF you choose to embrace this philosophy, you will, by the very nature of the philosophy itself, adhere to the moral constructs that the government attempts to forcefully impose on its people.

You take care of ME - and by being the most effective ME you can, you will not force your ME on everyone else, nor will you allow others to impose their ME on you. This is what it means to be the most effective ME, the ME who contributes the most to society as a whole, the ME who helps create the altruism, leadership, and socially responsible world.

To some extent, if you look at it from this perspective, Zen Buddhism captures this well. The Self is Nothing - Embrace the Self. Siddha Yoga does as well: Meditate on the Self, God dwells within you, as you.

I believe it is an incredibly difficult concept to accept, and I have never achieved such profound "selfish selflessness." But I also don't believe it is morally destructive; on the contrary, I believe it could ultimately be the solution. The only problem is getting the entire world to embrace it at the same time. The Collective Consciousness only works when the entire Collective participates.

And therein lies the failure.

[HarmNone]

I don't necessarily consider Rand's views as morally bankrupt, nor do I consider them a working solution to the problems of today's world. I consider them one of a number of examples of idealistic rhetoric that falls short in practical application.

Personally, I believe in making me, and mine, the best we can be. Fortunately for us, we were all born with the abilities to do so, and do pretty well. Not everyone has that good fortune. Of those that do, not all will give a fig about the good of another, less fortunate.

In a perfect world, each person would see to the betterment of him/herself and, without coercion, reach out for the betterment of others. However, this is not a perfect world. If left to their own devices, the vast majority of people will see to themselves alone, amassing as much wealth as possible in money, power, and material goods. Oddly enough, a good look at the game of GemStone will show this.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by HarmNone
If left to their own devices, the vast majority of people will see to themselves aloneJeez, how do you even get out of bed in the morning? Depressing.

[HarmNone]

I'm not one of those people, Latrinsorm. I have no trouble facing my day. :)