[UA] Ayn Rand(omfactor)

[Eric Christian Berg]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Greg Stolze wrote:

> She founded a philosophy called "Objectivism" (IIRC) whose central tenet is
> "If you don't look out for yourself, it's pretty fucking stupid to expect
> other people to look out for you."

Not exactly. Objectivism's central premis is that the only rational basis
for an ethical system is enlightened self-interest. It is an attempt to
build a secular morality out of basic logical precepts and very broad
observations about the human need for ethical systems.

> I've heard the argument that a lot of her ideas are backlash against
> Nazi and Communist collectivism

Yes, definitely, but it is also an attempt to save some of the principles
on which these philosophies were founded. The heroes in her fictional
works are very much Nietzschean supermen, revelling in their superior will
and faculties, but rather than rejecting all morality in favor of
aesthetic principles, they reject only the collectivist precepts of facism
and socialism in favor of her individualist philosophy. Similarly, her
philosophy starts at the same secular starting point as socialism, but
takes a much different route. In both cases, I believe she was attempting
to salvage secular ethics from the facists.

> , but honestly?  I don't have a lot of patience for a philosophy
> which, when taken to its logical conclusion, dismisses Gandhi, Mother
> Teresa and all firemen everywhere as utter fools.

I don't believe this is true. Oh, granted, many of the more vocal members,
including Rand herself, would imply so, if not outright state it, but I
don't believe the ethical system, as stands, does. Objectivism only
rejects the enforcement of charity and welfare systems, but as many of the
second-generation Objectivists have pointed out, it doesn't discount
charity in general. It just requires it be left to individual judgement.
Objectivism has no problem with a person going out and helping folks of
their own free will, it is when the state institutionalizes it in the form
of state welfare that problems arise.

> She makes some good points about the weaknesses of collective action.  "If
> 'the good' is defined as 'what is best for the group,' then ANY action the
> majority pursues is 'good' simply because the group chose to do it."  But a
> lot of Objectivists seem to spiral way out into the lunatic fringes of
> Libertarianism, where the Invisible Hand of the Marketplace is
> omnibenevolent and anyone who can't take care of himself deserves to get
> weeded out for the crime of weakening the strain.

Quite a bit does and particularly among the first generation and the
current 'official' movement, but you can hardly judge a philsoophy on the
merits of its initial adherents. As a rule, the first batch tend to be
radical idealists who tend to lack perspective. I think that it has a lot
going for it, though, particularly with respect to pointing out the flaws
in the current climate of moral relativism and collectivist values.

> Who is probably grossly oversimplifying.

Only slightly. :)

-- 
Eric Christian Berg

"Oh, a little nonsense now and then
is cherished by the wisest men."

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GPS d- s+:+ a- C++ ULIOS++++ P+++ L+++ E--- W++ N+
k- w M- V-- PS++ PE++ Y+ PGP- t 5 X R++ tv+ b++
DI+ D+ G e* h- r+++ y**
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------


_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua