Objectivism is stupid.

[Twiffy]

Objectivism, a lay-philosophy propounded by Ayn Rand in the mid 20th century, remains an extremely popular set of beliefs for non-academics, and is even gaining a little ground in academia, where it has historically been dismissed as pseudo-philosophy. The main exposition of Objectivism, "Atlas Shrugged", continues to top all-time bestseller lists.

Nonetheless, there are aspects of Objectivism that many people find to be objectionable, and rightly so.

1) Free-market Capitalism. Libertarians will appreciate Ayn Rand's economic ideals, but most others agree that if there are no restrictions on pollution, for example, factories will satisfy their self-interest by saving money via not curbing pollution, not installing filters, etc. And this will result in a significantly worse world for everyone 100 years down the line, or even 15 years down the line, depending on the type and quantity of pollution.

Also, most people favor minimum wage laws, fair worker treatment polices, and so on.

2) The objective-ness of inane things. Ayn Rand claims that Objective Reality extends to notions like "this painting is good", or even "this sandwich is yummy". A sandwich is either objectively yummy, or not. If it is objectively yummy and someone eats the sandwich and finds it disgusting, they are simply wrong. Most of us intuitively object to this, because we classify taste under the category of "subjective" experiences. Some people find the sandwich yummy, others find it disgusting, but there's no objective truth to the matter.

3) The insistence on selfishness. Ayn Rand makes a few good points about how selfishness isn't bad, but then insists that one must be selfish at all times. In Atlas Shrugged, when one character helps another, they almost universally take pains to justify how their actions are selfish, and NOT selfless. The justifications come across to me as pained and dishonest. There is a selfish justification for selfless actions, but it seems to escape Ms. Rand.

4) The (mis)application of logic to her philosophy. Ayn Rand is fairly singular among rational philosophers. On one hand, she advocates rationality, which most agree is a good thing. On the other hand, she insists that her doctrine can be derived from pure logic. This is extremely unlikely. Theorems in logic don't look like "Capitalism is better than socialism." They look like "(A v B) ^ (-A) -> B." How could pure logic have any idea of what a human is, let alone what capitalism is, let ALONE the idea that capitalism is better than socialism???

Any thoughts on this? If any objectivists can address any of my points, I'd be very interested (and rationally receptive) in hearing it. Any one else have any objections that I missed?

[someoneisatthedoor]

a) Rand is a moron
b) Free-market capitalism has to be imposed and maintained by the state, in some form or other. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the UK is an example of this.
c) A sandwich doesn't objectively taste good or bad. Rand is simply wrong about this.
d) rationality is defined by the intellectually powerful

[Twiffy]

I'm with you on a) and c). Regarding rationality, I do think that rationality is a pretty objective thing. In a lot of ways, it's the ability to think mathematically about non-mathematical concepts.

[Dan~]

I'm with you on a) and c). Regarding rationality, I do think that rationality is a pretty objective thing. In a lot of ways, it's the ability to think mathematically about non-mathematical concepts.

Knowing that an object physically exists and knowing a fact
Is objective.

Using that information in a rational or wise way
Is subjective.

The objective simply fuels and empowers the subjective.

If I've made a mistake, please correct me^.

[Nothingness]

I think one must not let his emotions get carried away. The truth usually gets people upset. I shall say no more.

[NickOtani]

Twiffy, one reason why Objectivism does not dry up and blow away is because people keep attacking it by misrepresenting it and insulting it rather than representing it accurately and completely and then responsibly refuting it. It’s easy to say Objectivists are stupid or that Rand is a moron, and it is not hard to find fault in Rand as a person or to find places where her philosophy is incomplete or vulnerable to criticism. However, much of her philosophy still holds up and is worthy of defense against cavalier attempts to dismiss it. We should not ridicule individualism and rejection of subjugation to god or society. We should not put down the defense of natural rights for all humans, a principle for which the United States stands. We should respect Rand’s authenticity. No, she was not a god, but she was also not a moron.

1) Free-market Capitalism. Libertarians will appreciate Ayn Rand's economic ideals, but most others agree that if there are no restrictions on pollution, for example, factories will satisfy their self-interest by saving money via not curbing pollution, not installing filters, etc. And this will result in a significantly worse world for everyone 100 years down the line, or even 15 years down the line, depending on the type and quantity of pollution.

Also, most people favor minimum wage laws, fair worker treatment polices, and so on.

There is a difference of opinion on the dangers of pollution as opposed to the dangers of an economic collapse. When one’s house is being torn apart, does one rush to dust off the furniture? Yes, I agree that something needs to be done about toxic waste and factories which dump in otherwise clean rivers and fields, but I also think responsible industry can clean up after itself or suffer the repercussions of bad public relations, leaving itself open to competition from more responsible industry in a free market economy. Fair worker treatment policies can also be regulated by the invisible hand, according to respectable philosophers such as Robert Nozick, who differs from Rand only a little.

2) The objective-ness of inane things. Ayn Rand claims that Objective Reality extends to notions like "this painting is good", or even "this sandwich is yummy". A sandwich is either objectively yummy, or not. If it is objectively yummy and someone eats the sandwich and finds it disgusting, they are simply wrong. Most of us intuitively object to this, because we classify taste under the category of "subjective" experiences. Some people find the sandwich yummy, others find it disgusting, but there's no objective truth to the matter.

You are exaggerating the “this sandwich is yummy” argument. I claim it is a straw man, and I challenge you to cite it in Objectivist literature. Yes, some paintings and aesthetic things can be tied to philosophy, depending on how we judge them. We say they honor mankind or exploit and objectify women. It’s more than just a matter of taste, like whether or not a sandwich is yummy. And, even when talking about hamburgers, some are made with care, with fresh lettuce and tomatoes and pure meat. They are objectively better than sandwiches thrown together on stale bread with wilting greens and rotting vegetables, aren’t they? There is a little objective truth here. (There is a place in Atlas Shrugged where the characters talk about hamburgers and productive people, and there is something said about quality and pride even in making hamburgers.)

3) The insistence on selfishness. Ayn Rand makes a few good points about how selfishness isn't bad, but then insists that one must be selfish at all times. In Atlas Shrugged, when one character helps another, they almost universally take pains to justify how their actions are selfish, and NOT selfless. The justifications come across to me as pained and dishonest. There is a selfish justification for selfless actions, but it seems to escape Ms. Rand.

Selfishness is a good thing which has been portrayed as evil for too long. Without self-interest, we wouldn’t live long and flourish. Rational egoism is hard to refute. A rational egoist would choose to live in a moral community and be moral within it. It would be in his or her rational self-interest to do so. And, since our self-interests are often intertwined with the interests of others, I don’t think is hard to justify helping others in the interest of self-interest. What would be wrong is to sell out, to live our lives for other people, rather than ourselves. It would be wrong to deny ourselves, like some religions tell us to do. It is our life, and we only have one. We should live it for ourselves.

4) The (mis)application of logic to her philosophy. Ayn Rand is fairly singular among rational philosophers. On one hand, she advocates rationality, which most agree is a good thing. On the other hand, she insists that her doctrine can be derived from pure logic. This is extremely unlikely. Theorems in logic don't look like "Capitalism is better than socialism." They look like "(A v B) ^ (-A) -> B." How could pure logic have any idea of what a human is, let alone what capitalism is, let ALONE the idea that capitalism is better than socialism???

She bases her views on A is A, the principle of identity, and says causation is a corollary, the law of identity applied to action. In A is A, she says man is an entity of a certain kind and requires conditions of existence for his proper survival qua man. These conditions include natural rights, the same rights advocated by Locke and Jefferson. Instead of basing these rights on faith, as religious conservatives do, she tries to justify them with logic. I think she could do better here, going into biology and linguistics to find a scientific basis for freedom and flourishing survival for man, and her philosophy of objective realty could use some help from a subjective and unsystematic philosophy like Sartre’s existentialism. However, I applaud her effort. I don’t think Objectivism is stupid.

Bis bald,

Nick

[sjstudy]

It matters not whether the hamburger was made with more favored ingredients. "The hamburger is good because it is made with fresh ingredients". This statement is subjective. It doesn't matter if no one would argue against that statement. As long as someone canargue against that statement, it is no longer objective. One might say that it is better for your health. That would be objective. The taste of rotten hamburger may be pleasing to one and displeasing to another. So taste remains subjective.

I don't think everything can be declared objectively like mathematics. [/u]

[azizarif]

Ayn Rand is good!..... Objectivism has levels and degrees cause it depends upon how big or small is your "objective".

Consider a man called Rearden, his objective is to establish a factory, he does not care about anything else like how much pollution he is putting in the environment etc. He has an objective.

Consider another man Francisco, his objective is to establish a factory but also to save the environment from pollution as much as possible. He has an objective too.

But Rearden's objective is smaller in degrees as compared to Francisco's objective.

Same goes for a everyone. Objectives of most of the poeple is so narrow that it becomes total subjectivism in being narrow.

A saint has an objective too but that objective is so great and big that it cannot be explained, and could be regarded as subjectivism in being huge.

[NickOtani]

It matters not whether the hamburger was made with more favored ingredients. "The hamburger is good because it is made with fresh ingredients". This statement is subjective. It doesn't matter if no one would argue against that statement. As long as someone canargue against that statement, it is no longer objective. One might say that it is better for your health. That would be objective. The taste of rotten hamburger may be pleasing to one and displeasing to another. So taste remains subjective.

True, but I still dispute that Rand actually said that the taste of a sandwich is objectve. I'm waiting for Twiffy to substantate this claim. Let's not continue to misrepresent Rand.

I don't think everything can be declared objectively like mathematics.

Perhaps not. Russell and Whitehead tried. Goedel shot them down.

Life isn't that serious, it's just an experiment.

I disagree wth you here. Wthout lfe, nothing would be serious or not serious.

BTW, what azizarif said is not coherent. I'm still looking for a legitmate argument against Rand and Objectivism.

bis bald,

Nick

[detrop]

Objectivism is not stupid. In fact, anything that is based off the word "object" is cool. Screw Rand, by the way, I'm not talking about what Rand might or might not have done with an "objectivism," whatever that is, but the idea itself that something is objective tickles me.

Remember that the contrary to objectivism would be subjectivism, which relativism is a branch of. Either of them, if they are to be sensible, must conform to a standardized system of suppositions, and in doing so would be logically comprehensive. This "logic," whatever it is, would have to be objective in every sense of the word, and would be used in the relativist's argument to determine if it was correct or incorrect, for it could not be both or neither. At this point, the relativist isn't, or cannot, rather, be arguing against the possibility for objective truth, because in his very act of arguing he is undermining the premise of his efforts.

But wait.

The notion of "correctness" has nothing to do with objective meaning; an interpretation is not capable of revealing an objective truth, but it is capable and necessarily so, of advancing the process of this logic in its act of comprehending. This process is objective and made sensible dialectically. Our experiences are identical in that they require the same capacities to evolve dialectically, to operate deductively and form negations of the world, abstractions. The content of these "thoughts" is not objective because its point of origins is a perspective; to be objective a perspective would have to percieve itself percieving another perspective, which as its perspective was the other's perspective. In short, a third party without more than two people. Impossible, unless you are the keeper of the mystic scrolls, like myself. But what is objective about all consciousness is the difference between its activity and the actual world it is "in." To put it metaphorically, we are all ghost guests in a world where we appear as objects to the other, but we intuit the other's ghostness, like our own.

Have you ever tried to touch somebody? Its impossible. All you feel is the rigidity and mass of being. Try it sometime, you'll see.

But do not deny the objective. That's like falling off your bike and claiming to have "meant to do that."

[BMW-Guy]

Yeah, I did not realize just how bad Ayn Rand was until I read one of her books. To be honest I never had heard to much good about her, but It really did not hit me until I read her book for myself.

[detrop]

Alright, try this. Its fun.

A triangle is a mathematical entity. It exists in two ways; the first as a mental construct-- either the image or the "word" triangle, or other words used to describe the triangle's physical attributes, such as "neat," or "large," or "red," or "there," etc., etc.,-- and in the second as the actual manifestation of the physical attributes and the consequence of its graphic presence as it is drawn on the blackboard.

Now we are here. Which came first, the attributes, which allow the triangle to exist, or the triangle, which allows the attributes to exist? How do I identify a triangle when I see one or hear one described to me in language or in (as) as mathematical formula? Furthermore, a perfect triangle could never be physically represented, such as being drawn on a blackboard, anyway, so the idea that the a priori meaning of the triangle was empirically based is ruled out.

How, and we most certainly do, do we use the concept of the triangle pragmatically if at the slightest philosophical scrutiny it begins to become nonsensical?

Perhaps the actual reality of the triangle is synonomous with the activty centered around the use of its function more than its "ontological status."

Maybe this is the case with all knowledge, that its reality is a historical materialism where the extent of a things existence is determined by its perserverence in the physical world as an effect, or with the capacity to exchange effort with other utilities.

If you cannot give me an example of a triangle's existence as in "look, detrop, its a triangle," then I will assume that what defines the triangle is what happens everytime its mentioned in the world. The assembly of effects, its mathematical device, its architectural advantages, etc., etc., and not the theme of the meaning of the triangle as I might happen to understand it here and now.

Imagine a third eye watching the world, and after a million years had passed, you laugh to yourself and recall the generations that went through the triangle phase, as each struggled to define it epistemologically. At the end of their existence, all that was left was the effects that happened anytime a triangle was composed, whether intellectually or physically, as in a mathematical structure with shapes and/or graphic attributes.

In event set A, when the triangle entity was in the heads of men, they built things and calculated mathematical phrases, some discussed "philosophy" an used the triangle as a subject for examination, while some claimed that it doesn't exist.

What difference to the reality of the triangle, or the thought of a triangle, do the contingencies of its historical manifestations make? None. The reality of the triangle is neither a language construct or a mathematical figure....it is an incident in world history where it appeared and had meaning only where it was used materially.

I'd like to give a shout out to Karl Marx, for making sense of that babbling idiot Hegel. Just kidding, although my little venture here could be considered an attempt at bridging the distance between psychologism and rationalism. And I just love what Sartre did with Marxism. I think he ran out of amphetamines and finally chilled out. He shoulda grown a beard like Marx and Monooq.

[NickOtani]

To détrop, this thread is about Rand's Objectivism, a specific philosophy, not just your idea of what objective means.

To BMW-Guy, saying that Rand is bad is not presenting an argument against her.

I'm still looking for legitimate arguments against Rand and Objectivism.

bis bald,

Nick

[Twiffy]

Twiffy, one reason why Objectivism does not dry up and blow away is because people keep attacking it by misrepresenting it and insulting it rather than representing it accurately and completely and then responsibly refuting it. It’s easy to say Objectivists are stupid or that Rand is a moron, and it is not hard to find fault in Rand as a person or to find places where her philosophy is incomplete or vulnerable to criticism. However, much of her philosophy still holds up and is worthy of defense against cavalier attempts to dismiss it. We should not ridicule individualism and rejection of subjugation to god or society. We should not put down the defense of natural rights for all humans, a principle for which the United States stands. We should respect Rand’s authenticity. No, she was not a god, but she was also not a moron.

Nick, I agree with much of what you say in this quote. I think there's much of Rand's philosophy that is appealing on a visceral level, and much of it that's appealing on a rational level. She was clearly very intelligent. As a subjective method for living one's life well, I very much agree with large components of Objectivism. However, I think there are problems of varying degree in her precise philosophy. Some of them are more nitpicky, but the ones I've listed are pretty important, I don't think you've addressed them well. Of course, I'll back this up as well as I can. Lastly, I think that some of the holes in her philosophy are relatively obvious, and that her arguments in these respects cloud the issue more than they resolve anything.

There is a difference of opinion on the dangers of pollution as opposed to the dangers of an economic collapse. When one’s house is being torn apart, does one rush to dust off the furniture? Yes, I agree that something needs to be done about toxic waste and factories which dump in otherwise clean rivers and fields, but I also think responsible industry can clean up after itself or suffer the repercussions of bad public relations, leaving itself open to competition from more responsible industry in a free market economy. Fair worker treatment policies can also be regulated by the invisible hand, according to respectable philosophers such as Robert Nozick, who differs from Rand only a little.

I think this analysis is pretty clearly false. Rand advocates rational self-interest together with a free-market capitalism policy. Free-market capitalism means no governmental restrictions on pollution. Thus, if I am a paper manufacturer, I can choose to spend more money on pollution control, or save that money. Now, what is my expectation in the two different situations? Most Americans don't care about pollution laws. There are many good examples where the spending the money necessary to curb pollution to a reasonable best-for-all level would result in a net loss, because the public wouldn't care enough to give you their business. On the other hand, if you instead offer lower prices than your competitor, which you are only able to afford because you DON'T spend money to curb pollution, people will be attracted to your lower prices, and you will get more business. Rational self-interest in this case really does mean "pollute and offer lower prices", and does NOT correpond to a best-in-general scenario.

Lastly, if you dismiss environmental issues as less significant, you're way off the mark. Every available scientific study indicates that humans will begin to suffer significantly because of environmental effects, in addition to the effects which we've already noticed (higher incidences of skin cancer, more respiratory diseases, increased natural disasters like Katrina).

There is a difference of opinion on the dangers of pollution as opposed to the dangers of an economic collapse.

There certainly is. Pollution has the capacity to render the earth uninhabitable by humans; economic collapse will just screw over a culture for a few decades. Pollution is by far the more important of the two, assuming we give a crap about future generations. Also, your implication that curbing pollution will result in economic collapse is ridiculous. Less profit for companies, better filters and better technology. It's an effort, not a risk, and it's shameful that Americans have done such a poor job in this regard to date.

At any rate, this fact is very indicative of a fundamental flaw in Objectivism. It's true that, all other things equal, rational self-interest by an individual will generally produce what's best for that individual. However, in many cases, it will result in a worse life on average for others (e.g. as with pollution). Additionally, in some cases, if <b>everyone</b> acts in rational self-interest, the result will be worse than if <b>no one</b> acted in rational self-interest. You will probably disagree with this, but there is undeniable proof of this, and it's called the Prisoner's Dillema. (Look it up on Wikipedia if you are unfamiliar with it.) If both men act selfishly, they both get maximum jail time; if they both act selflessly, they get off easy. Selflessness, and putting oneself at personal risk, produces the optimal scenario in the Prisoner's Dillema, and in other situations as well (pollution).

Fair worker treatment policies can also be regulated by the invisible hand, according to respectable philosophers such as Robert Nozick, who differs from Rand only a little.

In a multitude of examples, the "invisible hand" regulation fails miserably. It only succeeds in very isolated, specific circumstances. Even if this weren't true (and it is), is there any good reason to NOT post these standard human-rights laws? If we do, the worst that happens is that employers can't mistreat their workers. If we don't, the worst that happens is that workers get mistreated. Clearly, the first is a better scenario than the second.

You are exaggerating the “this sandwich is yummy” argument. I claim it is a straw man, and I challenge you to cite it in Objectivist literature.

You are absolutely correct. It is nowhere in objectivist literature to the best of my knowledge; however, the point, that simple, subjective things are held by Rand to be objective, remains; and I contend that even though I intentionally chose a silly example to exemplify this aspect of Rand's philosophy, it is in no way inaccurate. But let us proceed on the topic of art, which certainly IS mentioned in Objectivist literature, and to which the same arguments and counterarguments certainly apply.

One can contend that art is either objectively good or objectively bad, but how on EARTH would you justify this? There are standards by which an individual will consider art good or bad, certainly. Then you have to question, are these standards specific to this individual but based on nothing more than genes and environment, or are those standard somehow engrained in the universe, or in logic?

Clearly, there is no justification for the stance that physics or logic can encode the concept of "art", or cares about different kinds of art. Now, you can make an argument that certain kinds of art are more fundamental to humanity than others. In limited ways, you could make a good argument for it, but generally speaking it isn't true. There are many different kinds of art, and most kinds that have become successful did so because they were appreciated by significant segments of the population. How can you differentiate between neocubism and renaissance art in terms of which is more fundamental? Even if it is more fundamental to humans, the term "objective" really does mean, philosophically, inherent in the universe and/or logic - so even if you could prove that renaissance art is "more human" (which you can't), it STILL doesn't argue that art is in the least objective.

Electrons are objective. Math is objective. The quality of art is not.

Selfishness is a good thing which has been portrayed as evil for too long. Without self-interest, we wouldn’t live long and flourish. Rational egoism is hard to refute. A rational egoist would choose to live in a moral community and be moral within it. It would be in his or her rational self-interest to do so. And, since our self-interests are often intertwined with the interests of others, I don’t think is hard to justify helping others in the interest of self-interest. What would be wrong is to sell out, to live our lives for other people, rather than ourselves. It would be wrong to deny ourselves, like some religions tell us to do. It is our life, and we only have one. We should live it for ourselves.

This all-or-none stance is ridiculous. It is just as irrational to say "selfishness is good" as it is to say "selfishness is bad". What IS true is that sometimes it is good, and sometimes it is bad. This is demonstrated above, with the pollution and the Prisoner's Dillema examples.

Everyone in our society, even YOU, live by very limited rational self-interest. There are times when you could steal from a store, and be 100% guaranteed to not be caught. Why not do it? It would improve your wealth, even if only by a little. Now, this is where you / Rand generates some contrived crap about how you don't steal because you'd be acting unfairly or you'd be a looter or some such. But the fact of the matter is this. Stealing when you know you won't be caught IS in rational self-interest (assuming you aren't going to feel horribly guilty). The only reason to not do it is because you CARE about the well-being of OTHERS, even if you phrase this by saying "I won't be a looter blah blah blah". Either you act totally in rational self-interest or not, and when you don't, you care about others.

You say a rational egoist would choose to live in a moral community. Why wouldn't he choose to become a master thief, living an exciting lifestyle in which he benefitted, and didn't care about those who didn't benefit? If he's rational, he will accurately be able to make conclusions like "A implies B". If he's an egoist, he cares only for his own well being. Now, if he notices that he's smart and athletic, that he is dextrous and resourceful, and that he loves the idea of the superthief lifestyle he's seen in movies, what reason would he POSSIBLY have to not try it? He wouldn't be afraid of getting caught, because he's smart and rational enough to know that he can be a thief in certain areas with just about zero chance of failure. He certainly wouldn't care about hurting other people, because of his self-interest.

You clearly have hidden assumptions you're using to make these logical leaps. You should make them explicit before you continue a debate like this.



Now, certainly you're right, it would be wrong to sell out, and to live your life for someone else. But you don't need rational self-interest to tell you this. It's the way just about all of us already live our lives - we live for ourselves, but we are considerate of others.

She bases her views on A is A, the principle of identity, and says causation is a corollary, the law of identity applied to action. In A is A, she says man is an entity of a certain kind and requires conditions of existence for his proper survival qua man. These conditions include natural rights, the same rights advocated by Locke and Jefferson. Instead of basing these rights on faith, as religious conservatives do, she tries to justify them with logic. I think she could do better here, going into biology and linguistics to find a scientific basis for freedom and flourishing survival for man, and her philosophy of objective realty could use some help from a subjective and unsystematic philosophy like Sartre’s existentialism. However, I applaud her effort. I don’t think Objectivism is stupid.

Yeah yeah, I've read Atlas Shrugged. From the point of view of a mathematician and a logician, her struggle to justify complex sociobiological assertions using the phrase "A is A" is really sad, and doesn't come close to forming a logically consistent, solid argument.

I don't think Objectivism is stupid - I think it's a good movement towards a reasonable way to live one's life. But it has significant philosophical holes in it, and if one adheres to logic, as Rand correctly suggests we should, we'll be able to notice them, and modify the philosophy accordingly. It's unfortunate when someone notices appealing aspects of Objectivism, and then refuses to be receptive to its flaws.

Perhaps not. Russell and Whitehead tried. Goedel shot them down.

Not really. You should read more about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem - it's really one of the coolest things in the world. But it's misunderstood by a lot of people.

Bis bald,

What the hell does that mean?[/quote]

[NickOtani]

Free-market capitalism means no governmental restrictions on pollution.

At present, we do not have a completely free-market capitalism. We do have governmental restrictions on pollution, and those restrictions aren't really solving the problem, are they? I live in a state where nuclear sludge is seaping into the soil and approaching a hugh water supply for the state. Governmental attempts to clean up this mess have made things worse, not better.

Thus, if I am a paper manufacturer, I can choose to spend more money on pollution control, or save that money. Now, what is my expectation in the two different situations? Most Americans don't care about pollution laws.

You don't have much confidence in the American people.

There are many good examples where the spending the money necessary to curb pollution to a reasonable best-for-all level would result in a net loss, because the public wouldn't care enough to give you their business. On the other hand, if you instead offer lower prices than your competitor, which you are only able to afford because you DON'T spend money to curb pollution, people will be attracted to your lower prices, and you will get more business. Rational self-interest in this case really does mean "pollute and offer lower prices", and does NOT correpond to a best-in-general scenario.

Continuing to pollute will destroy resources and people, customers and employees. This is ultimately not good for business. A free press can also expose polluters. Look at all the good that sixty minutes has done.

Lastly, if you dismiss environmental issues as less significant, you're way off the mark. Every available scientific study indicates that humans will begin to suffer significantly because of environmental effects, in addition to the effects which we've already noticed (higher incidences of skin cancer, more respiratory diseases, increased natural disasters like Katrina).

Let's educate people more and come up with alternative fuel sources. Lots of things can be done.

Pollution has the capacity to render the earth uninhabitable by humans; economic collapse will just screw over a culture for a few decades. Pollution is by far the more important of the two, assuming we give a crap about future generations. Also, your implication that curbing pollution will result in economic collapse is ridiculous. Less profit for companies, better filters and better technology. It's an effort, not a risk, and it's shameful that Americans have done such a poor job in this regard to date.

I think they go hand in hand. If our economy collases, we won't have economic resourses to clean up. You argue that better filters and better technology is not a risk. If it is not, then it should not lead to economic collapse. Japan is an overly populated island with not many natural resources, yet it is remarkably clean and productive. And, it is capitalistic.

You will probably disagree with this, but there is undeniable proof of this, and it's called the Prisoner's Dillema. (Look it up on Wikipedia if you are unfamiliar with it.) If both men act selfishly, they both get maximum jail time; if they both act selflessly, they get off easy. Selflessness, and putting oneself at personal risk, produces the optimal scenario in the Prisoner's Dillema, and in other situations as well (pollution).

I am very familiar with the Prisoner's Dilemma. I have used it to support aspects of Objectivism. The original version only shows that cooperation is sometimes in one's rational self-interest.

In a multitude of examples, the "invisible hand" regulation fails miserably. It only succeeds in very isolated, specific circumstances.

Again, Robert Nozick supports libertarianism, and he is a respected philosopher. Disagreement is a partisan kind of thing, not an obvious flaw with the philosophy.

Even if this weren't true (and it is), is there any good reason to NOT post these standard human-rights laws? If we do, the worst that happens is that employers can't mistreat their workers. If we don't, the worst that happens is that workers get mistreated. Clearly, the first is a better scenario than the second.

Objectivism supports human rights. Employers don't get to mistreat workers in a free-market. Nobody has a right to initiate force against someone else. In a free-market, all transactions are voluntary.

You are absolutely correct. It is nowhere in objectivist literature to the best of my knowledge

We should stress that. People have read that silly example and believed it to be an honest representation of Rand. It's one reason people make fun of her, based on things she never said.

however, the point, that simple, subjective things are held by Rand to be objective, remains; and I contend that even though I intentionally chose a silly example to exemplify this aspect of Rand's philosophy, it is in no way inaccurate. But let us proceed on the topic of art, which certainly IS mentioned in Objectivist literature, and to which the same arguments and counterarguments certainly apply.

There are ways to judge art, literature, and music which are objective. A teacher grades papers, and some get A's and some get F's. It is not all just what the teacher likes and dislikes. It depends on the purpose and the effectiveness of acheiving that purpose. There is good and bad poetry. When a rational person sees it and compares it, he or she knows if he or she is honest. There is music which is in harmony and not in harmony. The idea of quality may not be just a matter of opinion. I think that is what she is talking about, not "this sandwich is yummy."

You say a rational egoist would choose to live in a moral community. Why wouldn't he choose to become a master thief, living an exciting lifestyle in which he benefitted, and didn't care about those who didn't benefit? If he's rational, he will accurately be able to make conclusions like "A implies B". If he's an egoist, he cares only for his own well being. Now, if he notices that he's smart and athletic, that he is dextrous and resourceful, and that he loves the idea of the superthief lifestyle he's seen in movies, what reason would he POSSIBLY have to not try it? He wouldn't be afraid of getting caught, because he's smart and rational enough to know that he can be a thief in certain areas with just about zero chance of failure. He certainly wouldn't care about hurting other people, because of his self-interest.

I have argued extensively for rational egoism, and I think I can support that a rational egoist would not steal, even if it appeared he or she could get away with it. It has to do with wanting to live authentically and not as a brain in a vat, faking reality. If a rational egoist had to choose between winning a race honestly or cheating to make people think he or she won, he or she would choose to win honestly.

bis bald,

Nick

[Mad Man P]

Nick

I have argued extensively for rational egoism, and I think I can support that a rational egoist would not steal, even if it appeared he or she could get away with it. It has to do with wanting to live authentically and not as a brain in a vat, faking reality. If a rational egoist had to choose between winning a race honestly or cheating to make people think he or she won, he or she would choose to win honestly.

What if the choice was: lose honestly or win cheating? what then?

[Twiffy]

MadMan's point is right on. A rational egoist will choose to cheat to win; someone who is moral by today's standards will not cheat, and lose. You can't have both. In order to have both, you really need to say "person X is a rational egoist who ALSO ... blah blah blah." Who also is honest (not all rational egoists need be honest), or some such.

This is what I meant re: the Prisoner's Dillema. I don't know what version you're familiar with, but the original formulation goes as follows.

Individuals X and Y are taken prisoner. X knows the following to be true. If he rats on Y, Y will get 10 years in jail, but X will go free. However, if he rats on Y and Y also rats on him, they both get 2 years.

Conversely, X knows that if he stays silent and Y rats him out, he'll get 10 years and Y will go free - but if he stays silent and Y stays silent, they both serve 6 months.

So X has to choose whether to rat out Y or not. Let's assume X is a rational egoist. Rational means that he can calculate out the logic; egoist means he's only interested in his well-being. So he wants to maximize his well-being, and doesn't care about Y. If he doesn't rat out Y, he will either get 6 months or 10 years. If he does rat out Y, he will either get off free or get 2 years. Clearly, his choice should be to rat out Y, since both those results are better than the respective matched consequences if he stays silent.

So given rational self-interest, each person will serve 2 years. This is clearly inferior to the situation where each person serves 6 months. Thus, rational self-interest, in this case, doesn't generate the optimum solution.

I'm probably not going to respond to future posts after this unless they're particularly new or relevant. At this point we're starting to repeat the same stuff over and over, and I honestly don't feel that you've understood or addressed my past points.

[NickOtani]

MadMan's point is right on. A rational egoist will choose to cheat to win

No, Twiffy, a rational egoist would rather live authentically than in a faked reality. You, on the other hand, are not above cheating to win. You have demonstrated your willingness to lie about Rand to win a debate point.

Also, I told you I knew about the Prisoner's Dilemma. You are wasting my time going over it. It does not ultimately disprove rational egoism. It does not take into consideration serving one's time and not risking anything, especially the revenge from the prisoner who was turned on.

Your knowledge of Objectivism and rational egoism is shallow, and your method of attack is dishonest, creating strawmen to knock-over. This may work on those who know even less than you, but it doesn't work on those of us who know about philosophy. Your decision to cut and run is entirely understandable.

bis bald,

Nick

[Mad Man P]

Nick

No, Twiffy, a rational egoist would rather live authentically than in a faked reality.

Depends on your view of Authenticity... cheating in a game where the rules are man made, could easily be considered "fair" by someone who felt that such rules were NOT authentic.. in no way would braking them result in a fake reality... the person would simply pride himself in his ability to "think outside the box" and credit this aspect of himself for his victory instead of deluding himself to think he was a better player..

[Twiffy]

You guys need to stop adding in extra assumptions.

"Rational" means you're capable of applying logic to situations. If you know "A -> B", and you know A is true, then you can conclude B. That's rationality.

"Egoist", from dictionary.com, is defined as "One devoted to one's own interests and advancement".

Therefore, a rational egoist is a logical, selfish person.

Just because this person is logical and selfish doesn't tell you much at all about the rest of his personality. He could like onions - he could dislike onions. He could like to hurt others - he could like to help others. None of these ideas are inconsistent with being rationall, and with being selfish. Now, we know he's not insane, because insane people are irrational, and we know he's rational. We know he lives for himself in the egoist sense, even if he enjoys helping others, because he's an egoist. But we have no idea if he's fat or skinny, mean or nice, or if he prefers authenticity or if he'd rather live in the Matrix, because all these things are INDEPENDENT of the properties of being rational and being an egoist.

Meanwhile, I don't understand why you're getting hostile. I'm being careful and precise and rational, and not emotional - which is a very Objectivist value, by the way.

[Moeson]

Rand's philosophy is as callice, cold, and as insensitive as the pictures I've seen of her.

[NickOtani]

One who is rationally devoted to his or her own interests would also consider values such as honor, authenticity, and co-dependence on the interests of others for the advancement of one's own interests. Becoming a predator is not in one's rational self-interest. It would not be rational to become a hypocrite and do to others what one would not want done to himself or herself. One would lose moral authority, integrety, and possibly become a parasite living on the productive accomplishments of honorable people. This is nothing to be proud of, and thus not something which would advance self-interest.

bis bald,

Nick

[Mad Man P]

Becoming a predator is not in one's rational self-interest. It would not be rational to become a hypocrite and do to others what one would not want done to himself or herself. One would lose moral authority, integrety, and possibly become a parasite living on the productive accomplishments of honorable people.

First of all.. One would only lose moral authority, integrity, ect given one was CAUGHT! otherwise one could very simply retain authority and all other social "benefits" because they are granted by OTHERS not one self..

Secondly i find it amuzing that you should mention the risk of "becoming a parasite living on the productive accomplishments of honorable people." I would say that this is the case for all of us in one way or another.. what is honorable work? and what is parasitic?

Would you say that advertisement agencies are parasites, or honorable and productive members of society?

Bottom line is.. if you can make people pay you willingly... you have earned it.. if the Egoist believes he is serving as an example for all humans and that his actions alone will somehow cause all humans to act as he does... i'm sure you're right.. he might consider acting more "honorable".. but fact is... this is not the case.. he can act as he pleases and it will not alter the world.. a RATIONAL egoist, who wishes to avoid living in a "fake reality", might notice this little detail, and act accordingly.. how other people act depends entirely on their beliefs.. which CAN be manipulated.. to avoid utter chaos.. but this does not require the rational egoist to serve as an example.. only to APPEAR as one..

[NickOtani]

First of all.. One would only lose moral authority, integrity, ect given one was CAUGHT! otherwise one could very simply retain authority and all other social "benefits" because they are granted by OTHERS not one self..

No, again, the rational egoist would rather win or lose the race authentically, on his or her own two feet, not just make people think he or she won the race. The rational egoist lives for himself or herself, not for others and not off of others.

Secondly i find it amuzing that you should mention the risk of "becoming a parasite living on the productive accomplishments of honorable people." I would say that this is the case for all of us in one way or another.. what is honorable work? and what is parasitic?

Any honest work is honorable, work that is voluntarily exchanged for value in a free market. Stealing money from those who earn it honestly is being a parasite.

Would you say that advertisement agencies are parasites, or honorable and productive members of society?

If they do not initiate force against others, they do no wrong. They are not parasites.

Bottom line is.. if you can make people pay you willingly... you have earned it.. if the Egoist believes he is serving as an example for all humans and that his actions alone will somehow cause all humans to act as he does... i'm sure you're right.. he might consider acting more "honorable".. but fact is... this is not the case.. he can act as he pleases and it will not alter the world.. a RATIONAL egoist, who wishes to avoid living in a "fake reality", might notice this little detail, and act accordingly.. how other people act depends entirely on their beliefs.. which CAN be manipulated.. to avoid utter chaos.. but this does not require the rational egoist to serve as an example.. only to APPEAR as one..

Appearing as one and not being one is not authentic. It is living in a fake reality, not as rewarding as living in a real reality.

bis bald,

Nick

[azizarif]

Well incoherency, seems to me, is in the nature of this world, Strict rationalism cannot find an example in emprical world where as emprical observations cease to make any sence under the microscope of strict rationality.... Oh well who is John Galt?