Ayn Rand's Objectivism

Can any one poke holes into her philosophy? I’ve seen criticisms of her and her writing… but, can any one systematically denounce her conceptual framework?

  1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
  2. Epistemology: Reason
  3. Ethics: Self-interest
  4. Politics: Capitalism

P.S. I am not an objectivist. :wink:


You might want to check Pragmatist’s “Rand’s Objectivism: Philosophy or Propaganda?” thread, a little bit down the page. There were some pretty good exchanges there. :slight_smile:


I have read it, but thank you for the mention. In fact, I agree with much of what pragmatist has said (in that thread as well as others). And, I agree that her dependence on absolutes/universals is… well… wrong. However, I am mainly curious if any one can argue against [egoism,selfishness,self-interest] as a primary tenet for social interaction and living. More precisely: if every one behaved according to their own self-interest, would it produce a worthwhile society?


Since I believe that 'self-interest" has given rise to societies in the first place, I wouldn’t be the one to attack that position. Perhaps you will find someone who will take a hard line. :slight_smile:


I think I mentioned on that other thread that I’ve always thought that Rand got to the right place but by the wrong way. It’s the subjective nature of values that I think gives credence to the idea of superiority of individual rights.

Nomad, I am sure you can find some folks who would argue against her over in Social Sciences, “Capitalism versus Communism.”

Her ethical theory, like every other, doesn’t really address Hume’s is/ought problem.


Game Theory would probably show that Ethical Egoism does not always produce the best outcomes for all parties involved.