Is Objectivism a Religion?

Anytime I've gotten into conversations with people that adhere to Rand's Objectivism philosophy, it seem that I'm talking to someone devoutly religious. I was wondering if others have had this experience? OR - if you are an Objectivist (uh hum, jthegreat), then what are your thoughts? I don't know any Objectivists personally, so I don't know their background. But, it seems to me to be very "religious", in the sense that the followers seem very devout, and almost brainwashed. I don't mean to offend... it's just my perception based on a few online conversations I've had.

(PS: I have read a bit about Objectivism, and to me, it seems valid on the surface, but the deeper you go, the more weird it becomes.)

[jthegreat]

I'm not an Objectivist, really, though I'm very familiar with it.

Most people don't study it thoroughly and they fail to understand it properly. That's why you get such "devoutness". That's also why so much of what those people say is bullshit. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Rand did some great work in philosophy, especially IMO in the field of ethics.

[HDPM]

No, it isn't a religion. While Rand had a bizarre cult following and had some unusual relationships, etc.... the philosophy itself is by no means religious. It does not ask anybody to believe anything on faith, just the opposite. It also rejects any supernatural concepts. So if you find irrational or "devout" behavior by somebody caught up in the philosophy, it doesn't mean the philosophy is in any way religious. Rand was an outspoken athiest and I think even said her husband was a stronger athiest. The philosophy itself is not compatible with religious belief.

[Rushmore]

Obviously, it is the opposite, in that it requires no leap of faith whatsoever. The entire point of religion is faith, and the entire point of Objectivism is that your "faith" is unimportant, that the point is to observe and act relative to the OBJECT (-ive world) rather than to act as the SUBJECT (emotionally, etc.).

The reason some folks seem "religious" in their proclamations of membership (read: TESTIFY!!!) is because they misunderstand that there is a stoic element to it (which would, by definition, preclude all of the histrionically strenuous claims), and also because, quite frankly, all religion (the subject of which is perpetually in an individual's face) will seem abject to anyone with an even cursory adherence to Objectivism.

Me, I couldn't care less what you believe. I only care what you do.

[deepdowntruth]

[ QUOTE ]
Anytime I've gotten into conversations with people that adhere to Rand's Objectivism philosophy, it seem that I'm talking to someone devoutly religious. I was wondering if others have had this experience? OR - if you are an Objectivist (uh hum, jthegreat), then what are your thoughts? I don't know any Objectivists personally, so I don't know their background. But, it seems to me to be very "religious", in the sense that the followers seem very devout, and almost brainwashed. I don't mean to offend... it's just my perception based on a few online conversations I've had.

(PS: I have read a bit about Objectivism, and to me, it seems valid on the surface, but the deeper you go, the more weird it becomes.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been studying Ayn Rand's philosophy for over 10 years, consider myself an Objectivist, and majored in philosophy at a large, reputable university.

I agree that some of those who call themselves Objectivists can remind me of religious people. I've thought about this phenomenon a lot myself, trying to identify exactly what it is that I am seeing in these people.

To an observer, many Objectivsts, exhibit behavior that is strikingly similar to that of a religious nut, namely, passionate certainty about claims they are unable to explain.

What is actually operating here is something like the following: 1.) People tend read Ayn Rand when they are very young (16-22), thus the fervor or passion that a certain segment of young people bring to abstract philosophical questions. 2.) While they have read Ayn Rand and agree with what they are reading while they are reading it , they haven't internalized the content and logic of it to a degree that allows them to properly explain it while they aren't reading it. So they are often certain of what they are saying, but when it comes time to explaining their reasoning, they forget what it is--but at the time they are reading and thinking about it, it makes absolute perfect sense.

What you are observing are people relatively new to Ayn Rand's ideas who are stirred by them. This is not a particularly good sample to draw your generalizations from, though there's no way you could know that.

(Incidentally, the phenomenon above is not restricted to Objectivism. Almost any new intellectual movement will attract or engender such people. The pragmatism of Peirce, James, and Dewey; the existentialism of Heidegger and Sartre; the mathematical and logical approach to poker a la Sklansky and Malmuth, etc. All of these movements, when they were new, attracted followers both thinking and unthinking as any new intellectual movement is sure to do.)

Of course, there is another factor that could be operating here. Some people think that certainty and secularism are incompatible, and therefore anyone making claims they are certain about most be making a "leap of faith", i.e. akin to religion. Obviously I'm going to reject this claim, but I haven't the slightest idea why (just kidding, but I can elaborate if you wish).

You'll find three kinds of older Objectivists: 1.) Those who never get beyond that first stage and slowly drift away (usually becoming Libertarians); 2.) Those who never get behond that first stage and become more fervent with each passing year (usually because of some pre-existing psychological pre-disposition to such behavior, too smart to fall for religion, but applying its logic and methodology to a secular content); and, 3.) Those who continue to study the philosophy, make it their own, and calm down. (Hopefully, I fall into the third category.)

[chezlaw]

anyone care to summarize Objectivism?

I get the general feeling in the uk that Rand is perceived as a bit of a right wing loon. Don't actually know anyone who knows what she actually says.

chez

[deepdowntruth]

[ QUOTE ]
anyone care to summarize Objectivism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not go right to the source rather than judge it based on six or seven probably inaccurate sentences on a gambling forum? Read one or two of her non-fiction books. They typically contain easily read 3 or 4 page topical articles.

A terse summary from Leonard Peikoff, her long-time friend and student, is available online: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_pobs. It is about 4 pages long and hits all the main points.

(Incidentally, AR wrote that the conservatives were much more dangerous than the liberals, so she didn't really align herself with the right. She was fervently against the military draft, in favor of legalized abortion, and was a very loud critic of conservatives. Take a look through her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, to see if she thought conservatives were her allies.)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyone care to summarize Objectivism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not go right to the source rather than judge it based on six or seven probably inaccurate sentences on a gambling forum? Read one or two of her non-fiction books. They typically contain easily read 3 or 4 page topical articles.

A terse summary from Leonard Peikoff, her long-time friend and student, is available online: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_pobs. It is about 4 pages long and hits all the main points.

(Incidentally, AR wrote that the conservatives were much more dangerous than the liberals, so she didn't really align herself with the right. She was fervently against the military draft, in favor of legalized abortion, and was a very loud critic of conservatives. Take a look through her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, to see if she thought conservatives were her allies.)

[/ QUOTE ]

but I get all my important knowledge from this site /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Thanks, I'll read the link. Trouble with the books is I've got this long reading list to get through and already don't expect to live long enough.

chez

Thanks, deepdowntruth. I'm going to read that website, as well as try to find the articles you listed in the Objectivist Morality (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=scimathphil&Number=3735655 &fpart=1) thread. I definitely appreciate the way you've responded thus far. I hope you will be available to answer questions after I read those things? Give me a few days, I'll try to respond this coming week. Thanks!

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyone care to summarize Objectivism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not go right to the source rather than judge it based on six or seven probably inaccurate sentences on a gambling forum? Read one or two of her non-fiction books. They typically contain easily read 3 or 4 page topical articles.

A terse summary from Leonard Peikoff, her long-time friend and student, is available online: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_pobs. It is about 4 pages long and hits all the main points.

(Incidentally, AR wrote that the conservatives were much more dangerous than the liberals, so she didn't really align herself with the right. She was fervently against the military draft, in favor of legalized abortion, and was a very loud critic of conservatives. Take a look through her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, to see if she thought conservatives were her allies.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on a verfy quick read, Objectivism looks indistinguishable from skeptical Realism, none the worse for that, but

[ QUOTE ]
The answer lies in man's nature as a living organism. A living organism has to act in the face of a constant alternative: life or death. Life is conditional; it can be sustained only by a specific course of action performed by the living organism, such as the actions of obtaining food. In this regard plants and animals have no choice: within the limits of their powers, they take automatically the actions their life requires. Man does have a choice. He does not know automatically what actions will sustain him; if he is to survive he must discover, then practice by choice, a code of values and virtues, the specific code which human life requires. The purpose of ethics is to define such a code.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there any justification for this? Why is my ethic a code for my own survival. My survival is important to me but its not the only thing, I see no reason to believe its even the most important thing. Does by my survival she include the survival of that which is important to me even to the detriment of my own personal survival?

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is my ethic a code for my own survival.

[/ QUOTE ] You could imagine the consequences if it wasn't?

[ QUOTE ]
Does by my survival she include the survival of that which is important to me even to the detriment of my own personal survival?


[/ QUOTE ] Yes, not in the way you think tho, she stays away from sacrafice. If you value the survival of something important to you more so than your own survival, this is not a sacrafice. The objectivist ethics allows one to give up somehting of lesser value for something of greater value, but not vice versa.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is my ethic a code for my own survival.

[/ QUOTE ] You could imagine the consequences if it wasn't?

[ QUOTE ]
Does by my survival she include the survival of that which is important to me even to the detriment of my own personal survival?


[/ QUOTE ] Yes, not in the way you think tho, she stays away from sacrafice. If you value the survival of something important to you more so than your own survival, this is not a sacrafice. The objectivist ethics allows one to give up somehting of lesser value for something of greater value, but not vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]

First part: I'd go as far as to say my ethic is not my own survival, althought it is in part. The consequences are fine.

Second part: so my ethic is a code for what is most important to me. Sounds right but doesn't seem to be what Rand is saying.

Does she means something non-obvious by survival?

chez

[deepdowntruth]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is my ethic a code for my own survival. My survival is important to me but its not the only thing, I see no reason to believe its even the most important thing. Does by my survival she include the survival of that which is important to me even to the detriment of my own personal survival?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a quick response here as I'm in the middle of a WSOP satellite:

What she is saying that it is an organism's ability to live or die that establishes the very need for a particular way of acting or not acting. An immortal robot (one of her examples from "The Objectivist Ethics") would have no need for any guidance as to how to act, since nothing could really ever make a difference to it. It's only because we (and the things we value) can go out of existence and because we can do something about it, that the whole realm of ethics, the science of what to do (or not to do), even arises.

And, yes by "your survival" she does mean "the survival all the things that are important to [you] even to the detriment of [your] survival." She has discussed (and I can't give references at the moment because I'm deep in the tournament) for example, that it is right to risk your life for that of, say, your spouse--as your life and your enjoyment of it would be so irreparably damaged, that it would not be worth living having lost such an important value.

Her view of what constitutes "a human's life" is not mere physical continuity, but the fulfillment of the widest range of values and interests possible to a human being.

Anyway, I can elaborate later and more coherently if you wish, but the blinds are escalating, and in a tournament it is all about physical survival. :-P

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is my ethic a code for my own survival. My survival is important to me but its not the only thing, I see no reason to believe its even the most important thing. Does by my survival she include the survival of that which is important to me even to the detriment of my own personal survival?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a quick response here as I'm in the middle of a WSOP satellite:

What she is saying that it is an organism's ability to live of die that establishes the very need for a particular way of acting or not acting. An immortal robot (one of her examples from "The Objectivist Ethics") would have no need for any guidance as to how to act, since nothing could really ever make a difference to it. It's only because we (and the things we value) can go out of existence and because we can do something about it, that the whole realm of ethics, the science of what to do (or not to do), even arises.

And, yes by "your survival" she does mean "the survival all the things that are important to [you] even to the detriment of [your] survival." She has discussed (and I can't give references at the moment because I'm deep in the tournament) for example, that it is right to risk your life for that of, say, your spouse--as your life and your enjoyment of it would be so irreparably damaged, that it would not be worth living having lost such an important value.

Her view of what constitutes "a human's life" is not mere physical continuity, but the fulfillment of the widest range of values and interests possible to a human being.

Anyway, I can elaborate later and more coherently if you wish, but the blinds are escalating, and in a tournament it is all about physical survival. :-P

[/ QUOTE ]

That's clear thanks.

Good luck

chez

"may your blinds escalate"

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
First part: I'd go as far as to say my ethic is not my own survival, althought it is in part. The consequences are fine.

Second part: so my ethic is a code for what is most important to me. Sounds right but doesn't seem to be what Rand is saying.

Does she means something non-obvious by survival?

chez

[/ QUOTE ] Chez, I'm not a huge AR buff. I've only read a little of her work. But what I've read so far I enjoyed, as it was similiar to my own philosophies.

First part- Right, we've had the conversation before on this part of ethics. The consequence is that you wouldn't survive.



Numero 2- Yes, this is what rand is saying but she also goes ahead and assumes what you value, or at least is stating what she values. If one wishes to prevent human suffering one must put their survival in danger. To be altruistic requires you to sacrifice something of lesser value for something of greater value. This doesn't sound like a rational idea to me.

I'm sure she means something more than just survival. Quality survival what ever that is. Fulfilling experiences, and so on. Survival might be better described as self interest, selfishness.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
To be altruistic requires you to sacrifice something of lesser value for something of greater value. This doesn't sound like a rational idea to me.


[/ QUOTE ]
I assume you mean that the other way round but its an unfair definition of alturism that makes it irrational. It could just be putting the survival of someone else before your own survival which, if you're rational, must mean you value their survival more than your own.

However, I don't think it needs to be as extreme as survival, it could just be giving up something of direct benefit to yourself because you value even more the well-being of someone else. Giving money to a charity could be alturistic.

You can call it all selfish self-interest if you like but it misses an important distinction. Doing something because you value the well-being of others is not the same sort of selfish self-interest as doing something because you value a new car.


chez

[Warren Whitmore]

Hi Kip,

Not really. Most psychology types like to break down people as to thier id, ego and superego. Ayn Rand seems to like breaking her characters into Rational, Mystical, and attila.

She makes the excellent point that people obtain thier net worth both physically and emotionally from one of those three sources. You can con people out of it (mystic), Steal it (wars taxes) or earn it rationally.

For a more in depth look at how she views us poker players give "An open letter to Borris Spasky" a read.

[HDPM]

To get into rand's view of altruism you need to see how she discusses it and how she addresses kant. The concept of duty comes in. Rand basically says you don't have a duty to help others, but you might choose to if you value them. An altruist basically says you do have a duty to help wretches and the less you value others the more moral the help to them is. Obviously simplified in this post, but rand talking about kant is some good reading.

[deepdowntruth]

[ QUOTE ]
For a more in depth look at how she views us poker players give "An open letter to Borris Spasky" a read.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this article is relevant. This article is about contrasting the clean rational logical rules of chess with the chaotic irrational reality foisted on their citizens by the Soviet government--and how living under such a system forces men of superior intelligence to mentally flee to the realm of games.

The poster wants you to see the following:

[ QUOTE ]
"Oh yes, Comrade, chess is an escape--an escape from reality. It is an 'out,' a kind of 'make-work' for a man of higher intelligence who was afraid to live, but could not leave his mind unemployed and devoted it to a placebo--thus surrendering to others the living world he had rejected as too hard to understand.

"Please do not take this to mean that I object to games as such: games are an important part of man's life, they provide a necessary rest, and chess may do for some men who live under the constant pressure of purposeful work....You, the chess, professionals, are taken as exponents of the most precious of human skills: intellectual power--yet that power deserts you beyond the confines of sixty-four squares of a chessboard, leaving you confused, anxious and helplessly unfocused. Because, you see, the chessboard is not a training ground, but a *substitute* for reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

This poster is attempting to dissuade poker players from considering Ayn Rand's views, by making it seem as though she would disapprove of the attention and effort we put into poker. However, AR probably did not anticipate or know about the existence of such a thing as poker or gaming as a viable entrepreneurial profession.

I am fully confident that such a profession is entirely compatible with AR's philosophy. I have in fact been working on a paper speaking to this point to distribute informally to friends who ask me about my poker goals. I may make it available to this forum when it is complete. Suffice it to say that a valid profession trades something of value to parties willing to pay for it, and it is my view that poker passes this bright-line test.

Also, there is no doubt in my mind that for some players, poker is an escape from the necessity of dealing with the world rationally. For example, does AR's characterization of Bobby Fischer remind anyone of some famous poker players we might all recognize?

[ QUOTE ]
This confident, disciplined obviously brilliant player falls to pieces when he as to deal with the real world. He throw tantrums like a child, breaks agreements, makes arbitrary demands, and indulges in the kind of whim worship one touch of which in the playing of chess would disqualify him from a high school tournament. Thus he brings to the real world the very evil that make him escape it: *irrationality*. A man who is afraid to sign a letter, who fears any firm commitment, who seeks the guidance of the arbitrary edicts of a mystic sect in order to learn how to live his life--is not a great, confident mind, but a tragically helpless victim, torn by acute anxiety and, perhaps, by a sense of treason to what might have been great potential.

[/ QUOTE ]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
To get into rand's view of altruism you need to see how she discusses it and how she addresses kant. The concept of duty comes in. Rand basically says you don't have a duty to help others, but you might choose to if you value them. An altruist basically says you do have a duty to help wretches and the less you value others the more moral the help to them is. Obviously simplified in this post, but rand talking about kant is some good reading.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you abandon duty ethics then you can't just dismiss alturism because it was defined within a framework of duty ethics. Clearly people have different propensities to help other, so alturism is a useful concept and needs to be included.

I'm happy with Rand's moral framework, I suspect most people are because they make our own values all important. Does she go past a framework and say which values we should have?

chez

[DougShrapnel]

Chez, it is no surprise to me that deepdowntruth understands Ayn Rand objectivism far better than I do. If I was smart I'd leave this debate to those better educated in objectivism. DDT may be a better person to ask on the specifics of objectivist ethics.

[ QUOTE ]
I assume you mean that the other way round but its an unfair definition of alturism that makes it irrational. It could just be putting the survival of someone else before your own survival which, if you're rational, must mean you value their survival more than your own.


[/ QUOTE ] DDT covered this quite well.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I don't think it needs to be as extreme as survival, it could just be giving up something of direct benefit to yourself because you value even more the well-being of someone else. Giving money to a charity could be alturistic.


[/ QUOTE ] Giving money to a charity is a choice, AR doesn't believe it has ethical implications. To say that giving money to charity is ethical, is to say that one must give money to charity, in so much as the purpose of ethics is determine correct actions. To exchnage something of lesser value(extra money) for something of greater value(emergency assistance, righting injustices, pleasure in helping fellow man) is ethical. But to say that giveing money to charity is ehical, implies a duty.

[ QUOTE ]
You can call it all selfish self-interest if you like but it misses an important distinction. Doing something because you value the well-being of others is not the same sort of selfish self-interest as doing something because you value a new car.

[/ QUOTE ] Perhaps I am missing that important distinction.
From AR The virtrue of selfishness
"Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests."

"There are two moral questions which altruism lumps to*gether into one “package-deal”: (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substi*tutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance.
Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes."

But I only agree in part with what AR states. AR leaves out the sociological reasons for "altruism" or if she does indeed discuss them I haven't read them yet. To give to someone creates a debt. This debt is something that people repay in there own way. It is a mutually beneficial proposition. The intial gift usually means less to the giver, than the repayment that the giver will recieve. As well as the repayment means less to the reciever than the gift does. People who are "altruistic" wish to help others, but at the same time do so only to stipulate the terms of repayment. For instance, bills gates' donation to malaria research has a stipulation that his efforts will reduce overpopulation, amongst other possible repayment senarios. When I donated money to help Katrina victims is was so that lawlessness would not ensue. For I wish not to be reminded of just how close we are to choas. The repayment is always part of any alturistic act. Which is why I reject the ethics of altruism. I care about others, in so much as what they can repay to me. If someone was drowning I would save him, provided that he or someone else would save me too. But if after I saved him he would kill me or do me harm, well I'd let him drown. To take a value or wealth creating idea (giving to people), and turnig it into a value or wealth limiting idea(giving to people who would do you harm, or destroy your values), is a problem I see with the ethics of altruism. When we understand the reasons for our moral feelings, do we see how altruism arose. It is my opinion that altrusim sets out to detroy the mutual benefit arangement that was sparked from the interaction of man with man.

The other side of the spectrum is a far worse detriment to this debt based arrangement. Where as people give something of little value and then take something of much greater value. Sales people, con artists are well versed in this unwriten agreement.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
To exchnage something of lesser value(extra money) for something of greater value(emergency assistance, righting injustices, pleasure in helping fellow man) is ethical. But to say that giveing money to charity is ehical, implies a duty.

[/ QUOTE ]
Something wierd here. By giving money to charity, I mean exchanging something of lessor value (money) for something of greater value (righting injustice).


[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can call it all selfish self-interest if you like but it misses an important distinction. Doing something because you value the well-being of others is not the same sort of selfish self-interest as doing something because you value a new car.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps I am missing that important distinction.
From AR The virtrue of selfishness
"Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests."

[/ QUOTE ]
Everything we do is in our own interest and to that extent is selfish. All actions are because I value myself, however some actions are of value to me because I value others. So we can seperate ethical actions into two classes.

Class 1: Actions that I value because I value myself only
Class 2: Actions that I value because I value myself and are of value to me (at least in part) because I value other people.

That is a distinction that I want to label with selfish and selfless qualities. Both are selfish but class 2 actions have a selfless component. You can use different words if you like and even say the distinction is uninteresting to you, but they are distingishable.

It then makes sense to talk of how great the selfless component of an act is and to characterise people whose values lead them to more class 2 actions as less selfish than those who are led to class 1 actions.

I think its important not to get too stuck on dictionary definitions when doing philosophy. The idea is to capture what we mean by certain concepts and I think the concept of selfish/selfless is captured by the above definition (if you called someone who only does class 1 actions as selfish then people would recognise the label as fitting, even if they didn't agree why).

Again, I'm not going to argue the definition of alturism, there are quite a few. I think the concept of alturism is captured by how you decide on conflicting values. Sometimes you have to chose between two actions, one of which is in class 1 and the other in class 2, the stronger your tendency to choose the class 2 action the more alturistic you are [thats not a complete definition but gives the idea].


[ QUOTE ]
Which is why I reject the ethics of altruism. I care about others, in so much as what they can repay to me. If someone was drowning I would save him, provided that he or someone else would save me too.

[/ QUOTE ]
but that's a statement about your values. Its not saying that others don't have alturistic values. If I could save someone from drowning (at a small but real risk to myself) then I would. That's it I would fullstop. Its a pure class 2 action in my book, I save the person from drowing purely because I value my own value of valuing others.


[ QUOTE ]
When we understand the reasons for our moral feelings, do we see how altruism arose. It is my opinion that altrusim sets out to detroy the mutual benefit arangement that was sparked from the interaction of man with man.

[/ QUOTE ]
I accept evolution as the casue all my values and I agree with you as to how it came about that I value others. You then make a leap to some inherent goodness of the cause of my values and I don't think that leap is justified. If my saving someone from drowning purely because I value others is destroying something then I don't value the thing that is being destroyed - why should I (perhaps more important, would Rand and why?)

chez

[3rdEye]

[ QUOTE ]
Anytime I've gotten into conversations with people that adhere to Rand's Objectivism philosophy, it seem that I'm talking to someone devoutly religious. I was wondering if others have had this experience? OR - if you are an Objectivist (uh hum, jthegreat), then what are your thoughts? I don't know any Objectivists personally, so I don't know their background. But, it seems to me to be very "religious", in the sense that the followers seem very devout, and almost brainwashed. I don't mean to offend... it's just my perception based on a few online conversations I've had.

(PS: I have read a bit about Objectivism, and to me, it seems valid on the surface, but the deeper you go, the more weird it becomes.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to be an Objectivist, and I can attest to the fact that its most ardent adherents are often even more dogmatic than many of the most devoutly religious people I've ever met.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Something wierd here. By giving money to charity, I mean exchanging something of lessor value (money) for something of greater value (righting injustice).

[/ QUOTE ] Why is that wierd?

[ QUOTE ]
Class 1: Actions that I value because I value myself only
Class 2: Actions that I value because I value myself and are of value to me (at least in part) because I value other people.

[/ QUOTE ] We where having this conversation before and I understand the distinction. But i just feel that there are no ethical class 2 actions that aren't allready included in ethical class 1.

[ QUOTE ]
It then makes sense to talk of how great the selfless component of an act is and to characterise people whose values lead them to more class 2 actions as less selfish than those who are led to class 1 actions.

[/ QUOTE ] I want to say something to this. When you reply to me requote this.

[ QUOTE ]
but that's a statement about your values. Its not saying that others don't have alturistic values. If I could save someone from drowning (at a small but real risk to myself) then I would. That's it I would fullstop. Its a pure class 2 action in my book, I save the person from drowing purely because I value my own value of valuing others.

[/ QUOTE ] This is what AR would says in "The virtue of selfishness"

The psychological results of altruism may be observed in the fact that a great many people approach the subject of ethics by asking such questions as: “Should one risk one’s life to help a man who is: a) drowning, b) trapped in a fire, c) stepping in front of a speeding truck, d) hanging by his fingernails over an abyss?”
Consider the implications of that approach. If a man ac*cepts the ethics of altruism, he suffers the following conse*quences (in proportion to the degree of his acceptance):
1. Lack of self-esteem—since his first concern in the realm of values is not how to live his life, but how to sacri*fice it.
2. Lack of respect for others—since he regards mankind as a herd of doomed beggars crying for someone’s help.
3. A nightmare view of existence—since he believes that men are trapped in a “malevolent universe” where disasters are the constant and primary concern of their lives.
4. And, in fact, a lethargic indifference to ethics, a hope*lessly cynical amorality—since his questions involve situa*tions which he is not likely ever to encounter, which bear no relation to the actual problems of his own life and thus leave him to live without any moral principles whatever.
By elevating the issue of helping others into the central and primary issue of ethics, altruism has destroyed the con*cept of any authentic benevolence or good will among men.


and

Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him. In the above example, his wife’s survival is of greater value to the husband than anything else that his money could buy, it is of greatest importance to his own happiness and, therefore, his action is not a sacrifice.
But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him—as the ethics of altruism would re*quire. That would be a sacrifice. Here the difference be*tween Objectivism and altruism can be seen most clearly: if sacrifice is the moral principle of action, then that husband should sacrifice his wife for the sake of ten other women. What distinguishes the wife from the ten others? Nothing but her value to the husband who has to make the choice—nothing but the fact that his happiness requires her survival.
The Objectivist ethics would tell him: your highest moral purpose is the achievement of your own happiness, your money is yours, use it to save your wife, that is your moral right and your rational, moral choice.
Consider the soul of the altruistic moralist who would be prepared to tell that husband the opposite. (And then ask yourself whether altruism is motivated by benevolence.)

and

To illustrate this on the altruists’ favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one’s life no higher than that of any random stranger. (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for one’s sake, remembering that one’s life cannot be as valu*able to him as his own

She does stop there like you do. I do not. She states that what one should grant to a stranger is "respect and good will which one should grant to a human being in the name of the potential value he represents—until and unless he forfeits it." Fair enough, I just name the sociological reasons why one should do it. I believe both she and you ignore them.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Something wierd here. By giving money to charity, I mean exchanging something of lessor value (money) for something of greater value (righting injustice).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is that wierd?

[/ QUOTE ]
Only that you said the former wasn't ethical and the latter was, when I think they are the same thing. I think its still a confusion about duty ethics which none of you, me or Rand believe is right.

I think the same is true for the chunk of Rand you quoted on Altruism. She is talking about a duty based alturism.

As soon as she starts talking about value based ethics her framework looks the same as mine. She talks about valuing someone else and their well-being (survival) being important to your happines. Hence some of our goals (things that make us happy) are about the well-being of other people.


[ QUOTE ]
She does stop there like you do. I do not. She states that what one should grant to a stranger is "respect and good will which one should grant to a human being in the name of the potential value he represents—until and unless he forfeits it." Fair enough, I just name the sociological reasons why one should do it. I believe both she and you ignore them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you. Having recognised that the reason we value other people is because there's a benefit to society (and hence ourselves) in mutual cooperation then it makes sense to behave as if we valued people when in fact we don't. This would be a case of a class 1 action but may look like a class 2 action.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It then makes sense to talk of how great the selfless component of an act is and to characterise people whose values lead them to more class 2 actions as less selfish than those who are led to class 1 actions.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want to say something to this. When you reply to me requote this.


[/ QUOTE ]
As requested.

chez

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
It does not ask anybody to believe anything on faith, just the opposite. It also rejects any supernatural concepts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rejecting supernatural concepts is not an act of faith?

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Rejecting supernatural concepts is not an act of faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. The skeptic doesn't have the burden of proof.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does by my survival she include the survival of that which is important to me even to the detriment of my own personal survival?


[/ QUOTE ] Yes, not in the way you think tho, she stays away from sacrafice. If you value the survival of something important to you more so than your own survival, this is not a sacrafice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based off of the limited information you pointed me to (please provide more websites, if you can), it doesn't seem that she "stays away from sacrifice", but states that sacrifice of your life is not good:

From the website you linked to:

[ QUOTE ]
Man's mind requires selfishness, and so does his life in every aspect: a living organism has to be the beneficiary of its own actions. It has to pursue specific objects—for itself, for its own sake and survival. Life requires the gaining of values, not their loss; achievement, not renunciation; self-preservation, not self-sacrifice.

Moral selfishness does not mean a license to do whatever one pleases, guided by whims. It means the exacting discipline of defining and pursuing one's rational self-interest. A code of rational self-interest rejects every form of human sacrifice, whether of oneself to others or of others to oneself.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, that would be one objection I have to Objecvitist Morality, which is really one aspect of a broader objection: whereas Objectivist Morality says that man's highest moral goal would be to survive, I would say that his highest moral goal would be to increase happiness. And, if happiness is most increased by his self-sacrifice, then that is the right moral action.

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
The skeptic doesn't have the burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

The skeptic can just believe?

[DougShrapnel]

Chez I'm not sure if the differences in ethics between you and AR are of a real importance. Much less so that I truely understand them. [ QUOTE ]
Hence some of our goals (things that make us happy) are about the well-being of other people.


[/ QUOTE ] I think when you try to saperate them, when you try to say that our goals are about the well-being of other people, does the difference become clear. I have yet to see you do this, but I think that you may wish to. I think that if you wish to make the statement that our values are about the well-being of others without qualifying them in your own personal heirachy of values is what AR is against.

[ QUOTE ]
As soon as she starts talking about value based ethics her framework looks the same as mine.

[/ QUOTE ] Right.

[ QUOTE ]
As soon as she starts talking about value based ethics her framework looks the same as mine.

[/ QUOTE ] I am more so inclined to state that the differences between yours, mine, and AR's ethic regarding altruism are minimal and may only be semantical.

[ QUOTE ]
It then makes sense to talk of how great the selfless component of an act is and to characterise people whose values lead them to more class 2 actions as less selfish than those who are led to class 1 actions.


[/ QUOTE ] There is merit to what you say, but It may need to be qualified in terms of the values and life experiences one has in order to have some many class 2 actions be correct. It's not the class 2 actions are ethical in and of themselves. It's the heirachy of values that you use to arrive at the class 2 type actions that gives the class 2 actions it's morality. If you agree with these statements than I'm sure that we aren't argueing about anything other than presentation style.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
The skeptic can just believe?

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... the skeptic DOESN'T believe. The skeptic has no belief in the "supernatural" until there is reason to have it.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that his highest moral goal would be to increase happiness. And, if happiness is most increased by his self-sacrifice, then that is the right moral action.


[/ QUOTE ]

Rand stated in several writings that there *are* conditions where giving up one's own life is justified. Those conditions are such that a person would not want to live anymore should they not act. For instance, through some tragedy, you are alive with your child but with only enough food for the child to survive. Rand would argue that in this case it's perfectly justified to starve yourself in order to save your child, since you wouldn't want to starve your child in order to live. Life wouldn't be worth it in that condition. Rand argued that the highest goal of a person is to "live", *not* to "survive". She made a distinction between the two.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does by my survival she include the survival of that which is important to me even to the detriment of my own personal survival?


[/ QUOTE ] Yes, not in the way you think tho, she stays away from sacrafice. If you value the survival of something important to you more so than your own survival, this is not a sacrafice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based off of the limited information you pointed me to (please provide more websites, if you can), it doesn't seem that she "stays away from sacrifice", but states that sacrifice of your life is not good:

From the website you linked to:

[ QUOTE ]
Man's mind requires selfishness, and so does his life in every aspect: a living organism has to be the beneficiary of its own actions. It has to pursue specific objects—for itself, for its own sake and survival. Life requires the gaining of values, not their loss; achievement, not renunciation; self-preservation, not self-sacrifice.

Moral selfishness does not mean a license to do whatever one pleases, guided by whims. It means the exacting discipline of defining and pursuing one's rational self-interest. A code of rational self-interest rejects every form of human sacrifice, whether of oneself to others or of others to oneself.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, that would be one objection I have to Objecvitist Morality, which is really one aspect of a broader objection: whereas Objectivist Morality says that man's highest moral goal would be to survive, I would say that his highest moral goal would be to increase happiness. And, if happiness is most increased by his self-sacrifice, then that is the right moral action.

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah I meant that she states that sacrifice is immoral, or at the very least so defines it into imorality.

As DDT stated and as AR states happiness is part of your survival it is your highest value.

I'll just post the entire 3rd chapter of The Virture of Selfishness. I am not an expert in Objectivist ethics. And I certainly don't wish to confuse AR idea's with my own.

The psychological results of altruism may be observed in the fact that a great many people approach the subject of ethics by asking such questions as: “Should one risk one’s life to help a man who is: a) drowning, b) trapped in a fire, c) stepping in front of a speeding truck, d) hanging by his fingernails over an abyss?”
Consider the implications of that approach. If a man ac*cepts the ethics of altruism, he suffers the following conse*quences (in proportion to the degree of his acceptance):
1. Lack of self-esteem—since his first concern in the realm of values is not how to live his life, but how to sacri*fice it.
2. Lack of respect for others—since he regards mankind as a herd of doomed beggars crying for someone’s help.
3. A nightmare view of existence—since he believes that men are trapped in a “malevolent universe” where disasters are the constant and primary concern of their lives.
4. And, in fact, a lethargic indifference to ethics, a hope*lessly cynical amorality—since his questions involve situa*tions which he is not likely ever to encounter, which bear no relation to the actual problems of his own life and thus leave him to live without any moral principles whatever.
By elevating the issue of helping others into the central and primary issue of ethics, altruism has destroyed the con*cept of any authentic benevolence or good will among men. It has indoctrinated men with the idea that to value another human being is an act of selflessness, thus implying that a man can have no personal interest in others—that to value another means to sacrifice oneself—that any love, respect or admiration a man may feel for others is not and cannot be a source of his own enjoyment, but is a threat to his existence, a sacrificial blank check signed over to his loved ones.
The men who accept that dichotomy but choose its other side, the ultimate products of altruism’s dehumanizing influ*ence, are those psychopaths who do not challenge altruism’s basic premise, but proclaim their rebellion against self-sacrifice by announcing that they are totally indifferent to anything living and would not lift a finger to help a man or a dog left mangled by a hit-and-run driver (who is usually one of their own kind).
Most men do not accept or practice either side of altru*ism’s viciously false dichotomy, but its result is a total intel*lectual chaos on the issue of proper human relationships and on such questions as the nature, purpose or extent of the help one may give to others. Today, a great many well-meaning, reasonable men do not know how to identify or conceptualize the moral principles that motivate their love, affection or good will, and can find no guidance in the field of ethics, which is dominated by the stale platitudes of altruism.
On the question of why man is not a sacrificial animal and why help to others is not his moral duty, I refer you to Atlas Shrugged. This present discussion is concerned with the principles by which one identifies and evaluates the in*stances involving a man’s nonsacrificial help to others.
“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, re*nounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one.
This applies to all choices, including one’s actions toward other men. It requires that one possess a defined hierarchy of rational values (values chosen and validated by a rational standard). Without such a hierarchy, neither rational con*duct nor considered value judgments nor moral choices are possible.
Love and friendship are profoundly personal, selfish val*ues: love is an expression and assertion of self-esteem, a response to one’s own values in the person of another. One gains a profoundly personal, selfish joy from the mere exis*tence of the person one loves. It is one’s own personal, selfish happiness that one seeks, earns and derives from love.
A “selfless,” “disinterested” love is a contradiction in terms: it means that one is indifferent to that which one values.
Concern for the welfare of those one loves is a rational part of one’s selfish interests. If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dan*gerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a “sacrifice” for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies.
Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him. In the above example, his wife’s survival is of greater value to the husband than anything else that his money could buy, it is of greatest importance to his own happiness and, therefore, his action is not a sacrifice.
But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him—as the ethics of altruism would re*quire. That would be a sacrifice. Here the difference be*tween Objectivism and altruism can be seen most clearly: if sacrifice is the moral principle of action, then that husband should sacrifice his wife for the sake of ten other women. What distinguishes the wife from the ten others? Nothing but her value to the husband who has to make the choice—nothing but the fact that his happiness requires her survival.
The Objectivist ethics would tell him: your highest moral purpose is the achievement of your own happiness, your money is yours, use it to save your wife, that is your moral right and your rational, moral choice.
Consider the soul of the altruistic moralist who would be prepared to tell that husband the opposite. (And then ask yourself whether altruism is motivated by benevolence.)

The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness.
To illustrate this on the altruists’ favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one’s life no higher than that of any random stranger. (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for one’s sake, remembering that one’s life cannot be as valu*able to him as his own.)
If the person to be saved is not a stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that person’s value to oneself. If it is the man or woman one loves, then one can be willing to give one’s own life to save him or her—for the selfish reason that life without the loved person could be unbearable.
Conversely, if a man is able to swim and to save his drowning wife, but becomes panicky, gives in to an unjusti*fied, irrational fear and lets her drown, then spends his life in loneliness and misery—one would not call him “selfish”; one would condemn him morally for his treason to himself and to his own values, that is: his failure to fight for the preservation of a value crucial to his own happiness. Re*member that values are that which one acts to gain and/or keep, and that one’s own happiness has to be achieved by one’s own effort. Since one’s own happiness is the moral purpose of one’s life, the man who fails to achieve it be*cause of his own default, because of his failure to fight for it, is morally guilty.
The virtue involved in helping those one loves is not “self*lessness” or “sacrifice,” but integrity. Integrity is loyalty to one’s convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality. If a man professes to love a woman, yet his actions are indifferent, inimical or damaging to her, it is his lack of integrity that makes him immoral.
The same principle applies to relationships among friends. If one’s friend is in trouble, one should act to help him by whatever nonsacrificial means are appropriate. For instance, if one’s friend is starving, it is not a sacrifice, but an act of integrity to give him money for food rather than buy some insignificant gadget for oneself, because his welfare is important in the scale of one’s personal values. If the gadget means more than the friend’s suffering, one had no business pretending to be his friend.
The practical implementation of friendship, affection and love consists of incorporating the welfare (the rational wel*fare) of the person involved into one’s own hierarchy of values, then acting accordingly.
But this is a reward which men have to earn by means of their virtues and which one cannot grant to mere acquain*tances or strangers.
What, then, should one properly grant to strangers? The generalized respect and good will which one should grant to a human being in the name of the potential value he represents—until and unless he forfeits it.
A rational man does not forget that life is the source of all values and, as such, a common bond among living beings (as against inanimate matter), that other men are potentially able to achieve the same virtues as his own and thus be of enormous value to him. This does not mean that he regards human lives as interchangeable with his own. He recognizes the fact that his own life is the source, not only of all his values, but of his capacity to value. Therefore, the value he grants to others is only a consequence, an extension, a secondary projection of the primary value which is himself.
“The respect and good will that men of self-esteem feel toward other human beings is profoundly egoistic; they feel, in effect: ‘Other men are of value because they are of the same species as myself.’ In revering living entities, they are revering their own life. This is the psychological base of any emotion of sympathy and any feeling of ‘species solidarity.’ ”[4]
Since men are born tabula rasa, both cognitively and mor*ally, a rational man regards strangers as innocent until proved guilty, and grants them that initial good will in the name of their human potential. After that, he judges them according to the moral character they have actualized. If he finds them guilty of major evils, his good will is replaced by contempt and moral condemnation. (If one values human life, one cannot value its destroyers.) If he finds them to be virtuous, he grants them personal, individual value and appreciation, in proportion to their virtues.
It is on the ground of that generalized good will and re*spect for the value of human life that one helps strangers in an emergency—and only in an emergency.
It is important to differentiate between the rules of con*duct in an emergency situation and the rules of conduct in the normal conditions of human existence. This does not mean a double standard of morality: the standard and the basic principles remain the same, but their application to either case requires precise definitions.
An emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible—such as a flood, an earthquake, a fire, a ship*wreck. In an emergency situation, men’s primary goal is to combat the disaster, escape the danger and restore normal conditions (to reach dry land, to put out the fire, etc.).
By “normal” conditions I mean metaphysically normal, normal in the nature of things, and appropriate to human existence. Men can live on land, but not in water or in a raging fire. Since men are not omnipotent, it is metaphysi*cally possible for unforeseeable disasters to strike them, in which case their only task is to return to those conditions under which their lives can continue. By its nature, an emer*gency situation is temporary; if it were to last, men would perish.
It is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers, if it is in one’s power. For instance, a man who values human life and is caught in a shipwreck, should help to save his fellow passengers (though not at the expense of his own life). But this does not mean that after they all reach shore, he should devote his efforts to saving his fellow passengers from poverty, ignorance, neurosis or whatever other troubles they might have. Nor does it mean that he should spend his life sailing the seven seas in search of shipwreck victims to save.
Or to take an example that can occur in everyday life: suppose one hears that the man next door is ill and penni*less. Illness and poverty are not metaphysical emergencies, they are part of the normal risks of existence; but since the man is temporarily helpless, one may bring him food and medicine, if one can afford it (as an act of good will, not of duty) or one may raise a fund among the neighbors to help him out. But this does not mean that one must support him from then on, nor that one must spend one’s life look*ing for starving men to help.
In the normal conditions of existence, man has to choose his goals, project them in time, pursue them and achieve them by his own effort. He cannot do it if his goals are at the mercy of and must be sacrificed to any misfortune hap*pening to others. He cannot live his life by the guidance of rules applicable only to conditions under which human sur*vival is impossible.
The principle that one should help men in an emergency cannot be extended to regard all human suffering as an emergency and to turn the misfortune of some into a first mortgage on the lives of others.
Poverty, ignorance, illness and other problems of that kind are not metaphysical emergencies. By the metaphysical nature of man and of existence, man has to maintain his life by his own effort; the values he needs—such as wealth or knowledge—are not given to him automatically, as a gift of nature, but have to be discovered and achieved by his own thinking and work. One’s sole obligation toward oth*ers, in this respect, is to maintain a social system that leaves men free to achieve, to gain and to keep their values.
Every code of ethics is based on and derived from a metaphysics, that is: from a theory about the fundamental nature of the universe in which man lives and acts. The altruist ethics is based on a “malevolent universe” metaphysics, on the theory that man, by his very nature, is helpless and doomed—that success, happiness, achievement are impossi*ble to him—that emergencies, disasters, catastrophes are the norm of his life and that his primary goal is to combat them.
As the simplest empirical refutation of that metaphysics—as evidence of the fact that the material universe is not inimical to man and that catastrophes are the exception, not the rule of his existence—observe the fortunes made by insurance companies.
Observe also that the advocates of altruism are unable to base their ethics on any facts of men’s normal existence and that they always offer “lifeboat” situations as examples from which to derive the rules of moral conduct. (“What should you do if you and another man are in a lifeboat that can carry only one?” etc.)
The fact is that men do not live in lifeboats—and that a lifeboat is not the place on which to base one’s metaphysics.
The moral purpose of a man’s life is the achievement of his own happiness. This does not mean that he is indifferent to all men, that human life is of no value to him and that he has no reason to help others in an emergency. But it does mean that he does not subordinate his life to the welfare of others, that he does not sacrifice himself to their needs, that the relief of their suffering is not his primary concern, that any help he gives is an exception, not a rule, an act of generosity, not of moral duty, that it is marginal and inci*dental—as disasters are marginal and incidental in the course of human existence—and that values, not disasters, are the goal, the first concern and the motive power of his life."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would say that his highest moral goal would be to increase happiness. And, if happiness is most increased by his self-sacrifice, then that is the right moral action.


[/ QUOTE ]

Rand stated in several writings that there *are* conditions where giving up one's own life is justified. Those conditions are such that a person would not want to live anymore should they not act. For instance, through some tragedy, you are alive with your child but with only enough food for the child to survive. Rand would argue that in this case it's perfectly justified to starve yourself in order to save your child, since you wouldn't want to starve your child in order to live. Life wouldn't be worth it in that condition.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would seem to be a contradiction to website I quoted, then. Can you provide a better resouce with more accurate information than the one DTT did?

[ QUOTE ]
Rand argued that the highest goal of a person is to "live", *not* to "survive". She made a distinction between the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a very convenient distinction of those two words, I suppose. If I pressed to get a firm definition of "live" from an Objectivist, would I pretty much be back to "happiness"? If so, then why equivocate? Just say "happiness" (or whatever else you mean). When you say "live", most people will think you mean "stay alive" -- which is the same as "survive".

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
The skeptic has no belief in the "supernatural" until there is reason to have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

By which you mean the skeptic has no opinion on the "supernatural" or denies it's existance until proven otherwise?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Chez I'm not sure if the differences in ethics between you and AR are of a real importance. Much less so that I truely understand them. [ QUOTE ]
Hence some of our goals (things that make us happy) are about the well-being of other people.


[/ QUOTE ] I think when you try to saperate them, when you try to say that our goals are about the well-being of other people, does the difference become clear. I have yet to see you do this, but I think that you may wish to. I think that if you wish to make the statement that our values are about the well-being of others without qualifying them in your own personal heirachy of values is what AR is against.

[ QUOTE ]
As soon as she starts talking about value based ethics her framework looks the same as mine.

[/ QUOTE ] Right.

[ QUOTE ]
As soon as she starts talking about value based ethics her framework looks the same as mine.

[/ QUOTE ] I am more so inclined to state that the differences between yours, mine, and AR's ethic regarding altruism are minimal and may only be semantical.

[ QUOTE ]
It then makes sense to talk of how great the selfless component of an act is and to characterise people whose values lead them to more class 2 actions as less selfish than those who are led to class 1 actions.


[/ QUOTE ] There is merit to what you say, but It may need to be qualified in terms of the values and life experiences one has in order to have some many class 2 actions be correct. It's not the class 2 actions are ethical in and of themselves. It's the heirachy of values that you use to arrive at the class 2 type actions that gives the class 2 actions it's morality. If you agree with these statements than I'm sure that we aren't argueing about anything other than presentation style.

[/ QUOTE ]

Been interesting. I think there is far more agreement than differences which, as you, say are largly semantic.

The two key ares I'm unsure about are:

1)exactly what she means by survival. I'm wondering if there is a philosophical component of survival of self into the future.

2) This hierachy of values. Because I believe values have structure (or at least ethical actions have structure) its not obvious that they can be ordered into a useful hierachy. Sometimes its obvious whats best but in normal practise when people offer some sort of ordering of the value of action it looks contrived and any outcome can be justified.

chez

[jthegreat]

Doesn't believe in it until there's a reason.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a very convenient distinction of those two words, I suppose. If I pressed to get a firm definition of "live" from an Objectivist, would I pretty much be back to "happiness"? If so, then why equivocate? Just say "happiness" (or whatever else you mean). When you say "live", most people will think you mean "stay alive" -- which is the same as "survive".

[/ QUOTE ]

To "live" according to Rand is to live and be happy. I don't remember where she wrote this, specifically, and I'd have to look it up. But that's what she said.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's a very convenient distinction of those two words, I suppose. If I pressed to get a firm definition of "live" from an Objectivist, would I pretty much be back to "happiness"? If so, then why equivocate? Just say "happiness" (or whatever else you mean). When you say "live", most people will think you mean "stay alive" -- which is the same as "survive".

[/ QUOTE ]

To "live" according to Rand is to live and be happy. I don't remember where she wrote this, specifically, and I'd have to look it up. But that's what she said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha. I find that amusing. That's like saying: "To 'eat', means to eat and like it." She should try not to equivocate. She should just say "be happy". Obviously, you have to live to "be happy"... and since she say's it would be better to die if you can't live and be happy, then being happy is the superior value.

[deepdowntruth]

[ QUOTE ]
To "live" according to Rand is to live and be happy. I don't remember where she wrote this, specifically, and I'd have to look it up. But that's what she said.

[/ QUOTE ]

No she didn't. Ironically, this type of response almost exactly fits the characterization of Objectivists in the original post of this thread and my response to it.

If you want to defend AR, know what you are talking about; and if you are going to say that she said something or other, be prepared to cite a reference. Otherwise, you are doing her a worse injustice than the most virulent of her detractors.

Incidentally, Ayn Rand never said that to be alive *means* to be alive and to be happy. Many people are alive and miserable. Some things that are alive aren't people and don't have the capacity. Moral virtue doesn't guarantee happiness either, though it is a necessary--and the overwhelmingly primary--condition. For an example from AR's fiction of this, see the character of Leo Kovalensky in We The Living. For a real life example, see any rational person living under a totalitarian regime. Clearly you need to read or re-read Peikoff's chapter on "Happiness" in OPAR.

For reasons such as this kind of misrepresentation, I will not get involved in responding to anything other than a reply to one of my posts. Otherwise, I'm responding to responses to mistaken characterizations. It is too much work for too little payoff to not only persuade her opponents but also to correct her defenders.

P.S. It is generally a waste of time for anyone to get their knowledge of a controversial subject from random and essentially anonymous posters on the internet when the source material is 1.) readily available, 2.) intellectually accessible, 3.) stands alone and speaks for itself. In so doing, you are making a judgement of the issue in question based on the very possibly mistaken interpretation of a person whose authority and quality of understanding is unknown to you.

I would urge anyone here who has not read AR's works (and that of a few affiliated authors) regarding the topics in question to do so and to decide for yourself whether her ideas are true and important or not. To those ask, I will be happy to provide references to sources on any topic Ayn Rand discussed.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I will not get involved in responding to anything other than a reply to one of my posts. Otherwise, I'm responding to responses to mistaken characterizations. It is too much work for too little payoff to not only persuade her opponents but also to correct her defenders.



[/ QUOTE ]

Could you respond to these 2 questions as I wish not to give my own view of ethics since he is asking specificaly about AR.

[ QUOTE ]
1)exactly what she means by survival. I'm wondering if there is a philosophical component of survival of self into the future.

2) This hierachy of values. Because I believe values have structure (or at least ethical actions have structure) its not obvious that they can be ordered into a useful hierachy. Sometimes its obvious whats best but in normal practise when people offer some sort of ordering of the value of action it looks contrived and any outcome can be justified.


[/ QUOTE ] I don't know the answer to #1

For #2 I've gotten as far to understand that mans highest value is his life, his survival. Every other value comes from this and is a means to this end. But I have yet to find other levels to her philosophy.

[DougShrapnel]

Yes it has been very interesting, I have tried to get DDT to answer these specific questions regarding AR philosphy, because I think he can do it better.

I think we will find AR's heirarcy of values lacking. And I'm loooking forward to our debate over what this heirarchy should consist of. A new thread for that tho.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, Ayn Rand never said that to be alive *means* to be alive and to be happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

No [censored]. You took what I said out of context. She *did* write that when people want to live, "live" in this context means MORE than simply *being* alive. That's what I meant. Simply being physically alive is *not* the primary goal of a rational human being. My copy of The Virtue of Selfishness is with a friend right now, but I believe that's where she wrote this. She also alludes to it when writing of a "sense of life" in The Romantic Manifesto.

In the future, don't be such a dick when you respond to people's posts, especially when you've misunderstood them. You come off a total ass, even when it's clear that you're knowledgeable on the subject. It's counterproductive.

[ QUOTE ]
To those ask, I will be happy to provide references to sources on any topic Ayn Rand discussed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I asked for some reference material on the web. The one URL you gave didn't have much information. I responded to it, though, and you have not responded to that post (instead, you responded to the person who responded to my post, which, as you said, was counter-productive).

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
That would seem to be a contradiction to website I quoted, then. Can you provide a better resouce with more accurate information than the one DTT did?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is as good as I can do online. http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/q-and-a-answer.asp?QuestionID=102

[ QUOTE ]
Objectivism has the tradition that suicide might be justified in circumstances when life, or human life, was truly impossible. Ayn Rand illustrated this in Atlas Shrugged by John Galt's willingness to submit to torture and presumably death rather than betray his love or serve an evil system of government. Common examples are life in a torture-camp such as a gulag, or life with a terminal, highly debilitating, and highly painful illness.



[/ QUOTE ]

As DDT said, you should really read her work directly if you're interested.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes it has been very interesting, I have tried to get DDT to answer these specific questions regarding AR philosphy, because I think he can do it better.

I think we will find AR's heirarcy of values lacking. And I'm loooking forward to our debate over what this heirarchy should consist of. A new thread for that tho.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hopefully others will join without insisting we study Rand's work first.

I don't understand why people insist on going back to the original work, I agree its useful and interesting but its not necessary or very efficient. Lively dialog with some informed people chipping in is the best way imo.

Ideas stand seperate from the people who first described them . No-one suggest you have to study Einstein's writings to learn relativity.

chez

[jthegreat]

Kip, I provided a source. You ignoring it or what?

Just read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" and you will know all you need to know about Objectivism.<p>

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Just read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" and you will know all you need to know about Objectivism.<p>

[/ QUOTE ]AS is way to long, which is OK if everything in it was necessary to understanding rands philosophy. But I'm not sure if there isn't just a bunch of extra stuff or if rand is on the right track regarding ethics.

She is in a way but her adherants have taken it to a quasi-religious level as you put it.

For instance, they do not believe in love per se'. They believe that you fall "in love" because you get something from the other person. If you didn't get something out of the deal then you would not be "in love".

I find this (While perhaps technically accurate.) to be grotesque. I also find it to be incorrect. I will give you another example.

Suppose you choose to be in the Secret Service which means you will sacrifice yourself for another. An objectivist would say that you are deriving self-worth from your job therefore it is your selfish desire for validation that leads you to this career.

In a certain sense they are correct but they have gone overboard and I agree with you. What I meant is that the only thing of value I find regarding Objectivism was in these books and I dismiss the whole movement afterwards.

There are such things as compassion and altruism in my world. Perhaps folks can qualify them in an objectivist manner but I don't. I do things I hate which have no value to me all the time. A Randian would say "That's because you do it out of YOUR own sense of honor." Again, technically to the most sophist level of argument true but not true to me.

Does that make any sense?

[ QUOTE ]
Kip, I provided a source. You ignoring it or what?

[/ QUOTE ]
I looked at it. Anything particular you want me to see? The intra-Objectivist bickering kinda distracted me.

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, they do not believe in love per se'. They believe that you fall "in love" because you get something from the other person. If you didn't get something out of the deal then you would not be "in love". I find this (While perhaps technically accurate.) to be grotesque.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are obviously not very intellectually honest if you find sometghing that you think may be "technically accurate" as being "grotesque". I see nothing grotesque about the statement you just quoted, its just raw common sense, not romanticized silliness.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, technically to the most sophist level of argument true but not true to me.

Does that make any sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[jthegreat]

Kip, I wanted you to see that Rand did, indeed, say that there are conditions that justify giving up one's own life.

You know... the original question you asked...

Perhaps I am a romantic at heart then and not so intellectually honest.

I don't mind. Grotesque was a little bit strong. I agree with your critique of me but sometimes nobility can just be noble and doesn't have to be selfish. Maybe the Objectivists can find a better term?

As I said, when people sacrifice things to help others, it may give them a good feeling to help others but it doesn't GAIN them anything.

I know I am splitting hairs here and I admitted as much so in a sense I am being intellectually honest.

You are right, I am wrong but to turn compassion and selflessness into selfishness just seems wrong to me. When I do these things, I am not seeking to gain anything. Maybe "Spiritual Selfishness" or "Emotional Selfishness" may be a better term.

However, I don't think the definition of selfish fits me. If it is selfish of me to donate money and time and sometimes my own well being to help others, then so be it.

In other words, I agree with the core of what you are saying, but I don't like the semantics of it.

Is that OK or do I have to declare myself a Selfish guy who donates to charities, serves in the Military, and helps the needy? That basically re-writes the definition of selfish.

Perhaps we need to have "Good" selfish and "Bad" Selfish?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I accept evolution as the casue all my values and I agree with you as to how it came about that I value others. You then make a leap to some inherent goodness of the cause of my values and I don't think that leap is justified. If my saving someone from drowning purely because I value others is destroying something then I don't value the thing that is being destroyed - why should I (perhaps more important, would Rand and why?)


[/ QUOTE ] I missed this the 1st time around, or I missed the point of it. Can I get a link that describes what you are talking about similiar to the link you gave in a different thread about Russells meme's.

I already replied to that.

[DougShrapnel]

jthegreat, It makes it hard to follow these things when you click the reply to a post that you aren't actually replying to. I've noticed that you are clinking a post and reply to someone else.

[ QUOTE ]

In other words, I agree with the core of what you are saying, but I don't like the semantics of it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Deal with it. Your need to show that your acts of goodness are not selfish just provides further evidence that they are indeed selfish in some way since you feel slighted when they are said to be selfish.

This doesn't imply that "good deeds" are wrong or of any less value. I am honest enough with myself to know that I enjoy helping others and feel better about myself for it. I also think its good to do, and thus, I feel that I am contributing to the general "good" and that honor, satisfaction, etc. is part of the equation.

I am glad that you want to be "unselfish" and help others. To say that such acts are "selfish" in some way is not a slight, it is actually a compliment because it implies that helping others pleases you more than the money or time would have otherwise. If these acts were truly unselfish and you gained nothing at all from them, then you were merely acted as a form of reluctant duty, and I don't see how this is more worthy.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I am a romantic at heart then and not so intellectually honest.

I don't mind. Grotesque was a little bit strong. I agree with your critique of me but sometimes nobility can just be noble and doesn't have to be selfish. Maybe the Objectivists can find a better term?

As I said, when people sacrifice things to help others, it may give them a good feeling to help others but it doesn't GAIN them anything.

I know I am splitting hairs here and I admitted as much so in a sense I am being intellectually honest.

You are right, I am wrong but to turn compassion and selflessness into selfishness just seems wrong to me. When I do these things, I am not seeking to gain anything. Maybe "Spiritual Selfishness" or "Emotional Selfishness" may be a better term.

However, I don't think the definition of selfish fits me. If it is selfish of me to donate money and time and sometimes my own well being to help others, then so be it.

In other words, I agree with the core of what you are saying, but I don't like the semantics of it.

Is that OK or do I have to declare myself a Selfish guy who donates to charities, serves in the Military, and helps the needy? That basically re-writes the definition of selfish.

Perhaps we need to have "Good" selfish and "Bad" Selfish?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the problem is an illusion. Rand's objectivism makes sense to me but it isn't inconsistent with caring about other people in the way you mean.

Nothing in Objectivism prevents other people happiness being one of the things that makes us happy, love is just the extreme example of this. All makes good sense from an evolutionary point of view.

The problem is that 'religous' objectivists assume that all our goals are purely about ourselves. This assumption certainly could be wrong and imo is wrong. I doubt Rand made this mistake.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I accept evolution as the casue all my values and I agree with you as to how it came about that I value others. You then make a leap to some inherent goodness of the cause of my values and I don't think that leap is justified. If my saving someone from drowning purely because I value others is destroying something then I don't value the thing that is being destroyed - why should I (perhaps more important, would Rand and why?)


[/ QUOTE ] I missed this the 1st time around, or I missed the point of it. Can I get a link that describes what you are talking about similiar to the link you gave in a different thread about Russells meme's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, all my own work (which is probably why it doesn't make sense /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

I think I explained my view better in the other thread but the point about saving the drowning boy is that I'm not going to let the boy drown because of someone elses opinion on values. I think Rand must agree with this, just as she would agree that I shouldn't try to save the boy if its more important to me that I dont take the risk of drowning.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I accept evolution as the casue all my values and I agree with you as to how it came about that I value others. You then make a leap to some inherent goodness of the cause of my values and I don't think that leap is justified. If my saving someone from drowning purely because I value others is destroying something then I don't value the thing that is being destroyed - why should I (perhaps more important, would Rand and why?)


[/ QUOTE ] I missed this the 1st time around, or I missed the point of it. Can I get a link that describes what you are talking about similiar to the link you gave in a different thread about Russells meme's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, all my own work (which is probably why it doesn't make sense /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

I think I explained my view better in the other thread but the point about saving the drowning boy is that I'm not going to let the boy drown because of someone elses opinion on values. I think Rand must agree with this, just as she would agree that I shouldn't try to save the boy if its more important to me that I dont take the risk of drowning.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]OK it's just that your explanation in the other thread I don't think that I could have understood parts of it without reading the link you gave about. Was hoping there was something else written about this phenomena that better explained this position. Particularly this [ QUOTE ]
You then make a leap to some inherent goodness of the cause of my values and I don't think that leap is justified.

[/ QUOTE ]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You then make a leap to some inherent goodness of the cause of my values and I don't think that leap is justified.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[/ QUOTE ]

If evolution is the cause of my values it doesn't follow that evolution has any values. (I'm sure NotReady would agree)

chez

[jthegreat]

Kip, you need to read The Virtue of Selfishness. That will give you a good understanding of everything she means. You're not clear on all of it and it's pretty detailed stuff so it's hard to explain on the fly.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You then make a leap to some inherent goodness of the cause of my values and I don't think that leap is justified.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[/ QUOTE ]

If evolution is the cause of my values it doesn't follow that evolution has any values. (I'm sure NotReady would agree)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]If your values are valuable for your survival, in the rand sense of the word, then it is Good. That is, at least how I understand ojectivist ethics.

Well, I already said I agree with you.

So what more can I say. We do not disagree over anything worthwhile so I concede.

I liked your last sentance as well.

Off to Poker Stars!

Noted above sir.

I will take my leave to play Poker. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You then make a leap to some inherent goodness of the cause of my values and I don't think that leap is justified.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[/ QUOTE ]

If evolution is the cause of my values it doesn't follow that evolution has any values. (I'm sure NotReady would agree)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]If your values are valuable for your survival, in the rand sense of the word, then it is Good. That is, at least how I understand ojectivist ethics.

[/ QUOTE ]
By that I assume Rand means that there is no good other than that which I value.

Is that wrong?

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You then make a leap to some inherent goodness of the cause of my values and I don't think that leap is justified.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[/ QUOTE ]

If evolution is the cause of my values it doesn't follow that evolution has any values. (I'm sure NotReady would agree)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]If your values are valuable for your survival, in the rand sense of the word, then it is Good. That is, at least how I understand ojectivist ethics.

[/ QUOTE ]
By that I assume Rand means that there is no good other than that which I value.

Is that wrong?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not sure if she approaches it that way, the highest value is life, survival. All other values exist for and of that highest value.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if she approaches it that way, the highest value is life, survival. All other values exist for and of that highest value.

[/ QUOTE ]

And by "life" / "survival", she means "live & be happy"... which really just means "be happy", since you have to be alive to be happy, but if you can't be happy and alive, then it's ok to be dead. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if she approaches it that way, the highest value is life, survival. All other values exist for and of that highest value.

[/ QUOTE ]

And by "life" / "survival", she means "live & be happy"... which really just means "be happy", since you have to be alive to be happy, but if you can't be happy and alive, then it's ok to be dead. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[/ QUOTE ]My understanding of the ojectivist ethics, doesn't reduce as cleanly as you are trying to make it out to. There is a distinct reason why AR uses survival as the basis for her ethical structure, if happiness was shown to have no benefit to survival her ethic would not include it.

[jthegreat]

Happiness is not a means to an end. It's a result, not a means.

The important point is that when Rand speaks of living, she means "living as a human being should". It's what she described as "man qua man".

These details are why it's important to go directly to the original source.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Happiness is not a means to an end. It's a result, not a means.

The important point is that when Rand speaks of living, she means "living as a human being should". It's what she described as "man qua man".

These details are why it's important to go directly to the original source.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not sure if when have an qualms.

Borrowed from another website
"When Rand says that life is the standard of value, she means this not only in an abstract sense but also in particicular reality: your life is the standard of value for you. Of value to whom and for what? To me and for my life as a whole. Thus she says that life is the standard of value (the life of man qua man), but that each individual person's life is his or her own purpose. My mission or purpose is: my own life and what I want to do with it."

This comes first, happiness is a secondary part to it.

Or in her own word
"The pleasure-pain mechanism in the body of man—and in the bodies of all the living organisms that possess the faculty of consciousness—serves as an automatic guardian of the organism’s life. The physical sensation of pleasure is a signal indicating that the organism is pursuing the right course of action. The physical sensation of pain is a warning signal of danger, indicating that the organism is pursuing the wrong course of action, that something is impairing the proper function of its body, which requires action to correct it."
The phsyical sensesation of happiness is good because it denotes a means to the end of survival. It marks correct actions that will lead to survival. In particularly rare cases where the physical sensesation was more of a malfunctioning compass of correct actions, she would I assume deny their validity. It is the correct actions that happiness results from, or is a consequence of that are the goals and values of ethics not the happiness itself.

[ QUOTE ]
"My mission or purpose is: my own life and what I want to do with it."

This comes first, happiness is a secondary part to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you want to do with it, is precisely that which increases your happiness. And, by happiness (mentioned previously), I don't mean ephemeral pleasure. I mean true happiness, contentment. Drugs make people "happy", but not truly happy (exceptions excluded).

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"My mission or purpose is: my own life and what I want to do with it."

This comes first, happiness is a secondary part to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you want to do with it, is precisely that which increases your happiness. And, by happiness (mentioned previously), I don't mean ephemeral pleasure. I mean true happiness, contentment. Drugs make people "happy", but not truly happy (exceptions excluded).

[/ QUOTE ]I'll be honest with you my understanding of Rand is lacking.
But againg using AR own words
[ QUOTE ]
To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose.

[/ QUOTE ] What you are saying.

[ QUOTE ]
Happiness is the successful state of life, suffering is the warning signal of failure, of death. Just as the pleasure-pain mechanism of man’s body is an automatic indicator of his body’s welfare or injury, a barometer of its basic alternative, life or death—so the emotional mechanism of man’s consciousness is geared to perform the same function, as a barometer that registers the same alternative by means of two basic emotions: joy or suffering.

[/ QUOTE ] What I am saying.

If, and it is a big if, maybe it's not even that big of an if but only a when, happiness doesn not denote a successful state of life, it is incorrect.

Or in her own words
[ QUOTE ]
If he chooses irrational values, he switches his emotional mecha*nism from the role of his guardian to the role of his de*stroyer

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values. If a man values pro*ductive work, his happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his life. But if a man values destruction, like a sadist—or self-torture, like a masochist—or life beyond the grave, like a mystic—or mindless “kicks,” like the driver of a hotrod car—his alleged happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his own destruction. It must be added that the emotional state of all those irrationalists can*not be properly designated as happiness or even as pleasure: it is merely a moment’s relief from their chronic state of terror.

[/ QUOTE ] AR seems to beleive that happiness is not happiness if, even tho it is the exact same emotional response, the effect of happiness is the destruction of life. The feeling of happiness is the goal only when the feeling of happiness is achived thru survival based actions. It's only real happiness when the effect is life flurishing or life surviving. You cannot, if you wish to describe AR's philosophy, cut out this survival asspect anywhere. It is the basis for everything that follows. Drugs make someone happy, but they can be detructive and aren't true happiness. Survival is the standard against where all actions, and emotions are judged. Happiness is good when it promotes survival, happiness is bad when it promotes destruction. Her philosophy works fine and great for people who's happiness acomplishes the survival goals, but doesn't for the rest of humanity who's happiness depends on bringing others down. I call them small pie minded people. There is a finite ammount of resources in the world, and in order to increase my share I must take from others or away from others. Or the converse that in order to mantian my happiness I must strugle to retain what I have. Any Rand is clearly a big pie person, there is an unlimited amount of resources in the world and everyone can take as much as they want, and it wouldn't affect anyone else.

[purnell]

OK, I'm finally gonna offer something in this thread. By my understanding of the word religion, objectivism can't be one because it does not invoke anything supernatural. It's a system of thought, a philosophy. However, it does seem to have a profound emotional effect on some of its adherents. Maybe this is because of the way it is presented, in the form of a narrative.

All this talk about it on here has piqued my interest (especially because it appears that Rand's highest value was the same as mine), so I went to my favorite used book store and dug up "Atlas Shrugged" and "For the New Intellectual". I was a bit taken aback when the woman at the checkout said AS was her favorite book and that she liked to read it whenever she felt down. I have alot of respect for this woman's intellect and her reaction was really surprising to me. I'll be reading them over the next few days (weeks, whatever, I'm not in a hurry).

I hope I can count on you guys to give me a vaccination if I catch some kind of thought virus from this stuff. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I'm finally gonna offer something in this thread. By my understanding of the word religion, objectivism can't be one because it does not invoke anything supernatural. It's a system of thought, a philosophy. However, it does seem to have a profound emotional effect on some of its adherents. Maybe this is because of the way it is presented, in the form of a narrative.

All this talk about it on here has piqued my interest (especially because it appears that Rand's highest value was the same as mine), so I went to my favorite used book store and dug up "Atlas Shrugged" and "For the New Intellectual". I was a bit taken aback when the woman at the checkout said AS was her favorite book and that she liked to read it whenever she felt down. I have alot of respect for this woman's intellect and her reaction was really surprising to me. I'll be reading them over the next few days (weeks, whatever, I'm not in a hurry).

I hope I can count on you guys to give me a vaccination if I catch some kind of thought virus from this stuff. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]If you can figure out the point of halley's 5th concerto, could you let me know? I've come to the conclusion that it's fluff

[ QUOTE ]
Survival is the standard against where all actions, and emotions are judged. Happiness is good when it promotes survival, happiness is bad when it promotes destruction.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that jive with Rand saying it's OK to sacrifice your life if you can't be happy living? It seems then, that your happiness is promoting destruction (of your own life).

Other than this seemingly contradictory position, the rest of what you said seems pretty good to me.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Survival is the standard against where all actions, and emotions are judged. Happiness is good when it promotes survival, happiness is bad when it promotes destruction.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does that jive with Rand saying it's OK to sacrifice your life if you can't be happy living? It seems then, that your happiness is promoting destruction (of your own life).

Other than this seemingly contradictory position, the rest of what you said seems pretty good to me.

[/ QUOTE ] She overcomes this contradiction by saying it's not a sacrafice. Your life would be so ruined by the loss that you are giving up something of lessor value(a unrepairable life) for something of greater value(the life of a loved one). To me I think it's more of clever avoidance tactic, she is able to avoid the issue of sacrafice by redefining it.