CreateDebate


Debate Info

10
6
It's Preposterous It's Valid
Debate Score:16
Arguments:14
Total Votes:20
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 It's Preposterous (8)
 
 It's Valid (6)

Debate Creator

aveskde(1935) pic



What is wrong with Ayn Rand's Objectivism?

To those of you unfamiliar with Objectivism, in this debate we are discussing the values of it as they apply to people, a short description of which is as follows:

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

I finished reading one of her books, Anthem, because I wanted to better understand her reasoning. It is the type of story I enjoy, that of a dystopia. I tend to read these kinds of novels and follow these kinds of stories often. What struck me about her story most was how caricatured it was. If I had to place myself in her shoes, it would almost appear as though she knew that the only way she could sell her concept of self-interest was if the concepts of empathy, selflessness and altruism were so exagerrated and removed from the human condition, that selfishness would be a reasonable alternative.

For example, in her book the word I was forbidden under pain of death. This seems to suggest that a society which frowns upon self-interest finds it necessary to eradicate the sense of self. Can any of us imagine a culture that has been so subjugated and beaten down that it could live with no concept of itself? Then there is a constant reference towards the good of everyone, even to defend actually selfish acts, which is a little ironic considering that selfishness is supposed to be a good thing here. I reference where Prometheus demonstrates electricity to the scholars, and they demand to destroy it for the good of candlemakers.

Perhaps a subtle irony missed by many of Ayn Rand's fans is that Prometheus claims a house in the forest for himself. He simply takes something for himself and declares it his property, while defending it from others' claims through defenses. What is ironic is that this implies that property is merely that which may be taken and defended against others who may lay a claim. The logical extrapolation is therefore that Prometheus was in fact his state's property because they claimed him from birth as their own and defended their claim with force.

It's Preposterous

Side Score: 10
VS.

It's Valid

Side Score: 6
1 point

Ayn Rand's notion of rational self-interest is simply selfishness given thin cover of a respectable philosophy. It could never work to produce a society that most of us would want to live in, and only legitimises callousness in society when we need more advocates of the weak.

Side: It's Preposterous

Ms. Rand's objectivism rapidly reveals itself to be no more than meaningless sentiment when it is applied to life. We are to understand that a man is an end in himself and not the means to others' ends, but the latter is exactly what is observed under such a system. When one man contrives against the general mass of men to secure personal wealth and power, videlicet operating according to Ms. Rand's philosophy, he transforms some constituent part of that mass into tools, or "employees".

If all men are supposed to act in their own interests, how can a case be made for working for other men? To work for another man is to promote his interests by placing one's own in his hands. If no case can be made, how can a man act in his own interest, to his greatest interest, without breaking those tenets which initially spurred him?

Ms. Rand's objectivism is therefore a philosophy which does not understand its own implications; a cannibalistic mess which destroys parts of itself in much the same way as the society it describes.

Side: It's Preposterous
1 point

If all men are supposed to act in their own interests, how can a case be made for working for other men? To work for another man is to promote his interests by placing one's own in his hands. If no case can be made, how can a man act in his own interest, to his greatest interest, without breaking those tenets which initially spurred him?

I think her philosophy is on the absolute end of individualism, where essentially every man lives alone in his own kingdom, free from obligations to others.

Side: It's Preposterous
cmspeciale(1) Disputed
1 point

The greatest lie ever perpetrated on mankind is the very lie you suggest in your point: the choice between sacrifice to others, or domination. The reality is that you are offered the choice between dependence or independence.

Working for other people as an employee does not mean you have surrendered your life to the employer. You, as the laborer--the holder of what the employer wants--may choose whether or not you want to give your talent, skills, and time in exchange for a sufficient and ideal pay.

This, of course, answers your question. This is how all men can act in their own interests: to consume as much as one produces. Money is merely a tool to achieve the values and luxuries every man strives for in his life.

Side: It's Valid
1 point

The greatest lie ever perpetrated on mankind is the very lie you suggest in your point: the choice between sacrifice to others, or domination.

Your point is overly dramatic. Such is certainly not the "greatest lie ever perpetrated on mankind", if indeed it has been perpetrated by some nebulous faction or party, unbeknownst to me.

The point that I expressed, held that for men to act in entirely selfish manner, without reference to any concept of society, is impossible, so long as he resides within a society. If a society is composed entirely of such men, then one of two things shall likely happen; either the society will degenerate, or some revision will have to be made to the principle of those men's operation, and a social contract drawn up.

The reality is that you are offered the choice between dependence or independence.

Anybody living within a modern society, is dependant upon that society to some degree. There exists within that society, no such choice.

Working for other people as an employee does not mean you have surrendered your life to the employer.

I inferred no such thing.

You, as the laborer--the holder of what the employer wants--may choose whether or not you want to give your talent, skills, and time in exchange for a sufficient and ideal pay.

And if not, how is it proposed to furnish the means of a comfortable subsistence?

This, of course, answers your question.

Having posed the question, I beg to differ.

This is how all men can act in their own interests: to consume as much as one produces.

No individual man produces a sufficient quantity of resources to prosper by a subsistence upon them, with perhaps a few facetious exceptions.

Money is merely a tool to achieve the values and luxuries every man strives for in his life.

I had not realised that I referred to money.

Side: It's Preposterous
1 point

Ayn Rand was a brilliant woman who made an ethical philosophy which shares much in common with Evolution by natural selection, in that everyone and everything lives for self-interest. Her philosophy works in nature and must therefore produce a working society.

Side: It's Valid
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

Evolution has evolved organisms which consider something other then their self-interest as primary in some situations. For example: parenting is a behavior which insures the survival of the species but which includes protecting rather then running, more food gathering, greater exposure to predators, possible health concerns, etc. None of which are in the material self-interest of the parent and all of which decreases the chance of survival for the individual. The majority of non-insect, non-egg laying animals and some insects and egg layers preform parenting behavior.

There are other examples where evolution supports a level of self-sacrifice as well.

Yes, In place of a material self-interest a emotional self-interest may be fulfilled, but that emotional self-interest evolved out of a need for self-sacrifice on a more fundamental level.

Evolution is more of a "The conditions of survival change such that some types of life forms can not survive in those conditions, thus for such life forms to continue living those creatures must change accordingly(into a type that can survive), or produce offspring(a new type/ variation of the old type) which can survive in the new conditions(and liky the old as well). Since the generation of life from non-life is rare, and life which can live in wide ranges of conditions is also rare, as are animals which change enough to survive well enough, new types of life forms must come from old types".

Side: It's Preposterous
1 point

I haven't read any of Ayn Rand's works... Atlas Shrugged has been on my list of books-I-ought-to-read-someday for years >.> And now, seeing what you and other people say about the polemic style of her writings, I'm starting to think I should just not read it.

But from what I know, her concept of ethical egoism is very frequently misrepresented. She's not promoting every man for himself, i.e. anarchism. In fact, her views run rather close to the philosophy upon which modern societies and governments operate. People shouldn't live for the sake of someone else (like a king or a family member), or for the sake of something else (like a political ideal or a religion). Instead you should consider your own long-term self-interest to be your highest concern - and in doing so you will also have to consider what benefits your community, because it's in your interests to live in a community that is peaceful and prosperous.

I don't agree with this entirely, but I think it's a reasonable standpoint.

As to her views on other matters, I don't know enough about them to comment.

Side: It's Valid
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

I haven't read any of Ayn Rand's works... Atlas Shrugged has been on my list of books-I-ought-to-read-someday for years >.> And now, seeing what you and other people say about the polemic style of her writings, I'm starting to think I should just not read it.

You should read it if for no other reason than to be informed.

But from what I know, her concept of ethical egoism is very frequently misrepresented. She's not promoting every man for himself, i.e. anarchism. In fact, her views run rather close to the philosophy upon which modern societies and governments operate. People shouldn't live for the sake of someone else (like a king or a family member), or for the sake of something else (like a political ideal or a religion). Instead you should consider your own long-term self-interest to be your highest concern - and in doing so you will also have to consider what benefits your community, because it's in your interests to live in a community that is peaceful and prosperous.

I have to disagree. The backdrop she uses seems to suggest that she finds altruism and its related concepts to be inherently bad unless used for selfish purposes. It's a fine line perhaps, but when I read Anthem, the last chapter or two, I was given the distinct impression from the long-winded speech by the protagonist that she all but worships the self, and sees the downtrodden as deserving of it due to their own weakness and inability to make correct choices.

As to her views on other matters, I don't know enough about them to comment.

I know she supports laissez-faire (free market) capitalism. This is something which I disagree with vehemently but is probably for another debate.

Side: It's Preposterous
Peekaboo(704) Disputed
1 point

If it were an article or a short story, I'd have read it already. But reading 1000+ pages of something I don't enjoy is almost psychological torture. I did skim a couple of cliff notes versions though ( http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/toptt.html and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/ ).

Yeah, it's a fine line. I don't actually disagree with what you're saying here - I think it's compatible with what I know of her stance. I think it's partly her choice of words that makes her sound so extreme. By "altruism" she isn't referring to its usual meaning of "charity" or "consideration for other people", but to abject self-sacrifice. She doesn't have a problem with people being charitable so long as they can afford to be charitable and doing so is in their ultimate rational self-interest.

This general principle I can agree with, to some extent. I don't find it unreasonable to say that it's right for people to do what ultimately benefits them, and wrong to either martyr themselves willingly or be forced to work for someone else's good.

But her polemics on how it should be applied to modern society does sound rather extreme. If you're going to advocate that everyone should get what they earned, no more and no less, obvious questions arise: If the state can't make any impositions upon its people, how will it fund its government? Who, if anyone, will provide for the people who are disabled and cannot work, or orphaned children? ...etc.

I won't write her off just for this, as it's possible that she's answered these questions somewhere in those 1000 pages of Atlas Shrugged. I just can't bring myself to look for it.

Side: It's Valid
-1 points

Nearly everyone who criticizes Rand's ideas either don't understand them, are misrepresenting them, or both. She was a radical who challenged the cultural heritage of the Western World successfully. Five hundred years from now, school children will remember two people from the 20th century: Neil Armstrong and Ayn Rand.

Rand is Aristotle's modern day successor, one who took his rational approach and ran with it like no other.

If you don't like Ayn Rand, your real problem is that you don't like yourself or your life.

She really is a thinker of historic importance.

Side: It's Valid
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

Nearly everyone who criticizes Rand's ideas either don't understand them, are misrepresenting them, or both. She was a radical who challenged the cultural heritage of the Western World successfully. Five hundred years from now, school children will remember two people from the 20th century: Neil Armstrong and Ayn Rand.

First off, thanks for disagreeing with me. It was kind of uneventful with the disputes being mostly minor interpretations.

Well, I do understand her ideas perfectly, they were quite explicit and unambiguous. I also doubt that anyone will remember her in detail, in 500 years. We're continually moving towards socialism in the world. The only way she would matter is if a government employed her ideas and had a legacy.

Rand is Aristotle's modern day successor, one who took his rational approach and ran with it like no other.

Really? Because I found her thinking to be puerile. I wouldn't compare her with such an historic figure.

If you don't like Ayn Rand, your real problem is that you don't like yourself or your life.

We see the crux of your support for her. As is typical of simple thinking, you define your positions between absolutes, when the subject is something ambiguous and open to many meanings to different people.

People don't like Ayn Rand's Objectivism because they do not believe it would make a society worth living in. They do not like it because it is selfishness disguised as an ethical and moral philosophy. They do not like it because we have so many richer philosophies out there, and our societies are so much better now having phased out free-market capitalism and punished lack of accountability.

Your argument is like what libertarians use: "If you don't want a society of sweatshops and unchecked monopolies, well, you obviously just hate freedom and want a government handout!"

She really is a thinker of historic importance.

Insofar as legitimising the cult of selfishness known as anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism, yes.

Side: It's Preposterous