CreateDebate


Debate Info

29
12
YES NO
Debate Score:41
Arguments:28
Total Votes:52
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES (18)
 
 NO (9)

Debate Creator

sierrastruth(524) pic



Do you like Ayn Rands Philosophies?

Call me ignorant if you want, I just watched a documentary about Ayn Rand and her book Atlas Shrugged. I new basically nothing about her before I watched it and now Im very interested in her and her ideas. I seem to agree with evrything she says (I told my facebook friends the I am possitive Im Ayn Rand reencarnated). What do you think about her and why?

YES

Side Score: 29
VS.

NO

Side Score: 12
2 points

In this article I recently found, it clearly states that a greater percentage of the United States tends to favor Ayn Rands Philosophies.

Supporting Evidence: Ayn Rands Philosophies: Yes or No? (adf.ly)
Side: YES
Akulakhan(2985) Clarified
1 point

The debate asks your opinion, not the consensus of the states. How do you feel of Syn's objectivist philosophy?

Side: YES
1 point

From what I gather, Rand's core philosophy (objectivism) states the following [correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't really studied Ayn Rand all that much, yet]:

-Reality is objective

-[Humans] have contact of reality through perception/s.

-One can obtain objective knowledge through inductive logic

-Moral purpose is happiness

-Respect for individual rights

I can't really give an actual opinion, yet, though.

Side: YES

Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has been the driving force behind most of the views I hold, so you could say I like it ;)

Few figures of philosophy attract the level of personal attacks she gets, and it's astonishing how distorted the claims have been allowed to become. The link below debunks the most common one.

Supporting Evidence: Lies about Ayn Rand (freestudents.blogspot.com)
Side: YES

Again, there was a similar debate to this one previously in the same manner.

Therefore,

I subscribe to

Ayn Rand's Objectivism and Ludwig von Mises' Economics.

Again, Atlas Shrugged is a masterpiece.

Side: YES

"You're all a bunch of socialists!" ;)

Side: YES
1 point

I may not subscribe completely to Objectivism, but I do like much of what Ayn Rand has to say.

And what made me like her even more were the criticisms of her philosophy. They seem to attack her views on the basis of a status quo and nothing of logic or reasoning.

Side: YES

They seem to attack her views on the basis of a status quo and nothing of logic or reasoning

Because people who criticize her tend to be incapable of reading a book as long as Atlas Shrugged.

Side: YES

I want to elevate selfishness to the level of virtue. Specifically, I hope it would result in the death and starvation of millions of "non-producers." ;)

Side: YES

To a certain point, I'm all "A-men, sister" when it comes to Ayn Rand, but I think she goes too far. When it comes to personal responsibility, I think she's damn right.

Unfortunately, I think we talk out our ass about this (for those of us that live in America).

We're a a society of people who refuse to accept responsibility for themselves on just about every practical level. And, really, for a moment we can even set politics aside. Because I think it's even deeper than who pays for what (and how we structure a government). We talk about personal responsibility, but most of us in America are fat, hypertensive, and three steps from a heart attack. We have some of the highest cancer rates in the world, diabetes is skyrocketing, yet we blame medicine. We look for an "ism". I have had more Americans give me a medical diagnosis for why they're fat that I can even keep track. Or I'll hear some excuse about your job or your situation.

It couldn't possibly eating too much and not getting enough exercise? I know it

sounds like a digression, but it speaks to the inability to accept responsibility for oneself. It someone else's fault that we're fat, that we're broke, that we're unhappy. It's disease. We live in a society that encourages people to not accept responsibility on just about every personal level.

Why do I care if your fat? Do I have something against fat people? No, I care when we

socialize the cost of health care and I'm in effect paying for the stint that we have top put in the fat man's heart. Worse even, when the fat man doesn't get the stint and we have to raise his kids, because he wouldn't take care of himself.

It's not just health issues... That's just an obvious example. How many Americas are up-to-their eyeballs in debt? They've already filed or soon will file for bankruptcy, passing along the cost of their irresponsibility to so society at large. If you don't believe their irresponsibility has damaged you personally, then tell me how much your property value has dropped since 2009. How many foreclosures have set empty on your street, while the value of your home goes down?

It speaks to personal responsibility.

Side: YES
3 points

Ayn Rand advocates a philosophy that is virtually indistinguishable from social Darwinism - that is from an essentialist creed that would elevate selfishness to the level of virtue and which, if implemented at the level of the state would cause incalculable harm. Specifically, it would result in the death and starvation of millions of "non-producers."

Side: NO
1 point

that is from an essentialist creed that would elevate selfishness to the level of virtue and which, if implemented at the level of the state would cause incalculable harm.

How? Tell me what "harm" would occur to a society that adopts the non-aggression principle along with each individual holding his own happiness as the highest moral value result in "incalculable" harm.

Specifically, it would result in the death and starvation of millions of "non-producers."

These individuals can't get jobs for those in business? They can't enjoy the benefits a market free of coercion and inefficient regulation would provide? They must depend solely on those being stolen from at gun point by an institution of force? They must be declared insufficient garbage needing blind aid for the reason of being worthless? The only one denouncing the incapable is you.

Side: YES
usghar Disputed
1 point

Harm? The best argument for a regulated market is a regulated one. The rise of the modern state over the last few centuries has produced measurable and vitally important benefits. People live longer, healthier lives with less crime, pollution, food poisoning, and disease. If you are going to defend the sort of anarchist state Rand advocates you need to demonstrate specifically how it would deliver these sorts of benefits absent the intervention of the state. Note, I am not speaking in black and white terms that would deny the potential of markets to improve the human condition. Rather, I am arguing that totally free markets of the sort Rand envisioned are, quite literally, a fiction. They have never existed anywhere. With reasonable, democratically mediated limitations, markets are undeniably good. Left entirely unregulated, they produce Adam Smith's moral nightmare.

Side: NO
2 points

No.

They're greed based and counter to evolution, though she'd likely argue otherwise.

The worth of a persons genetic code to humanity as a whole cannot be measured by the success of that individual's parents. You see this consistently, in fact I'd guess it is practically the norm that one who somehow pushes humanity forward comes from less than nobility or the rich in today's society.

This is relevant. The horrid theory she put forth by her results directly in a cast society. This stifles by its nature creativity, entrepreneurship, even hard work.

You cannot have a society which does not support those with less without sacrificing all that the children of those who have less could have given to that society.

Side: NO

Agreed, a libertarian state is far from the meritocratic world they believe in. Equality of opportunity can only exist with large government intervention.

Side: NO
2 points

Equality of opportunity can only exist with large government intervention.

What? Large government has been the greatest opponent of economic and social equality. Monopolies, a cause of economic inequality, can only arrive from government or other coercive means. It is government that closes examples of true small business(I'm talking hot-dog stand, the true bare-minimum needed to support oneself) to defend larger companies. It is government that allowed legislation to permit government functions(Not that they should be but where) to give varying measure of rights and justice(Ex. Segregation in public schools). And to solve it's mistake is passes legislation to force people to adopt the social standards of others(Civil Rights Act, which I think should only have applied to government functions).

http://youtu.be/tdLBzfFGFQU

http://youtu.be/cFUkGpSBfkI

Equality gained at gun point is not equality at all. One can not comprehend equality, justice, freedom without genuine education about what they mean. Government is not the answer, and government education is really not the answer.

Side: YES
1 point

The worth of a persons genetic code to humanity as a whole cannot be measured by the success of that individual's parents.

What? Where is this in Ayn Rand's work? She actually demonized those who inherited wealth without continuing a productive trade or continued to be productive as human beings.

This stifles by its nature creativity, entrepreneurship, even hard work.

This is truly the first time I have heard this contention pointed towards anarcho-capitalism. Let's take sentence before this one. The horrid theory she put forth by her results directly in a cast society. Now let's replace it with, The liberal's want a safety net achieved by coercion. See the problem?

You cannot have a society which does not support those with less without sacrificing all that the children of those who have less could have given to that society.

Charity would not die in the Objectivist world, but one wouldn't have any moral obligation to give to it. On top of that, how has government properly helped those children? Ineffective schooling, being subject to a police force that has a monthly quota to meet, etc.

Supporting Evidence: Government Loves Children (youtu.be)
Side: YES

What? Where is this in Ayn Rand's work? She actually demonized those who inherited wealth without continuing a productive trade or continued to be productive as human beings.

Considering iamdavidh has never read Ayn Rand, he will make these ridiculous claims without any merit.

Charity would not die in the Objectivist world, but one wouldn't have any moral obligation to give to it.

Charity would likely strive in the free world without government intervention by coercion.

Side: YES
1 point

In some posts we are seeing assertions in the form of ad hominem attacks rather than arguments.

Side: NO
1 point

Where? My joke about critics unable to read a long book or Joe(get used to him)?

Side: YES
usghar Disputed
1 point

I was referring specifically to the statement about critics of Rand being unable to read long books. I understand it was a joke. I was trying to keep the debate on track. That said, I need to abandon this debate. Nothing personal, but I'm out of time. I have some long academic books I must read. No kidding. ;-)

Side: NO
1 point

I admire Objectivism for it's belief in a definite reality; in that we perceive a reality which definitely exists, although our perception may at times be at question. The moral extrapolations are no better than Aristocratic bullshittery, unfortunately.

Side: NO