CreateDebate


Debate Info

36
25
For Against
Debate Score:61
Arguments:23
Total Votes:63
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 For (29)
 
 Against (7)

Debate Creator

Libertarian1(1080) pic



Objectivist Debate

The topic of objective morality has been brought up several times before on this site, but rarely have we seen the philosophy of Ayn Rand mentioned. The philosophy in its entirety may not be known to most users, so I think it's appropiate to begin debating the premise that the universe is an objective absolute and the standard of moraility is rational self-interest.

 

 

For

Side Score: 36
VS.

Against

Side Score: 25

When poor people vote for the rich to be taxed at a higher rate in order to pay for more benefits for the poor..., who's being greedy ;)

Side: For
youngidealis(50) Disputed
2 points

Poor people aren't asking for the rich to be taxed equally. People of every other class are pushing for it. Poor people are more often stupid enough to think that they don't need welfare or social security while they are getting both. This is what statistics are showing.

Side: Against

I don't totally agree with her philosophy, but for the most part I do... and no, you playing Bioshock does not mean that you understand Objectivism or have de-bunked it...

Side: For
Side: For

Although I have not read any of Rand's non fiction books, I have read her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged.

Philosophy: Objectivism

Economics: Austrian School

Side: For

I'm surprised. I was sure you'd have read her essays on Capitalism, but I guess only so many books are required before you can defend proper economics.

Side: For

I have all the intentions of reading The Virtue of Selfishness, but haven't found time. I do plan on reading Fountainhead as well.

Side: For

I think "The Voice of Reason" is the best essay collection.

Question: For one to accept Objectivism, isn't it appropriate to disagree with some particular Ayn Rand position, if you came to it through Objectivist methods?

Side: For

Yes it is. For example, many if Ayn Rand's views on foreign relations were largely influenced out of lack of information. Otherwise, I doubt she would have supported the Israeli state.

Side: For

Yuron Brook, of the Ayn Rand Institute discusses support for Israel even today.

Side: For
1 point

I was a Student of Objectivism for 2 years. Objectivism has some great stuff to offer. It's the most coherent philosophy I've yet to encounter.

However, I disagree that morality is objective. Reality is objective. A is A. But while I applaud the pursuit of rational self-interest, it's flawed when put forward as a universal rule because the basis for Objectivist morality relies on the acceptance of happiness as the chosen goal for one's life.

People can choose a different goal. And happiness isn't the same for everyone.

Therefore, it cannot be objective.

Side: Against
youngidealis(50) Disputed
1 point

Objectivism doesn't deserve to be called a philosophy. Rand hated philosophers.

Side: Against
1 point

Rand hated other philosophers=Objectivism doesn't deserve to be called a philosophy? Don't be dim. Yes, Rand hated the philosophical viewpoints that were being adopted by society. That has no bearing on the validity on her work.

Side: For
1 point

it's flawed when put forward as a universal rule because the basis for Objectivist morality relies on the acceptance of happiness as the chosen goal for one's life.People can choose a different goal. And happiness isn't the same for everyone.

Happiness need not be uniform for Objectivist propositions to be valid. It a criterion, a standard decided upon by the individual that acts as their objective basis for morality. Yes, you and I may disagree on what constitutes happiness, but the difference doesn't exclude it from being the ground on which we make moral judgement. To insist that happiness needs a collective definition or meet a uniform standard outside of whatever an individual deems to be in his rational self-interest seems to go against the principles of Objectivism.

Side: For

Firstly, the axiom of existence is tenuous at best, existence is a concept and not a part of physical reality, therefore, saying that existence exists is like saying God exists, or that life is living, as those things are abstractions constructed by humans.

Secondly, the axiom also does not establish that the reality you experience is the correct "objective" one.

Thirdly, even if the whole philosophy is to be granted true, and the only morality is rational self interest, then surely altruism and selflessness are of rational self interest to me because it makes me happy when I am selfless, which is built into my brain's structure and therefore not within my control. It also means I have more friends, and they can support me when I need it, which is surely beneficial to my rational self interest.

Basically, I view objectivism as an excuse to be self absorbed and arrogant whilst saying "I'm not selfish, I'm following a philosophy!".

Side: Against
1 point

Firstly, the axiom of existence is tenuous at best

So we don't exist?

existence is a concept and not a part of physical reality, therefore, saying that existence exists is like saying God exists

What? The axiom of existence describes reality, that even if we aren't perceiving it correctly or what we see is wrong, the plane of reality we perceive is there.

Secondly, the axiom also does not establish that the reality you experience is the correct "objective" one.

The axiom of existence alone does not establish objective reality. The axioms of existence along with identity, consciousness and the primacy of existence over consciousness together are what Ayn Rand utilizes to establish an objective reality.

then surely altruism and selflessness are of rational self interest to me because it makes me happy when I am selfless

If you enjoy charity or such, then yes, it can be a fulfillment of a value. But when it rises to the level of altruism it becomes immoral. When you sacrifice a value for another value of less importance or a non-value, you aren't happy.

It also means I have more friends, and they can support me when I need it, which is surely beneficial to my rational self interest.

Absolutely, as long as whatever safety net they provide doesn't become legislation on society, and as long as you retain enough ability to act as a purposeful human being that can properly fulfill his utility, and as long as nobody in your group is coerced or pressured into giving anything for the sake of someone else.

Basically, I view objectivism as an excuse to be self absorbed and arrogant whilst saying "I'm not selfish, I'm following a philosophy!".

Absolutely wrong. No real objectivist would claim not to be selfish. I am selfish, I am following a philosophy.

Side: For
1 point

I don't see how anyone can take Ayn Rand seriously. Her entire objectivist philosophy is built to justify an individualistic, selfish, hedonistic life-style.

It's a very Nietzsche-esque superman style philosophy that allows everything. I don't have any responsibilities towards anyone, in fact if ever actually acted for the benefit of others - that would be immoral as I'm being altruistic, not selfish. In war, if I would jump on a grenade to save my battle-brothers, Ayn Rand would probably call me an idiot, a loser and probably immoral as well. This goes against all of our natural, moral intuitions.

She was also a hypocrite for lambasting her affair Branden for cheating on her (Branden was a married man, who had an affair with Rand, but started cheating on her wife and Rand with a third woman) even though she cheated on her husband with Branden in the first place. I guess Branden's life was a bit too individualistic.

Side: Against
3 points

Her entire objectivist philosophy is built to justify an individualistic, selfish, hedonistic life-style.

Which has no bearing on its validity.

It's a very Nietzsche-esque superman style philosophy that allows everything.

Allows everything? This is as ignorant a statement that could be made on the subject. I recommend her final official collection of essays, "Philosophy:Who Needs It". It goes into things like the social contract and how it relates to Objectivism.

in fact if ever actually acted for the benefit of others - that would be immoral as I'm being altruistic, not selfish

Wrong sir. You may benefit those you attach value too. If benefiting a value increases the maximum utility of your life, it would be a moral action.

. In war, if I would jump on a grenade to save my battle-brothers, Ayn Rand would probably call me an idiot, a loser and probably immoral as well. This goes against all of our natural, moral intuitions.

And on this issue I'd agree with her. One's highest value should be his/her own life. Only through maximizing the utility of your own existence can one expect to be happy. No happiness or utility can be achieved by killing oneself.

She was also a hypocrite for lambasting her affair Branden for cheating on her

I am truly tired of people bringing ad hominems into the discussion when Ayn Rand is involved. Rand's actions of A,B, and C do not affect the philosophy of Objectivism.

Side: For
1 point

How is a philosophy that focuses on individual rights selfish? Pursuing your own goals doesn't make you greedy or evil...

Side: For

I can't profess to being an expert in Ayn Rand, but everything I hear of her makes me think she's one of the liberals that I hate: those that take rights without responsibilities, don't care about society as a whole, and think that liberty will make the world go round. I feel that reality is far from that, especially in a functioning society.

Side: Against
1 point

I don't think one can bring up contentions like those without reading her(not saying it to offend or demean). I would read Leonard Peikoff's book on her philosophy. Even if you still disagree with it at the end, the amount of what can only be described as brain food is enormous.

Supporting Evidence: Objectivism: The Philosophy Of Ayn Rand (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: For
2 points

Agreed, that's why I added a qualifier. I know enough to dislike it, it's not like I've read a few lines and made a snap judgement. And I'll probably end up reading it, but I'm honestly just swamped with things to read right now, in the middle of Sen's 'The Idea of Justice', and have another 5 or so books lined up. I also live in the Middle East, so it's a little hard to get specialist books like that, unfortunately (why I've gotten so much at once).

Side: For