CreateDebate


Debate Info

2
4
John Stuart Mill Ayn Rand
Debate Score:6
Arguments:5
Total Votes:6
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 John Stuart Mill (2)
 
 Ayn Rand (3)

Debate Creator

Libertarian1(1080) pic



Which Moral Framework Would You Prefer To Be Accepted By Society?

This is a debate about the works of the two mentioned philosophers, those bringing in others will be banned. In an effort to keep the debates as intelligent as possible, I won't describe their positions on morality. This ensures only those with prior knowledge or those willing to research will comment. 

John Stuart Mill

Side Score: 2
VS.

Ayn Rand

Side Score: 4
1 point

I like utilitarianism for the most part, although there are certain weaknesses overall it is a very objective way to view morality. I actually wasn't even aware Ayn Rand proposed any sort of ethical philosophy but according to wiki she was a proponent of ethical altruism. The biggest problem with altruism I think is that it probably doesn't exist. People always have something to gain from helping others, even if it's something as small as feeling better about one's self. Our biology simply doesn't permit us to be truly altruistic. We do things because we have something to gain from it.

Side: John Stuart Mill
1 point

Ayn Rand's entire philosophy was that people act in their self interest and that morality is derived from achieving the actions you give value to while respecting the natural rights of others. Kind of like Hobbes in certain ways, but without the delusions of monarchy and the idea that such actions are wicked. She argued that altruism in fact does not exist, but society as a whole is striving for it. She viewed this as an evil progression, saying that an action we feel compelled to do rather then choosing to do has no moral value. On utilitarianism, I see it as quite an evil ideal. It was the justification for slavery in the US, and the excuse of mad men to commit atrocities. It is the tyranny of the majority.

Side: Ayn Rand
Bohemian(3860) Disputed
1 point

Ayn Rand's entire philosophy was that people act in their self interest and that morality is derived from achieving the actions you give value to while respecting the natural rights of others.

Ah, my mistake. I misread.

On utilitarianism, I see it as quite an evil ideal. It was the justification for slavery in the US

No, actually it wasn't. The justification for slavery was mostly economic as well as biblical, but to be fair most of the arguments against it were also biblical.

Utilitarianism in a nutshell says the action that produces the most happiness is the most moral. I fail to see how that supports slavery or atrocities.

Side: John Stuart Mill
2 points

A professor of philosophy at UT--Tara Smith, who is an Objectivist--offers a great exposition on why the concept of Rights described by Ayn Rand is the only ethical position. Any moral philosophy needs to be anchored in a recogition of an individual's Rights, which are further anchored by a recognition that furthering a flourishing Life is what must be pursued and achieved. Utilitarianism (or Consequentialism) fails because they state that the end justifies the means, and if an end calls for, e.g., the violation of a person's Right to their freedom to act, then it's immoral. On the other end of the spectrum is a Deontological basis for Rights, which makes dogmatic claims, saying that one mode of behavior is moral across the board, meaning that, e.g., lying is always wrong. This isn't moral since the basis for deciding what is right or wrong is based on personal opinion, or mysitical standard. There's is no end to be achieved here, other than a staunch adherence to what an authority says is right. Therefore, Rand's teleological basis (the pursuit of the continuation of Life) is the only truly moral framework.

Side: Ayn Rand