About this rational self interest vs. altruism distinction... If you practice altruism at the individual level, Rand might shrug and say you could do better, but she would not compel you to stop doing it, neither would I. The evil of altruism comes when you say "I am contributing to this cause, and I don't want to be the only one. I am going to get the government to compel you to contribute also, under the threat of punishment." Get it kids? Don't Tread On Me.
@TaylorThaHick Rational self interest? Human beings are not rational. Rational self-interest in this context means that you're caving into the fear of chaos. Altruism in this context means that you're caving into the fear of guilt. Do you seriously still believe in rational behavior and markets even though modern marketing is based on IRRATIONAL behavior? And, the woods example was to show you how silly this "do for yourself" attitude is. Humans are group animals, not tigers.
@TaylorThaHick Your economic worldview is based on your ideology and emotion, not rationality. If you were in the least bit rational then you would base your economic worldview on WHAT WORKS. Gov, if properly controlled, works better sometimes. It depends. Healthcare is an undeniable (unless you're in denial lol) example of the gov doing a better job by leaps and bounds. We should be paying 30% less and covering 15% more people. Gov is the answer.
@tstruss912 Well, it would also save us 30% if all stores sold themselves to Walmart, and we got everything from them. It would be much more efficient. The Soviets tried that too. The fact that capitalism ends up costing less in the long run in incidental to the main fact that it is the only moral system - it allows me to vote with my dollars. Healthcare costs are high because of socialism. "We" should be paying FIFTY% less and covering no one.
@TaylorThaHick Why do you view everything in extremes? I'm talking about responsible, accountable capitalism with some social spending/programs. You're talking about YOUR version of morality being imposed on everybody else. THAT sounds like soviet collectivism. Fuck your morality. And fuck mine too. And fuck the other guys. Society is a collection of people and therefore the economy should reflect that. It should be mixed like in Europe.
@tstruss912 What you're saying about covering no one is not only against the morality of the majority of the country, but it's also just plain stupid.Do you know how many negative consequences would spring from that?! It makes no RATIONAL sense.Once again, this proves my point: Randians are irrational as all hell, not rational in the least.Please get a hold of your emotions and realize that you have to compromise with other peaceful people who disagree with your version of morality.
@tstruss912 Freedom often contradicts what the majority want. Everyone assumes they can find a way to be a net beneficiary in any collective system, so they will vote for such a system. In addition, moral hazard guarantees the system will be exploited and end up costing more.
@TaylorThaHick But wait...you said that I was the one wanting a minority to put their view on the majority? Sounds like you want us to be led by our betters (people who agree with you). Stalin came to the same conclusion. See how easy that is. Please...stop with these lame comparisons to dictators. Is Germany a dictatorship? Canada? Switzerland? The Netherlands? That's what we in the middle are aiming towards...not any fantasies the (((GB))) thinks up...
@TaylorThaHick "Freedom often contradicts what the majority want." uhh...no. That's only true when you DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THE LEFT-WING VIEW OF FREEDOM! I'm a moderate and I'm tired of you guys on the right and left fucking this country up because you can't be adults and comprise. You're not evil. The left is not evil. Now start compromising goddammit. What's do hard about that?
@tstruss912@tstruss912 The truth of things is not extreme. No, I am not saying I have some secret access to the truth, but the statement still stands. The nice thing about holding individual rights as a moral absolute is that it imposes the bare minimum on others, only your system does the imposing.
The constitution is not about what the collective decides is ok for now, there are some timeless principles that should be enforced regardless of what some bribed politician prefers.
I find that most who dismiss Ayn Rand’s morality don’t really understand it. Her “selfishness” is long-term, principled self-interest. People are a combination of the physical and mental, and your self-interest includes psychological values. Self-interest is not to be reduced to only the physical, such as money. Other people can be of tremendous psychological value (i.e. friends, lovers, children.) Rand recognized that benevolence toward strangers is in one’s own interest, in a free country.
@SwordOfApollo Your characterization of Ayn Rand is spot on. Only people that have never read Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff think that Objectivists are out to steal the cookies from the cookie jar.
If you want the benefits of living in a civlization, you're obligated to help another. Don't like it, go live in the woods with someone who believe the same thing.
@HybridD91 Civilization is valuable to individuals to the extent that it leaves them free to pursue their own interests. The near-laissez-faire capitalism of late 19th Century America was a boon to individuals at all levels of society. (Read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.) The peasants of the USSR, or the Jews in Nazi concentration camps would have been FAR better off in the wild, without their particular governments.
@Joshology21 Altruism is sacrifice. That is just great for you, but I think it sucks. So, if you REALLY believe in it, sacrifice me your money. I can send you a Paypal address. Don't waste it on another altruist. They will just give it away! hahahahahahaha
Your reasoning is pathetic. Rational Selfishness is eating healthy. Altruism is giving most of my money away to soup kitchens and buying a loaf of white bread just to sustain myself. Rational selfishness is studying in advance for a math test. Altruism is using my study-time -and sacrificing my A- to help my brother with his assignments. Rational Selfishness is donating a kidney to the woman who makes my life worth living while Altruism is giving away my organs to strangers.
"Communism is based on altruism" aaahhhh....how anybody can listen to this crap is beyond me. No wonder she's not taken seriously as a philosopher. Altruism has NEVER been the basis of a society. Never. Societies have always been based on preventing harm and authoritarianism, in differing quantities.
@tstruss912 Individualism is anti coward and is courages. One who is a provider and a producer and doesnt mooch of others is hardly a coward and certainlly would not be considered an asshole because he is good and is not making anyone a victim. Communism by the way and socialism is completly rooted in Altruism and under what that concept represents.
@Bigturns33 Socialism is nothing more than workers being able to vote on what happens within a company. How is that altruism? Communism is a state-less left-wing society; it's the counterpart to right-wing "individualism". Taking care of yourself is fine and dandy, but it's not enough. People have to care about others, about harm coming to others. That makes a society stronger. That line of thinking can be taken too far, just like you and Ayn took individualism too far.
@tstruss912 “Taking care of yourself is fine and dandy, but it's not enough. People have to care about others” - You
“Altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence” - Rand
“What Ayn is describing is something that NOBODY accepts” – You
You are already treading close to what she proposes altruism is. You substitute “service to others” for “care for others” it seems – then claim “caring for other” is not altruism
@Minarchist088 Altruism is based on total self-sacrifice. What I'm talking about is living in a society--that takes some caring. Should we go back to living in the woods, all alone?
@tstruss912 Oh yeah, and no I don’t think we should go back to living in the woods all alone…it’s not in my self-interest to be isolated. It is in my self-interest to cooperate with others.
@Minarchist088 Yes, if you didn't care about others you would be a sociopathic piece of shit. That's a pscyholocical fact. Plenty of studies and brain scans have been done on that.
@tstruss912 So, not caring for others, not self-sacrificing, would make me a piece of shit? Why? What is it about the sociopath that is immoral?
Hmmm…I don’t think Rand suggests suppressing caring behavior. She does however advocate suppressing caring morality…there is a very large difference between caring for others because it is in you self-interest, and caring for others because something demands it or forces you to.
@Minarchist088 "She does however advocate suppressing caring morality" Yes, therein lies the problem. Human beings are designed to live in groups. That is why we have authority: decision making breaks down in groups of six or more. Studies have shown this. We therefore are concerned with order and hierarchy, to some degree. But that can lead to tyranny. Therefore, we also have mechanisms of empathy: mirror neurons, etc. Without some empathy and respect for athority
@tstruss912 So if I’m sitting there minding my own business…yet not caring about others –I am piece of shit for that? That is your morality? Not caring = immoral. So that is one primary aspect of your morality? As I have already said, you are treading dangerously close to Rand’s definition of altruism.
@Minarchist088 "So if I’m sitting there minding my own business" In the middle of a forest? No? Ya, if you're in a society where everybody works hard to make it successful and you're just sitting there then you're a piece of shit. You're trying too hard to make your natural framing of reality fit reality. You know that conservative thinking is well understood, right? Your "take care of yourself and then everything is OK" is thought for thought how conservatives frame reality.
@Minarchist088 And, that's fine. The problem is that without caring about others it's not fine. And no, your self-interest theory doesn't work across the board. This is why conservatives will be the end of humanity: not caring about anything beyond their own tiny lives. How does your rational self-interest model work if you're a slob and you don't care about your environment. Since you also don't care about others you wouldn't mind dumping toxic waste all over the place.
@Minarchist088 This is why most climate change deniers are right-wing. It doesn't fit into the "rational" self-interest model. BTW, humans aren't rational. Did rand tell you that? Most thought is sub-conscious and based on emotions. That's a big part of why rainman can't think properly: his emotional system is fucked. How could you know what to want without emotions? It's impossible. Go look at a person with that part of the brain damaged and see for yourself.
@tstruss912 Ok, so it still applies to society? Immoral still equals not caring? You don’t want to change your formulation yet? Jeez, you are becoming more and more altruistic every time I talk to you!!
@tstruss912 As for you saying conservatives “will be the end of humanity”…I don’t like em either lol. When it comes to rational self-interest and the environment – the model works within the side constraints of the no harm principle…and I’m afraid too much pollution is indeed harmful. Consistent libertarians would use the government to regulate and control pollution just as you would.
@Minarchist088 "Consistent libertarians would use the government to regulate and control pollution just as you would." True, and this is an admission by you that you are "altruistic" just like me then, no? The environment won't affect us much, but the next generation is counting on us. My beef is the proposed mechanism for preventing harm to the environment, self-regulation via private property laws. That's what many libertarians say.I guess you're closer to me on that issue.
@tstruss912 Caring for others/service to others is a positive right – that is what makes them altruistic. You are giving up something to give to others – you are morally obliged to do this.
Not harming individuals is a negative right – that is why it is not altruistic. I do not have to give up anything to give to others – I am not morally obliged to give to you.
@tstruss912 The “rational” self-interest does not care if most action is determined by the unconscious or subconscious…it only cares about what you are conscious of. To rand, emotions are “estimates of that which furthers man’s values or threatens them, that which is for him or against him”. For her, individuals should consider them, not neglect them as you imply, and it is this consideration that makes conscious actions rational.
@tstruss912 There is no problem. I will still cooperate, help, respect, be kind, etc, to you. It is in my self-interest to do so. Rational self-interest does not advocate doing anything contrary to survival…the point is, these things MAY be necessary for survival, thus moral. It is dependent upon circumstances…and that is the difference between a fluid and adaptable philosophy of self-interest, vs a static morality that advocates one rule for all circumstances.
@tstruss912 You have now made it clear that the sociopath is immoral because he does not care. Caring is a necessary condition for your morality. For Ayn Rand, caring is only necessary and moral WHEN it contributes to survival.
@Minarchist088 civilization is impossible. It will always turn into chaos or tyranny if the balance is fucked up. Then there are those who advocate we don't have authority (or have an absurdly small authority structure) and that we don't empathize. Ya, that's an anti-social recipe for disaster. That is why sociopaths are immoral; they don't respect authority and they don't empathize. Rand is the champion of that dysfunctional thinking, and I hate her for it.
@Minarchist088 Remember that these are not all or nothing questions. These are questions of degree. Should we open a room in our house to the homeless because Jesus would do so...I don't think so. I've worked with the homeless but still wouldn't go that far. Should we consider others in our decision making even if we don't have to, yes. Otherwise, we become instruments of dysfunction. If everybody was like Rand, society wouldn't work. Not even close. That's immoral.
@Minarchist088 You also wouldn't care about yourself if you didn't care about others. It comes from the same part of the brain. The only question is whether or not you suppress the
@Minarchist088 impulse to help others. To an extent it's good to suppress it, but it's not something that takes conscious effort and an ideology, as Rand suggests.
@tstruss912 Workers should have no POSITIVE rights regarding what happens in a company. They should NEGATIVE rights, such as the right to work in a safe environment, be paid for the work they do, and a few others. They certainly have no right to a job or to do what they want with the assets of the company simply because they use them in their job.
@Bigturns33 Caring about others is not altruism. What Ayn is describing is something that NOBODY accepts. Communism--the actual existing version, not the theoretical one I mentioned before--was based on obedience and domination. It was a totalitarian state. Authoritarianism is a right-wing trait. That's a fact. Go look up the studies. So, it makes no sense to call it altruism when it's actually authoritarianism cloaked as socialism/classical communism. See?
@Bigturns33 There's a difference between abstract concepts and existing reality. You know that. So what she did was take an abstract concept which is not accepted by anybody (altruism), said that another philosophy was based on it (communism), and then said how evil came from that philosophy--the one which was an abstract idea NOT based on altruism, but rather on harm-prevention, and which was never realized in the real world. An honest person would say that authoritarianism was
@Bigturns33 the cause. But apparently Ayn doesn't care about reality. She cares about justifying her own selfishness: her taking of social security money while she bashes gov at every chance; her fucking another guy in front of her husband; etc, etc. I don't bother justifying those...I have something called guilt. I feel guilty watching harm come to others just so I can be a coward, oh sorry, I mean a tough individualist. Ya...that's it.
Rand was a hypocrite and a bitch. She displayed multiple symptoms of sociopathic behavior, took advantage of government programs etc. Only fitting that she couldn't sell enough books she had to delve into government. Libertarian hypocrites are a dime a dozen.
@1019079 Couldn't sell enough books? I believe that Atlas Shrugged sold more copies than any other work of fiction except the Holy Bible. Over time, it should become number one as it was published a lot later and exhibits a far superior morality.
@17peteclarke Haha this will be good…so how are they fascist?
Before you begin, I really hope you are using the proper lexical definition of fascism and not a stipulative one…there would be no point in arguing about it then as anyone can make up new definitions of words.
I find that most who dismiss Ayn Rand’s morality don’t really understand it. Her “selfishness” is long-term, principled self-interest. People are a combination of the physical and mental, and your self-interest includes psychological values. Self-interest is not to be reduced to only the physical, such as money. Other people can be of tremendous psychological value (i.e. friends, lovers, children.) Rand recognized that benevolence toward strangers is in one’s own interest, in a free country.
Rand's view of the world is so unbelievably oversimplified as to be utterly absurd. I don't think she lived in anything remotely resembling reality to have come up with a "philosophy" as socially perverse as Objectivism.
What's even more shocking is how, in this current crisis, caused by the very people she so admires, is that so many people are now starting to read her books and adhere to her bitter ideas.
@sugarcanegray No amount of complication makes it wrong.. Your wishing will not change the fact of reality that it is indeed simple.. YOU only succeed in creating a world not worth living in for anyone.
@MyITRcom Actually, yes, her philosophy is wrong on pretty much every level you can think of. Objectivism ignores the very real and very complex reciprocal relationship man has with society around him. Altruism, for example, has a biological root in man, altruism has helped man not only survive, but succeed. I mean listen to her first example of altruism - when would that ever happen?
@sugarcanegray When Rand talks about altruism she is usually talking about moral altruism, not the amoral altruist behavior which is observed in animals. Rand has nothing against altruistic BEHAVIOR. You are right, we have evolved to behave altruistically, but this behavior is clearly in our self-interest.
I’m not going to defend her morality, as I am a nihilist, but this needs to be cleared up: self-interest and behavioral altruism are not opposed to each other.
@Minarchist088 animal altruism is not necessarily amoral - morality exists throughout the animal kingdom, albeit in simpler forms than our own, and it's their altruism that is the foundation for our own.
The thing is, Rand doesn't grasp the difference between self-interest and selfishness. Altruism, any kind of cooperation in fact, is in our self-interest and self-interest is natural and fine. What Rand pushes is selfishness - which is looking out for oneself at the expense of others.
@sugarcanegray Animal altruistic behavior is necessarily amoral if you are a moral nihilist like myself. Debating the nuances of this fiction (how it’s simpler, etc) is pretty much a waste of my time. Debate with objectivists if you must about these nuances.
I am not an objectivist, but I will say this: Rand did not define selfishness as looking out for oneself AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS. For her, selfishness is simply “concern with one’s own interest”.
@Minarchist088 why call that fiction? It's a biological and evolutionary fact.
Rand could define self-interest and selfishness however she wants, but that doesn't make it right - selfishness is self-interest at the expense of others. Any other definition is incorrect.
@sugarcanegray Why fiction? First I have to know what you are: You say morality “exists” – according to you, what is the metaphysical nature of morality? Is there objective moral truths floating around out there that somehow interact with the material world? Are you a subjectivist?…if you are a subjectivist then there would be hardly anything for us to disagree on other than semantics. Or are you something else?
@sugarcanegray But do you believe in objective morality which claims some actions are good or evil no matter what? Simply put, does any facet of nature demand that I ought to act in a certain way? If you simply are using the evolutionary psychological definition of morality (which is akin to subjectivism, and the anthropological definition of morality), then as I’ve already said we have little to disagree over.
@sugarcanegray “Rand could define self-interest and selfishness however she wants, but that doesn't make it right - selfishness is self-interest at the expense of others.” Well then, you two are talking about two different things aren’t you…and that means you came here complaining about something she never said nor advocated for in the first place(expense of others).
@Minarchist088 no we're talking about the same thing, but she's using the wrong words. Her interpretation of self-interest is what the dictionary and everyone else calls selfishness.
@sugarcanegray No, you and Rand cannot be talking about the SAME thing. You use the word in different senses: She uses the word “selfish”, you don’t like her definition of it, so you use a different definition of “selfish”, and attribute it to her. After you attribute a different definition of the word to her (or rather,after you have added something to it, namely “at the expense of others”), you complain about it. Not only have you managed to equivocate, but you are also committing a straw man.
@Minarchist088 Ok you're mixing the words up here. She uses the words "self-interest" when what she's talking about is selfishness. She seems unable to differentiate the two, certainly not in her philosophy.
As for the definition of selfishness I go by every definition I've ever encountered. If you can find a different one then by all means let me know.
And I fail to see any straw man in what I'm saying. Surely you can see the HUGE difference between self-interest and selfishness?
@sugarcanegray Haha don’t talk about mixing up words! I was the one who straightened out how she defined the damn thing.
I cannot understand how you fail to see your straw man. YES, she defined selfishness as something you don’t define it as. What you DID was take your own version, talk as if that’s what she meant, and thus distort what she actually says (straw man). She never claimed “at the expense of other” – that is your straw man. Talk about “mixing up words”.
@sugarcanegray I will say this again: I understand you are annoyed that she uses the term in a specific way, but I will not debate etymology because it doesn’t get to the underlying philosophy. Call it “Randian selfishness” if you want, but your not doing any real damage by getting hung up on words – get hung up on the meaning behind the words instead.
And you do do this when you talk about self-interest as a moral imperative. But like I said, I’m not here to discuss ethics.
@Minarchist088 your smart comment - "don't get hung up on words, get hung up on the meaning behind the words" The folks that have never read a page of philosophy in their lives need to hear this so they can effectively dialogue.
@Minarchist088 I suppose I should explain a little clearer. Rand suggests her version of Self-Interest (which is actually Selfishness) is a moral imperative. Self-interest is indeed an imperative, certainly a biological one, and could be argued it's a moral one.
Selfishness (which is what she's actually talking about) is in no way an imperative on any kind of level - biologically, evolutionary nor morally.
As for her using the wrong words just pretend she is saying self-interest from now on if it bugs you. Take your issue up with etymologists if it bugs you so much that yet an alternative meaning for a word emerged nearly 50 years ago. This is really rather trivial.
@Minarchist088 lol ok so you think it's alright to misuse words when they're the fundamental component to your philosophy? This is the absurdity of Rand's worldview - it holds no basis in reality, only her deluded mind. Even if you pretend that she means self-interest instead of selfishness, her ideas do not make any sense at all in that regard because she only speaks about selfishness.
@sugarcanegray Ugg…don’t believe I did point this out before…what you are saying is still hardly an issue for objectivists anyway because what they morally advocate is “rational SELF-INTEREST” – she might use the word selfishness sometimes, but rational self-interest is the preferred term amongst them.
@sugarcanegray What she pushes is “ration self-interest”…a concept that I find is hogwash, but even this concept did not rule out behavioral altruism. It only ruled out moral altruism.
I’m only elaborating on this because it seems many people are confused.
@MyITRcom Rand is also wrong in her idea of what Altruism is. She thinks, quite mistakenly, that altruism is making someone else happy but sacrificing your own happiness, which is not actually correct. Altruism is also observed in many species because it's an evolved behaviour, one that is beneficial to species and it's now thought to have a genetic root.
I could go on. Rand's about as good at philosophy as a 4 year old. Her views are bitter, twisted and could not be more wrong.
Altruism is an extreme, it wouldn't even work if we took zero care of ourselves, but took care of only others. What if I decided I could stroll around naked in the jungle with no weapons because I knew someone else must save me from harm. Stupid example, but ultimate altruism falls apart there. You can't be ultimately selfish either because like children you would stay in perpetual war over resources. The only way any one is exploited is because people give over control.
Why have a movement dedicated to her principles when what she advocates already runs rampant in the world...? Does the world need to have this stuff imposed?
If she had to choose between letting her husband die, or letting someone else's husband die? What if it were, letting her husband die, or letting many other husband's die. Along her line of thinking, the wives of the other husbands that died, would take vengeance against her and husband...simply because selfishly, it would make them feel better.
In her selfishness, she would end up losing everything.
Selfishness, would make everyone enemies of each other.
That's called simple sharing. mutual benefit. Rand didn't like feeling compelled to help others or share. She felt that sharing is only justified if you like them. Rand's viewpoints were far more extreme then you're describing. Her logic: "I'm in the desert with one loaf of bread, I have a long way to go, its only enough bread for me. Tough luck buddy, youre on your own. It would be immoral for me to share with you, because that could prove detrimental to me in the long run."
No. Sharing the bread would be the right thing to do. Rand would think that its harmful to share. The other person, for the sake of their own survival, must therefore assault and destroy her, to gain the bread. Both would be displaying the selfishness that Rand supports. In essence then, it's RAND that is arguing for people to take actions that harm themselves. Rand would waste energy defending her bread, and possibly suffer injury that prevents her survival.
@jathanator Uhmm, hello! Wake up and smell the coffee! If not cooperating with another individual is harmful to your SELF, then it is MORAL for you to cooperate with that individual according to Objectivism! Objectivism is not atomism or isolationism.
@jathanator wow. just wow. she SAID its not harmful to share if its with the one you love. you can share with others but that is a choice. it is immoral to give it to someone you dont love or know if it was cause harm to yourself. if the other one attacks her for the bread then they are in the wrong even though in nature it is justifiable. but what shes saying is, the majority of 1st world people are not hungry. Therefore why share bread unless that person needs it and you dont.
@MyITRcom i cant find my other comment so i dont really know what your comment is based on so its confusing. So i dont really know what to say to that. What I do know is that, what you said is nowhere near anything shes trying to say.
To put it simply. Contrary to Rand's view. It is not wise to resist all forms of compulsive service. The situation crimson describes requires it. Rand exaggerates how deep the sacrifices of altruism are, she implies that anyone that receives benefit from the sacrifice of another is automatically going to treat such sacrifice with disdain, and makes a negative moral judgment against the person making the sacrifice.
Her eloquent speech masks the iniquity she expounds.
@CrimsonPhoenix62 lol. well thanks. i gotta admit, I get a little upset when I read her papers. I think of people like Jesus of Nazereth, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mother Teresa... and its like... those people represent the epitome of what she despises. In essence, her viewpoint goes into DIRECT opposition to what these people stood for. She would be an "antichrist", a "non-racist" thats not interested in ending racism, and an unreasonable critic of Teresa.
She's quick to point out and condemn faults in altruism, but provides no alternative to solving the problems that altruism does. In essence, I perceive her as "evil" trying to make a "case" against "good".
In her world, firefighters would let the baby in the burning house die. lol (if firefighters would exist at all)
@jathanator unless they hold as a value not wanting to see a child burn to death as worth more than to sit idle. would fire fighters exist well that's up to you ( many are volunteers ) its a personal choice and one of selfishness . I would not run into a house on fire knowing I would meet my death regardless of whats in that house even my mother. that would make no sense. but if there is possibly a chance of saving something I hold of value than of course yes
I understand what she's saying but part of me still doesn't want to believe her. I feel I'm altruistic by nature but maybe that's due to society's expectations. She is a damn clever woman to be able to put so much doubt in my mind (from beyond the grave no less!).
@195ashes Good job challenging yourself with reason. It is always good to check your premises. If this intrigues you, read her book "The Virtue of Selfishness." It will blow your mind with startling clarity.
@fzqlcs I like to do my bit to show that not all socialists are brainwashed, propaganda-following, adolescents (although I am a 19 year old student so I guess I kind of conform to the stereotype) whose only motivations to support socialism are to look cool and/or to kid themselves they are intellectuals. There seem to be alot of people at uni who claim to be free-thinkers but they aren't. I want to learn and the best way to do that is to try and prove my ideology wrong.
I find this quite interesting as I have, for years, wondered about the "motives' behind different charities and organizations such as: the American Cancer Society, "Coats for kids" programs. All these "programs" that are suppose to help but the end result is we still have people dying from cancer and we still have children going without the basic necessities they need to survive. I think it is hilarious that some of these posts put her down when she is bringing some truth to the illusion.
A lunatic remains a lunatic no matter how intelligent he or she may be. Rand was, to put it mildly, a sociopath...I see others agree with me...and the world she envisioned would be a soulless, dark nightmare. The glorification and pedestalising of the worst aspects of human nature - selfishness, unrestrained science, the denial and rejection of compassion. Oh, and she really really REALLY hated socialism, but pretended that this primitive fear was 'deeper' than just crypto-fascism.
Compare the depth and significance of the topics being discussed on this 'old school' talk show, with the crap on today's Jerry Springer type programs !!
oh and by "laissez-faire capitalism" I do mean a much less controlled mixed economy - as of course there has never really been a true laissez-faire capitalist nation that I am aware of. Never-the-less, a bit of a mix is a good thing.
Yikes! Who can honestly take this borderline sociopath's ideology seriously? Some of her ideas are agreeable, although most of those exist in a vacuum, but the underlying philosophy is simply unethical. mixed economy > laissez-faire capitalism in terms of overall human well-being. There is just too much evidence to suggest otherwise. Forcing a small amount of altruism is a good thing. Humans are otherwise too selfish and afraid.
No, the healthy functioning of the organism "society" is higher than that organism "self", each of us is a member of society, that if "self" is important to you, then society must function healthily with each "self", before "self" is recommended. No society, no profit to self beyond what disorganised wilderness can bring.
I don't disagree with everything said in this video but I feel it must be said that the idea that the world is the way it is because of altruism, and its consequences, is a fallacy. Just look at colonialism; the conquering, subjugation and dispossession of most of the world by various European states, and how that set the stage for the world as it is today. The attempt to classify those actions as altruistic would be ridiculous.
Ayn Rand promoted RATIONAL selfishness, i.e., doing what is in one's rational self-interest. This is the only way to truly live. It is the what a human is designed for - to survive through self-sustaining action. If you read her books, you will see how her heros seem to be amazing at life. That is because they are completely healthy and fit for living - they are brilliantly alive. Selflessness can only lead to the degeneration of your life - how can any one call that moral?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ayn Rand was a socio-path who gave the uber wealthy selfish people in society permission to openly hate/demonize the poor. She also incorrectly claims that selfishness is height of human existence while condemning all those who give to others solely out of morality, selflessness, or love. A hateful idiot of epic levels
@Bolgernow but those who are 'poor' are experiencing that lack in order to learn, taking soul growth from others is a breaking of universal law.. so she is right about this; Mind you, not many individuals self sacrifice to this point - they are usually self preserving to some extent, as that is an inbuilt instinct... most these days are the opposite infact.
@SovereignBeing perhaps your "inner thinking" is off. People are people. The place they live or are from is the same in different terms. We are ALL humans. If you don't accept that, we do. Prove lower people can't rise above. I'm living proof the Duke brothers are dead wrong & assholes, on every level
@SovereignBeing rejecting the concept of humanity makes you clinically insane. The Duke Brothers are from the film Trading Places. Immanuel Kant makes Rand stuff look like feces in your hand...
@softballprincess110 i'm a conservative christian and an altruist but i would be ecstatic to write a paper in school on Ayn Rand. Consider yourself lucky.
when he said "philosophic idea advanced by religions" that reminds me of an argument I had with my Catholic school teacher who told us that it was wrong to commit suicide even if we sacrificed ourselves to save someone because it meant we thought of what God gave us (the self) as unimportant.
Conclusion: My teacher must have been Aynn Rand! :0
But seriously...I still think humanity wouldn't have survived as well without altruism (whether right or wrong). Even primates practice it!
@WhatsThisBLIDontEven I think a lot of this...both Rand and your school teacher see these things in the world...altruism, sacrifice etc. and they then come up with a philosophy to explain it which always just happens to also coincide with their own model of the word.
Along with being fantastically coincidental its simply a waste of time without demonstration of WHY this explanation of theirs is a viable or valid explanation.
The idea that 'we don't yet know' seems to totally pass them by!
@sashwort00 Based on what objective observation? What civilization has perished due to an inordinate amount of altruism? Altruism is love, and there has never been a society that has had too much of that.
About this rational self interest vs. altruism distinction... If you practice altruism at the individual level, Rand might shrug and say you could do better, but she would not compel you to stop doing it, neither would I. The evil of altruism comes when you say "I am contributing to this cause, and I don't want to be the only one. I am going to get the government to compel you to contribute also, under the threat of punishment." Get it kids? Don't Tread On Me.
TaylorThaHick 3 days ago
@TaylorThaHick Rational self interest? Human beings are not rational. Rational self-interest in this context means that you're caving into the fear of chaos. Altruism in this context means that you're caving into the fear of guilt. Do you seriously still believe in rational behavior and markets even though modern marketing is based on IRRATIONAL behavior? And, the woods example was to show you how silly this "do for yourself" attitude is. Humans are group animals, not tigers.
tstruss912 3 days ago
@tstruss912 Stalin came to the same conclusion, that people were not rational, and therefore must be led by their betters.
TaylorThaHick 2 days ago
@TaylorThaHick Your economic worldview is based on your ideology and emotion, not rationality. If you were in the least bit rational then you would base your economic worldview on WHAT WORKS. Gov, if properly controlled, works better sometimes. It depends. Healthcare is an undeniable (unless you're in denial lol) example of the gov doing a better job by leaps and bounds. We should be paying 30% less and covering 15% more people. Gov is the answer.
tstruss912 3 days ago
@tstruss912 Well, it would also save us 30% if all stores sold themselves to Walmart, and we got everything from them. It would be much more efficient. The Soviets tried that too. The fact that capitalism ends up costing less in the long run in incidental to the main fact that it is the only moral system - it allows me to vote with my dollars. Healthcare costs are high because of socialism. "We" should be paying FIFTY% less and covering no one.
TaylorThaHick 3 days ago
@TaylorThaHick Why do you view everything in extremes? I'm talking about responsible, accountable capitalism with some social spending/programs. You're talking about YOUR version of morality being imposed on everybody else. THAT sounds like soviet collectivism. Fuck your morality. And fuck mine too. And fuck the other guys. Society is a collection of people and therefore the economy should reflect that. It should be mixed like in Europe.
tstruss912 3 days ago
@tstruss912 What you're saying about covering no one is not only against the morality of the majority of the country, but it's also just plain stupid.Do you know how many negative consequences would spring from that?! It makes no RATIONAL sense.Once again, this proves my point: Randians are irrational as all hell, not rational in the least.Please get a hold of your emotions and realize that you have to compromise with other peaceful people who disagree with your version of morality.
tstruss912 3 days ago
@tstruss912 Freedom often contradicts what the majority want. Everyone assumes they can find a way to be a net beneficiary in any collective system, so they will vote for such a system. In addition, moral hazard guarantees the system will be exploited and end up costing more.
TaylorThaHick 2 days ago
@TaylorThaHick But wait...you said that I was the one wanting a minority to put their view on the majority? Sounds like you want us to be led by our betters (people who agree with you). Stalin came to the same conclusion. See how easy that is. Please...stop with these lame comparisons to dictators. Is Germany a dictatorship? Canada? Switzerland? The Netherlands? That's what we in the middle are aiming towards...not any fantasies the (((GB))) thinks up...
tstruss912 2 days ago
@TaylorThaHick "Freedom often contradicts what the majority want." uhh...no. That's only true when you DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THE LEFT-WING VIEW OF FREEDOM! I'm a moderate and I'm tired of you guys on the right and left fucking this country up because you can't be adults and comprise. You're not evil. The left is not evil. Now start compromising goddammit. What's do hard about that?
tstruss912 2 days ago
@TaylorThaHick It should be: "What's *so* hard about that?"
tstruss912 2 days ago
@tstruss912 @tstruss912 The truth of things is not extreme. No, I am not saying I have some secret access to the truth, but the statement still stands. The nice thing about holding individual rights as a moral absolute is that it imposes the bare minimum on others, only your system does the imposing.
The constitution is not about what the collective decides is ok for now, there are some timeless principles that should be enforced regardless of what some bribed politician prefers.
TaylorThaHick 2 days ago
I find that most who dismiss Ayn Rand’s morality don’t really understand it. Her “selfishness” is long-term, principled self-interest. People are a combination of the physical and mental, and your self-interest includes psychological values. Self-interest is not to be reduced to only the physical, such as money. Other people can be of tremendous psychological value (i.e. friends, lovers, children.) Rand recognized that benevolence toward strangers is in one’s own interest, in a free country.
SwordOfApollo 3 days ago
@SwordOfApollo Your characterization of Ayn Rand is spot on. Only people that have never read Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff think that Objectivists are out to steal the cookies from the cookie jar.
TaylorThaHick 3 days ago
If you want the benefits of living in a civlization, you're obligated to help another. Don't like it, go live in the woods with someone who believe the same thing.
HybridD91 5 days ago
@HybridD91 Civilization is valuable to individuals to the extent that it leaves them free to pursue their own interests. The near-laissez-faire capitalism of late 19th Century America was a boon to individuals at all levels of society. (Read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.) The peasants of the USSR, or the Jews in Nazi concentration camps would have been FAR better off in the wild, without their particular governments.
SwordOfApollo 3 days ago
too many no brain fundamentalists read Rand now thats the problem.... unphilosopohic "conservative" dickheads...
finalnexus 6 days ago
Comment removed
Joshology21 1 week ago
@Joshology21 Altruism is sacrifice. That is just great for you, but I think it sucks. So, if you REALLY believe in it, sacrifice me your money. I can send you a Paypal address. Don't waste it on another altruist. They will just give it away! hahahahahahaha
fzqlcs 1 week ago
@fzqlcs You would give it away as well but with different intentions. Try again.
HybridD91 5 days ago
@fzqlcs dude, best comment ever!
TaylorThaHick 3 days ago
Comment removed
ChasingCharles 1 week ago
Your reasoning is pathetic. Rational Selfishness is eating healthy. Altruism is giving most of my money away to soup kitchens and buying a loaf of white bread just to sustain myself. Rational selfishness is studying in advance for a math test. Altruism is using my study-time -and sacrificing my A- to help my brother with his assignments. Rational Selfishness is donating a kidney to the woman who makes my life worth living while Altruism is giving away my organs to strangers.
ChasingCharles 1 week ago
@Joshology21 Rise up against what? Myself?
ChasingCharles 1 week ago
Comment removed
Joshology21 1 week ago
"Communism is based on altruism" aaahhhh....how anybody can listen to this crap is beyond me. No wonder she's not taken seriously as a philosopher. Altruism has NEVER been the basis of a society. Never. Societies have always been based on preventing harm and authoritarianism, in differing quantities.
tstruss912 1 week ago
Only moronic individuals dont understand what she is saying.
Bigturns33 1 week ago
@Bigturns33 and only cowards and assholes don't repel from the message in disgust.
tstruss912 1 week ago
@tstruss912 Individualism is anti coward and is courages. One who is a provider and a producer and doesnt mooch of others is hardly a coward and certainlly would not be considered an asshole because he is good and is not making anyone a victim. Communism by the way and socialism is completly rooted in Altruism and under what that concept represents.
Bigturns33 1 week ago
@Bigturns33 Socialism is nothing more than workers being able to vote on what happens within a company. How is that altruism? Communism is a state-less left-wing society; it's the counterpart to right-wing "individualism". Taking care of yourself is fine and dandy, but it's not enough. People have to care about others, about harm coming to others. That makes a society stronger. That line of thinking can be taken too far, just like you and Ayn took individualism too far.
tstruss912 1 week ago
@tstruss912 “Taking care of yourself is fine and dandy, but it's not enough. People have to care about others” - You
“Altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence” - Rand
“What Ayn is describing is something that NOBODY accepts” – You
You are already treading close to what she proposes altruism is. You substitute “service to others” for “care for others” it seems – then claim “caring for other” is not altruism
Minarchist088 1 week ago
@tstruss912 I’m not saying you fall into her definition that “nobody accepts”…but it really is very close.
Minarchist088 1 week ago
@Minarchist088 Altruism is based on total self-sacrifice. What I'm talking about is living in a society--that takes some caring. Should we go back to living in the woods, all alone?
tstruss912 1 week ago
@tstruss912 All I’m pointing out is the extreme similarity...you may not be an altruist as defined as Rand, but you are coming dangerously close.
In any case, would I be a good person if I didn’t care about other people in your society? And if not, why?
Minarchist088 1 week ago
@tstruss912 Oh yeah, and no I don’t think we should go back to living in the woods all alone…it’s not in my self-interest to be isolated. It is in my self-interest to cooperate with others.
Minarchist088 1 week ago
@Minarchist088 Yes, if you didn't care about others you would be a sociopathic piece of shit. That's a pscyholocical fact. Plenty of studies and brain scans have been done on that.
tstruss912 1 week ago
@tstruss912 So, not caring for others, not self-sacrificing, would make me a piece of shit? Why? What is it about the sociopath that is immoral?
Hmmm…I don’t think Rand suggests suppressing caring behavior. She does however advocate suppressing caring morality…there is a very large difference between caring for others because it is in you self-interest, and caring for others because something demands it or forces you to.
Minarchist088 1 week ago
@Minarchist088 "She does however advocate suppressing caring morality" Yes, therein lies the problem. Human beings are designed to live in groups. That is why we have authority: decision making breaks down in groups of six or more. Studies have shown this. We therefore are concerned with order and hierarchy, to some degree. But that can lead to tyranny. Therefore, we also have mechanisms of empathy: mirror neurons, etc. Without some empathy and respect for athority
tstruss912 1 week ago
@tstruss912 So if I’m sitting there minding my own business…yet not caring about others –I am piece of shit for that? That is your morality? Not caring = immoral. So that is one primary aspect of your morality? As I have already said, you are treading dangerously close to Rand’s definition of altruism.
Minarchist088 1 week ago
@Minarchist088 "So if I’m sitting there minding my own business" In the middle of a forest? No? Ya, if you're in a society where everybody works hard to make it successful and you're just sitting there then you're a piece of shit. You're trying too hard to make your natural framing of reality fit reality. You know that conservative thinking is well understood, right? Your "take care of yourself and then everything is OK" is thought for thought how conservatives frame reality.
tstruss912 1 week ago
@Minarchist088 And, that's fine. The problem is that without caring about others it's not fine. And no, your self-interest theory doesn't work across the board. This is why conservatives will be the end of humanity: not caring about anything beyond their own tiny lives. How does your rational self-interest model work if you're a slob and you don't care about your environment. Since you also don't care about others you wouldn't mind dumping toxic waste all over the place.
tstruss912 1 week ago
@Minarchist088 This is why most climate change deniers are right-wing. It doesn't fit into the "rational" self-interest model. BTW, humans aren't rational. Did rand tell you that? Most thought is sub-conscious and based on emotions. That's a big part of why rainman can't think properly: his emotional system is fucked. How could you know what to want without emotions? It's impossible. Go look at a person with that part of the brain damaged and see for yourself.
tstruss912 1 week ago
@tstruss912 Ok, so it still applies to society? Immoral still equals not caring? You don’t want to change your formulation yet? Jeez, you are becoming more and more altruistic every time I talk to you!!
Minarchist088 1 week ago
@tstruss912 As for you saying conservatives “will be the end of humanity”…I don’t like em either lol. When it comes to rational self-interest and the environment – the model works within the side constraints of the no harm principle…and I’m afraid too much pollution is indeed harmful. Consistent libertarians would use the government to regulate and control pollution just as you would.
Minarchist088 1 week ago
@Minarchist088 "Use the government" or private means if they are anarchists.
Minarchist088 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Minarchist088 "Consistent libertarians would use the government to regulate and control pollution just as you would." True, and this is an admission by you that you are "altruistic" just like me then, no? The environment won't affect us much, but the next generation is counting on us. My beef is the proposed mechanism for preventing harm to the environment, self-regulation via private property laws. That's what many libertarians say.I guess you're closer to me on that issue.
tstruss912 1 week ago
Comment removed
Minarchist088 1 week ago
@tstruss912 Caring for others/service to others is a positive right – that is what makes them altruistic. You are giving up something to give to others – you are morally obliged to do this.
Not harming individuals is a negative right – that is why it is not altruistic. I do not have to give up anything to give to others – I am not morally obliged to give to you.
Minarchist088 1 week ago
@tstruss912 The “rational” self-interest does not care if most action is determined by the unconscious or subconscious…it only cares about what you are conscious of. To rand, emotions are “estimates of that which furthers man’s values or threatens them, that which is for him or against him”. For her, individuals should consider them, not neglect them as you imply, and it is this consideration that makes conscious actions rational.
Minarchist088 1 week ago
@Minarchist088 I meant to say: "and it is this consideration that makes rational self-interest actions “rational.”"
Minarchist088 1 week ago
@tstruss912 There is no problem. I will still cooperate, help, respect, be kind, etc, to you. It is in my self-interest to do so. Rational self-interest does not advocate doing anything contrary to survival…the point is, these things MAY be necessary for survival, thus moral. It is dependent upon circumstances…and that is the difference between a fluid and adaptable philosophy of self-interest, vs a static morality that advocates one rule for all circumstances.
Minarchist088 1 week ago
@tstruss912 You have now made it clear that the sociopath is immoral because he does not care. Caring is a necessary condition for your morality. For Ayn Rand, caring is only necessary and moral WHEN it contributes to survival.
Minarchist088 1 week ago
Comment removed
Minarchist088 1 week ago
@Minarchist088 civilization is impossible. It will always turn into chaos or tyranny if the balance is fucked up. Then there are those who advocate we don't have authority (or have an absurdly small authority structure) and that we don't empathize. Ya, that's an anti-social recipe for disaster. That is why sociopaths are immoral; they don't respect authority and they don't empathize. Rand is the champion of that dysfunctional thinking, and I hate her for it.
tstruss912 1 week ago
@Minarchist088 Remember that these are not all or nothing questions. These are questions of degree. Should we open a room in our house to the homeless because Jesus would do so...I don't think so. I've worked with the homeless but still wouldn't go that far. Should we consider others in our decision making even if we don't have to, yes. Otherwise, we become instruments of dysfunction. If everybody was like Rand, society wouldn't work. Not even close. That's immoral.
tstruss912 1 week ago
@Minarchist088 You also wouldn't care about yourself if you didn't care about others. It comes from the same part of the brain. The only question is whether or not you suppress the
tstruss912 1 week ago
@Minarchist088 impulse to help others. To an extent it's good to suppress it, but it's not something that takes conscious effort and an ideology, as Rand suggests.
tstruss912 1 week ago
@tstruss912 Living in the woods, all alone, would not be in my rational self interest.
TaylorThaHick 3 days ago
@tstruss912 Workers should have no POSITIVE rights regarding what happens in a company. They should NEGATIVE rights, such as the right to work in a safe environment, be paid for the work they do, and a few others. They certainly have no right to a job or to do what they want with the assets of the company simply because they use them in their job.
TaylorThaHick 3 days ago
@Bigturns33 Caring about others is not altruism. What Ayn is describing is something that NOBODY accepts. Communism--the actual existing version, not the theoretical one I mentioned before--was based on obedience and domination. It was a totalitarian state. Authoritarianism is a right-wing trait. That's a fact. Go look up the studies. So, it makes no sense to call it altruism when it's actually authoritarianism cloaked as socialism/classical communism. See?
tstruss912 1 week ago
@Bigturns33 There's a difference between abstract concepts and existing reality. You know that. So what she did was take an abstract concept which is not accepted by anybody (altruism), said that another philosophy was based on it (communism), and then said how evil came from that philosophy--the one which was an abstract idea NOT based on altruism, but rather on harm-prevention, and which was never realized in the real world. An honest person would say that authoritarianism was
tstruss912 1 week ago
@Bigturns33 the cause. But apparently Ayn doesn't care about reality. She cares about justifying her own selfishness: her taking of social security money while she bashes gov at every chance; her fucking another guy in front of her husband; etc, etc. I don't bother justifying those...I have something called guilt. I feel guilty watching harm come to others just so I can be a coward, oh sorry, I mean a tough individualist. Ya...that's it.
tstruss912 1 week ago
Rand was a hypocrite and a bitch. She displayed multiple symptoms of sociopathic behavior, took advantage of government programs etc. Only fitting that she couldn't sell enough books she had to delve into government. Libertarian hypocrites are a dime a dozen.
1019079 2 weeks ago
@1019079 Couldn't sell enough books? I believe that Atlas Shrugged sold more copies than any other work of fiction except the Holy Bible. Over time, it should become number one as it was published a lot later and exhibits a far superior morality.
fzqlcs 2 weeks ago
@fzqlcs Apparently. Why would she suck up medicare if nobody but libertarian conspiracy loons bought her books. Case and point: the tea party.
1019079 2 weeks ago
How surprising that the majority of Ayn Rand supporters are also fascist Ron Paul endorsers (see uploader link).
17peteclarke 2 weeks ago
@17peteclarke What’s your point? It’s no more surprising that some Marx supporters would gravitate towards a socialist candidate.
Minarchist088 2 weeks ago
@Minarchist088 my point is objectivism = fascism = ron paul
i don't understand what you mean by what's my point? are you endorsing fascism er?
17peteclarke 2 weeks ago
@17peteclarke Haha this will be good…so how are they fascist?
Before you begin, I really hope you are using the proper lexical definition of fascism and not a stipulative one…there would be no point in arguing about it then as anyone can make up new definitions of words.
Minarchist088 2 weeks ago
I find that most who dismiss Ayn Rand’s morality don’t really understand it. Her “selfishness” is long-term, principled self-interest. People are a combination of the physical and mental, and your self-interest includes psychological values. Self-interest is not to be reduced to only the physical, such as money. Other people can be of tremendous psychological value (i.e. friends, lovers, children.) Rand recognized that benevolence toward strangers is in one’s own interest, in a free country.
SwordOfApollo 2 weeks ago
well said.
A hard point to make, she did it very well..
godkingmac 3 weeks ago
I have a hard time believing how Rand could deny evolution, environmental science, and quantum mechanics when she's atheist.
CosmoShidan 3 weeks ago
@CosmoShidan Also was Rand scared of death? Because it's nothing to fear.
CosmoShidan 3 weeks ago
Rand's view of the world is so unbelievably oversimplified as to be utterly absurd. I don't think she lived in anything remotely resembling reality to have come up with a "philosophy" as socially perverse as Objectivism.
What's even more shocking is how, in this current crisis, caused by the very people she so admires, is that so many people are now starting to read her books and adhere to her bitter ideas.
I hope she enjoyed her social security benefits.
sugarcanegray 4 weeks ago
check your premise
420ballsmcgee 2 weeks ago
@420ballsmcgee explain.
sugarcanegray 2 weeks ago
@sugarcanegray No amount of complication makes it wrong.. Your wishing will not change the fact of reality that it is indeed simple.. YOU only succeed in creating a world not worth living in for anyone.
MyITRcom 2 weeks ago
@MyITRcom Actually, yes, her philosophy is wrong on pretty much every level you can think of. Objectivism ignores the very real and very complex reciprocal relationship man has with society around him. Altruism, for example, has a biological root in man, altruism has helped man not only survive, but succeed. I mean listen to her first example of altruism - when would that ever happen?
sugarcanegray 2 weeks ago
@sugarcanegray When Rand talks about altruism she is usually talking about moral altruism, not the amoral altruist behavior which is observed in animals. Rand has nothing against altruistic BEHAVIOR. You are right, we have evolved to behave altruistically, but this behavior is clearly in our self-interest.
I’m not going to defend her morality, as I am a nihilist, but this needs to be cleared up: self-interest and behavioral altruism are not opposed to each other.
Minarchist088 2 weeks ago
@Minarchist088 animal altruism is not necessarily amoral - morality exists throughout the animal kingdom, albeit in simpler forms than our own, and it's their altruism that is the foundation for our own.
The thing is, Rand doesn't grasp the difference between self-interest and selfishness. Altruism, any kind of cooperation in fact, is in our self-interest and self-interest is natural and fine. What Rand pushes is selfishness - which is looking out for oneself at the expense of others.
sugarcanegray 2 weeks ago
@sugarcanegray Animal altruistic behavior is necessarily amoral if you are a moral nihilist like myself. Debating the nuances of this fiction (how it’s simpler, etc) is pretty much a waste of my time. Debate with objectivists if you must about these nuances.
I am not an objectivist, but I will say this: Rand did not define selfishness as looking out for oneself AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS. For her, selfishness is simply “concern with one’s own interest”.
Minarchist088 2 weeks ago
@Minarchist088 why call that fiction? It's a biological and evolutionary fact.
Rand could define self-interest and selfishness however she wants, but that doesn't make it right - selfishness is self-interest at the expense of others. Any other definition is incorrect.
sugarcanegray 2 weeks ago
@sugarcanegray Why fiction? First I have to know what you are: You say morality “exists” – according to you, what is the metaphysical nature of morality? Is there objective moral truths floating around out there that somehow interact with the material world? Are you a subjectivist?…if you are a subjectivist then there would be hardly anything for us to disagree on other than semantics. Or are you something else?
Minarchist088 2 weeks ago
@Minarchist088 I'm a person. I say morality exists because of the evolutionary science behind it, not my opinion, nor anyones philosophy.
sugarcanegray 2 weeks ago
@sugarcanegray But do you believe in objective morality which claims some actions are good or evil no matter what? Simply put, does any facet of nature demand that I ought to act in a certain way? If you simply are using the evolutionary psychological definition of morality (which is akin to subjectivism, and the anthropological definition of morality), then as I’ve already said we have little to disagree over.
Minarchist088 2 weeks ago
@sugarcanegray “Rand could define self-interest and selfishness however she wants, but that doesn't make it right - selfishness is self-interest at the expense of others.” Well then, you two are talking about two different things aren’t you…and that means you came here complaining about something she never said nor advocated for in the first place(expense of others).
Minarchist088 2 weeks ago
@Minarchist088 no we're talking about the same thing, but she's using the wrong words. Her interpretation of self-interest is what the dictionary and everyone else calls selfishness.
sugarcanegray 2 weeks ago
@sugarcanegray No, you and Rand cannot be talking about the SAME thing. You use the word in different senses: She uses the word “selfish”, you don’t like her definition of it, so you use a different definition of “selfish”, and attribute it to her. After you attribute a different definition of the word to her (or rather,after you have added something to it, namely “at the expense of others”), you complain about it. Not only have you managed to equivocate, but you are also committing a straw man.
Minarchist088 2 weeks ago
@Minarchist088 Ok you're mixing the words up here. She uses the words "self-interest" when what she's talking about is selfishness. She seems unable to differentiate the two, certainly not in her philosophy.
As for the definition of selfishness I go by every definition I've ever encountered. If you can find a different one then by all means let me know.
And I fail to see any straw man in what I'm saying. Surely you can see the HUGE difference between self-interest and selfishness?
sugarcanegray 2 weeks ago
@sugarcanegray Haha don’t talk about mixing up words! I was the one who straightened out how she defined the damn thing.
I cannot understand how you fail to see your straw man. YES, she defined selfishness as something you don’t define it as. What you DID was take your own version, talk as if that’s what she meant, and thus distort what she actually says (straw man). She never claimed “at the expense of other” – that is your straw man. Talk about “mixing up words”.
Minarchist088 2 weeks ago
@sugarcanegray I will say this again: I understand you are annoyed that she uses the term in a specific way, but I will not debate etymology because it doesn’t get to the underlying philosophy. Call it “Randian selfishness” if you want, but your not doing any real damage by getting hung up on words – get hung up on the meaning behind the words instead.
And you do do this when you talk about self-interest as a moral imperative. But like I said, I’m not here to discuss ethics.
Minarchist088 2 weeks ago
@Minarchist088 your smart comment - "don't get hung up on words, get hung up on the meaning behind the words" The folks that have never read a page of philosophy in their lives need to hear this so they can effectively dialogue.
TaylorThaHick 3 days ago
@Minarchist088 I suppose I should explain a little clearer. Rand suggests her version of Self-Interest (which is actually Selfishness) is a moral imperative. Self-interest is indeed an imperative, certainly a biological one, and could be argued it's a moral one.
Selfishness (which is what she's actually talking about) is in no way an imperative on any kind of level - biologically, evolutionary nor morally.
sugarcanegray 2 weeks ago
@sugarcanegray
As for her using the wrong words just pretend she is saying self-interest from now on if it bugs you. Take your issue up with etymologists if it bugs you so much that yet an alternative meaning for a word emerged nearly 50 years ago. This is really rather trivial.
Minarchist088 2 weeks ago
@Minarchist088 lol ok so you think it's alright to misuse words when they're the fundamental component to your philosophy? This is the absurdity of Rand's worldview - it holds no basis in reality, only her deluded mind. Even if you pretend that she means self-interest instead of selfishness, her ideas do not make any sense at all in that regard because she only speaks about selfishness.
sugarcanegray 2 weeks ago
@sugarcanegray Ugg…don’t believe I did point this out before…what you are saying is still hardly an issue for objectivists anyway because what they morally advocate is “rational SELF-INTEREST” – she might use the word selfishness sometimes, but rational self-interest is the preferred term amongst them.
Minarchist088 1 week ago
@sugarcanegray What she pushes is “ration self-interest”…a concept that I find is hogwash, but even this concept did not rule out behavioral altruism. It only ruled out moral altruism.
I’m only elaborating on this because it seems many people are confused.
Minarchist088 2 weeks ago
@MyITRcom Rand is also wrong in her idea of what Altruism is. She thinks, quite mistakenly, that altruism is making someone else happy but sacrificing your own happiness, which is not actually correct. Altruism is also observed in many species because it's an evolved behaviour, one that is beneficial to species and it's now thought to have a genetic root.
I could go on. Rand's about as good at philosophy as a 4 year old. Her views are bitter, twisted and could not be more wrong.
sugarcanegray 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Altruism is an extreme, it wouldn't even work if we took zero care of ourselves, but took care of only others. What if I decided I could stroll around naked in the jungle with no weapons because I knew someone else must save me from harm. Stupid example, but ultimate altruism falls apart there. You can't be ultimately selfish either because like children you would stay in perpetual war over resources. The only way any one is exploited is because people give over control.
kryptonbornson 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
kryptonbornson 4 weeks ago
Ayn says that don't deceive yourself. We are all selfish - period. It depends how you look at things. Why do silly people not see that?
truthwilloutallways 1 month ago
@truthwilloutallways in what ways are we all selfish?
sugarcanegray 2 weeks ago
ayn rand - detective novelist
afaultytoaster 1 month ago
@afaultytoaster Ayn Rand, female comb-over pioneer.
sugarcanegray 2 weeks ago
Why have a movement dedicated to her principles when what she advocates already runs rampant in the world...? Does the world need to have this stuff imposed?
zu0832 1 month ago
It's funny to see so many supporting her view of altruism.
I'd like to see how long those very same people survive in a world that ran with her principles.
The world would be in a endless cycle of destruction, death, and betrayal.
It would be impossible for anyone to love anyone if EVERYONE were selfish. lol
jathanator 1 month ago
If she had to choose between letting her husband die, or letting someone else's husband die? What if it were, letting her husband die, or letting many other husband's die. Along her line of thinking, the wives of the other husbands that died, would take vengeance against her and husband...simply because selfishly, it would make them feel better.
In her selfishness, she would end up losing everything.
Selfishness, would make everyone enemies of each other.
Rand was a fool.
jathanator 1 month ago
@jathanator you are confused...
lets "say" your in a desert with one loaf of bread and a person you don't even know.
will you give him or her the WHOLE loaf just to help him/her and not help yourself because helping her will make you feel better?
Do you think that person would do the same?
maybe...
but if he/she does not what would happen?
So basically think about yourself first and then if you think about it.
Giving that person half of the loaf would not be bad...
CrimsonPhoenix62 1 month ago
That's called simple sharing. mutual benefit. Rand didn't like feeling compelled to help others or share. She felt that sharing is only justified if you like them. Rand's viewpoints were far more extreme then you're describing. Her logic: "I'm in the desert with one loaf of bread, I have a long way to go, its only enough bread for me. Tough luck buddy, youre on your own. It would be immoral for me to share with you, because that could prove detrimental to me in the long run."
jathanator 1 month ago
@jathanator Are you explicitly arguing for people to take actions that harm themselves?
objectivistathlete 1 month ago
No. Sharing the bread would be the right thing to do. Rand would think that its harmful to share. The other person, for the sake of their own survival, must therefore assault and destroy her, to gain the bread. Both would be displaying the selfishness that Rand supports. In essence then, it's RAND that is arguing for people to take actions that harm themselves. Rand would waste energy defending her bread, and possibly suffer injury that prevents her survival.
jathanator 4 weeks ago
@jathanator Uhmm, hello! Wake up and smell the coffee! If not cooperating with another individual is harmful to your SELF, then it is MORAL for you to cooperate with that individual according to Objectivism! Objectivism is not atomism or isolationism.
objectivistathlete 4 weeks ago
@jathanator wow. just wow. she SAID its not harmful to share if its with the one you love. you can share with others but that is a choice. it is immoral to give it to someone you dont love or know if it was cause harm to yourself. if the other one attacks her for the bread then they are in the wrong even though in nature it is justifiable. but what shes saying is, the majority of 1st world people are not hungry. Therefore why share bread unless that person needs it and you dont.
BigWillThePrince 2 weeks ago
@BigWillThePrince Yes, because you could teach others to make their own bread and not become dependents and lie to them that they aren't capable.
MyITRcom 2 weeks ago
@MyITRcom i cant find my other comment so i dont really know what your comment is based on so its confusing. So i dont really know what to say to that. What I do know is that, what you said is nowhere near anything shes trying to say.
BigWillThePrince 2 weeks ago
To put it simply. Contrary to Rand's view. It is not wise to resist all forms of compulsive service. The situation crimson describes requires it. Rand exaggerates how deep the sacrifices of altruism are, she implies that anyone that receives benefit from the sacrifice of another is automatically going to treat such sacrifice with disdain, and makes a negative moral judgment against the person making the sacrifice.
Her eloquent speech masks the iniquity she expounds.
jathanator 4 weeks ago
@jathanator lol who said i was describing what she would do?
im describing something that some could do to make haters like you stop hating xD
CrimsonPhoenix62 4 weeks ago
@CrimsonPhoenix62 lol. well thanks. i gotta admit, I get a little upset when I read her papers. I think of people like Jesus of Nazereth, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mother Teresa... and its like... those people represent the epitome of what she despises. In essence, her viewpoint goes into DIRECT opposition to what these people stood for. She would be an "antichrist", a "non-racist" thats not interested in ending racism, and an unreasonable critic of Teresa.
jathanator 4 weeks ago
She's quick to point out and condemn faults in altruism, but provides no alternative to solving the problems that altruism does. In essence, I perceive her as "evil" trying to make a "case" against "good".
In her world, firefighters would let the baby in the burning house die. lol (if firefighters would exist at all)
jathanator 4 weeks ago
@jathanator unless they hold as a value not wanting to see a child burn to death as worth more than to sit idle. would fire fighters exist well that's up to you ( many are volunteers ) its a personal choice and one of selfishness . I would not run into a house on fire knowing I would meet my death regardless of whats in that house even my mother. that would make no sense. but if there is possibly a chance of saving something I hold of value than of course yes
420ballsmcgee 2 weeks ago
Bullshit. If there were no altruists, the world would be full of egoistic douchebags.
911Blackhorn 1 month ago
@911Blackhorn lol the world wouldnt be full at all. Humans would be extinct.
jathanator 1 month ago
I understand what she's saying but part of me still doesn't want to believe her. I feel I'm altruistic by nature but maybe that's due to society's expectations. She is a damn clever woman to be able to put so much doubt in my mind (from beyond the grave no less!).
195ashes 1 month ago
@195ashes Good job challenging yourself with reason. It is always good to check your premises. If this intrigues you, read her book "The Virtue of Selfishness." It will blow your mind with startling clarity.
fzqlcs 1 month ago
@fzqlcs I like to do my bit to show that not all socialists are brainwashed, propaganda-following, adolescents (although I am a 19 year old student so I guess I kind of conform to the stereotype) whose only motivations to support socialism are to look cool and/or to kid themselves they are intellectuals. There seem to be alot of people at uni who claim to be free-thinkers but they aren't. I want to learn and the best way to do that is to try and prove my ideology wrong.
195ashes 1 month ago
looks like tony sopranos mom
ALLIED7621 1 month ago
I find this quite interesting as I have, for years, wondered about the "motives' behind different charities and organizations such as: the American Cancer Society, "Coats for kids" programs. All these "programs" that are suppose to help but the end result is we still have people dying from cancer and we still have children going without the basic necessities they need to survive. I think it is hilarious that some of these posts put her down when she is bringing some truth to the illusion.
jerryandbev1 1 month ago
her and machiavelli should go on a date
FerOctChi1 1 month ago
0:47 To skip the long-ass, pointless intro!
Coffeeisnecessary 1 month ago
A lunatic remains a lunatic no matter how intelligent he or she may be. Rand was, to put it mildly, a sociopath...I see others agree with me...and the world she envisioned would be a soulless, dark nightmare. The glorification and pedestalising of the worst aspects of human nature - selfishness, unrestrained science, the denial and rejection of compassion. Oh, and she really really REALLY hated socialism, but pretended that this primitive fear was 'deeper' than just crypto-fascism.
ProjectFlashlight612 1 month ago
computer logic, rigid and inhuman
machines work perfectly that way, maybe one day humans will too :D
empathy is probably a flaw in the design or evolution or whatever
"you can feel empathy for people who love you, but not for strangers" - is my bet hehe
zidanicleon 1 month ago
Compare the depth and significance of the topics being discussed on this 'old school' talk show, with the crap on today's Jerry Springer type programs !!
I was born too late !!
johnnycaboosehead 1 month ago
capitalism is the opposite of altruism ayn rand.....
constellationcancer 1 month ago
oh and by "laissez-faire capitalism" I do mean a much less controlled mixed economy - as of course there has never really been a true laissez-faire capitalist nation that I am aware of. Never-the-less, a bit of a mix is a good thing.
devious222 2 months ago
Yikes! Who can honestly take this borderline sociopath's ideology seriously? Some of her ideas are agreeable, although most of those exist in a vacuum, but the underlying philosophy is simply unethical. mixed economy > laissez-faire capitalism in terms of overall human well-being. There is just too much evidence to suggest otherwise. Forcing a small amount of altruism is a good thing. Humans are otherwise too selfish and afraid.
devious222 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Michael Prescott: Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman
michaelprescottDOTnet/hickmanDOThtm
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
LOL, this is so fucking absurd. It really doesn't even deserve to be taken seriously.
aluisious 2 months ago
Jesus>this lady
TriuneGForce 2 months ago
No, the healthy functioning of the organism "society" is higher than that organism "self", each of us is a member of society, that if "self" is important to you, then society must function healthily with each "self", before "self" is recommended. No society, no profit to self beyond what disorganised wilderness can bring.
Adeikov 2 months ago
I don't disagree with everything said in this video but I feel it must be said that the idea that the world is the way it is because of altruism, and its consequences, is a fallacy. Just look at colonialism; the conquering, subjugation and dispossession of most of the world by various European states, and how that set the stage for the world as it is today. The attempt to classify those actions as altruistic would be ridiculous.
citizenkeane 2 months ago
This may sound incredibly racist, but it is my belief that every person in china should see this.
echoingheads 2 months ago
It seems that when I read the comments from critics describing Ayn Rands positions, that I find they are very confused or purposely misleading.
Seiku 2 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
Ayn Rand promoted RATIONAL selfishness, i.e., doing what is in one's rational self-interest. This is the only way to truly live. It is the what a human is designed for - to survive through self-sustaining action. If you read her books, you will see how her heros seem to be amazing at life. That is because they are completely healthy and fit for living - they are brilliantly alive. Selflessness can only lead to the degeneration of your life - how can any one call that moral?
db11289 3 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Why are idiots like Ayn Rand given a platform in the first place? She would just be another crazy cat lady if everyone had ignored her.
marmitericecakes 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hypocritical welfare queen who talked out of both sides of her mouth
pneumatictrousers 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fucking slag
TheSameDayCashLoans 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ayn Rand was a socio-path who gave the uber wealthy selfish people in society permission to openly hate/demonize the poor. She also incorrectly claims that selfishness is height of human existence while condemning all those who give to others solely out of morality, selflessness, or love. A hateful idiot of epic levels
Bolgernow 3 months ago
@Bolgernow but those who are 'poor' are experiencing that lack in order to learn, taking soul growth from others is a breaking of universal law.. so she is right about this; Mind you, not many individuals self sacrifice to this point - they are usually self preserving to some extent, as that is an inbuilt instinct... most these days are the opposite infact.
SovereignBeing 3 months ago
@SovereignBeing perhaps your "inner thinking" is off. People are people. The place they live or are from is the same in different terms. We are ALL humans. If you don't accept that, we do. Prove lower people can't rise above. I'm living proof the Duke brothers are dead wrong & assholes, on every level
Bolgernow 3 months ago
@Bolgernow well thats the thing ! we are not all humans, and that statement implies defeatism..
i never said 'poor people cant rise above'.. that is the whole point they are in that situation in order to learn how to change it or accept it..
i've no idea who the duke brothers are.
SovereignBeing 3 months ago
@SovereignBeing rejecting the concept of humanity makes you clinically insane. The Duke Brothers are from the film Trading Places. Immanuel Kant makes Rand stuff look like feces in your hand...
Bolgernow 3 months ago
Fuck Utilitarianism.
MattsMisc 3 months ago
@MattsMisc
these rand nutcases should familiarize themselves with kant and rawls.
echoplex89 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Truth about Ayn Rand slate.com/articles/arts/books/2009/11/how_ayn_rand_became_an_american_icon.html
kropotkinbeard1 3 months ago
@softballprincess110 i'm a conservative christian and an altruist but i would be ecstatic to write a paper in school on Ayn Rand. Consider yourself lucky.
CloverfieldMonster95 3 months ago
I hate her, because of her I've got to write a stupid paper.
softballprincess110 3 months ago
@softballprincess110 Which oddly I think is the most sensible comment on this page!
MumblingMickey 3 months ago
when he said "philosophic idea advanced by religions" that reminds me of an argument I had with my Catholic school teacher who told us that it was wrong to commit suicide even if we sacrificed ourselves to save someone because it meant we thought of what God gave us (the self) as unimportant.
Conclusion: My teacher must have been Aynn Rand! :0
But seriously...I still think humanity wouldn't have survived as well without altruism (whether right or wrong). Even primates practice it!
WhatsThisBLIDontEven 3 months ago
@WhatsThisBLIDontEven I think a lot of this...both Rand and your school teacher see these things in the world...altruism, sacrifice etc. and they then come up with a philosophy to explain it which always just happens to also coincide with their own model of the word.
Along with being fantastically coincidental its simply a waste of time without demonstration of WHY this explanation of theirs is a viable or valid explanation.
The idea that 'we don't yet know' seems to totally pass them by!
MumblingMickey 3 months ago
Love is selfish? Altruism is evil? This woman is... Really... Just... A work of art...
Vivify705 3 months ago
If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject. ~Ayn Rand
sashwort00 4 months ago 15
@sashwort00 Based on what objective observation? What civilization has perished due to an inordinate amount of altruism? Altruism is love, and there has never been a society that has had too much of that.
TheAmazingMorse 4 months ago
@TheAmazingMorse Soviet Russia loved the people so much, that they cared for them, planned for their