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.
@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.
@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 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.
@TheAmazingMorse Soviet Russia loved the people so much, that they cared for them, planned for their happiness from the central govt. Of course, some sacrifices needed to be made.....
@TaylorThaHick Are you seriously calling Joseph Stalin an altruist? I didn't think so. Of course the greatest tragedy that resulted from the self-serving sociopath Stalin was perhaps Ayn Rand's philosophy.
You know what the problem here is... Rand is basically the same as a fundamental religious nut arguing that homosexuality is evil.... except she argued that altruism is immoral...
Both of theses ideas ultimately have the same problem.
Y'see altruism is also instinctive... so its not like there is something that could be done about it, even if she were right...and because its instinctive, then the process of nature (if not the dictionary) disagrees with her, hence she's wrong.
@MumblingMickey if it's instinctive then it's not altruism as Ayn Rand defines it (acting against your own self-interest). She stated in the beginning that people can "want" to help other people (0:55) and if done properly then she considers it perfectly rational. Did you even watch the video?
@Sivels Well the problem as I said with Rand is that she ignored her own ideas. So you can't take her too seriously. Its a little like the researchers who discovered 'calorie restriction' as a way of extending one life... they demonstrated it worked too!
Ground breaking research...we can all now live to an average of 115!
The problem with the idea is that even the researchers discussed it best over a slap up meal that very evening whilst celebrating with several bottles of wine!
@Sivels Rands ideas can't yet be demonstrated because as of yet we don't understand truly how the human mind makes decisions that would put it in danger.
However what we do know is that humans do have faults that are a side effect of things we absolutely DO need. One of those traits is an ability to do as we are told...and to be happy doing so and even to rationalize it before, during and after.
In Rands world however the rationalization is examined as if its the cause... but its not!
@Sivels Also don't get me wrong I do not disagree with Rand in everything she ever mooted... just that Rand was not a neuroscientist. She died a long time (relatively speaking) before we could even begin to examine how the mind works scientifically.
She also wrongfully assumes that decisions you and I make are done from our own free will... but that's not true either. We make decisions based on our experiences, instinct and personal model of the world... so all free will is limited to that!
She's wrong. Studies have shown working for the happiness and well being of others causes more personal happiness. So if rational self interest was in creating your own happiness, the best way to achieve it is to work for the happiness of others.
@glocksout But, as you say, working for the happiness of others causes more personal happiness, therefore an individual seeking his personal happiness, will be happy to help. That is working for one's self, and in the process, helping others. Remember, intentions do not count, only results.
@TheStrangerInTheRye It must be nice having a philosophy with such large loopholes that up and down are both the same thing. That altruism is evil and also the highest moral good because it's essentially self-serving.
@glocksout It's not hat simple. Altruism is good when it is self-serving, it is immoral when it is imposed. She is not referring to people that like to give for the sake of giving, because those people get joy from giving, therefore it is self-serving, when she says altruism is evil she refers to societies in which people are forced to give. Keyword here, forced.
@TheStrangerInTheRye Then you haven't listened to Rand. She says altruism is when you sacrifice yourself for others. Her example was Dostoevsky who wasn't forced to give of himself. And her definition of altruism wasn't force. She chose the word altruism specifically to mean self-giving, or self-sacrifice, which is not forced giving or forced-sacrifice.
@TheStrangerInTheRye Another example she gave was Jesus, who gave himself up for sacrifice. And the Christian ethic of self-sacrifice. Neither of these are forced onto anyone.
@glocksout If that is what she says then I have to say I disagree with her. I still think that is not her overall message but I do imagine her saying that about Dostoevsky, I think she was really bad at wording her ideas.
@TheStrangerInTheRye I also think such an action is mootable... and you can describe it... but its not possible for a human being to carry out such an action.
There is always a 'rationalization' people will give to themselves for their actions (it might differ from the one they say in public)
Now in 30 years time if we find machines with AI sacrificing themselves outside the realms of their own code for some 'higher' purpose then Rand would state they are carrying out immoral or bad behavior.
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 1 day ago
too many no brain fundamentalists read Rand now thats the problem.... unphilosopohic "conservative" dickheads...
finalnexus 2 days ago
Comment removed
Joshology21 3 days 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 3 days ago
@fzqlcs You would give it away as well but with different intentions. Try again.
HybridD91 1 day ago
Comment removed
ChasingCharles 3 days 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 3 days ago
@Joshology21 Rise up against what? Myself?
ChasingCharles 3 days ago
Comment removed
Joshology21 3 days 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 5 days ago
@tstruss912 I’m not saying you fall into her definition that “nobody accepts”…but it really is very close.
Minarchist088 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 days ago
@Minarchist088 "Use the government" or private means if they are anarchists.
Minarchist088 5 days 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 5 days ago
Comment removed
Minarchist088 4 days 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 4 days 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 5 days ago
@Minarchist088 I meant to say: "and it is this consideration that makes rational self-interest actions “rational.”"
Minarchist088 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 days ago
Comment removed
Minarchist088 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week ago
How surprising that the majority of Ayn Rand supporters are also fascist Ron Paul endorsers (see uploader link).
17peteclarke 1 week ago
@17peteclarke What’s your point? It’s no more surprising that some Marx supporters would gravitate towards a socialist candidate.
Minarchist088 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week ago
well said.
A hard point to make, she did it very well..
godkingmac 2 weeks ago
I have a hard time believing how Rand could deny evolution, environmental science, and quantum mechanics when she's atheist.
CosmoShidan 2 weeks ago
@CosmoShidan Also was Rand scared of death? Because it's nothing to fear.
CosmoShidan 2 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 3 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week ago
@Minarchist088 I'm a person. I say morality exists because of the evolutionary science behind it, not my opinion, nor anyones philosophy.
sugarcanegray 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
kryptonbornson 3 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 3 weeks ago
@truthwilloutallways in what ways are we all selfish?
sugarcanegray 1 week ago
ayn rand - detective novelist
afaultytoaster 4 weeks ago
@afaultytoaster Ayn Rand, female comb-over pioneer.
sugarcanegray 1 week 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 4 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago
@jathanator Are you explicitly arguing for people to take actions that harm themselves?
objectivistathlete 3 weeks 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 3 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 3 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 3 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 3 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 3 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 3 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 2 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 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hypocritical welfare queen who talked out of both sides of her mouth
pneumatictrousers 2 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 3 months ago
@TheAmazingMorse Soviet Russia loved the people so much, that they cared for them, planned for their happiness from the central govt. Of course, some sacrifices needed to be made.....
TaylorThaHick 2 months ago 5
@TaylorThaHick That's one school of thought. There are others.
testmark1 2 months ago
@TaylorThaHick Are you seriously calling Joseph Stalin an altruist? I didn't think so. Of course the greatest tragedy that resulted from the self-serving sociopath Stalin was perhaps Ayn Rand's philosophy.
Anglagard1 2 months ago
@sashwort00
i have to agrre with you
eddiebertopsp 2 months ago
You know what the problem here is... Rand is basically the same as a fundamental religious nut arguing that homosexuality is evil.... except she argued that altruism is immoral...
Both of theses ideas ultimately have the same problem.
Y'see altruism is also instinctive... so its not like there is something that could be done about it, even if she were right...and because its instinctive, then the process of nature (if not the dictionary) disagrees with her, hence she's wrong.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@MumblingMickey if it's instinctive then it's not altruism as Ayn Rand defines it (acting against your own self-interest). She stated in the beginning that people can "want" to help other people (0:55) and if done properly then she considers it perfectly rational. Did you even watch the video?
Sivels 4 months ago
@Sivels Well the problem as I said with Rand is that she ignored her own ideas. So you can't take her too seriously. Its a little like the researchers who discovered 'calorie restriction' as a way of extending one life... they demonstrated it worked too!
Ground breaking research...we can all now live to an average of 115!
The problem with the idea is that even the researchers discussed it best over a slap up meal that very evening whilst celebrating with several bottles of wine!
MumblingMickey 3 months ago
@Sivels Rands ideas can't yet be demonstrated because as of yet we don't understand truly how the human mind makes decisions that would put it in danger.
However what we do know is that humans do have faults that are a side effect of things we absolutely DO need. One of those traits is an ability to do as we are told...and to be happy doing so and even to rationalize it before, during and after.
In Rands world however the rationalization is examined as if its the cause... but its not!
MumblingMickey 3 months ago
@Sivels Also don't get me wrong I do not disagree with Rand in everything she ever mooted... just that Rand was not a neuroscientist. She died a long time (relatively speaking) before we could even begin to examine how the mind works scientifically.
She also wrongfully assumes that decisions you and I make are done from our own free will... but that's not true either. We make decisions based on our experiences, instinct and personal model of the world... so all free will is limited to that!
MumblingMickey 3 months ago
This is what happens when a lonely, angry, unloved, cat lady becomes the leader of a philosophical movement.
beerandbanjo 4 months ago
She's wrong. Studies have shown working for the happiness and well being of others causes more personal happiness. So if rational self interest was in creating your own happiness, the best way to achieve it is to work for the happiness of others.
glocksout 5 months ago
@glocksout That is exactly what she advocates. You clearly didn't listen to her.
TheStrangerInTheRye 4 months ago 9
@TheStrangerInTheRye I did listen to her. That isn't what she's advocating. She calls working for other people instead of one's self is evil.
glocksout 4 months ago
@glocksout But, as you say, working for the happiness of others causes more personal happiness, therefore an individual seeking his personal happiness, will be happy to help. That is working for one's self, and in the process, helping others. Remember, intentions do not count, only results.
TheStrangerInTheRye 4 months ago
@TheStrangerInTheRye It must be nice having a philosophy with such large loopholes that up and down are both the same thing. That altruism is evil and also the highest moral good because it's essentially self-serving.
glocksout 4 months ago
@glocksout It's not hat simple. Altruism is good when it is self-serving, it is immoral when it is imposed. She is not referring to people that like to give for the sake of giving, because those people get joy from giving, therefore it is self-serving, when she says altruism is evil she refers to societies in which people are forced to give. Keyword here, forced.
TheStrangerInTheRye 4 months ago
@TheStrangerInTheRye Then you haven't listened to Rand. She says altruism is when you sacrifice yourself for others. Her example was Dostoevsky who wasn't forced to give of himself. And her definition of altruism wasn't force. She chose the word altruism specifically to mean self-giving, or self-sacrifice, which is not forced giving or forced-sacrifice.
glocksout 4 months ago
@TheStrangerInTheRye Another example she gave was Jesus, who gave himself up for sacrifice. And the Christian ethic of self-sacrifice. Neither of these are forced onto anyone.
glocksout 4 months ago
@glocksout If that is what she says then I have to say I disagree with her. I still think that is not her overall message but I do imagine her saying that about Dostoevsky, I think she was really bad at wording her ideas.
TheStrangerInTheRye 4 months ago
@TheStrangerInTheRye I also think such an action is mootable... and you can describe it... but its not possible for a human being to carry out such an action.
There is always a 'rationalization' people will give to themselves for their actions (it might differ from the one they say in public)
Now in 30 years time if we find machines with AI sacrificing themselves outside the realms of their own code for some 'higher' purpose then Rand would state they are carrying out immoral or bad behavior.
MumblingMickey 3 months ago