In Defence of Ayn Rand #5: Is, Ought & Ethics

A response to Stefan Molyneux's video, in which he argues that Ayn Rand failed, in respect of her ethical system, to find a way to derive (a) what one "ought" to do, from (b) the facts of reality (i.e., what "is").

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Ayn
• Rand
• Objectivism
• Atlas
• Shrugged
• John
• Galt
• philosophy
• ethics
• David
• Hume
• is-
• fact
• value
• ought
• morality

[id300129]

hey if you take anything ayn rand to heart you need to check yourself. i also guarantee you live within the U.S. or the Bank District of London .

[gdmk1000]

To my understanding, your distinction of pleasure from happiness is irrelevant to Stephan's point. Both pleasure (an emotional interpretation of sensory information, as you put is, to my understanding) and happiness (a state of cognition which also has some positive emotional interpretation) are both *internal* to ones mind, and so both are 100% subjective. A dictator may feel pleasure, but, as far as we know, may also feel true happiness. There is no objective way of saying act so and be happy

[lashkaretoiba]

@Bigturns33 I read that book as well if it exists.

[lashkaretoiba]

Stef isa good guy he's just a Anarcho-capitalist. I still need to read his book.

[OUexclusive]

I just literally lost all respect for you and went from "subscribe" to "unsubscribe" in the last 45 seconds of this video. Piss on your for your disinformation.

[OUexclusive]

I can't believe you ended your great video on such an idiotic note. Wow! Cultists? For real? Stefan Molyneux celebrates Ayn Rand more than almost anyone I've ever come across. He recommends her books and brings her ideals to the mainstream at every turn.

That being said, Stef is an Anarcho-capitalist. Rand is not. The two do, indeed, differ, and whether you disagree with his chosen differences, that's fine. However, to finish by calling him a cultist? You're the one with the ad hominem attack.

[Bigturns33]

Paul, how come you dont have a book out yet... Or maybe you do? If so I would buy it you seem quite rational and are a good objectivist. I to am. I would love to hear from you and would value your book based on your video's.

[SBRslacker00]

@MagisterPridgen

1. Stef is addressing the is-ought dilemma which Oism evades.

2. Oist evasion, of course.

3. Isn't it obvious?! Seriously, did you watch this at all?!

4. Again. See #3 above.

5. Meaningless distinction.

6. Yes, if you agree that it's a meaningless distinction.

7. This is a non-argument. I've read the so-called non-fiction of Rand, which I also label as fiction. I'm sure you realize that 'read Rand' is an insult and an excuse for not presenting a real argument.