Simple logic disproves Objectivism.

[Red Saxon]

Ayn Rand brought up the idea of moral selfishness, meaning you were to be selfish while allowing others to be selfish at the same time. This is hypocritical, because I am supposed to unselfishly allow others to be selfish.

Thoughts? Arguments? I just can't understand how people can buy into this whole theory.

[mikelepore]

What they believe is: If I seek only what's good for me, and you seek only what's good for you, add up all such terms for the whole society, and it must add up to this: everyone in society is seeking what is good for the whole society. This is an example of what is called the fallacy of composition in the study of logic. A simpler example of the fallacy of composition would be: The bricks of which the house is made are small, therefore the house must be small. Note that these two cases of the fallacy are similar in that they take a statement about smaller parts of a whole and assume that the same statement applies directly to the whole. It's certainly fallacious. The bricks can be small and yet the house of bricks is large. Individuals can be focused on grabbing good results for themselves and yet this doesn't result in the general society of individuals moving toward good results.

[Dean]

Ayn Rand brought up the idea of moral selfishness, meaning you were to be selfish while allowing others to be selfish at the same time. This is hypocritical, because I am supposed to unselfishly allow others to be selfish.

Thoughts? Arguments? I just can't understand how people can buy into this whole theory.

It either ignores or justifies the imbalance between competing selfish interests. But the same is true for all market theory moralism.

Basically, they're hyper-idealists, along with all other competitive propertarians. They believe one of two things (typically a mixture of the two):

1. Human selfishness, when the dominating force in the economy, will act as bulwarks to individual liberty. This is because each individual will be actively working toward their own interests.

2. Subsequent unequal distribution of property, income and the like are all derived from individual phenomena, that is the fault or virtue of the individual who acquires more or less. This is basically a reductionist model of economics; where all major economic schools describe activity in terms of systemic characteristics, the moral defense of the capitalist paradigm suddenly achieves tunnel vision. No longer do economic models and policies need to be critiqued on their relative merit; whenever you find a propertarian discussing policy or ethics, they are consistent: liberalize the market, and make competition the (ideally) sole force in the market.

The problem is that both real systems and market manipulation, especially unequal power distribution, are totally ignored in these models.

You could place two starving carnivores in a cage with a pound of meat, and get the same result: the equilibrium distribution of meat. Just don't open your eyes or you'll see that one has eaten the other.

[IcarusAngel]

Objectivism and Austrian economics are both based on the ridiculous notion of a priori reasoning for human nature. Notice how their logical systems lead to no theorems or proofs. Their whole system is weak and they all give contradictory reasons for their assumptions. It changes depending on the people who defend the a priori axioms and when exactly you talk to them.

[Skooma Addict]

What they believe is: If I seek only what's good for me, and you seek only what's good for you, add up all such terms for the whole society, and it must add up to this: everyone in society is seeking what is good for the whole society. This is an example of what is called the fallacy of composition in the study of logic. A simpler example of the fallacy of composition would be: The bricks of which the house is made are small, therefore the house must be small. Note that these two cases of the fallacy are similar in that they take a statement about smaller parts of a whole and assume that the same statement applies directly to the whole. It's certainly fallacious. The bricks can be small and yet the house of bricks is large. Individuals can be focused on grabbing good results for themselves and yet this doesn't result in the general society of individuals moving toward good results.

Where do objectivists claim that everyone in society is seeking what is good for the whole society?



Basically, they're hyper-idealists, along with all other competitive propertarians.

You can't just define an idealist as "one who disagrees with dean."

[Bud Struggle]

You can't just define an idealist as "one who disagrees with dean."
No, I think that's the standard Philosophical definition. :)

[mikelepore]

Where do objectivists claim that everyone in society is seeking what is good for the whole society?

That's almost the opposite of that they say. They say that selfishness by individuals is the thing that automatically results in the good of people generally. It's the same thing that Adam Smith called being "led by an invisible hand." In my previous post, change the word "seeking" to something like "moving toward."

[Dean]

Where do objectivists claim that everyone in society is seeking what is good for the whole society?
Ah, you fail to get the point once again. I doubt that anyone currently active in these forums thinks that objectivists claim that. And of course, a re-reading of mikelepore's post will back this up.


You can't just define an idealist as "one who disagrees with dean."

Too bad for you, I don't, and I have explained rather clearly what idealism is present in your failed ideology.

You should really get a grip. Your posts are some of the most mundane, shallow crap I've ever seen. You could have directly made a point about some of my more material points, or even my explanation of propertarian idealism. But, no, you instead prefer to flippantly say "you can't just define an idealist as someone who disagrees with you!" as if that even meant anything.

But, didn't happen. I made an explicit point, and Oblivion Insufflator, as usual, skirts the issues and whines about rhetoric. :rolleyes:

[Skooma Addict]

That's almost the opposite of that they say. They say that selfishness by individuals is the thing that automatically results in the good of people generally. It's the same thing that Adam Smith called being "led by an invisible hand." In my previous post, change the word "seeking" to something like "moving toward."
Well I think that it is mainly correct that individuals pursuing their own interests often times end up benefiting society. Individuals transfer information via the price system and work towards the emergence and evolution of customary law. Although clearly there are cases where selfishness leads to bad social consequences.


Ah, you fail to get the point once again. I doubt that anyone currently active in these forums thinks that objectivists claim that. And of course, a re-reading of mikelepore's post will back this up.Re-reading the post would not back up the claim that everyone active on these forums does not hold such a view regarding objectivists. My misinterpretation was certainly forgivable since the sentence was a little confusing. Although now I understand what he meant.


Too bad for you, I don't, and I have explained rather clearly what idealism is present in your failed ideology.
No you didn't. You presented two strawmen and then simply assumed that anyone who adheres to those positions is an idealist.



You should really get a grip. Your posts are some of the most mundane, shallow crap I've ever seen.That is a little depressing. Although for some odd reason I have a slight feeling you might just be exaggerating.


But, didn't happen. I made an explicit point, and Oblivion Insufflator, as usual, skirts the issues and whines about rhetoric. :rolleyes:What do you have against Oblivion? It is a classic.

[Dean]

Well I think that it is mainly correct that individuals pursuing their own interests often times end up benefiting society. Individuals transfer information via the price system and work towards the emergence and evolution of customary law. Although clearly there are cases where selfishness leads to bad social consequences.
I guess that you think that the $684Tn derivatives market must be "benefiting society."

Regardless, none of what you say scratches the surface of the points I made. Don't reject them if you don't, in fact, have a reason to reject them.


No you didn't. You presented two strawmen and then simply assumed that anyone who adheres to those positions is an idealist.
If you think those positions are "strawmen" than by definition it can't include you. So your statement is self-contradictory.

It's be nice, again, if you actually responded to points made.

[trivas7]

Rand's ethics are a type of Aristotelean eudaimonism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia): man is an end in himself.

[Dean]

Rand's ethics are a type of Aristotelean eudaimonism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia): man is an end in himself.

Actually, capitalism employs the usage of man as a means to an end. It it Marxism which explicitly states that man should "always be the end, never the means" of economic activity.

That's not to say that Rand didn't mean to employ the same "man is an end" argument; just that her ideology is by no means uniquely representative of that concept.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

This might be seen as the criticism of the following form. "A selfish person should want everyone else to be altruistic." There are multiple points here. Rand actually believes everyone being selfish is better for you than them being altruistic. I don't think I agree, but that's the view.

Really though, it's still reliant on a support of egoism. I was sympathetic to egoism when I was younger because it let me feel good about being a selfish jerk. Nonetheless, as I learned more about it, it's absolutely amazing how many ridiculous presumptions it requires.

1. Altruism is irrational. You either can't or shouldn't feel good about helping others for their own sake. Every act done for others should actually be done for your own interest be it acquiring favor or helping someone you need later.

2. Contractualism is false. This means you can't agree to cooperate under egoism as that would entail an ethical system. The minimal government has to protect you, which means they won't because they're selfish. If they did do their job, they'd have to defend against your selfishness and that of others. That means totalitarianism. It's difficult to see how mutual agreement to not harm one another is compatible with egoism as someone who could benefit from breaking the agreement could easily do so. Any attempt to formulate egoism in contractualist terms is almost quasi-Rawlsian and no longer the same theory.

3. Rand believes people have a moral obligation to be selfish. How? This has huge presumptions about human identity. If your memory is planted into another person, should you be selfish in their body or help your old body be selfish? And if memory-based identity is accurate, how does it support selfishness (Parfit argues quite strongly why it does not).

And if identity is biologically consistent through time, what is the basis for that claim? Can a person be duplicated. Should you be altruistic towards your duplicate?

Rand is pseudophilosophy. Was never sympathetic to Rand, but I was to egoism, and I can tell you quite frankly the primary motivations for egoism are psychological or personal. You're annoyed with the stupidity of others, angry at the world, selfish, or some other combination of certain traits. Capitalism encourages them, too. No one who seriously understands egoism can accept it. No serious philosopher today does.

Objectivism also has some views related to metaphysics and epistemology that are absolutely ludicrous. Anyone who believes Rand in full is a fundamentalist believer. It's just entirely implausible to accept almost everything she claims, let alone all of it.

[trivas7]

Actually, capitalism employs the usage of man as a means to an end. It it Marxism which explicitly states that man should "always be the end, never the means" of economic activity.

But capitalism isn't an agent, so it doesn't "employ the usage" of anyone. Neither is Marxism an ethical system IMO.

[Dean]

But capitalism isn't an agent, so it doesn't "employ the usage" of anyone. Neither is Marxism an ethical system IMO.
Quit being obtuse. We both know that it is capitalists and capitalist organizations that do this.


Neither is Marxism an ethical system IMO.
Marxism specifically refers to the relationship between the human being and his or her labor, as well as between the human and the prevalent the economic paradigm. It explains how these relationships can serve the interests of the human, or of capitalist systems.

Whether this is definitively an "ethical" issue is moot. Ethics tends to deal with social activity, and Marxism very clearly does the same. But it also creates a theory very directly interested in the subjugation of man toward the interests of others, and how to resolve this conflict. It's preposterous to claim otherwise.

[Telemakus]

I'm sure there's probably a good explanation for it, but I'm baffled that a system of thought which focuses exclusively on an individuals goals would be called "Objectivism".
I thought the term objective implied looking at things as detached from any individuals :S

[RED DAVE]

I'm sure there's probably a good explanation for it, but I'm baffled that a system of thought which focuses exclusively on an individuals goals would be called "Objectivism".
I thought the term objective implied looking at things as detached from any individuals :SRand taught that her system actually reflected human and object relations as they really were, not according to some set of wishes. Therefore, she called her system Objectivism. Actually, it's about as subjective as a system can be.

RED DAVE

[RGacky3]

Well I think that it is mainly correct that individuals pursuing their own interests often times end up benefiting society. Individuals transfer information via the price system and work towards the emergence and evolution of customary law. Although clearly there are cases where selfishness leads to bad social consequences.


Everyone is always pursuing their own interests in every type of society, be it capitalist, socialist or anything else. Selfishness is'nt the issue, its power.

[deLarge]

My favorite argument against a priori libertarian arguments (yes, yes, Rand wasn't a libertarian, but they're both similar) is pointing out the fact that governments and businesses are not fundamentally different, and so arguments against market intervention are thus based on a false dichotomy. They are all for businesses governing its employees on its own territory, but by degrees you can introduce new concepts to that governance--say, for example, it morphed into something like 19th century business utopias--that create a ship-of-Theseus effect, where the line between government and business cannot easily be drawn. At this point they say that governments are governments because of the use of coercion, to which I generally explain that all land ownership is always based on force, because it is ultimately the only way that competing land-ownership-claims can be resolved.

[Dean]

My favorite argument against a priori libertarian arguments (yes, yes, Rand wasn't a libertarian, but they're both similar) is pointing out the fact that governments and businesses are not fundamentally different, and so arguments against market intervention are thus based on a false dichotomy. They are all for businesses governing its employers on its own territory, but by degrees you can introduce new concepts to that governance--say, for example, it morphed into something like 19th century business utopias--that create a ship-of-Theseus effect, where the line between government and business cannot easily be drawn. At this point they say that governments are governments because of the use of coercion, to which I generally explain that all land ownership is always based on force, because it is ultimately the only way that competing land-ownership-claims can be resolved.

This is exactly right. The propertarians love to differentiate between gov't activity and business, but the bottom line is the same: they reject populism and endorse for-profit business, always in favor of more stratified systems. This is why they famously attack labor unions, but don't seem to mind massive accumulation of capital, corporate and racist lobby groups.

They're too idiotic to see the basic facts about business and government, and on top of that, they consistently express contempt for the common man, woman.

[Dimentio]

Funny that Ayn Rand is so eerily similar to Savitri Devi, though Devi was arguably a lot more insane. I am sure both women would have loved to hate one another.

Devi had one redeeming feature though.

She loved cats.

[trivas7]

What they believe is: If I seek only what's good for me, and you seek only what's good for you, add up all such terms for the whole society, and it must add up to this: everyone in society is seeking what is good for the whole society.
No. Ms. Rand's moral philosophy concerned a code of ethics solely for the individual; it said nothing re society as a whole. She cared nothing for society as a whole; her philosophy was addressed to the individual.

[Dean]

No. Ms. Rand's moral philosophy concerned a code of ethics solely for the individual; it said nothing re society as a whole. She cared nothing for society as a whole; her philosophy was addressed to the individual.

How objective it is to ignore objective conditions and focus solely on atomized human beings and their interests. Not "subjective" at all.

Unfortunately for you, she may not "have cared" for society in her philosophy, but she made arguments concerning social assets which would have very real societal repercussion if implemented.

That is to say, Truman could have been "solely interested in the science" of dropping the atomic bomb, but it would in no way excuse the societal repercussions of said bombing.

[Dimentio]

No. Ms. Rand's moral philosophy concerned a code of ethics solely for the individual; it said nothing re society as a whole. She cared nothing for society as a whole; her philosophy was addressed to the individual.

Yes, and everyone would be free to become what ever they wanted, as long as they wanted to become living embodiements of Rand's interpretation of the ideal man. Just look on how she treated her followers if they stepped out of line in terms of opinions, ideals or even behaviour!

[RED DAVE]

No. Ms. Rand's moral philosophy concerned a code of ethics solely for the individual; it said nothing re society as a whole.No such code of ethics is possible. We live in society, and our behavior constantly affects others.


She cared nothing for society as a whole; her philosophy was addressed to the individual.She cared for no one but herself. She was a selfish psychopath. She died alone.

RED DAVE

[deLarge]

This is exactly right. The propertarians love to differentiate between gov't activity and business, but the bottom line is the same: they reject populism and endorse for-profit business, always in favor of more stratified systems. This is why they famously attack labor unions, but don't seem to mind massive accumulation of capital, corporate and racist lobby groups.

They're too idiotic to see the basic facts about business and government, and on top of that, they consistently express contempt for the common man, woman.

And what else could possibly be their motive? Governments and businesses differ only in degree and in focus; they are both agencies that govern their property, in either case maintained through force, and since they don't have a problem with degree--being that consistent libertarians don't believe large businesses to be inherently bad--it must be one of focus.

If the difference is one of focus, and they prefer businesses to governments, what does that mean if not an innate respect for stratification, for oppression, and against democracy, against equality, and against policies in general that benefit the majority of society as opposed to the rich?

[trivas7]

How objective it is to ignore objective conditions and focus solely on atomized human beings and their interests. Not "subjective" at all.
And how objective is it to ignore the individual -- the basis of society -- and focus solely on "objective conditions" -- whatever they are?


Unfortunately for you, she may not "have cared" for society in her philosophy, but she made arguments concerning social assets which would have very real societal repercussion if implemented.
Unfortunately for you history under capitalism has liberated the individual from tyranny and coersion re which Marxism in practice has woefully ignored. Tolerance and benevolence toward our fellow humans is an outgrowth of the recognition of the value of our own lives above the value of the group. The practice of egoism is a positive affirmation of human life as an ethical primary which enables one to feel comfortable with being tolerant of others' opinions, cultures, etc.

[Skooma Addict]

And what else could possibly be their motive? Governments and businesses differ only in degree and in focus; they are both agencies that govern their property, in either case maintained through force, and since they don't have a problem with degree--being that consistent libertarians don't believe large businesses to be inherently bad--it must be one of focus.

If the difference is one of focus, and they prefer businesses to governments, what does that mean if not an innate respect for stratification, for oppression, and against democracy, against equality, and against policies in general that benefit the majority of society as opposed to the rich?

I didn't know McDonalds could make its own laws which are in direct contrast to the laws of the United States of America.

[Dean]

And how objective is it to ignore the individual -- the basis of society -- and focus solely on "objective conditions" -- whatever they are?
Marxism in no way, shape or form ignores the individual or his/her activity.



Unfortunately for you history under capitalism has liberated the individual from tyranny and coersion re which Marxism in practice has woefully ignored.
I'm willing to bet the victims of the massive slaughter of Congolese for rubber, or victims the famines in India would disagree with you on that.

Oops, they can't because they're dead - as a direct result of capitalist enterprise. Oh well, we can learn from the example. Or not.

[Dean]

I didn't know McDonalds could make its own laws which are in direct contrast to the laws of the United States of America.

It's rather clear that that wasn't the intended usage of the term. You're incredibly petty.

[trivas7]

Marxism in no way, shape or form ignores the individual or his/her activity.

OTC, because Marxism is an unsystematized mix of ideas it never even defines who or what an individual is.


I'm willing to bet the victims of the massive slaughter of Congolese for rubber, or victims the famines in India would disagree with you on that.
No, the agents of King Leopold II of Belgium massacred 10 million Africans in the Congo; these actions were not the "direct result of capitalist enterprises". Neither are famines the result of free enterprise. Here again, you conflate an agency with an economic system.

[Dean]

OTC, because Marxism is an unsystematize mix of ideas
I'm not sure what this means, or if you even know what it means. I know that that term is not a word and certainly not an adjective. But that is of marginal relevance, just like the rest of your hare-brained posting as of late.


it never even define who or what an individual [I]is.
Well shit, I've never defined the term either. I must be in contravention of Trivas7's Rules and Regulations® for developing an ideology which successfully recognizes individual human beings. :rolleyes:

I guess the theory of alienation isn't sufficient since, you know, it has cooperative rather than competitive conclusions.



No, the agents of King Leopold II of Belgium massacred 10 million Africans in the Congo; these actions were not the "direct result of capitalist enterprises". Neither are famines the result of free enterprise.
How convenient are your semantic conventions.

Really, the shit you post nowadays is laughable. Really? Since Marx doesn't focus on metaphysical crap like the hack Rand, you think that he "doesn't respect individual human activity?"

I really wish you, and rest of the trio of propertarians would take these ludicrous propositions to any of your local university professors. They might be able to shed some light on the issues for you.

[Jazzhands]

OTC, because Marxism is an unsystematized mix of ideas it never even defines who or what an individual [I]is.
No, the agents of King Leopold II of Belgium massacred 10 million Africans in the Congo; these actions were not the "direct result of capitalist enterprises". Neither are famines the result of free enterprise. Here again, you conflate an agency with an economic system.

King Leopold II, being King, was a capitalist who made money like all capitalists do. Someone else works for him, he takes the work, he sells it back to the worker. Depending on the material conditions in each country, the work in question can be industrial goods, grain and agriculture (how it is in classic feudalism), or services (in which case the middle man is cut out and it's just the boss paying you to do things for others and then taking the rewards out of your paycheck). Whatever system it is, most of the time, the boss is simply a parasite who latches onto his workers and sucks the capital out of the productive process. This in turn sucks capital out of both the consumers and the workers who make the product, which slows down the economy greatly. In other words, the "moochers" Ayn Rand describes Atlas Shrugged are the people at the top of the "free enterprise" system.