| Animals have it easy. The family dog never wrestles with his conscience over the need to leave some Alpo in his bowl for the poor and hungry strays. Bulls don't apportion the cows to ensure the joys of family life for all concerned. And, once an amoeba splits, the two halves feel no need to keep in touch. |
To give the writer the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant to draw parallels between human society and animal society, we will consider the animal kingdom and what it has to teach humans about animal kingdom societies. Whatever benefit this may have is very limited, but since the writer insist on this analogy, I will accommodate. The selection of the dog, cattle and the amoeba and no others seem contrived to ignore specific situations where animals do have at least a rudimentary social conscience. And in most cases the social conscience is a function of survival and may result in symbiotic behaviors that are definitely not altruistic, so it would seem that it would fit his argument that animals do not practice altruism. Why he would want to state such an agrument is a bit engimatic. I think he is trying to point out that animals and humans are different so that makes the humanly specific trait of altruistic behavior is justified somehow. Why that would follow isn't explained.
As far as his chosen examples are, concerned, A dog is a domesticated animal that would not even exist if it weren't for humans, and as such his existance is the responsibility of humans. His conscience is not involved in survival as a species or as an individual. In cases where a dog would have to survive in the wild, the breeds closer to the "root" wolf-like stock would have the best chances. And at that point since the wolf live in packs, there is involved a type of social conscience. Cattle are also domesticated animal bred for a variety of uses. And like the dog, isn't involved in survival. The very fact that they are bred indicates that while they don't apportion to ensure any kind of family life, there is an apportion involved in their "family" life and it is 100% artificially determined by humans. Their counterparts in the wild do have a specific social structure that has resemblance to "family" that tends towards survival of both the individual and the species, not altruism. The ameoba existance is so dissimilar from mine as a human that I am not able to identify with his reality in any way what-so-ever. The writers inability to related this to his point seems to be even more extensive in this case than the other two examples. If one is going to use animals as examples to exemplify any points related to Objectivism and objectist views, the better ones are the wild ones that actually live in societies mostly independant of human meddling. The term society indicates a dependence for survival and there can be considered a wider extended society involved in other animals that is constiuent in a symbiotic existance. The lioness hunts so she and the lion and cubs eat. The jackels, hyenas and vultures also eat, but them eating isn't based on altruism, it is a by-product. In terms of Objectivism, the idea is like all species, humans have a specialized adaptation for survival, that is human intelligence, human rationality and capacity for reasoning and that this is the mechanism that a human takes care of himself and those for whom he is responsible. The true analogy in this case would be that the human is the lioness and those she is responsible for are the lion and their cubs and whatever other members of the pride that are in the lionesses circle of responsibility. Each independent lioness has their own circle. Where altruism is concerned, the lioness' specific circle of responsibility is extended to span her whole species and all associated symbiotic species, that is the requirement that the lioness are not only responsible for her circle, but also other lionesses, lioness' circles and the jackels, hyenas and vultures, which is counter to the actual survival mechanism which has no actual basis. |
| People, however, do not have such an easy time of it. | Once again the writer is card stacking since he is specifically talking about the relatively idyllic idealize life of domesticated life where every aspect of life is basically taken care of by humans. The easy time he speaks of isn't as apparent in the true life of an animal in the wild. Hunting and being hunted has it's perils and the fact that the kill may be competed over by other hunting groups both lion and otherwise, makes it look like the maybe people have a bit easier time of it after all. And the bottom line and basic flaw of altruism in terms of the hunted is that if the lions are hungry, the hunted will lay down and let the lioness slaughter them, the actual antithesis of survival. |
| The enlightened, modern person usually measures the progress of civilization by discerning how well its members look after their comrades. | This statement is non-sequitor for several reasons. The fact that domesticated animals, since the writer used the example of domesticated animals, have an easier time surviving or even just existing than humans has absolutely nothing to do with how supposedly enlightened people view civilization except in humanitarian terms regarding the specific treatment of animals. It has nothing to do with how members look after their comrades. As a sidenote here, it might seem that since the buzz word "comrades" was used, this is a very Marxist statement, which is not necessarily insistance on altruism. A second non-sequitor is the statement that in order to be an enlightened modern person that a concern for looking after their comrades is a necessity. This has not been shown and must be axiomic for any altruic statement to apply in this case. The question "are we our brothers keeper" is extended to "who the fuck IS our brother?" For the Marxist, it seems that everybody is. Is that a valid measure of civilization? Maybe, maybe not. The arguments haven't shown it thus far. |
| While some limited altruism has been documented in nature, conscious altruism can fairly be described as an invention of human beings. | Altruism, as an invention of human beings, is used here as if it is given and necessary. There is actually no basis or rationale for the altruistic viewpoint. In fact, the very act of altruism is so counter to being human that it dehumanizes everyone who practices it and everyone who it is applied to. Using the writer's animal analogy for the domesticated animals who have no actual social culture other than in relation to humans, they live and die for the sake of humans. This may seem altruistic in nature, but on closer examination this is also breeding and not a free choice. Altruism is never a free choice. Giving up ones life, livelihood, luxury, well-being for someone else, who sometimes is not even deserving of it, is so against human nature that it is rarely a free choice, even though it is very easy to say someone else should. In the wild, the analogy of the altruistic ideal would have to be the hunted prey, allowing themselves to be killed for the sake of the lioness, the lion, the cubs, the jackels, hyenas and vultures. This is actually counter to the survival instinct. So what is the correlation with humans and how are humans dehumanized by altruism. As said before, the basic survival trait for humans is intellect, rationality and reason. Whether or not other animals exhibit these traits or not, these are what humans primarily use for survival and extending it to even a more human trait, self-actualization. Altruism basically creates an environment where humans become "domesticated" and lose the need for these traits. The real question is this, is the lioness really a lioness if you defang and declaw her and is a human really a human if you take away the need for her to use her mind to survive and self-actualize? |
| Whether it is the Christian axiom to "love thy neighbor as thyself" or the socialist dictum requiring "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," altruism is widely considered the progressive, humane stance. | These are religous and political axioms that can be interpreted and applied in broadly constructive or destructive ways. I doubt if either axiom ever meant that one was required to take away a person's own responsibility for their survival and self-actualizaton, thereby making them nothing more than domesticated animals. In an ideal socialist society, the maxim those who don't work, don't eat is appropriate because everyone can do at least something to contribute. In a welfare state, people don't have to work to eat and become domesticated, without purpose. It isn't necessarily a given that a socialist state is altruistic. It is a necessity that a welfare state is. A society that allows people to become domesticated animals with no purpose either for survival or self-actualization is neither progressive or humane. |
| So, it would seem a barbaric throwback when Ayn Rand has the hero of Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, state, "I swear--by my life and my love of it--that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." | Bluntly, this is a misleading statement since the fact that it is a throwback requires an antecedent. A throwback to what? And he also fails to point out what is wrong with the "oath" leaving it to the discretion of the reader, depending on the fact that it can't be anything but negative base on the lead in of some type of barbaric, yet non-definite throwback. I challenge any person to look at the "oath" and actually make a definite statement as to what is wrong with it. The only thing that people can say is that it is not altruisic at all and they would be right. It is John Galt's promise that he will never be altruisic. Think for a minute, to live for another man's sake is like prey giving itself over to a predator, and asking another man to live for my sake is me essentially being a moucher or looter. This doesn't mean that a person can't be charitable, but that is a personal choice and does not mean in any way that the giver lives for the receiver. And I am still wondering what is the barbaric throwback? |
| Yet, it is the thrust of Rand's novel and her objectivist philosophy that it is the altruists in their various forms that are the true barbarians. | Altruism is a barbaric activity. It robs people of their humanity and makes them dependant in ways that dehumanize them even further. Not only is the need for survival taken, but for self-actualization as well. The idea that someone else is responsible for providing a persons needs cause many complications in terms of what exactly the needs are. What so many anti-objectivists fail to express is the fact that objectivist are mainly talking on the level of self-actualization when speaking of needs, not survival and it is a basic objectivist premise that giving a person a hamburger so he can have something to eat is charity, giving him an undeserved portion of the profits of the hamburger stand is altruism. The hard working hamburger stand owner should in no way be obligated to live for the self-actualization of someone who doesn't work at all. |
| According to Rand, it is the parasitism of the mythologist (read religious) and collectivist (read socialist) altruists that will eventually sap the productive effort of the few real men and cause the collapse of civilization. | There are several things here that beg the question. First, the assumption that collectivist means socialist. If socialist means welfarist, yes. Nobody can deny that welfare enables parasitism. The mythologist refers to the idea that a person is his brother's keeper, but in terms of altruism, somehow everybody becomes his brother. The references, to productive effort, the few real men, and the collapse of civilization are literary devices used to illustrate a point in Atlas Shrugged. If one reads the book in terms of self-actualization, instead of survival, ones viewpoint is totally reversed. So what is the purpose of an altruist - to spread the necessities of life or spread the luxuries? If it is the necessities then really what could someone expect more than the nasty gruel that we see them feed starving African children on the commercials. If it is luxuries, isn't altruism even more dehumanizing for both the victim and the moocher? |
| Only purely self-interested individuals unburdened by the needs of non-producers, say the objectivists, can keep the progress of civilization on the upward track. | This is a false statement. In order to be accurate it should precisely be termed thus: Only people who practice rational self-interest in terms of self-actualization unburdened by the need of non-productive people to self-actualize, says the rational individual, can keep the human species on a progressive evolutionary path. A very important and obvious corallary would state: When preference is given those unable or unwilling to produce, the species will become, in general unable or unwilling to produce. Make sense? |
| I read Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness. I even went so far as to subscribe to The Objectivist Forum. Ayn Rand's philosophy has a certain appeal and, for a time, I considered myself a disciple of Objectivism. | It is obvious that this person did not understand what he was reading. |
| But, ultimately, Objectivism is flawed and cannot be considered a plausible ethical theory. | This has not and will not been shown. |
| The major strength of Objectivism is its attack on the socialist concept, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Rand correctly points out that such a philosophy kills ability and breeds need. | The major strength of Objectivism is putting the intellect, reason and rational thought above everything else in terms of values. I can see why there is so much confusion because the writer has gotten the mistaken idea that some of the consequences of rational thought applied to an isolated economic theory is the central theme. If one applies socialist theory correctly, it could be argued that even an Objectivist point of view could consider it viable. It all depends on the content and context. |
| In Atlas Shrugged, she gives the fictional example of a factory taken over by its workers that institutes this system. The workers progressively hide their abilities to avoid the demands the system makes on them. The workers also exaggerate their needs to gain greater compensation. In the end, the factory grinds to halt, becoming non-productive and serving no one's interests. |
This is actually a bit simplistic and totally wrong. The factory was taken over by the heirs of the founder. The heirs were the ones who instituted the system, not the workers. This was not a minor point and points to the writers mistaken connection between socialism and altruism, or maybe he didn't really read the book.
The new altruistic system is what created John Galt and it is a mistake to consider John Galt the main character of the book. Anyone who has truly read the book and paid attention would know that. If one really wants to know the real truth in a nutshell, the book can basically be boiled down to a union being formed by a group and the union going on strike. John Galt is the union leader and throughout the book he is basically working behind the scenes recruiting new members to the union. And the main character, Dagny Taggart, spends most of the book trying to break the union. Like all unions this one is working to elimate government and corporate looter's from exploiting the workers, the union members. There are assorted ineffectial scabs that try to cross the picket line and the strikers don't really care, because the scabs aren't capable of doing their jobs. Now, there are several things that make the book an Objectivist statement. First, the strikers are men of ability, either skilled or intellectual. Second, it rationally dissembles the "virtue" of altruism and places it where it belongs, as counter to rational thought, to begin with, and as immoral because, in the name of an incapable person self-actualizing, it is detrimental to the survival of humanity, both as a species and as individuals. |
| World events of the past few years give actual examples to support this fictional thesis. The two great world communist powers, China and the Soviet Union, found their socialist based economies stagnate and unproductive. | No, these are not examples of what the Objectist view of the problem is in terms of altruism. The fact that communist powers were not able to sustain there policies only speaks to the flaws in political dictatorship. Socialism can be much more insidious than this from the Objectivist point of view. An example is when a country nationalizes the resources of a capitalist corporation who is quasi-legally operating in that country. This is much more in line with the premise behind Atlas Shrugged. The writer of this article is either misunderstanding the book, hasn't really read it, or intentionally trying to mislead to fit his argument. |
| First China was forced to reinstitute local capitalism and now the Soviet Union is undergoing an economic perestroika (restructuring). Considering how diametrically opposed to capitalism the ideologies of these two countries are, it is obvious from an economic point of view that John Galt's oath is not only feasible, but necessary. | This is so irrelavent in terms of Atlas Shrugged. John Galt's concern was for his intellectual property and the ability to profit from the intellectual products that resulted. And if one would read the book and pay attention, the reader would find that each striker had his own reasons for striking but the common denomiator was that each striker was striking against the expectation that he was responsible for someone elses self-actualization. As far as survival every stiker can be thought to have the value that if someone was hungry, he could have something to eat and have the dignity of doing something in exchange, whatever it was that was within his ability, mow lawns, wash dishes, guard a power plant... Altruism does not allow that dignity. In John Galt's world only the lazy would go hungry. |
| But, even in the realm of economics philosophy, flaws can be found in John Galt's oath. Because, not only does never living for the sake of another logically preclude any sort of social welfare system, but Rand's writings specifically attack such a system. | It needs to be established that a social welfare system is not only just a good thing, but a rational solution to a problem. In addition, the "oath" is not specifically directed at any kind of charity, only altruism. To reiterate, charity is directed towards survival, altruism is directed towards self-actualization. When someone has to live his life so someone else survives, there is something wrong, the system has to be re-evaluated, eventually there is a expectation that someone takes care of themselves in some measure. When someone has to live his life so someone self-actualizes, then looters are in power. |
| Now, the U.S. welfare system certainly has its flaws, but the removal of the total "safety net" for the underprivileged is tantamount to murder. | This is utter bullshit designed to do nothing but evoke an emotional response and a truly rational person would see right through it. The terms are too loosely defined to convict someone of murder. What constitutes a safty net? What really is underprivileged? And what the fuck does "tantamount to murder" mean? Who is guilty of murder? The man who thinks that he should be able to keep what he earns to support his family, but is willing to pay someone $20 to mow his lawn, but can't afford it because the government takes out money for their inefficient programs? The woman who doesn't think that people who not only didn't have anything to do with the innovation she made, but is also incapable of even understanding it, shouldn't get credit for it, let alone share credit? Murder? All to often it is the people who can afford not to have it who are the recipients of altruism. Like the companies that got bail out money and turned around and gave bonuses to the ones who got them into the bad fix in the first place. I guess these guys would have blown their own brains out if they didn't get it and we would have been accused of "tantamount to murder"!!! |
| This week's Time magazine quotes a study by the Physicians Task Force on Hunger in America as saying that some 20 million Americans go hungry on a regular basis. The recent increase in this number is attributed to new food stamp restrictions. If restrictions can make twenty million hungry, then destruction could quite possibly starve to death vast numbers of people. |
Destruction??? Not sure what this is referring to. Okay, down and dirty truth from someone who knows first hand. The way to solve the twenty million hungry people is the same gruel they feed to the starving african children.
I am not 100% sure that socialism is a bad thing, but I am not convinced that a welfare state is equivalent to a socialist state either. I get the feeling from what I do know about socialism is that everybody in the state is provided a job which takes care of the necessities. The bad thing about that is that there is no opportunity to work harder to earn more. Welfare on the other hand is handouts, which even an Objectivist agrees is necessary at times, but not over a long term with out any responsibility from the receiver. People shouldn't expect other people to live for them, that is slavery. |
| Of course, when dealing with philosophy, to attack a theory it is not enough to merely show that a certain action may cause large numbers of deaths. | The writer states that 20 million people are hungry, but has not shown that any deaths occurred. He stated that they would die but was not specific about the conditions that were required and then accussed people who lived their lives for themselves of "tantamount to murder". The statistics need to show where deaths have occurred and the most likely place is third world nations. Do you think that what we feed the people in third world nations would be acceptable to the 20 million hungry people in this country? It would keep them alive but I don't think they would be too happy. |
| Large numbers of deaths must also be proved a bad thing. | Yes, if a large number of deaths was the issue. The writer is basically saying that someone who lives his life for himself and no one else is a murderer because there are 20 million hungry people in this country and they may die if something happened to ??? not sure. It couldn't be if John Galt had gotten to keep the profits from the intellectual products of his intellectual property. Do think that if Fransico D'Anaconia was able to keep the profits from his copper minds and not have them nationalized by the looter government where his mines were, who thought they should get the millions instead, then people would have die of starvation? Holy shit??? |
| Theoretically, from a social-Darwinist-type perspective, such deaths could be an efficient cleansing of the deadwood of society. | This is so much bullshit and totally irrelavent. John Galt being able to profit from his efforts has nothing to do with someone starving. Him becoming a starving person will not help anyone. For the person who is starving, not being able to profit from his own efforts is what is making him starve. Deadwood... hmmmm, maybe he was just taxed to much so he couldn't keep above water. There could be many other reasons too, that has nothing to do with John Galt living his life for himself, but to do with the ones who think John Galt and the one starving, himself were wrong to live their lives for themselves. Maybe? Once again, remember, in John Galt's world only the lazy would starve. |
| These deaths, however, could only be justified (if even then) if the dying's productivity were totally unsalvageable. | Someone died? Who died? The writer seems to be trying to make people think that 20 million people died of starvation. If not, once again, someone died? Who died? |
| These people, though it is simplistic to refer to them as a homogenous group, can in no way be proven to be genetically doomed to poverty and non-productivity. Thus, even if killing the poor is not inherently wrong, the lost productive potential makes it so. | What people? What homogenous group? Who killed the poor? A secret here. There will always be hungry people in a welfare state, ya know why? Ask me. |
| Moving away from the purely economic, the flaws of John Galt's oath and Objectivism are even more acute. | The only thing the writer has really proven is how flawed his understanding of most things are. He also doesn't have a very high opinion of his reader's intelligence. He assumes that he can emotionally influence an opinion based on murders that never happened. It is a very transparent ploy that only the most stupid would fall for. |
| In a variety of situations, the Objectivist's inability to live for another's sake, even for some short period of time, is both intuitively unethical to the non-Objectivist and ultimately self-defeating to even a disciple of Objectivism. | These assertions is base on a flawed understanding of the difference between charity and altruism. Base on the difference, the above statement is basically meaningless. The basic assumption of the Objectivist principle of rational self interest does not preclude helping in survival situation only in self-actualization situation as stated before. John Galt's statement didn't mean he would not arrange something that would be adequate for a starving person, just that it wouldn't be for free and it wouldn't be his life work, nor a result of his life work. How could it be he was a physicist, not a philanthrapist. Who could really expect anything more? The central meaning was that he was not going to allow someone else to take the profits from his intellectual property. He wasn't going to work hard and have someone else who didn't deserve it to profit from his work. There was no question of the person going hungry or surviving. It was more of a question of paying for his BMW or cable tv. People really need to read the book themselves and pay attention. |
| The first flaw results from Objectivism's overextension of the correct repudiation of rewarding people for need to the prohibition of even helping those in need. | This is basically mumbo-jumbo. I hope the professor didn't get taken in by the use of these big words. I am having an extremely difficult time deciphering this. From what I gather he was trying to say that Objectivism basically lumps helping those in need in with rewarding people for need. That is a misunderstanding. The Objectivist doesn't prohibit the helping of people in need, because helping people in need does not necessitate the living your life for someone in need. By definition rewarding need is precisely the living the life for the person in need. It is basically a flawed belief that anyone can expect another person to live their life for anyone else. The conditions for charity can be any one chooses. If a preacher agrees to feed a person if he listens to his sermon then the person is obligated to listen to his sermon, otherwise he should seek help elsewhere. The preacher doesn't live his life for the person, he lives his life for himself through his devotion to his god. This is charity. Offering to buy food for a person who is hungry and the person expects it from then on without compensation of some kind is altruism. The compensation could be as simple as a smile and a thank you, it depends on the giver, period. |
| The economic example of the social welfare system already shows part of this problem, but non-economic situations extend it to the absurd. | Social welfare system??? I am assuming that the writer equates this with socialism somehow? |
| A perfect example of how an Objectivist is required to act incorrectly is that of the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese on a street corner in Queens. Ms. Genovese was murdered while thirty-eight of her neighbors looked on for over half an hour without either intervening or even calling the police. Such bystander inaction is both obviously intuitively wrong and also self-defeating to the actor (or, more correctly, non-actor) because of the dangerous social situation it defines. | The writer seems to be saying that these 38 neighbors were Objectivist? That has not been shown. |
| An Objectivist, however, at least according to John Galt's oath, would be required to abstain from action. He certainly could not intervene and put his life and love of it in danger. Further, by saying he will never live for the sake of another, John Galt and the Objectivists cannot live their lives for Ms. Genovese's sake even long enough to make a phone call. | If someone really read Atlas Shrugged all the way through they would know that this isn't true. The "oath" is strictly directed towards altruism, and we have already beat the definition of that to death. The Objectivist in Atlas Shrugged went to the aid of their fellows many times thoughout the book, the most obvious example is when Dagny and Hank storm the government facility where the government were torturing John Galt to rescue him, risking their own lives. No, Hank Reardon and John Galt would not have called anyone, they would have prevented the murder themselves, because they believe in the sanctity of life. At least the writer is stretching the credulity of the readers by trying to make them believe that something as trivial as making phone call is in any way them living their lives for someone else. He really thinks people are idiots. |
| The next flaw of Objectivism is that not only does it prohibit the helping of other people for purely altruistic motives, but, it also does not prohibit the harming of others for purely self-interested motives. The only prohibition in John Galt's oath is of allowing others to live for his sake. Thus, the Objectivist will be driven by self-interest to harm others in situations in which such action is either intuitively wrong, eventually self-defeating, or both. | This is an outright lie. I know the writer's motivation now. He is just trying to discredit a philosophy he can not really grasp. When John Galt stated this "oath" it within an 85 page speech that you would have to read to really an understanding of the "oath". The oath isn't the sum of the Objectivist philosopy. The writer claims to have read the book, if this is true he would know that central and primary to the philosophy is the Objectivist "oath" not to initiate violence in any form. Funny he concentrates on one "oath" but forgets so readily another. |
| Corporate anti-environmentalism provides a good example of how Objectivist self-interest can harm others in an intuitively incorrect and self-defeating manner. This example is especially apropos because it contrasts well with the corporate heroism displayed in Atlas Shrugged. | I am not sure whether he realizes he just said that his negative example is in contrast to what happens in Atlas Shrugged. An Objectivist would in no way ever work to harm the environment and would take every measure to ensure its protection, since harming our home is irrational and counter to self preservation, a central aspect of rational self interest. You know? The human value of survival? |
| In one current case, fast-food giants are now using cheap, convenient foam containers to package their foods. These containers emit chlorofluorocarbons that damage the ozone layer and may eventually radically change the Earth's environment to the detriment of all living things. To an Objectivist, however, the profit inherent in such containers appeals to self-interest while the dangers are the problem of future generations. | This implied connection between fast-food giants and Objectivism has no foundation in reality and a connection between the expedientcy of the packaging is more intune with the villians in Atlas Shrugged than the heroes. The heroes would be involved coming up with a solution that was both cost effective and ecologically sound, through the use of rational thought and reason, the true virtue taught in Atlas Shrugged. That would be the rational way to do things. The rational self-interest, once again, would be the ability to profit from the products coming from the solutions without having to give cuts to the looters and moochers that cause the problem in the first place. This is a very important point. |
| Obviously, an Objectivist who cannot live for the sake of another living person can show no concern for generations yet unborn. | The kind of error that is involved with confusing rational self interest of an Objectivist as outlined in Atlas Shrugged is only forgivable when one has never read Atlas Shrugged. And again, one has to remember that the "oath" the writer is speaking of was one sentence included in a 85 page speech. If I were to go into any speech ever given by any person and pulled out one sentence, would that give a fair representation of the philosophy of the speaker? When the "oath" that is spoken of was spoken, the lead in was something of the nature of so now I have told you why it is this way. |
| Such action certainly cannot be condoned intuitively and, by destroying life as we know it, will take with it whatever Objectivists happen to be around. | In this does the writer know what he is saying? First, we are not dealing with anything intuitively when one is considering Objectivism. Second, destroying life is not an Objectivists value. Third self preservation is central to rational self interest as said before. If one read Atlas Shrugged, he will see the destroyers are the moochers and looters who would sacrifice individuals and whole populations in order to pillage someone else property not in the name of survival, but self-actualization. In the book you read of one of the bad guys saying "it isn't far that steel producer, Mr. Doyle is going broke, because Hank Reardon is able to produce more steel more economically than him, so we should split Mr. Reardon's profits with Mr. Doyle, so Mr. Doyle doesn't have to go bankrupt." An Objectivist would say that maybe Mr. Doyle should get a job at Mr. Rearon's foundry to learn how to do it properly. Mr. Reardon would agree under the condition that Doyle worked his ass off while he was there, and becomes a worthy opponent when he finally starts competing with him again. That is Objectivism. |
| In addition, there are a variety of individual actions which fall under the category of intuitively wrong and, perhaps, self-defeating. Would an Objectivist's child be taught to share the last piece of cake with his brother? | No, not taught, but shown that it would be appreciated. He would be taught that his piece of cake is his piece of cake and no one has the right to expect him to share it. His kindness in sharing the cake would be received with gratitude and appreciation, not self-righteous indignation that it was his responsibility. |
| Could an Objectivist businessman hire hit men to polish off his competition? | This proves that this man has never read Atlas Shrugged and paid attention, because the same place he got his "oath" another "oath" that says an Objectivist will never initiate violence against someone else. READ THE FUCKING BOOK!!! |
| Should an Objectivist smoker put out his cigarette in the presence of a person allergic to smoke? | Of course! Rational self interest has nothing to do with smoking a cigarette. |
| In each case, pure self-interest dictates the intuitively wrong decision and creates a social situation that would be ultimately self-defeating to all. | The writer is forgetting an important term. The real phrase is rational self interest. There is no intuition involved. To an Objectivist self-defeating behavior is not rational. If he is involved in it he will find it a flaw to be fixed. This writer is only presenting part of the truth in order to sway the opinion of his readers. READ THE FUCKING BOOK!!! |
| The final flaw of John Galt's oath is that it becomes completely monstrous if it falls into the hands of those less scrupulous than the characters portrayed in Atlas Shrugged. | Granted, but only scrupulous people live up to ideal of Objectivism by definition. The following of the virtues and values explained in John Galt's 85 page speech requires a certain level of morality. The "oath" is only part of the "doctrine" and is not really being observed in letter or spirit when one doesn't follow all of the morality. Like a Christian picking and choosing from the Bible. |
| The Objectivists portrayed in that novel are an honorable bunch. They put much emphasis on truth and responsibility in their actions. None of this honor, however, is inherent in John Galt's oath. With self-interest alone, that oath, and Objectivism, self-destructs. | That is why it isn't self-interest alone and that is why the writer left out the term rational from "rational self interest" and why he left out all of the rest of the 85 page speech. If he explained it completely, he wouldn't be able to say what he has said. Someone can surely see the differences in the statements "he was drinking alcohol" instead of "he was drinking alcohol responsibly". Then listen to the descriptive statement "he had been drinking alcohol when he was questioned by the police at the scene of the fatal accident." and how that differs from this statement. "he had been drinking alcohol responsibly and had a designated driver driving him home when he was questioned about witnessing the fatal accident". Both are true, but one gives the fucking wrong impression. This is what this writer has done. Savvy? |
| If this oath of self-interest is taken seriously, some of the Objectivists own ideals can be tossed away by the dishonorable in the name of self-interest. | As is true of any philosophy or religion. What is the point? |
| The sanctity of the contract could be breached at will destroying the ideal business community which was the aim of the Objectivists in Atlas Shrugged. | Holy shit, how the fuck did he go from a discussion of the conflict between atruism and "self interest" to a discussion of an "ideal business community?" Didn't he state previously that the aim of Objectivism was self interest? |
| For a high enough price, any of the members of that secret society should have exposed the others to the world. And, the oath itself would be disposable given the right set of profitable conditions. | I challange anyone to read the book thoroughly and not think that this was one of the stupidest statements ever. |
| Clearly, taken to the logical extreme John Galt's oath contradicts itself making it an implausible ethical theory. | Clearly, as I have shown, the writer is mistaken or intending to mislead for some reason. |
| In conclusion, it is understandable that Ayn Rand on escaping from the Soviet Union would endeavor to repudiate the overly extreme altruism of collectivist communism. Her theory of Objectivism correctly points out the flaws of inefficiency and ultimate self-destruction inherent in that system. | Is that what she was trying to do? Several things here. 1) there can be too much altruism? 2) collectivist communism is altruistic? 3) Soviet collectivist communism was altruism? The writer obviously doesn't know the difference between giving someone something to eat an forcing someone to share the results of his productive efforts. There is a differnce and one must work out the difference in ones own mind before a rational discussion can be made. |
| But, the pure self-interest embodied in John Galt's oath in Atlas Shrugged is a dangerous overreaction that both involves intuitively wrong actions and creates an untenably dangerous social situation. Clearly, selfishness is no real virtue and Objectivism is no real theory. | The writer wants you to believe that one of the elements of Objectivism, that is "rational self interest", is equivalent to "selfishness". Do you really believe that? Why? |
| My conclusion is that I am so thankful that this person is not longer an Objectivist, and even seems totally anti-objectivist. We really can use more people like him on the opposition. | My conclusion is that if this person didn't get an "F" on this paper just because of all the fallicious argument, that the professor and the college needs to be avoided at any cost. He botched the effort so badly that, he would have gotten the "F" no matter what the topic from me. This is really a bad paper no matter what the topic. |
|
Copyright © 2010, John Beckman |
| The content and design of these web pages are the property of John Beckman and may not be copied, printed, or posted in any form or media, in whole or in part without expressed written permission. |
