Jason Brennan Joins the Brigade of People Misrepresenting Ayn Rand’s Views
Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
" blog post by Jason Brennan of Bleeding Heart Libertarians, in which Brennan claims (among other things) that Rand and Objectivists are, according to the implications of ethical egoism, “committed to the view that you should rape, dismember, and murder others when it serves your interests.” Of course, Brennan does not and cannot quote Rand saying or implying this or anything of the sort. Nor does he or can he get around the fact that the implications of Rand’s ethics are precisely the opposite of what he claims them to be—as Rand herself made clear."
Is this going to be Objectivists battle for ever? Or is it a major indicator of the successes of AR's philosophy?
Is this going to be Objectivists battle for ever? Or is it a major indicator of the successes of AR's philosophy?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
By the way, I haven't down-pointed you in your responses to me.
What your statement seems to imply is that you want to have consequence free decisions. That is not reality.
Let's look at a couple of your issues - masturbation. The Bible teaches that "spilling the seed on the ground" is not proper. This was to foster childbirth, a necessity to perpetuate the species. If all humans only masturbated, we would die out. Likewise, homosexuality has the same issue, perpetuation of the species.
Pornography really isn't spoken of per se as the concept was not known, but there are prohibitions on coveting your neighbor's wife. That is about maintaining social order as much as it is a sexual thing. In ancient times, wives were akin to property (actually in some cultures it continues to this day). Thus, coveting another man's wife is similar to stealing his property and leads to societal problems.
All that said, the Bible recognizes that people will fail in their objective to choose wisely and provides for means of repentance and reconciliation.
Finally, yes, there have been humans that have taken the Bible and twisted it to their own meaning and objectives. That should not be used as a condemnation of the teaching of the theology itself. Some humans have always, and will always, subvert anything around them to their advantage in oppressing their fellow human.
That is not "begging the question." It is a sincere effort to get you to examine your own philosophical foundation. Self-ownership has not been the norm throughout history, regardless of our desire for it to be. Oppression, slavery, serfdom has been the norm and seems to be a consequence of human nature. Heck, just look at great swaths of those in the US today. They willingly enslave themselves to a nanny gov't that takes care of them in return for their fealty in keeping the masters in charge.
My only hope is that you examine history and re-examine your thoughts on your philosophy and whether it truly jibes with reality.
I do not mean to diminish the fact that the fear of God over your shoulder does stop some from committing acts that are force against others, nor do I want to impugn your own convictions, only to point out that there are other perspectives that have validity.
It appears you are just 'begging the question'. Or, you think the right to your own life was "given" to you; in which case, your existence is a gift and not your own. Either way, I think I've answered you as best I can.
I don't make this statement in any effort to belittle you or your religious beliefs. I'm simply interested in how you make the determinations you've voiced in this post.
So, if it is so fundamental, why doesn't it occur "naturally?"
Again, I would ask for your proof that it is fundamental. As I say, it is not axiomatic.
At the risk of being accused, once again, of proselytizing, I'll quote the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The founders recognized that self-ownership is not inherent, it was given as a free and natural right of humanity. And just as assuredly, compromised such natural right for many residents, so even they could not be pure.
The "fundamental right" emanates from the nature of life itself. It requires "self-sustaining and self-generated action".
I will prove the contrary - Jews in Egypt about 5000 years ago, ancient Greece and Rome, The Celts and Vikings, Muslims of the Dark Ages, Mongols, Africans, Americans prior to the Civil War, and others too numerous to mention.
Slavery is replicated time and time again throughout history. Even those not technically enslaved have owed "allegiance" and required to pay taxes to oppressors across time and across the globe. Freedom, on the contrary, is the exception, not the rule.
From where does that "fundamental right" emanate? It clearly is not axiomatic, as it has been violated repeatedly throughout history (and is even today).
If "self-sustaining and self-generated action" was not part of our "basic human nature", then our species would have faded into the paleontological record long ago. We have survived by our own effort, not a series of accidents.
I'll refer you again to Galt's speech:
"No, you do not have to live; it is your basic act of choice; but if you choose to live, you must live as a man—by the work and the judgment of your mind.
"No, you do not have to live as a man; it is an act of moral choice. But you cannot live as anything else—and the alternative is that state of living death which you now see within you and around you, the state of a thing unfit for existence, no longer human and less than animal, a thing that knows nothing but pain and drags itself through its span of years in the agony of unthinking self-destruction."
As I've said, there are many societal systems (don't want to get into a definition squabble as to whether something is technically a philosophy, merely an economic system, etc.) that if applied and faithfully, would be satisfactory - heck, even socialism or communism could be acceptable. But they fail because they also violate basic human nature - in that case, that people will contribute at their ability and only take according to their needs.
Objectivism would also likely work if applied faithfully, but as I've said, it fails due to basic human nature.
I'm not going to go into why my philosophy overcomes those issues, as there are those here who take such discussion as mere proselytizing, not argument.
Now, you might take exception to committing adultery - and that one we can have a discussion about. That is a prohibition on conduct which some societies prohibit and others accept and even encourage (not adultery per se, but plural marriage or consensual sex regardless of pairing status).
The rest protect private property or other needs for a civilized society (or are benign as far as free will is concerned - for example, how does keeping the Sabbath holy or honoring your parents subverting free will?)
Please elaborate.
I judge the failure of Marxism based on its flawed principles, not by waiting for a Marxist to "implement" it in their behavior. If you have an issue with a principle of Objectivism that you think is flawed, then that is open to discussion. But, just saying it's flawed because people don't 'follow' it (for whatever reason), or it's flawed because there is no universal punishment of evil, or it's flawed because large groups of people live their lives in a destructive manner...isn't logical.
If the flaw you see in Objectivism is that its principles are counter to your religious views, or it is not _structured_ like Christianity, then just use your religious views as your defense. I can understand and respect *that* as a defense better than the illogical assertion that Objectivism is flawed because it doesn't take into account human nature.
KYFHO is a euphinism coined by a favorite author of mine, F. Paul Wilson in the 70's referring to two issues, that of the rejection of force and to support a laissez faire free market. And I consider it appropriate in relation to your comments on this thread. It appears to me (and I may be in error) that your attempts to criticize Objectivism as non-worrkable have been a misdirection on your part, rather than the dealing with issue of the post and the questions asked.
So I suspect we'll leave it here, hopefully.
Marxist theorist Louis Althusser, for example, defined philosophy as "class struggle in theory".
We don't have to split the hairs so finely.
You can refuse all you want. It has occurred for time immemorial, and as such, I consider to be part of human nature. Thus, it will always be (and certainly will be for as long as it is going to matter to me). And they will not "lose out in the genetic survival contest" as they are required for the oppressors to rule, thus those oppressors have an inherent interest in keeping them around, just not powerful enough to be any threat.
2. You may not allow such treatment, but many will, history is replete with such. To ignore the history of humankind is foolish.
3. My personal belief is that if you lived your life in a moral fashion within the tenets of the teaching of Christ, you have in fact "accepted Christ" and will be raised up (similarly will those who never had been exposed to Christ).
4. I do not accept your definition of original sin (although I will grant that there are sects of Christianity, including my own Roman Catholic, which may teach something similar. I do not have to accept as truth something that is conveyed by some man in a mitre - I do have my own rational mind).
5. Many tyrants seem to have lived very satisfied and often long lives under those "grueling" penalties you identify.
6. Why the hate? I did not proselytize, you requested an answer and I provided it - I even warned you that you didn't want the answer, but you persisted. Where have I ever requested you to believe as I do or that you must live as I do? Examine this thread and you will see that I have never said that others must follow my way, only that I see it as the true way.
Oh, and my hands have never been on, so again, why the hate?
-1 for insisting on a response, then replying with such a hateful diatribe to the response requested.
Load more comments...