Jason Brennan Joins the Brigade of People Misrepresenting Ayn Rand’s Views
Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 8 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...
As to your comment, I think you're mixing up the concept of a philosophy with historical practices of those without much of a philosophy or a sound ethic. Looters have been prevalent in our history since we became sentient and probably before, but that's the animalistic nature of our development, not a workable, moral, and sane practice for the individual or society.
I think that was precisely his point. He's not arguing that "might makes right" is the best societal philosophy - quite the contrary. What he is pointing out is that history is quite replete with tyrants and dictators (and their cronies) who value force as a method of control. And if the current United States population (or Europe) is any indicator, there are few who actually value their minds and ability to exercise them freely enough to do anything about it.
That being said, I disagree with the last statement. I find it difficult to believe that AR missed this dichotomy coming from communist Russia where it was in such full force. She was promoting something she believed in, but I highly doubt she was not cognizant of the opposition.
"The only “obligation” involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected."
Today we have drug gangs who do the same thing in neighborhoods of most of our large cities. The people themselves could expel these thugs, but refuse to do so, for many reasons.
While AR makes a logical case, she misses the fact that often people make illogical decisions because they don't want to take a risk. The potential harm in the short run is greater than the overall benefit, at least in their evaluation. It is rationality of a different sort.
That conflation in people's minds brought about by the mistaken belief that government will take care of you, leads to the prevalence of Robbie's drug gangs. If the individual or the neighborhood doesn't stand up to the first drug dealer then the gang will follow. Self defense has to happen in order to maintain liberty.
Since reason is the means of human knowledge, it is therefore each person's most fundamental means of survival and is necessary to the achievement of values.[66] The use or threat of force neutralizes the practical effect of an individual's reason, whether the force originates from the state or from a criminal. According to Rand, "man's mind will not function at the point of a gun."
In fact, many people will reason that the short term pain of standing up for themselves is a greater harm than succumbing to force. Objectivism only works if everyone adheres to the philosophy. That is just as big a fallacy as those who advocate for utopianism. There will always be those who will look to advance themselves by subverting others. And in fact, many man's mind has functioned at the point of a gun, perhaps not as effectively as those who are able to do so in freedom, but nonetheless, they have. To whit, there are many drug gangs who oppress their neighborhood, yet those people still can contribute - on behalf of themselves, productively to the community, and to the very gangs that oppress them (buying drugs, hiding criminals, etc.)
You argue that we must accept those failures of the non-objectivist men and AR argued that no, there was indeed a different and better way to look at men's natures and lives. That a life lived understanding the philosophy of Objectivism, regardless of the level of production and contribution as long as it was accounted for within the individual's needs and capabilities and also understanding and respecting that others had the same rights was the only proper moral and ethical way to live. She also argued that men had the inherent right to act in self defense against moochers and looters and as well, that it was right to allow such to find and live with their ultimate failures.
Whether you believe that a life lived respecting the rational and logically reasoned men of the mind is worse than trying to live within a society of failure, oppression, slavery, and worship of death, AR argued exactly the opposite. Where you argue that we must accept force and the abuse of power and find some way to live within that system, AR argued simply, that there was a better way and went further to layout a philosophy of life that would work - had in fact worked to a large extent in the first century and some years of this country founded on many aspects of such a philosophy.
It seems, that since AR didn't lay out a complete action plan for the advocates of the philosophy to utilize for the rest of society and against the evils of that society, that you find fault with it. Objectivism is a philosophy of life for the individual and a free market, not a plan for revolution, war, or a political campaign.
And with the rest of your statement, why on earth would you spend time on this site. Just to argue and cause controversy?
That some people "choose to succumb to oppression merely as a convenience" does not have a bearing on whether Objectivism "works". It is a philosophy that fully takes into account the nature of man ("people") as a rational animal with a volitional consciousness. It is not a philosophical system that _requires everyone_ to do anything — especially via unreasoned acceptance. It does explain principles that men can use to understand and discover what may improve their life and their enjoyment of it. The premise of your criticism was wrong. If you want to learn more, you could start with _The Virtue of Selfishness_. If it isn't "worthy of deeper evaluation", then at least be sure your criticism is based on proper context.
As to the idea that Objectivism is somehow "very tolerant of oppression", a cursory bit of research would show otherwise. The ethical principles in Objectivism don't promote pacifism; they do recognize the right to self-defense. From the _Virtue of Selfishness_:
"If some "pacifist" society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it."
Again, from _VOS_:
"The basic *political* principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man man initiate the use of physical force against others. .... Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The *ethical* principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense." (*emphasis mine*)
In _Atlas Shrugged_, from John Galt's speech:
"If there are degrees of evil, it is hard to say who is the more contemptible: the brute who assumes the right to force the mind of others or the moral degenerate who grants to others the right to force his mind. That is the moral absolute one does not leave open to debate. I do not grant the terms of reason to men who propose to deprive me of reason. I do not enter discussions with neighbors who think they can forbid me to think. I do not place my moral sanction upon a murderer's wish to kill me. When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him-by force.
"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction. A holdup man seeks to gain wealth by killing me; I do not grow richer by killing a holdup man. I seek no values by means of evil, nor do I surrender my values to evil."
Previous to the above in Galt's speech:
"Sweep aside those hatred-eaten mystics, who pose as friends of humanity and preach that the highest virtue man can practice is to hold his own life as of no value. Do they tell you that the purpose of morality is to curb man's instinct of self-preservation? It is for the purpose of self-preservation that man needs a code of morality. The only man who desires to be moral is the man who desires to live.
"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."
From one of my favorite westerns, Open Range:
"You may not know this, but there's things that gnaw on a man worse than dying."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNSg8qFl...
As for refuting the argument by an Objectivist. You can only use a similar argument as would be used by a Marxist or Socialist - that if only EVERYONE would obey the tenets of the philosophy it would work. That is a pie in the sky fallacy, as there will always be some who will not follow that philosophy. Hence, any philosophy that does not take that into account, is flawed.
But your second leaves me with the question of what would you advocate for as a philosophy for people to believe in or follow? I think if you could voice some ideas or examples of that, rather than just your examples of why Objectivism won't work or is flawed, we might all gain from that. Or do you just think that it's fruitless to follow any or try to develop any philosophy? I'd be really interested in hearing your thoughts on these.
Are you saying that Objectivism can only "work" if "EVERYONE would obey the tenets of the philosophy"?
OR, are you saying that Objectivism doesn't "work" because you think it fails to take into account that everyone will not 'follow' it?
If everyone faithfully followed Communism it would also work. However, that is unlikely as human nature does not show that one human will willingly produce to the common good and only take according to their own needs (beyond the problems with central planning and efficient allocation of resources). Thus, it is built on a foundation of sand. As is Objectivism. Non-aggression is not in the nature of humanity. Yes, rational thinking should show that it is the moral way to live, but many have chosen to live immorally. Thus, if the philosophy fails the human nature test, it also is built on a foundation of sand.
NAP: Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
Property: The right to personal property is embraced within the command -"Thou shall not steal."
Transfer of land to be by signed deed in the presence of witnesses.
Deeds to land are to be preserved as a record.
You should take appropriate precautions of any dangerous situation on your land which might cause damage or injury to other persons or their property.
Restitution is required for damage done to one's land or crops.
We are exhorted to stop theft in the land by having a thief labor with his hands.
However, if we can agree that some humans will not avail themselves of that right/responsibility, then we are left with a society in which some will ultimately be oppressed (I assert that many will, as it is the rare human who will actually stand up for themselves, and a good portion of those would actually be the oppressors). Thus, O must be a flawed philosophy.
Please identify my "cursory error."
Bullying in Robbie's example is one of the things that holds most countries back from achieving success. The lack of the use of force to convert citizens into subjects by America's early presidents was why America was successful for as long as it was.
As to the options available to Objectivist you list, I would argue that there are other options. One is simply self defense in a manner that wouldn't meet your idea of non-aggression. AR did not advocate non-aggression -- she advocated non-initiation of force except in the case of self defense and that utilizing force in any case was counter productive to a free market necessary for the well being of all.
So, what is your point? People choose (consciously, or not) the conditions under which they want to live, long term.
A military and a mechanism for interacting with other nation states is truly the only necessary governmental function. Everything else is a construct in order to monopolize power. Yes, KH, I think even IP rights could be handled with private methods of property protection.
If Jason Brennan fully understands Rand then he is simply a liar, then. If a colorblind man says a blue car is brown he can be forgiven. If a man knows a car is blue and still insists that it's brown he cannot be forgiven.
A typical false statement.
Might as well say, Jason Brennan fully understands life, the universe.and everything.
42!
Come, now, any self-respecting pan dimensional hyperbeing knows that Jason Brennan might fully understand Rand but simply choose to lie for his own reasons!
Watch out for the whale meat while you're enjoying the fjords and marveling at all the fiddly bits.
And that interpretation always serves the self interest of the true believers doing the interpreting, which isn't necessarily the same as those true believers over there.
They all serve their own interests, even when interpreting Ayn Rand.
Get yourself a copy of "True Believers" by Eric Hoffer.
http://www.amazon.com/The-True-Believer-...
I just read the article, planning to guess the answer. I think he may be saying that you can derive that it's okay to use force from objectivist premises. I can't state objectivist premises. I just like the two books I've read. I'm not smart enough on this topic to argue with the blog post author.
What do you want him to change his mind about?
Who wouldn't? (strangely, a rhetorical question)