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 4.
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.
So, what is your point? People choose (consciously, or not) the conditions under which they want to live, long term.
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?
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.
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.
If you insist on perusing same, there are several of them out there.
Just as the first colonists left Britain to maintain their religious freedom, it is now time for us to establish our own colony.
Too many Objectivists seem to think that a Gulch is a solution, it is not. It was a plot device for a novel - it cannot work in reality. That is not an accomodationist perspective, it is a pragmatic one.
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...
Load more comments...