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 3.
I refuse to accept that people neglecting their individual property rights deserve any excuse for their ignorance or stupidity. The sooner the race lets those humans loose out in the genetic survival contest, the better for the race.
You try to explain with : "I have a philosophy that says those who behave morally will be rewarded, and those that do not will be punished, perhaps not in this life, but in the next. And thus, even those who choose not to stand up for their rights (due to their human nature) can be comforted that living morally themselves they will be rewarded."
You with your religion advocate accepting slavery, abuse, and a life of suffering in this life because if you maintain your belief and get some water sprinkled on your head and then confess all your supposed 'sins' even at the moment of death, then you can go on to some supposed 'heaven' and live forever. And martyrs, given sainthood by some group of church elders even excuses that punishment and mistreatment beyond what normal humans have to endure. That's not a philosophy, it's an excuse for the torture or murder you experience in this life. It just makes no sense.
What happens if you're wrong? My life will be lived not permitting anybody or system to treat me in such a manner. I have the rights of my existence and my life to reject anyone or thing that tries to beat me down, and then to pursue those things and goals that make my existence tolerable, even enjoyable and worthwhile, and furthers the life I have. And if I live by my philosophy, and I'm wrong about the existence of some magical being setting all the rules, I've lived my life in a very similar manner. So if I lived my life with all the 'Shalt nots' of the bible even though they derived from my own rational reasoning, why shouldn't I be provided the same afterlife.
How do you excuse the concept of original sin that damns a baby born, that dies before receiving the Babtismal then being consigned to the void forever? That is a precept of Christianity. That's evil and wrong.
As to the penalties for the oppressor, they exist in this life. Imagine living a life continually looking over your shoulder looking for the stronger or meaner to come after you and take from you. And it will happen, if that's the guide of your life, to use force to gain what you want from others. It is a life of misery, blood, slavery, and death worship.
I respect your right to believe and practice whatever you want, just do that and leave my alone, I'm happy with my existence and don't give you access to try to proselytize me. There have been more humans murdered in the name of religion than any other cause in the history of humankind. Live your life as you want and let me live mine as I want. I won't intrude into your life and try to convince you that my view is the only thing that's right to believe. Is that so hard to grasp?
KYFHO
Now, your response is going to be nobody can prove that there is an afterlife, which is true (although I can point to, what I consider, insurmountable circumstantial evidence that is sufficient for me and billions of others to come to that conclusion). And I will grant you that. But here is what I have that you do not - I have a philosophy that says those who behave morally will be rewarded, and those that do not will be punished, perhaps not in this life, but in the next. And thus, even those who choose not to stand up for their rights (due to their human nature) can be comforted that living morally themselves they will be rewarded.
Now, AR found this to be a flaw in theist philosophy, particularly Christianity. I find it to be its greatest asset, as it addresses the nature of humanity.
By your reasoning those who "choose" to live in oppression by refusing to stand up to their oppressors deserve what they get. By my reasoning, they can at least take comfort that their morality in other aspects of their lives results in reward.
The flaw that AR has with Christianity in particular is to see it as slavery to a master when there is nothing further from the truth. One has free will to choose to live however they desire - Christianity (and most theist philosophies for that matter) merely says that there are consequences for your choices. And as you and Conscious have said, O has no consequences, thus, no penalty for being an oppressor.
“People always have the kind of government they want. When they want change, they must change it"
- A. E. Van Vogt, "The Weapon Shops of Isher"
From Conscious: "Your error is compounded in the assertion that just because some individuals choose to live in oppression, that somehow proves that O is flawed."
So, if some individuals "choose to live" by not overthrowing their rulers - say as the soviets did for nearly a century - then that would not discount the philosophy of Marx? Despite the clear observation that it was immoral.
You are blinded to the reality of human nature due to your wish that mankind be something that it is not. You can argue for something that is akin to Utopia as long as you like, but until you can overcome the fundamental nature of humanity in this regard, you are believing in a pipe dream.
I think that O fundamentally has merit as a more moral philosophy than most, particularly Communism, Socialism, Collectivism. But it is no more the final answer than any of those, as one could make a perfectly rational argument that any of those were perfectly moral IF they were adhered to perfectly. What could be more moral than for me to work and be as productive as I can be (isn't that what O advocates?), and that I receive all that I need to be satisfied? EXCEPT that the nature of man is to be lazy, that if someone else is providing then I don't have to work as hard or at all. And the nature of man is to be greedy, to want more and more even past the point of satiation. This results in failure of these types of collective based philosophies.
I do not merely have a superficial understanding based on some misinterpretation of the NAP. I merely use NAP as the most easily condensed way of encapsulating the issue that is more fundamental, but manifests itself in the form of the NAP.
One runs the risk of greater logical errors when making assertions about something one has mainly researched on a superficial level.
Or is your real difference with Objectivism that it doesn't require a god, but relies instead on rational reasoning to reach similar property rights recognition and enforcement?
But rather than a fundamental principle, respect for other's property rights (which Robbie confuses with the NAP which is really not a part of Objectivism) is a secondary result of the principle of individual property rights. That secondary principle results from the primary principle of the individual owning himself and the fruits of his work to further his own life, and that if the individual wishes to have those property rights, then by logic, others have those identical rights.
Recognizing that others (moochers and looters) may not be willing to respect those property rights, Objectivism as an extension of the secondary rights of property, then allows the individual to respond with necessary force if there exists or arises an attack on or endangerment of those property rights. If a sufficient society exists, the Objectivists may form a government and give that government the authority to provide that response of force for the protection of property.
As a result of his wrong assumption that the NAP is a principle of Obj., he misses that all that is required for the Objectivist philosophy to thrive is simply a system in which the individual's property rights are recognized and enforced. In such a system, it doesn't matter what others agree to or don't.
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.
Objectivism recognizes man is a rational animal with a volitional consciousness. That means there are no 'guarantees' he will always make choices that improve or further his life. Sometimes individuals are going to make poor choices and live with the consequences.
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."
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.
Load more comments...