See Introduction to Objectivism.
This node exists because I need only one specific, valid critique of any of Ayn Rand's fundamental points to dismiss Objectivism as an integrated system, and because I've been unable to find such a critique.
Most are along these lines:
Those do not constitute meaningful criticisms of the philosophy.
update: I found the original article which presents your argument (and most of the others you make). The author claims to have studied Objectivism for three decades, but he fails to understand its basic concepts.
The argument is that Rand's definition of selfishness obliterates the distinction between a man who sacrifices others to himself and a man who does not, that Rand provides no way of distinguishing between the two, and that this is a cognitive mistake.
It's false that Rand fails to differentiate between the two. She calls one irrational selfishness and the other rational selfishness. Her terms are more exact than the ones suggested here. Particularly, "aware of social context" is a floating abstraction of the type which Rand would never condone. Ayn Rand is quite explicit and clear on the point that she's an advocate of rational selfishness--not concrete-bound, hedonistic, irrational selfishness.
Androids: Objectivism is not dogma Objectivism and the works of Ayn Rand are not necessarily the same. It is a tool, like the scientific method. It is an open ended set of principles, not a dogma. Accept the work of people who are working to develop the implications of Objectivist Ethics.
Types of Self There are several classes of people, and different ways to look at selfishness. For comparison, the
Ayn Rand as a philosophical writer One of the problems with her work as a piece of philosophy is that she does deal with philosophy. She did not deal with existing arguments but rather casts them aside and goes on to make her own claims. The technique that she uses is an old one. Her conclusion is very clear, but the proof is shrouded in mystery rather than a scholarly fashion. In hiding the proof this way it confuses the reader's critical facility. Pages of technical notes provide the look of sophistication. Students believe that the teacher knows it. Teachers believe that the commentators know it. And the Commentators believe the author knows it. However, the author is blind to the simple fact that there is no proof. People write PhD theses trying to find a proof in the works of Objectivism. It is far easier to read Kant than it is to read the basis of Objectivism.
Existence as the value
An animal ... . But so long as it lives, ... it is unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer.
Survival is a means to reproductive success - most of the time things are trying to survive. However, salmon that put survival above everything else would never go back to spawn, and thus would have no descendants to be used as evidence for its objective existence.
This could all be dismissed as an irrelevant metaphysical argument, however Objectivism claims to be based on the facts or reality - and this "fact" that is false. Things built from it are flawed.
Since life requires a specific course of action, any other course will destroy it. A being who does not hold his own life as the motive and goal of his actions, is acting on the motive and standard of death.
The first sentence is false. There is no specific course of action required for life such that any other course will destroy it. There are many different paths which preserve life with different degrees of success. Taken literally, this contradicts the facts of reality. If people were acting on motive and the standard of death, we would have people committing suicide at the first convenient opportunity and only Objectivists would be left. The fact that I am debating this now is proof to the contrary.
Taken less literally, it means that if you do not take your life as your goal, you are choosing a little death, a slightly higher chance of death, or a slightly shorter life expectancy. However, this is true for all philosophies - a utilitarian could argue that a non-utilitarian, by not acting in the way that maximizes happiness is choosing a little misery. "A being who does not hold the happiness of all men as the motive and goal for his actions, is acting on the motive and standard of human misery." This argument is as good (or bad) as the Objectivist.
Selfishness is important in that objectivists have made the same flaws that were pointed out in altruists - grouping people into two groups. Objectivist literature does not distinguish between selfishness and self-interest, thus many who follow objectivism follow 'man is the end' to the extreme. If a distinction could be drawn showing what selfish things are allowed and what are not, it would go a ways to clearing up the misconception. However, it would probably create yet another split in the objectivist school of thought.
A living organism has to act in the face of a constant alternative: life or death. Life is conditional; it can be sustained only by a specific course of action performed by the living organism, such as the actions of obtaining food. In this plants and animals have no choice: within the limits of their powers, they take automatically the actions their life requires. --The Philosophy of Objectivism: A Brief Summary by Dr. Leonard Peikoff
At what point does man deviate from animal? Salmon and bees may not have any choice in the matter. What about cats? or dogs? or dolphins? Can other animals choose to do something that may hurt them for some other end? There are many accounts of pets traveling hundreds of miles to go back to their families that they have been separated from. This is a difficult trek and does not necessarily further their survival or reproductive success. But yet they do it. Dolphins have rescued people and done other acts of valor uncharacteristic of animals without a choice. This question cannot be dismissed as metaphysical questions, because these are facts. Objectivism has made the claim that animals don't make choices based upon factual examples rather than metaphysical arguments. Objectivism cannot dismiss this into the realm of metaphysics without dismissing the distinction along with it and anything built on that distinction. Nothing is built on this? The entire ethical portion of objectivism is built on diffrentationg Man's mind from that of the animals.
Not all actions are equally approbate if one is to stay alive. Yep. So? Not all actions are equally approbate for the maximization of utility. Not all actions are equally approbate for furthering a nation. These statements are equally true and valid and powerful as the objectivist claim. So what?
This writeup has been radically edited. The old one addressed some disparate points, rather haphazardly. This new version, I hope, is a little more clear and a little more basic.
There are a couple of questions that one must ask before one throws one's hat in with Ayn Rand and Objectivism. 1: What was Ayn Rand's point? What is Rand's message? Simply put, Rand wants to draw attention to the role played by reason in ethics. She perceived the world heading for a new dark age in which life decisions were made on the basis of extreme superficiality – which, for most people, means blindly following the path of least resistance, and stripping others of the cognitive, rhetorical, and logical tools to justify any other way of life in any terms other than whim. But objectivity does play a role, Rand says, for two reasons. Firstly, reason (ie., thinking in terms of means and ends) is required in order to be able to correctly match the means to the ends. Therefore ethics and moral philosophy requires two things: clear knowledge of our ends – our values, standards, goals, desires, and so on; and clear knowledge of reality, of the situation (the context) in which we act. Secondly, Rand says, reason must also be used to discover the content of that value system. Values, Rand holds, are an aspect of the facts of my interaction with the world, following from my identity. She takes great pains to distinguish this from moral realism (which was the doctrine originally to go by "objectivism"); the good exists only under conscious evaluation, not free-floating like magic through space. On the other hand, she also insists that this is different from moral relativism by maintaining that values must be "rational" – "derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason." Value is always expressed in terms of purpose, and every achievement has consequences. What standard is it that's "derived" from fact? Rand says, life, and its corollary, freedom – and corollary to that, responsibility. This means, absolute respect for rights, including property rights, which means: laissez-faire capitalism. All these points follow (says Rand) from an absolute insistence on the importance of respecting life. Why life?Because life is the means to any end. The continuing existence of the self the precondition of any action or of holding any value in the first place. 2: In expounding this message, was her exposition clear and her reasoning sound? On this point, I have some serious concerns. Some well-versed Objectivists have confessed, when pressed, that any objective morality must have subjective content (though the extent to which individuals actually differ is beside the point). This is because, while the content of ethics follows from the facts of reality, the facts in question are my facts, the facts of my personal psychological (and even physiological) constitution – ie., the facts of my identity. Therefore, how much "objective" content that Objectivism actually has is open for debate. Even the "absolute" end of life is debatable, since its value derives only from its instrumentality, and if one runs out of dreams, life is, objectively speaking, nothing but a liability. This is a fact Rand implicitly, and contradictorily, admitted in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, when she uses the example of a man who would commit suicide if his lover died, because his life is no longer worth living. If this scenario were at all possible, and if we can sympathize to any extent with it, it means that life can't be an end in itself – though this is exactly what Rand maintains. Furthermore, there's the problem of rights. Does Rand succeed in securing the sanctity of rights that her political commitments require? Obviously, no. It is in no way clear how her self-oriented ethos translates into a requirement to respect the freedom of others. Her statements on capitalism seem to indicate that absolute freedom is necessary for economic progress (which, in turn, is essential to the continuation and improvement of life), since an economy based primarily on conscription, slavery, tribute or booty requires war, which is always more costly than its harvest can pay for. What Rand fails to mention is that this, of course, depends on who it is you're fighting. To sidestep this, Rand introduces the idea that it's not enough to survive just as homo sapiens, but that one must also survive qua "man" – ie., not as a brute, but as someone who respects other peoples' rights. This is treated in depth in her novels, as the heroes she portrays represent her ideals of human behaviour. Not a very thorough treatment of the problem, by any means – and far from "objective," since this particular good reeks of casuistry, with subjective overtones that are afforded for her personal values, but have nothing to do whatsoever with the actual objective structure of ethical thought. 3: Does this represent a significant contribution to philosophy? I certainly don't think so. The manner in which values are actually determined is one Rand doesn't touch on at all – but which other philosophers have tried to answer. I'd reccommend Benedictus de Spinoza and Friedrich Nietzsche as a starting point in philosophy, as well as becoming informed about anthropology, sociology, and psychology. Rand was not acquainted with any of these – or if she was, she did not care to prove it in the form of citations. She had the equivalent of a Bachelor's level knowledge of philosophy; her tirades against "subjectivism" are clearly motivated by her personal experiences with academics she disliked, rather than any deep knowledge of canonical philosophical sources. Furthermore, although she cites Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises in some places in her books, I wonder if she actually ever read the guy – much of the first section of his major treatise Human Action contradicts almost everything she says, which indicates that she was only interested in von Mises because she agreed with his conclusions, not because she was persuaded by (or even understood) his arguments. How subjectivist economics (ie., a subjective theory of value) can be used to support "Objectivism" is beyond me.* Furthermore, it is worth noting that Ayn Rand's political and ethical writings do tend to be on the shrill, frantic side. The woman was addicted to indignation, and while that doesn't necessarily affect the content of the philosophy, and isn't in itself reason to dismiss it, it's important to bear in mind. Also, it's worth noting that organized Objectivism has some cult-like qualities, since a "cult" of "individuality" might indicate some hypocrisy somewhere along the line – again, not destructive to the philosophy per se, but important to remember. Furthermore, if Objectivism is "heartless," it means that it's making counterintuitive claims about morality, perhaps without backing them up or explaining why its claims are being taken by others to be outlandish. This may have some bearing on the veracity of a moral theory – it's definitely something you'll want to think critically about. All in all, Rand's philosophy is attractive to many people for the wrong reasons. A lot of people are drawn to the characters in her books (especially Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged) and use that as justification for promoting her philosophy qua philosophy. Unfortunately, her philosophy does have some holes in it, but when people are driven by aesthetic (rather than rational) criteria, it's impossible to reason with them in terms of formal argumentation – hence Randroid syndrome. Nothing is more inimical to the spirit of the philosophy, even if the form that spirit takes is abortive.
There are a couple of questions that one must ask before one throws one's hat in with Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
1: What was Ayn Rand's point? What is Rand's message? Simply put, Rand wants to draw attention to the role played by reason in ethics. She perceived the world heading for a new dark age in which life decisions were made on the basis of extreme superficiality – which, for most people, means blindly following the path of least resistance, and stripping others of the cognitive, rhetorical, and logical tools to justify any other way of life in any terms other than whim.
But objectivity does play a role, Rand says, for two reasons. Firstly, reason (ie., thinking in terms of means and ends) is required in order to be able to correctly match the means to the ends. Therefore ethics and moral philosophy requires two things: clear knowledge of our ends – our values, standards, goals, desires, and so on; and clear knowledge of reality, of the situation (the context) in which we act.
Secondly, Rand says, reason must also be used to discover the content of that value system. Values, Rand holds, are an aspect of the facts of my interaction with the world, following from my identity. She takes great pains to distinguish this from moral realism (which was the doctrine originally to go by "objectivism"); the good exists only under conscious evaluation, not free-floating like magic through space. On the other hand, she also insists that this is different from moral relativism by maintaining that values must be "rational" – "derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason." Value is always expressed in terms of purpose, and every achievement has consequences.
What standard is it that's "derived" from fact? Rand says, life, and its corollary, freedom – and corollary to that, responsibility. This means, absolute respect for rights, including property rights, which means: laissez-faire capitalism. All these points follow (says Rand) from an absolute insistence on the importance of respecting life. Why life?Because life is the means to any end. The continuing existence of the self the precondition of any action or of holding any value in the first place.
2: In expounding this message, was her exposition clear and her reasoning sound? On this point, I have some serious concerns.
Some well-versed Objectivists have confessed, when pressed, that any objective morality must have subjective content (though the extent to which individuals actually differ is beside the point). This is because, while the content of ethics follows from the facts of reality, the facts in question are my facts, the facts of my personal psychological (and even physiological) constitution – ie., the facts of my identity. Therefore, how much "objective" content that Objectivism actually has is open for debate. Even the "absolute" end of life is debatable, since its value derives only from its instrumentality, and if one runs out of dreams, life is, objectively speaking, nothing but a liability. This is a fact Rand implicitly, and contradictorily, admitted in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, when she uses the example of a man who would commit suicide if his lover died, because his life is no longer worth living. If this scenario were at all possible, and if we can sympathize to any extent with it, it means that life can't be an end in itself – though this is exactly what Rand maintains.
Furthermore, there's the problem of rights. Does Rand succeed in securing the sanctity of rights that her political commitments require? Obviously, no. It is in no way clear how her self-oriented ethos translates into a requirement to respect the freedom of others. Her statements on capitalism seem to indicate that absolute freedom is necessary for economic progress (which, in turn, is essential to the continuation and improvement of life), since an economy based primarily on conscription, slavery, tribute or booty requires war, which is always more costly than its harvest can pay for. What Rand fails to mention is that this, of course, depends on who it is you're fighting. To sidestep this, Rand introduces the idea that it's not enough to survive just as homo sapiens, but that one must also survive qua "man" – ie., not as a brute, but as someone who respects other peoples' rights. This is treated in depth in her novels, as the heroes she portrays represent her ideals of human behaviour. Not a very thorough treatment of the problem, by any means – and far from "objective," since this particular good reeks of casuistry, with subjective overtones that are afforded for her personal values, but have nothing to do whatsoever with the actual objective structure of ethical thought.
3: Does this represent a significant contribution to philosophy? I certainly don't think so.
The manner in which values are actually determined is one Rand doesn't touch on at all – but which other philosophers have tried to answer. I'd reccommend Benedictus de Spinoza and Friedrich Nietzsche as a starting point in philosophy, as well as becoming informed about anthropology, sociology, and psychology. Rand was not acquainted with any of these – or if she was, she did not care to prove it in the form of citations. She had the equivalent of a Bachelor's level knowledge of philosophy; her tirades against "subjectivism" are clearly motivated by her personal experiences with academics she disliked, rather than any deep knowledge of canonical philosophical sources.
Furthermore, although she cites Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises in some places in her books, I wonder if she actually ever read the guy – much of the first section of his major treatise Human Action contradicts almost everything she says, which indicates that she was only interested in von Mises because she agreed with his conclusions, not because she was persuaded by (or even understood) his arguments. How subjectivist economics (ie., a subjective theory of value) can be used to support "Objectivism" is beyond me.*
Furthermore, it is worth noting that Ayn Rand's political and ethical writings do tend to be on the shrill, frantic side. The woman was addicted to indignation, and while that doesn't necessarily affect the content of the philosophy, and isn't in itself reason to dismiss it, it's important to bear in mind. Also, it's worth noting that organized Objectivism has some cult-like qualities, since a "cult" of "individuality" might indicate some hypocrisy somewhere along the line – again, not destructive to the philosophy per se, but important to remember. Furthermore, if Objectivism is "heartless," it means that it's making counterintuitive claims about morality, perhaps without backing them up or explaining why its claims are being taken by others to be outlandish. This may have some bearing on the veracity of a moral theory – it's definitely something you'll want to think critically about.
All in all, Rand's philosophy is attractive to many people for the wrong reasons. A lot of people are drawn to the characters in her books (especially Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged) and use that as justification for promoting her philosophy qua philosophy. Unfortunately, her philosophy does have some holes in it, but when people are driven by aesthetic (rather than rational) criteria, it's impossible to reason with them in terms of formal argumentation – hence Randroid syndrome. Nothing is more inimical to the spirit of the philosophy, even if the form that spirit takes is abortive.
* The most significant disparity between the two theories is that von Mises begins from the assertion that value (at least insofar as he's concerned with it) is, objectively speaking, relative to the constitution of the acting individual (ie., "subjective"), and that only casuists, sophists, and philosophanders will try to impose their own, non-objective sentiments on the rest of the world with grandiose "objective" arguments. He makes a point of saying that reason is a faculty which deals with means, not ends. Rand, on the contrary, believes that all values, all ends, must be objectively "validated" by reason. Another blatant disparity: Rand indicates that changing your evaluations is a mark of inconsistency, seemingly using the logical term as an ethical pejorative; Mises says that there is no logical inconsistency in changing your valuations. Another: Rand says that values must be hierarchized; Mises says that because all desire is mapped ordinally across a binary of alternative choices, and the conditions by which they are mapped are constantly in flux, values can't be hierarchized.
printable version chaos
Everything2 Help
cooled by discofever
