• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atlas Shrugged movie

Will you go see the Atlas Shrugged movie?


  • Total voters
    37
And you have the right to hold that opinion, but make sure you don't mischaracterize Rand's views on the subject.

I never intended to and you were right to bring out that distinction as I tend to lump them together in my mind and forget to make it myself. I will probably do it again since I don't really see the distinction as all that important, at least not to my point of view.
 
When does self-preservation become selfishness?

Never. Self-preservation is an aspect of selfishness. BTW, selfishness does not mean "greedy", which is the usual connotation the leftists give it.

Selfishness is related to egoism, and is a reflection of one's awareness of one's place in the world, one's desires, one's goals, and one's abilities. It's also an awareness that obligations imposed are not obligations but impositions by strangers that can be ignored unless the stranger is holding a gun.

"Greed" is the desire to gain unearned wealth. A selfish man who earns his wealth is not greedy so long as his accumulation of wealth did not infringe on the freedoms of others.
 
Never. Self-preservation is an aspect of selfishness. BTW, selfishness does not mean "greedy", which is the usual connotation the leftists give it.

Selfishness is related to egoism, and is a reflection of one's awareness of one's place in the world, one's desires, one's goals, and one's abilities. It's also an awareness that obligations imposed are not obligations but impositions by strangers that can be ignored unless the stranger is holding a gun.

"Greed" is the desire to gain unearned wealth. A selfish man who earns his wealth is not greedy so long as his accumulation of wealth did not infringe on the freedoms of others.

Nope, greed is a desire to possess wealth or goods beyond necessity. Look it up. Its a sin we all commit, even the best of us (not that I am in the "best of us" category)
 
I never intended to and you were right to bring out that distinction as I tend to lump them together in my mind and forget to make it myself. I will probably do it again since I don't really see the distinction as all that important, at least not to my point of view.

It is an important distinction, because if you neglect the distinction, you end up thinking Rand supported stealing, killing, and cheating for the sake of self-interest.

But you're not alone, Rand received much criticism from many areas, both academic and nonacademic, regarding her use of the term.
 
I still hold that her beliefs regarding Objectivism are ethically invalid due to their basis in arbitrary discrimination.

Ideally, the needs of oneself need to be balanced with the needs of others.
 
Nope, greed is a desire to possess wealth or goods beyond necessity. Look it up. Its a sin we all commit, even the best of us (not that I am in the "best of us" category)

In that case, it is useless to even consider greed in any serious manner. Unless we're all living on communes and living on what's strictly necessary to survive, every single one of us is absolutely greedy when they come home with a paycheck that contains a surplus amount of money. Greed is therefore a nonissue and a useless term.
 
It is an important distinction, because if you neglect the distinction, you end up thinking Rand supported stealing, killing, and cheating for the sake of self-interest.

But you're not alone, Rand received much criticism from many areas, both academic and nonacademic, regarding her use of the term.

I have learned enough about Rand over the years to know she had her ideas about force and the initiation of it. Believe it or not, I am fairly well versed in individualist philosophies. I just don't agree with them. I believe she presented an incomplete picture of humanity and only worried about the parts she liked.

In that case, it is useless to even consider greed in any serious manner. Unless we're all living on communes and living on what's strictly necessary to survive, every single one of us is absolutely greedy when they come home with a paycheck that contains a surplus amount of money. Greed is therefore a nonissue and a useless term.

Western culture is certainly not ascetic like it used to be in the past. However, this consideration of greed is ultimately at the root of the puritan ethic that shaped much of the country. However, in modern times, with our abundance, the true definition often gets lost in the noise to the point where we are trying to even redefine the christian notion of it with things like prosperity gospel and the puritan ethic is being transformed into the objective (and or libertarian) ethic as well.

However, I don't think it does justice to redefine the term due to our prosperity. What mayor snorkum should have used was covetousness, which has a definition closer to what he wished to denounce.
 
Last edited:
America, or do you not have police and law courts in your state?

C'mon, you were doing so well.

My point is that the latest conservative/libertarian utopia limits govt to roles that protect the fiscal elite and further their agendas. And leaves the rest of the citizenry at the mercy of these elites.

Mexico is a great example of this kind of structure. A tiny minority own almost everything and maintain their peasantry by utilizing this ownership to elect sympathetic politicians.

I can't think of a single place where effective plutocracy has produced a place that's fit to live in for the majority of its citizens.

In fact, most revolutions find their origins in this practice. It results in ordinary people withdrawing their consent to be governed, violently.

The 800 pound gorilla in this debate, and the flaw in Rand's reasoning, is that human beings are NOT equal.

To put it bluntly, most of the human race doesn't have what it takes to succeed in Rand's kind of paradise. Its fine to posit a system that rewards hard work, intelligence and education. But what about all those people who are not equipped to compete at that level. Who just aren't sharp enough and ambitious enough to excel in this kind of "paradise"?

I simply reject the "survival of the fittest/law of the jungle" meme that's being spread around lately.

Those models apply to human GROUPS competing with their environment. We are social animals, and our success derives from our ability to work together. Cut throat competition WITHIN the group, against other members of the group, would have stranded us on the savannah. The baddest predators on the planet, but never anything more.

I frankly feel it is the resposibility of the strong to protect and help the weak.

Not coddling or supporting those who won't even try.

Just not functionally enslaving those who were born unable to effectively compete.

I feel there's basically two ways to go through life:

You can hold your fellow man down, or

You can lift him up.

But that's just my opinion. :2wave:
 
I still hold that her beliefs regarding Objectivism are ethically invalid due to their basis in arbitrary discrimination.

Ideally, the needs of oneself need to be balanced with the needs of others.

"Arbitrary discrimination?" Discrimination is not always a bad thing. You can't have free choice without some form of discrimination. When I chose a woman to marry, I discriminated against blondes, women with pale skin (I don't want to use the word white because I don't wish to recognize different "races"), women who were less intelligent than most, lazy women, large women, women without similar values, etc. We discriminate every day.

Second, you need to expand on the balance of one's needs with the needs of others. Granted, Rand was somewhat of an anarchist. But for libertarians at least, we believe that the moral obligation of the state is to protect the citizen from other citizens, not to subsidize their lifestyle or provide a system of dependence.
 
If I could nail down a single phrase that describes liberals, and conservatives, IMO, I would say something like this. Conservatives tend to think in absolutes, meaning, something is either good, or it's bad, whereas Liberals tend to think in potentialities; something could be good, or it could be bad. Now, when you look at this, and really take a close look, they're not that far off are they? Conservatives tend to throw out exceptions when reasoning, and liberals actively look for the exception to influence their reasoning. Example, the death penalty. Conservatives, place no rational value to the exception that some innocent people will be executed, and favor the death penalty. Liberals, place rational value to the exception of innocent life lost, and reason to themselves that because innocent life can be lost, that the death penalty should be abolished.

What I'm trying to illustrate is that because of the above, I am coming to realize that political ideologies, and socio-ideologies are more flexible than most people think. Further, an ideology can be diagnosed without any indication of political, or sociological philosophy from the subject. It is my contention that ideology is a combination of one's genes and their environment, and is more about how we reason, and react to everything, than simply how we view a political, or sociological issue.

For instance, I think a test can be devised that proves my point, if one assumes that the above notion that conservatives think in black and white, and liberals in grey. Without any questions on any specific political, or sociological issues, one could tell by how the participants respond whether they are liberal, or conservative, simply by how they reason what is good, or what is bad. I think that with a great deal of accuracy, a double blind study could show that simply by their answers to non political, or sociological questions we could predict a subjects political ideology.

Before the test, the interviewers would determine the subjects ideology, and record the data. Now the testing begins, and the test scorers would not know the results of the prior interviews, and would score the tests based on multiple choice questions to various questions that relate to a black and white answering style to one that allows for grey. My guess is that conservatives will mostly choose black and white answers, and liberals will mostly choose grey. The tricky part is devising testing questions that can have multiple choice answers that are correct but appear as though only one is correct to the test taker.. :)


Tim-

This is an truly insightful point of view, and I think it has a good deal of merit.

Generally I've found this to be the case as well, with exceptions of course. I think that too few people stop to consider the reasons for an opposing viewpoint and just assume the worst. If there is indeed truth to this, it would help show that both sides are much closer than either cares to admit.

Thank you for taking time to consider the motivations behind an opposing viewpoint. That happens all too rarely in this day and age of extreme partisanship and every time I see it happen, it gives me hope for our future as a people.
 
"Arbitrary discrimination?" Discrimination is not always a bad thing. You can't have free choice without some form of discrimination. When I chose a woman to marry, I discriminated against blondes, women with pale skin (I don't want to use the word white because I don't wish to recognize different "races"), women who were less intelligent than most, lazy women, large women, women without similar values, etc. We discriminate every day.

Second, you need to expand on the balance of one's needs with the needs of others. Granted, Rand was somewhat of an anarchist. But for libertarians at least, we believe that the moral obligation of the state is to protect the citizen from other citizens, not to subsidize their lifestyle or provide a system of dependence.

I never stated that discrimination was a bad thing. It can be either good, bad, or neutral. But discrimination with no basis in factual information is unethical (the easiest example would be racism, the belief that a different race is inferior for arbitrary reasons).

By nature of Objectivism, one must discriminate against everyone that is not oneself (based on the conclusion that because they are not you, they are inferior, which is arbitrary).

There's a reason most ethicists dismiss Ayn Rand.
 
I never stated that discrimination was a bad thing. It can be either good, bad, or neutral. But discrimination with no basis in factual information is unethical (the easiest example would be racism, the belief that a different race is inferior for arbitrary reasons).

By nature of Objectivism, one must discriminate against everyone that is not oneself (based on the conclusion that because they are not you, they are inferior, which is arbitrary).

There's a reason most ethicists dismiss Ayn Rand.

Could you please explain where you came up with the WRONG interpreation of "the nature" of objectivism?
 
This is an truly insightful point of view, and I think it has a good deal of merit.

Generally I've found this to be the case as well, with exceptions of course. I think that too few people stop to consider the reasons for an opposing viewpoint and just assume the worst. If there is indeed truth to this, it would help show that both sides are much closer than either cares to admit.

Thank you for taking time to consider the motivations behind an opposing viewpoint. That happens all too rarely in this day and age of extreme partisanship and every time I see it happen, it gives me hope for our future as a people.

Thank you! I have to admit that I haven't always thought this way. I am going to turn 43 this year, and the path to my own truth's has been a divided struggle. I try to learn from everyone now, whereas in the past, almost exclusively, I would automatically dismiss an opposing view. We can't continue to do that, and without sounding cliche', or mushy our very survival as a species demands that we find common ground, and that begins by understanding how and why people perceive things. There are advantages to looking for grey, as there are at times in seeing in only black and white. Figuring out when one is a better path to reason is the tricky part. :)

I'm working on it..


Tim-
 
Could you please explain where you came up with the WRONG interpreation of "the nature" of objectivism?

Erm, by studying it?

Am I wrong in stating that it argues for the ethical code of egoism(the practice of elevating self interest to a status not granted to others)?
 
Ah, ok, thanks. I've never met two conservatives alike. Seriously, I mean that. There are common ideologies from both sides of the spectrum; liberals, conservatives, all seem to be fluid to some degree depending on the static issue. Let's take a glaring example of an issue people generally think has one ideological tag assigned to it. Legalizing weed. As a conservative, one might think that conservatives are diametrically opposed to legalizing pot, however, I'm a conservative and I am not against it. Conversely, almost all, if not all liberals I know are not against it either. Does it make me liberal? The answer is no. It makes me a conservative who is for legalizing marijuana.

If I could nail down a single phrase that describes liberals, and conservatives, IMO, I would say something like this. Conservatives tend to think in absolutes, meaning, something is either good, or it's bad, whereas Liberals tend to think in potentialities; something could be good, or it could be bad. Now, when you look at this, and really take a close look, they're not that far off are they? Conservatives tend to throw out exceptions when reasoning, and liberals actively look for the exception to influence their reasoning. Example, the death penalty. Conservatives, place no rational value to the exception that some innocent people will be executed, and favor the death penalty. Liberals, place rational value to the exception of innocent life lost, and reason to themselves that because innocent life can be lost, that the death penalty should be abolished.

What I'm trying to illustrate is that because of the above, I am coming to realize that political ideologies, and socio-ideologies are more flexible than most people think. Further, an ideology can be diagnosed without any indication of political, or sociological philosophy from the subject. It is my contention that ideology is a combination of one's genes and their environment, and is more about how we reason, and react to everything, than simply how we view a political, or sociological issue.

For instance, I think a test can be devised that proves my point, if one assumes that the above notion that conservatives think in black and white, and liberals in grey. Without any questions on any specific political, or sociological issues, one could tell by how the participants respond whether they are liberal, or conservative, simply by how they reason what is good, or what is bad. I think that with a great deal of accuracy, a double blind study could show that simply by their answers to non political, or sociological questions we could predict a subjects political ideology.

Before the test, the interviewers would determine the subjects ideology, and record the data. Now the testing begins, and the test scorers would not know the results of the prior interviews, and would score the tests based on multiple choice questions to various questions that relate to a black and white answering style to one that allows for grey. My guess is that conservatives will mostly choose black and white answers, and liberals will mostly choose grey. The tricky part is devising testing questions that can have multiple choice answers that are correct but appear as though only one is correct to the test taker.. :)


Tim-

Excellent post!

There's actually a term for what you are describing. The tendency of people to hold a mixture of conservative and liberal beliefs. I can't remember it off the top of my head but I'm sure I have it on my home computer.

There have been studies on the subject, and it turns out that many more of us fall into this category than into both "extremes" combined.

There may be some information on the site in my sig.

And your idea that some of the difference between "conservatives" and "liberals" is genetic has recently been supported by research in cognitive neuroscience. They have identified consistent differences in brain activity between those that identify themselves as conservatives and liberals when different stimuli are applied.

I have been saying its genetic for a decade, and in the past five years or so science has largely confirmed this premise.

Apparently the divergence began when some people stopped wandering from place to place in small groups and started staying in one place in large groups.

This fundamental change in lifestyle resulted in a change in survival traits for the two groups. Greatly oversimplified, it manifests in a dichotomy between neophilia, the hunger for new horizons etc and neophobia, for want of a better term. Not so much fear of the new, but no strong hunger for it.

An individual in a farming community is not great marriage material if they are not satisfied with their lot, want to know what's beyond the horizon, and don't respond well to hierarchical authority, even though those traits work great for the wanderers.

Doesn't make one superior to the other. Different strategies work for different populations in different situations. But it does help, IMHO, explain why so many feel the other side "doesn't get it". Its because they don't, on a basic genetic level.

I've been working on a blog post on this subject, so I have the relevant links at home. I'll have it up inna couple days.

Excellent thread. I love this new tendency to actually discuss issues rather than just repeat talking points that has bloomed here recently.

Thanks to all! :2wave:
 
Erm, by studying it?

Am I wrong in stating that it argues for the ethical code of egoism(the practice of elevating self interest to a status not granted to others)?

I don't know where that came from. You may be right, but I never heard or read Rand's "idea" that one must discriminate against all others and consider all others inferior. I also have never heard or read that Objectivists elevate self interest to a status not granted to others. I'm not even sure I'm clear on what you mean by that.
 
Selfishness and self interest are 2 easily confusable terms, both have different specific meanings and are typically used as synonyms when they aren't.

Yeah. Exactly like communism and socialism. They have different specific meanings and are typically used as synonyms when they aren't as well.

Not a jab. Just a commentary on specific meanings of words being important for constructive debate, NOT drawing a comparative example from your comment.:2wave:
 
Objectivism uses self interest as it's defining term.

I think that what an objectivist defines as "self interest" truly is "selfishness" as the word is commonly used.

A saint who sacrifices his life for others is still "self interested" because he does it out of concern for his own conscience. But this is still "selfless" behavior and is anathema to a Randian.
 
And you call yourself a libertarian? I think you should reconsider.

Listen to the Neal Boortz show, or go to Boortz.com for comments.

Atlas Shrugged is the greatest novel of all time. It is also the greatest selling novel of all time.

one Hundred Years of Solititude is far better Rand's philosophy has much merit but her books were a bit ponderous
 
Heh, as if you can peg me as any of those. :2razz:

Aaaawwww.. I can only use you once? I was gonna use you for a whole bingo! :lamo

Jus' playin'. Don't know you well enough to say that!:2wave:
 
Yeah. Exactly like communism and socialism. They have different specific meanings and are typically used as synonyms when they aren't as well.

Not a jab. Just a commentary on specific meanings of words being important for constructive debate, NOT drawing a comparative example from your comment.:2wave:

According to orthodox Marxist theory, socialism is the transition period between capitalism and communism. This is why Lenin named the new state of Russia, the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics because he did not feel that the state could automatically transition into the stateless utopia of communism. This is also why his policies favored a mixed private-public partnership. Anyone who claims to be a socialist or favors socialism is in favor of the eventual communist utopian dream.
 
I still hold that her beliefs regarding Objectivism are ethically invalid due to their basis in arbitrary discrimination.

Ideally, the needs of oneself need to be balanced with the needs of others.

I think you guys got sidetracked when you applied "arbitrary" to "discrimination".

If I'm right you are concerned that its problematic ifeveryone decides for themselves what is right or wrong.

It would create far too many possibilities for the darker side of human nature to manifest. For example: I deserve that food more than that guy. Or I want to have sex with children. Or I would put that land to much better use than that guy.

If everyone gets to decide for themselves what their place in the scheme of things is, unverified or supported by any outside confirmation their is no "moral center".

And of course I am aware that no one does anything that isn't "selfish".

Even those things we do for others, other than for our children, are motivated by a need to overcome the discomfort one feels at their plight.

Not belittling the samaritan or altruist, just repeating how it was explained to me once.

The theory being explained was that this need to do something to correct anothers suffering, or stand in the way of "abuse", or whatever is genetic in origin, and actually may have been what got us off the savannah.

One of the differences between us and the other apes is this willingness to help others when there will be no reward.
 
I think you guys got sidetracked when you applied "arbitrary" to "discrimination".

If I'm right you are concerned that its problematic ifeveryone decides for themselves what is right or wrong.


It's more like deciding where the focal point of right and wrong should be fixed. An objectivist is basically a utilitarian that puts the focal point of morality as the personal experience of the individual (kind of ironic considering the name). That which offers utility to the self is the highest good to the Objectivist.

This differs from your typical Millsian or Rawlsian utilitarian, who will regard fixing the focal point of morality at the individual level to be arbitrary, because there are more people than the individual, and they are all worth considering. What makes ones own life more valuable than the life of another person, apart from the fact that it is is yours?

Incidentally, I am not a utilitarian, I am a deontologist. Intuitively, I find very basis of Objectivism to be revolting. It glorifies selfishness
 
According to orthodox Marxist theory, socialism is the transition period between capitalism and communism. This is why Lenin named the new state of Russia, the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics because he did not feel that the state could automatically transition into the stateless utopia of communism. This is also why his policies favored a mixed private-public partnership. Anyone who claims to be a socialist or favors socialism is in favor of the eventual communist utopian dream.

No, I was referring to the practical definition of socialism that attempts to control the excesses of capitalism while not eliminating the incentive to excel that cripples communism.

I participated in an actual experiment in communism that failed for the reason it always will outside small groups of like minded AND like abled persons. The effective cannot carry the useless. And I used unconventional terms right now because I feel the usual ones are not really accurate and are too heavily weighted with preconceptions.

All these things are just economic theories anyway, made up by people. And most things made up by people tend to serve the people who make them up.

Just sayin'.:2wave:
 
I think that what an objectivist defines as "self interest" truly is "selfishness" as the word is commonly used.

A saint who sacrifices his life for others is still "self interested" because he does it out of concern for his own conscience. But this is still "selfless" behavior and is anathema to a Randian.

Self interest is selfishness without the wanton disregard for others.
A self interested person values other people, not for the monetary or material benefits they get from them, but for what makes the person.

Selfish is such an emotionally laden term, it's not worth using.

Objectivism, like any form of libertarianism (including libertarian socialist) is not easy for most people to understand.
 
Back
Top Bottom