Objectivist Morality

[Osborn F Enready]

Athena said: But it does clarify, our success as a species is built on caring about each other.

I disagree. It is a body of information that "suggests" something, it does not clarify ANYTHING.

Athena said: Right now society, with select philosophies, is closing out the less self driven, and this is not a good thing for civilization.

Can you convey your points without the subjectivity, so ALL people can relate?

[Osborn F Enready]

Banko said: Yes Ayn Rand sounds like a very logical and sane person.

When you research something, do you go to the source, or to critics of the source, or both?

What do you think Bush would have to say about Clinton behind closed doors?

[ToothPaste]

Quote by: Athena Civilization is built on cooperation. Are you saying objective morality encourages cooperation?

Our human instincts encourage cooperation... read my previous posts...

Quote by: Athena How does it promote the care of children?

Again, read my previous posts...

Quote by: Athena BS! Much of what we do is a matter of duty, done for the greater good, not for the self, and when individuals are motivated only by self interest, it is the end of civilization.

Your view on human motivation is extremely deluded if you do not think it is for some one's best interest to take care of his society. Society brings food, security, and friendship, all of which a human being needs in order to live happily. May I remind you of Maslow's hierarchy of needs? I believe one need is the need for self-actualize, one component of which is to 'accept the facts.'

Athena proves that human beings fundamentally irrational and emotion-driven. No matter how much proof or logic you can give to a person, he or she will still believe whatever he or she wants to believe. It is proven all throughout religious debates.
Athena wants to believe her motherly instincts are "altruistic," and that a fireman's sense of importance in risking his life to save another is "altruistic," so let it be.

Let me specifically remind you of the varying definitions of altruism. Excuse me while I quote myself...

Surface-Altruism: An action someone does to benefit another without any immediate or noticeable benefit to the self.
Altruistic-Motive: Do not exist, because even if some one has the motive to help another, there will always be a selfish motivation even deeper.

Your job is to prove that there is a deep level of altruism in the human psyche. And keep in mind that, as Sigmund Freud said, we all have an inner drive to move toward pleasure and away from pain.

[banko]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready When you research something, do you go to the source, or to critics of the source, or both? What do you think Bush would have to say about Clinton behind closed doors?

When you believe in a philosophy do you call it complete and ignore all other critics of it? Do you think it is logical to cast people out of your objectivist cult for asking questions? Or how about banning the reading of any other books except for those written by the leader of the cult? Or how about telling people they are not to enjoy food unless they can explain to the group using objective logic why they like certain foods and have that logic accepted by the group.

She sounds a little too much like David Koresh or other cult leaders that force people to follow her every command and if they don't please her she casts them out at will.

[Osborn F Enready]

banko said: When you believe in a philosophy do you call it complete and ignore all other critics of it?

Not at all. I have held other philosophies in life prior to this one, and finding the holes in those, helped me realize how complete this one is.

banko said: Do you think it is logical to cast people out of your objectivist cult for asking questions?

Why would I, and are you incinuating I have, or that I belong to some type of cult?

banko said: Or how about banning the reading of any other books except for those written by the leader of the cult?

Obviously NOT! Does that sound like individual liberty to you?

banko said: Or how about telling people they are not to enjoy food unless they can explain to the group using objective logic why they like certain foods and have that logic accepted by the group.

Taste is subjective, and that would be an absurd proposal.

banko said: She sounds a little too much like David Koresh or other cult leaders that force people to follow her every command and if they don't please her she casts them out at will.

What have you read of hers?

[banko]

Perhaps you need to actually read this link
The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray N. Rothbard
Because all of the things that I described - book banning, casting out those that question objectivism, and rules about not being able to like the taste of any food is exactly what your wonderous leader did with her great philosophy.

"The all-encompassing nature of the Randian line may be illustrated by an incident that occurred to a friend of mine who once asked a leading Randian if he disagreed with the movement’s position on any conceivable subject. After several minutes of hard thought, the Randian replied: "Well, I can’t quite understand their position on smoking." Astonished that the Rand cult had any position on smoking, my friend pressed on: "They have a position on smoking? What is it?" The Randian replied that smoking, according to the cult, was a moral obligation. In my own experience, a top Randian once asked me rather sharply, "How is it that you don’t smoke?" When I replied that I had discovered early that I was allergic to smoke, the Randian was mollified: "Oh, that’s OK, then." The official justification for making smoking a moral obligation was a sentence in Atlas where the heroine refers to a lit cigarette as symbolizing a fire in the mind, the fire of creative ideas. (One would think that simply holding up a lit match could do just as readily for this symbolic function.) One suspects that the actual reason, as in so many other parts of Randian theory, from Rachmaninoff to Victor Hugo to tap dancing, was that Rand simply liked smoking and had the need to cast about for a philosophical system that would make her personal whims not only moral but also a moral obligation incumbent upon everyone who desires to be rational."

So how the hell is smoking a moral obligation? Yes this is such a perfectly complete philosophy

or perhaps you would like to explain Rands objective rational behind this one
"One amusing incident illustrates this decision-by-hierarchy. One day a dispute over concretes occurred between two certified and high-ranking Randians, both of whom had been dubbed as rational by their Objectivist Psychotherapist. Specifically, one was a secretary to the other. The secretary went to her boss and demanded a raise, which she rationally intuited was her just dessert. The boss, however, checking his own reason, decided that she was incompetent and fired her. Now here was a dispute, a conflict of interest, between two certified Randians. How were all the other members to decide who was right, and therefore rational, and who was wrong, irrational, and therefore subject to expulsion? In any truly rational group of people, of course, it would not be incumbent upon anyone but these – the only ones familiar with the facts of the case – to take any position at all. But that sort of benign neutrality is not permitted in any cult, including the Randian one. Given the need to impose a uniform line on everyone, the dispute was resolved in the only way possible: through rank in the hierarchy. The boss happened to be in the top rank of disciples; and since the secretary was on a lower rank, she not only suffered discharge from her job, but expulsion from the Randian movement as well"

Yes this sounds like Rand was totally logical even though her running of the Randian Cult was completely illogical and power hunger.

I would have to say that if objectivism is based on the logic put forth by someone as unstable as Rand, then you would have a better chance of convincing me to become a christian. I find it interesting that if this is such a complete philosophy why is it that the Randian Cult crashed and Rand herself never had any interest in attempting to re-start it? If it was so complete why did she never continue to preach her gospel? It failed because people saw it for what it was. An attempt by a woman to gain control of people and exploit them.

So, I'm sorry if I don't bow down and admit objectivism rules all. It can't be a complete philosophy, as much as you want me to believe it is. You want it to be complete so it is, just as a christian want christianity to be complete life philosophy yet it falls short.

[Osborn F Enready]

Banko, are you trying to say that some cult built around Rands ideals is exemplary of objectivism?

Are you serious?

Why don't you actually DEBATE, instead of making the repeated appeal to emotion based on the "ridiculous" factor of some cult, that is NOT exemplary of objectivism?

Banko said: So, I'm sorry if I don't bow down and admit objectivism rules all. It can't be a complete philosophy, as much as you want me to believe it is.

Can you give me an example as to WHY its not?

Banko said: You want it to be complete so it is, just as a christian want christianity to be complete life philosophy yet it falls short.

Apparently, you have trouble reading and comprehending.

I have explained WHY it is complete, and YOU have FAILED to show an example showing why it is NOT complete.

Try again?

By the way, from YOUR article.

(Written in 1972, this was the first piece of Rand revisionism from the libertarian standpoint.)

[freefallife]

Quote by: sdbest Are you the kind of person who can be "happy" when all around you are not? Can you enjoy a feast among the starving? Can you enjoy warmth when others live in cold?

Strange. I would ask the same of your "loving" God, who watches millions starve all over the world. Who stands idley by while masses go homeless. Who does nothing to prevent the speakers of his faith from victimizing children. Glory be to God

[banko]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Banko, are you trying to say that some cult built around Rands ideals is exemplary of objectivism?

When it is founded and headed and ran by Rand herself - yes

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Are you serious?

So we are to dismiss all the things that Rand herself did with that cult? Isn't that slightly illogical? The philosophies were formed by Rand, the cult was ran by Rand, and in the end it died at the hands of Rand. I'm sorry if you feel it is not worthy to illustrate what Rand actually was.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Why don't you actually DEBATE, instead of making the repeated appeal to emotion based on the "ridiculous" factor of some cult, that is NOT exemplary of objectivism?

A cult that was headed by Rand - how is this so hard for you. You want to base your debate on Rand and her books well then it is open to discussing the cult that Rand started. I do like how you continue to dismiss such glaring irregularities by the leader and author of the book - RAND.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Can you give me an example as to WHY its not?

Well how about the smoking is a moral obligation?
"The official justification for making smoking a moral obligation was a sentence in Atlas where the heroine refers to a lit cigarette as symbolizing a fire in the mind, the fire of creative ideas."
So Rand used the almight Atlas and this passage as a way to make smoking a moral obligation. Do you smoke because of Atlas and Rands ideals?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Apparently, you have trouble reading and comprehending.

Why the need for an insult? I have shown the author and founder of this idea for what she was - a cult leader. A person who manipulated others and desired power over others. It seems you are a bit defensive here, and you continue to ignore the actions that Rand used in running her cult

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I have explained WHY it is complete, and YOU have FAILED to show an example showing why it is NOT complete.

Other than to expose the real motive behind Rands works and how the very foundation of objectivism is based on the writings of a person who wanted to have power over others and wrote objectivism to justify the way she lived her life?

I have provided links to critisizim, I have shown objectivism as a cult with a wishy washy leader named RAND. You continue to dismiss all and simply say that they are wrong and that it is complete. Is it that by saying it is complete a 1000 times it will become reality? No philosophy on human nature can be complete because mankind isn't complete.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready By the way, from YOUR article. (Written in 1972, this was the first piece of Rand revisionism from the libertarian standpoint.)

[/quote]

Calling it "some cult, that is NOT exemplary of objectivism" Is false. The cult was ran by RAND, how is this hard for you? Rand wrote the book on objectivism and then ran a cult based on objectivism. Therefore if Rand made a descision while running the cult that was, according to her, based on objectivist logic then how can you dismiss it? She knew objectivism better than you do yet you want to claim that what she did during her time running the cult is irrelevant.

Your complete philosophy is based on Rand so don't try to ignore the legacy that Rand left after the collapse of the cult.

"If philosophy is to flourish, if there is to be progress in our understanding of the nature of this world and ourselves that enables us to live successfully in it, Objectivism must not be the last step, but only the latest step, from which future progress must be launched. Just as Objectivism is not called "Lockeianism," new philosophy ought not be called Objectivism." - Objectivism Characterized
Or perhaps you could refute the law of causality that is corollary of the Axiom of Identity in the following linkWhy I'm not an objectivist

So did I have a choice with the primary choice? If so what caused the primary choice? And if there was a cause then how did I choose that?

So to sum up.
1. Smoking, according to Rand, was a moral obligation - please explain that one.
2. The cult was ran by Rand yet you dismiss her actions and interpretations of objectivism - sort of contradictory to your argument based on the works of Rand isn't it?
3. Please explain how the primary choice has no causes, or if it does then how did a person choose those causes? It is circular. If I didn't choose the cause of the primary choice then I have no free will as described by objectivism. If there is no cause of the primary choice then the primary choice is not a choice at all, thus not allowing me my free will.