The "vice" of selfishness

[Dr Chiill]

The Vice of Selfishness

"Animals have it easy. The family dog never wrestles with his conscience over the need to leave some Alpo in his bowl for the poor and hungry strays. Bulls don't apportion the cows to ensure the joys of family life for all concerned. And, once an amoeba splits, the two halves feel no need to keep in touch.

People, however, do not have such an easy time of it. The enlightened, modern person usually measures the progress of civilization by discerning how well its members look after their comrades. While some limited altruism has been documented in nature, conscious altruism can fairly be described as an invention of human beings. Whether it is the Christian axiom to "love thy neighbor as thyself" or the socialist dictum requiring "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," altruism is widely considered the progressive, humane stance.

So, it would seem a barbaric throwback when Ayn Rand has the hero of Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, state, "I swear--by my life and my love of it--that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Yet, it is the thrust of Rand's novel and her objectivist philosophy that it is the altruists in their various forms that are the true barbarians. According to Rand, it is the parasitism of the mythologist (read religious) and collectivist (read socialist) altruists that will eventually sap the productive effort of the few real men and cause the collapse of civilization. Only purely self-interested individuals unburdened by the needs of non-producers, say the objectivists, can keep the progress of civilization on the upward track.

I read Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness. I even went so far as to subscribe to The Objectivist Forum. Ayn Rand's philosophy has a certain appeal and, for a time, I considered myself a disciple of Objectivism. But, ultimately, Objectivism is flawed and cannot be considered a plausible ethical theory.

The major strength of Objectivism is its attack on the socialist concept, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Rand correctly points out that such a philosophy kills ability and breeds need. In Atlas Shrugged, she gives the fictional example of a factory taken over by its workers that institutes this system. The workers progressively hide their abilities to avoid the demands the system makes on them. The workers also exaggerate their needs to gain greater compensation. In the end, the factory grinds to halt, becoming non-productive and serving no one's interests.

World events of the past few years give actual examples to support this fictional thesis. The two great world communist powers, China and the Soviet Union, found their socialist based economies stagnate and unproductive. First China was forced to reinstitute local capitalism and now the Soviet Union is undergoing an economic perestroika (restructuring). Considering how diametrically opposed to capitalism the ideologies of these two countries are, it is obvious from an economic point of view that John Galt's oath is not only feasible, but necessary.

But, even in the realm of economics philosophy, flaws can be found in John Galt's oath. Because, not only does never living for the sake of another logically preclude any sort of social welfare system, but Rand's writings specifically attack such a system. Now, the U.S. welfare system certainly has its flaws, but the removal of the total "safety net" for the underprivileged is tantamount to murder. This week's Time magazine quotes a study by the Physicians Task Force on Hunger in America as saying that some 20 million Americans go hungry on a regular basis. The recent increase in this number is attributed to new food stamp restrictions. If restrictions can make twenty million hungry, then destruction could quite possibly starve to death vast numbers of people.

Of course, when dealing with philosophy, to attack a theory it is not enough to merely show that a certain action may cause large numbers of deaths. Large numbers of deaths must also be proved a bad thing. Theoretically, from a social-Darwinist-type perspective, such deaths could be an efficient cleansing of the deadwood of society. These deaths, however, could only be justified (if even then) if the dying's productivity were totally unsalvageable. These people, though it is simplistic to refer to them as a homogenous group, can in no way be proven to be genetically doomed to poverty and non-productivity. Thus, even if killing the poor is not inherently wrong, the lost productive potential makes it so.

Moving away from the purely economic, the flaws of John Galt's oath and Objectivism are even more acute. In a variety of situations, the Objectivist's inability to live for another's sake, even for some short period of time, is both intuitively unethical to the non-Objectivist and ultimately self-defeating to even a disciple of Objectivism.

The first flaw results from Objectivism's overextension of the correct repudiation of rewarding people for need to the prohibition of even helping those in need. The economic example of the social welfare system already shows part of this problem, but non-economic situations extend it to the absurd.

A perfect example of how an Objectivist is required to act incorrectly is that of the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese on a street corner in Queens. Ms. Genovese was murdered while thirty-eight of her neighbors looked on for over half an hour without either intervening or even calling the police. Such bystander inaction is both obviously intuitively wrong and also self-defeating to the actor (or, more correctly, non-actor) because of the dangerous social situation it defines. An Objectivist, however, at least according to John Galt's oath, would be required to abstain from action. He certainly could not intervene and put his life and love of it in danger. Further, by saying he will never live for the sake of another, John Galt and the Objectivists cannot live their lives for Ms. Genovese's sake even long enough to make a phone call.

The next flaw of Objectivism is that not only does it prohibit the helping of other people for purely altruistic motives, but, it also does not prohibit the harming of others for purely self-interested motives. The only prohibition in John Galt's oath is of allowing others to live for his sake. Thus, the Objectivist will be driven by self-interest to harm others in situations in which such action is either intuitively wrong, eventually self-defeating, or both.

Corporate anti-environmentalism provides a good example of how Objectivist self-interest can harm others in an intuitively incorrect and self-defeating manner. This example is especially apropos because it contrasts well with the corporate heroism displayed in Atlas Shrugged. In one current case, fast-food giants are now using cheap, convenient foam containers to package their foods. These containers emit chlorofluorocarbons that damage the ozone layer and may eventually radically change the Earth's environment to the detriment of all living things. To an Objectivist, however, the profit inherent in such containers appeals to self-interest while the dangers are the problem of future generations. Obviously, an Objectivist who cannot live for the sake of another living person can show no concern for generations yet unborn. Such action certainly cannot be condoned intuitively and, by destroying life as we know it, will take with it whatever Objectivists happen to be around.

In addition, there are a variety of individual actions which fall under the category of intuitively wrong and, perhaps, self-defeating. Would an Objectivist's child be taught to share the last piece of cake with his brother? Could an Objectivist businessman hire hit men to polish off his competition? Should an Objectivist smoker put out his cigarette in the presence of a person allergic to smoke? In each case, pure self-interest dictates the intuitively wrong decision and creates a social situation that would be ultimately self-defeating to all.

The final flaw of John Galt's oath is that it becomes completely monstrous if it falls into the hands of those less scrupulous than the characters portrayed in Atlas Shrugged. The Objectivists portrayed in that novel are an honorable bunch. They put much emphasis on truth and responsibility in their actions. None of this honor, however, is inherent in John Galt's oath. With self-interest alone, that oath, and Objectivism, self-destructs.

If this oath of self-interest is taken seriously, some of the Objectivists own ideals can be tossed away by the dishonorable in the name of self-interest. The sanctity of the contract could be breached at will destroying the ideal business community which was the aim of the Objectivists in Atlas Shrugged. For a high enough price, any of the members of that secret society should have exposed the others to the world. And, the oath itself would be disposable given the right set of profitable conditions. Clearly, taken to the logical extreme John Galt's oath contradicts itself making it an implausible ethical theory.

In conclusion, it is understandable that Ayn Rand on escaping from the Soviet Union would endeavor to repudiate the overly extreme altruism of collectivist communism. Her theory of Objectivism correctly points out the flaws of inefficiency and ultimate self-destruction inherent in that system. But, the pure self-interest embodied in John Galt's oath in Atlas Shrugged is a dangerous overreaction that both involves intuitively wrong actions and creates an untenably dangerous social situation. Clearly, selfishness is no real virtue and Objectivism is no real theory."

(I didn't have much time, so this was my response) :

I don't even need to analyze the rest of it, because this proves that the criticism is invalid:

"A perfect example of how an Objectivist is required to act incorrectly is that of the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese on a street corner in Queens."

Objectivists believe in the "Golden Rule" i.e. treat others how you would want to be treated. We see it as a moral absolute. Therefore, we see crime as evil because theft robs the individual of the products of his life, and murder robs them of their life. Ayn Rand and others have often spoken about the indifference of good men and how that is the destruction of society. In other words, standing up to evil IS NOT ALTRUISM. To a principled Objectivist, stopping Genovese's murder would not be a legal issue, it would be their moral responsibility, and mine.

(Care to add anything?)

[Zip]

but the removal of the total "safety net" for the underprivileged is tantamount to murder

No, murder means to physically kill another person (usually with malice aforethought), it is not the same as not making yourself a slave to someone else.

How many of those people going hungry made the conscious decision not to finish high school? How many became pregnant as teens? How many more had children they could not afford to feed? I would argue that in the cases of people going hungry that fact 90% (or more) of the time can be traced back to poor decisions made by them in their lives.

I recently saw a picture of Michelle Obama serving food to the homeless in a shelter. Well wasn't there some "homeless" guy there taking a picture of her on his cell phone. Apparently being destitute doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to use your cell... You know just in case there's a celebrity altruist at the shelter some day...

There is, and ought to be no provision for protection from stupidity. That mindset is a construct of the socialism and collectivism that has been forced into our societies framework. I think that personal responsibility will be one of the most blessed byproducts of a LFC society.

[Scott_Connery]

But, even in the realm of economics philosophy, flaws can be found in John Galt's oath. Because, not only does never living for the sake of another logically preclude any sort of social welfare system, but Rand's writings specifically attack such a system. Now, the U.S. welfare system certainly has its flaws, but the removal of the total "safety net" for the underprivileged is tantamount to murder.

This failure to understand may be the reason why he doesn't understand all the rest.

First, in our system "underprivileged" people essentially do not exist. The percentage of people genuinely unable to support themselves is infintesimal. We do have quite a collection of moochers and bums, but that is no one's responsibility but their own.

Secondly, charity would still exist in an Objectivist society for the truly needy.

Finally, it is a total blank out of the concept of murder to claim that closing down section 8 housing is the same as Auschwitz.

No man's need is a mortgage on my life. I cannot live as a slave towards those whose only claim on me is need.

This week's Time magazine quotes a study by the Physicians Task Force on Hunger in America as saying that some 20 million Americans go hungry on a regular basis. The recent increase in this number is attributed to new food stamp restrictions. If restrictions can make twenty million hungry, then destruction could quite possibly starve to death vast numbers of people.

Even if true, which I deny, force is not the same as not force. Murder is not the same as leaving someone alone.

Of course, when dealing with philosophy, to attack a theory it is not enough to merely show that a certain action may cause large numbers of deaths. Large numbers of deaths must also be proved a bad thing. Theoretically, from a social-Darwinist-type perspective, such deaths could be an efficient cleansing of the deadwood of society.

This is certainly not the defense that Objectivism makes. Further, no one can point to any capitalist, or quasi-capitalist starvations to even justify this bizarre train of thought

Thus, even if killing the poor is not inherently wrong, the lost productive potential makes it so.

Now he doesn't even throw the word "tantamount" into his attacks. Objectivists want to open up Auschwitz for the poor. The only place this claim has been established is his own mind. Certainly not in any Objectivist literature, or evidence in reality he can point to.

Moving away from the purely economic, the flaws of John Galt's oath and Objectivism are even more acute.

They had better be if he wants to persuade anyone.

In a variety of situations, the Objectivist's inability to live for another's sake, even for some short period of time, is both intuitively unethical to the non-Objectivist and ultimately self-defeating to even a disciple of Objectivism.

I think it will soon become apparent that he has no idea what it means "to live for yourself" or "to live for someone else"

A perfect example of how an Objectivist is required to act incorrectly is that of the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese on a street corner in Queens. Ms. Genovese was murdered while thirty-eight of her neighbors looked on for over half an hour without either intervening or even calling the police. Such bystander inaction is both obviously intuitively wrong and also self-defeating to the actor (or, more correctly, non-actor) because of the dangerous social situation it defines. An Objectivist, however, at least according to John Galt's oath, would be required to abstain from action. He certainly could not intervene and put his life and love of it in danger. Further, by saying he will never live for the sake of another, John Galt and the Objectivists cannot live their lives for Ms. Genovese's sake even long enough to make a phone call.

This is a ridiculous straw-man. It is plainly in the self-interest of anyone to report a violent crime. After all, the murdered might come for you next. It would even be in your self-interest to intervene personally if it could be done safely. The murder could easily and safely have been shot by any of the bystanders if only New York City hadn't made self-defense practically illegal.

Finally, and most damning, this situation did occur, but not in the author's imagined Objectivist dystopia, but in real life with exactly the sort of altruistic morality he advocates.

The next flaw of Objectivism is that not only does it prohibit the helping of other people for purely altruistic motives, but, it also does not prohibit the harming of others for purely self-interested motives.

Yes, yes it does. The author has plainly read very little about Objectivism, and understood even less. The prohibition on the initiation of force is repeated time and again in Objectivist literature.

The only prohibition in John Galt's oath is of allowing others to live for his sake. Thus, the Objectivist will be driven by self-interest to harm others in situations in which such action is either intuitively wrong, eventually self-defeating, or both.

Blatant, dishonest straw man.

In each case, pure self-interest dictates the intuitively wrong decision and creates a social situation that would be ultimately self-defeating to all.

He has shown nothing of the sort.

The final flaw of John Galt's oath

Also the first one he will have mentioned, if indeed he can find one.

is that it becomes completely monstrous if it falls into the hands of those less scrupulous than the characters portrayed in Atlas Shrugged. The Objectivists portrayed in that novel are an honorable bunch. They put much emphasis on truth and responsibility in their actions. None of this honor, however, is inherent in John Galt's oath. With self-interest alone, that oath, and Objectivism, self-destructs.

I think perhaps the author thinks that Galt's oath, taken out of context, constitutes the whole of Objectivism. In any case, he has not show why the existence of liars or criminals will in any way undermine an Objectivist country.

He clearly thinks force and fraud would be legal, which Objectivism contradicts at every opportunity.

If this oath of self-interest is taken seriously, some of the Objectivists own ideals can be tossed away by the dishonorable in the name of self-interest. The sanctity of the contract could be breached at will destroying the ideal business community which was the aim of the Objectivists in Atlas Shrugged.

This would be illegal and punished by the court system, as Rand frequently discusses. This is nothing more than a dishonest straw-man argument. Also, it is incorrect to say that an "ideal business community" is the goal of Objectivism.

For a high enough price, any of the members of that secret society should have exposed the others to the world. And, the oath itself would be disposable given the right set of profitable conditions. Clearly, taken to the logical extreme John Galt's oath contradicts itself making it an implausible ethical theory.

He seems to think that a bank account sum for any particular instant is the essence of rational self-interest. This is patently absurd, and roundly contradicted by Objectivism. He has not shown any contradiction.

In conclusion, it is understandable that Ayn Rand on escaping from the Soviet Union would endeavor to repudiate the overly extreme altruism of collectivist communism. Her theory of Objectivism correctly points out the flaws of inefficiency and ultimate self-destruction inherent in that system. But, the pure self-interest embodied in John Galt's oath in Atlas Shrugged is a dangerous overreaction that both involves intuitively wrong actions and creates an untenably dangerous social situation. Clearly, selfishness is no real virtue and Objectivism is no real theory."

And after a paper full of straw-men, he throws in a few ad-hominems, just to make sure that he isn't taken seriously.

[Myself]

My advice is to stop talking to your "friend" about Objectivism. He admits he's read Atlas Shrugged and TOS, so there's no point in summarizing Rand's arguments to him if he's already familiar with the orginials.

After reading his e-mail, it's pretty obvious that he's either hopelessly simpleminded or intellectually dishonest. Either way, you're not going to convince him of anything.

There's no bigger waste of time than arguing with someone who's mind is set. Don't waste yours.

Edited April 5, 2009 by Myself

[flatlander]

Wow, considering the writer of this article once considered himself/herself a "disciple"(conspicuous implication that Objectivism is some sort of religion or cult) of Objectivism, an enormous and obvious straw man has been built here.

First, as Zip pointed out, it equates ending the social safety net with murder. What would stop welfare recipients from becoming working, productive members of society when their taxpayer-looted dole is cut off? Nothing but sheer laziness and a continued desire to remain parasites, in defiance of reality. The unproductive would have no choice but to earn a living, they would no longer be able to present their "need" as a claim upon the earnings of productive individuals. Not to mention the massive number of jobs and opportunities that would open up as a result of ending the welfare state and the consequent tax reductions. To refer to this as "tantamount to murder" is moral equivalence of the worst sort.

Second, the linking of Objectivism to Social Darwinism:

Of course, when dealing with philosophy, to attack a theory it is not enough to merely show that a certain action may cause large numbers of deaths. Large numbers of deaths must also be proved a bad thing. Theoretically, from a social-Darwinist-type perspective, such deaths could be an efficient cleansing of the deadwood of society. These deaths, however, could only be justified (if even then) if the dying's productivity were totally unsalvageable. These people, though it is simplistic to refer to them as a homogenous group, can in no way be proven to be genetically doomed to poverty and non-productivity. Thus, even if killing the poor is not inherently wrong, the lost productive potential makes it so.

Talk about smearing by association, while hammering on the moral equivalence. Again, the writer is claiming that cutting parasites off of the looted wealth of the productive is the same as murdering them. That's like saying I am directly responsible for starving a potential thief to death by the act of locking my door and making it harder for him to break into my house. The writer seems to think that "the poor" are so doomed to helplessness that, as a massive and homogeneous group, they would not be able to go out and find jobs to support themselves. They would not respond to the basic need to support their lives, they would simply sit there and starve to death. Therefore they must be fed. What a vile view of man this writer displays!

Third, the linking of "selfishness" to complete apathy towards others:

A perfect example of how an Objectivist is required to act incorrectly is that of the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese on a street corner in Queens. Ms. Genovese was murdered while thirty-eight of her neighbors looked on for over half an hour without either intervening or even calling the police. Such bystander inaction is both obviously intuitively wrong and also self-defeating to the actor (or, more correctly, non-actor) because of the dangerous social situation it defines. An Objectivist, however, at least according to John Galt's oath, would be required to abstain from action. He certainly could not intervene and put his life and love of it in danger. Further, by saying he will never live for the sake of another, John Galt and the Objectivists cannot live their lives for Ms. Genovese's sake even long enough to make a phone call.

The writer clearly thinks that acting heroically or responsibly can only arise out of living for the sake of others. Nowhere in Galt's speech does he command: "You must stand idly by while a person is murdered right in front of you." Nor does he command: "You must single-handedly face down an armed assailant and risk your own murder to save the life of your neighbor." The fact that thirty-eight neighbors watched Ms. Genovese's murder and didn't even call the police suggests that they lived in fear for their own safety, or that they bore ill will toward Ms. Genovese for some reason. Their inaction does not suggest that these passive bystanders had any love for their own lives. It suggests that law and order in Queens in the 1960's was thwarted by a code of silence among the people living there. Such a mentality is to Objectivism as sow's ear is to silk purse.

A properly selfish individual, that is to say, a rational individual, knows that if crime is not stopped, it will grow. To remain passive in the face of a murder carried out right in front of you would be to give moral sanction to the murderer, and therefore to invite further violations of individual rights. As Mr. Chiill stated in the original post, the result of such sanction of evil can only be wholesale death and destruction.

[Nacirema]

I would also like to point out that his "1964 murder example" is flawed not just in the argument he makes, but in historical accuracy.

While 38 people did overhear, the way the newspaper made it sound (as he does) is that 38 people looked out their windows and saw a woman getting beaten in the streets, and did nothing. However, half of those people simply hear her and the suspect (I believe it was her ex-boyfriend) fighting hours earlier, and the other half heard similar shouting during the murder, which (if I recall correctly) took place in a parking garage with no clear view from any angle (at least, none that any of the supposed 38 neighbors) would have had. This information is readily available, and should be easy to distinguish, even at the time of the article being printed.

Of course, given the accuracy of the author's analysis of Objectivist ethics and principles, this isn't too surprising.

[islander]

Dr Chiill,

Your attack against the politics of Rand via the issue of welfare red-flags your shallow knowledge of Objectivism. You allot a blanket moral judgment on our mere existence in the presence of hunger while conveniently leaving out any moral assessment of the differing means to resolve that problem, your own in particular.

Rand's means is to leave people like Sam Walton free to become the richest man in America on the day he died, having raised the standard of living of this country's poorest more than all the charities and government programs that occurred over the span of his lifespan. Your means is to point a gun at people like him, take as much as you and the majority gang want to and give it to the poor after incompetent bureaucracies siphon off a major share.

Unlike you, Rand was no pragmatist. She did not advocate letting Sam be free because she thought it would lower the cost of food for the hungry. She advocated it because she had no other choice. Once she recognized that man survives by applying the product of his reason to his actions and that being volitional every one of us was inherently fallible, she knew that the number one ethical mandate was to have for ourselves and grant to each other autonomy over our thoughts and actions to preclude being victims of each other's fallibility.

If you had read more of Rand than two books and a couple of essays, you would possibly have grasped that if you cannot destroy the principle I just stated, all of your arguments for welfare are dead on arrival. You cannot have welfare funded by taxation without the threat of physical coercion implicit in the Form 1040 et al. That violates the ethical mandate, and ethics trumps politics every time when it comes to mandates. So it is time for you to return to the drawing board.

You must provide and validate an alternate definition of the nature of man and his means of survival and derive from that a consistent set of principles that will constitute an ethic that would be valid for all men who are, were, or ever will be, and from that you may then formulate a principle or set of principles by which that ethic can be extended with consistency from the context of the life of a human individual to the context of the life of many individuals living and interacting together in a society.

Here is my own summary form of the principle at the heart of Objectivism's radical capitalism so you will have something to contrast yours to:

No person may initiate the use of force to gain, withhold, or destroy any tangible or intangible value created by or acquired in a voluntary exchange by any other person.

The government established to defend this principle may not engage in the redistribution of wealth ever. It may only guarantee that all human exchanges of value shall be voluntary. To understand how that will feed the hungry and make the poorest hugely more wealthy than they are today, you will have to read Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" and Ludwig von Mises' "Of Human Action".

But you should already see, that in a government that is moral per the stated principles, any attempt by you or anyone else to feed the hungry by pointing a weapon at others would constitute a claim to be infallible in making the choices of those others for them. Simply bemoaning this will get you nowhere. You cannot undermine such an ethic by alleging there will be consequences you do not like. Rather, you must disable the base upon which it rests.

MichaelM

Edited April 5, 2009 by islander

[RationalBiker]

Dr Chiill,

Your attack against the politics of Rand via the issue of welfare red-flags your shallow knowledge of Objectivism.

Technically speaking, it isn't Dr. Chill's attack according to the title. His friend sent him that. He even responds with some disagreement at the end of the post.

[Jill]

Did he miss the scene where Dagny saves the bum from being thrown out of her train?

[Dr Chiill]

Did he miss the scene where Dagny saves the bum from being thrown out of her train?

Yeah, or where Rearden stops to try and save the wet nurse?

[01503]

Yeah, or where Rearden stops to try and save the wet nurse?

Or where Francisco saves Rearden from the furnace?

[D'kian]

The gist of the complaint boils down to: Objectivism rejects altruism.

The argument is badly constructed and assumes the entire philosophy can be reduced to Galt's oath, which is ridiculous.

As to welfare, all serious practical suggestions from Objectivists for ending the welfare state assume there will be a transition period lasting a few years, be it a gradual change or merely one with a deadline. that's obvious.

[Loren_Online]

This argument makes no sense. Are you arguing that nothing bad ever happens to someone who doesn't deserve it?

That doesn't sound logical or defensible to me...

No, murder means to physically kill another person (usually with malice aforethought), it is not the same as not making yourself a slave to someone else.

How many of those people going hungry made the conscious decision not to finish high school? How many became pregnant as teens? How many more had children they could not afford to feed? I would argue that in the cases of people going hungry that fact 90% (or more) of the time can be traced back to poor decisions made by them in their lives.

I recently saw a picture of Michelle Obama serving food to the homeless in a shelter. Well wasn't there some "homeless" guy there taking a picture of her on his cell phone. Apparently being destitute doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to use your cell... You know just in case there's a celebrity altruist at the shelter some day...

There is, and ought to be no provision for protection from stupidity. That mindset is a construct of the socialism and collectivism that has been forced into our societies framework. I think that personal responsibility will be one of the most blessed byproducts of a LFC society.

[gags]

This argument makes no sense. Are you arguing that nothing bad ever happens to someone who doesn't deserve it?

That doesn't sound logical or defensible to me...

Sure, bad things occasionally happen to people who don't deserve it. Of course that doesn't then create a claim on my life, does it?

[fountainhead777]

If bad things happen to someone who does not deserve them they have no claim to loot from others via the government. They can deal with their unfortunate luck or seek legal recourse if it is the direct result of someone's actions. Other than that they can rely on voluntary charity not charity by force.

Edited May 18, 2009 by fountainhead777

[Zip]

This argument makes no sense. Are you arguing that nothing bad ever happens to someone who doesn't deserve it?

That doesn't sound logical or defensible to me...

Of course not, bad things happen to people all the time the difference being some people let the bad thing beat them demoralize them and make them a victim. Others shrug it off and carry on with their lives.

Besides in popping in here to respond to this post you appear to have entirely missed the statement that led to my post, namely the absurd postulation that...

the removal of the total "safety net" for the underprivileged is tantamount to murder

[Dr Chiill]

Hey guys, I just wanted to be clear that it wasn't me that wrote this garbage. In fact I didn't even post it. Another user on this forum is my friend in real life, and he posted it when he was logged on my computer. He didn't write it either, but he should have made it clearer that he was trying to critique the article. Not promote it. Thanks.

[L-C]

Because, not only does never living for the sake of another logically preclude any sort of social welfare system, but Rand's writings specifically attack such a system. Now, the U.S. welfare system certainly has its flaws, but the removal of the total "safety net" for the underprivileged is tantamount to murder. This week's Time magazine quotes a study by the Physicians Task Force on Hunger in America as saying that some 20 million Americans go hungry on a regular basis

They do so because they choose to not produce, or because of the welfare state that destroys the kind of economy where they could otherwise have been self-sufficient.

[Grames]

Objectivists believe in the "Golden Rule" i.e. treat others how you would want to be treated.

(Care to add anything?)

I don't believe in the "Golden Rule" and neither should you. It is a bit of contentless pragmatism that can be grafted onto any ethical system whatever. Mystics and socialists can follow the Golden Rule just as well as an Objectivist. It says nothing.

[Mr. Wynand]

I don't believe in the "Golden Rule" and neither should you. It is a bit of contentless pragmatism that can be grafted onto any ethical system whatever. Mystics and socialists can follow the Golden Rule just as well as an Objectivist. It says nothing.

Good point. But in the case of murder and theft, isn't it applicable?

[Grames]

Good point. But in the case of murder and theft, isn't it applicable?

You can still follow the golden Rule while being suicidal, or while not believing in property rights.

[fountainhead777]

but to say an objectivist follows the golden rule would mean that objectivists treat others how they wish to be treated. It is not sanctifying any moral code its setting ours as an example. its a decent rule with the precondition of a good moral code.

[Grames]

... its a decent rule with the precondition of a good moral code.

And it is a bad rule with a precondition of a bad moral code. It adds nothing to morality.

So I guess my point is epistemological; use a Razor (Occam's or Rand's) and shave away this useless idea that would clutter your mind.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Grames