Philosophers love to hate Ayn Rand. The problem is that people are taking her seriously. In some cases, very seriously. A Russian-born writer who moved to the United States in , Rand promoted a philosophy of egoism that she called Objectivism.
The encounter is clearly nonconsensual — Francon genuinely resists and Roark unmistakably forces himself upon her — and yet Rand implies that rape survivors, not the rapists, are responsible. It would not be stretching a point to say that her philosophy has encouraged some politicians to ignore and blame the poor and powerless for their condition. From logic alone? Note that the prima facie plausibility of any putative axioms has nothing to do with this criticism, which is that the deductive mode of reasoning is completely inapplicable to the topics considered.
Alan Greenspan testified before a senate committee in the aftermath of the financial crisis, in October of He admitted that. For many on the left, the sub-prime meltdown, financial crisis, and ongoing recession are proof positive that the laissez-faire , deregulatory approach is dead in the water. Going half-way, the argue, simply will not work. In this they may be right. Lipsey and Kelvin Lancaster demonstrate a profound and surprising result: that market failures—that is, failure to achieve some specified optimality condition—may require de-optimization of other parameters.
The authors prove that it. Under the assumption of ISI, any society that more closely resembles the Randian ideal is better off than one which departs from it in more significant ways. In fact, the authors stress that we cannot know a priori what to do: a detailed, contextual analysis is required.
Imagine the following toy model with three parameters: rationality, regulation, and redistribution. Suppose humans are not always rational or that information is imperfect, or any other of dozen plausible ways to deviate from the ideal case , so that the parameter value of human rationality is, inescapably, a mere , but we are free to set the parameters for regulation and redistribution. Or something else entirely. The ideal-state incremental assumption supposes that outcome correlates in a linear fashion to proximity to the ideal state.
But this is often false. My presentation glosses over a number of more technical points. For present purposes we can ignore these and focus on the moral of the story: if the benefits of a Randian society are only tangible when certain onerous optimization conditions are met, then the value in pursuing such a society is proportional to the feasibility of its actual construction.
And what are, honestly, the chances of this wondrous rational society? Slim, I suggest, to none. Now multiply this probability by the chance that Rand is right in the first place. The Randian may object to all this that we presume outcome is somehow key to evaluating their position.
This, they may protest, assumes a roughly utilitarian view, which they are keen to reject. The point of the Randian ideal is not that her views will prove to be of benefit to all once implemented, but that they are the only coherent moral views that are at all possible.
Yet surely, at some point, most of us would say that, even if a given right was perfectly genuine, there are cases when it can be violated. Rejection of the Randian weltanschauung is not tantamount to rejecting all the values espoused within it.
Much can be said to commend individualism against conformity, and the virtues of entrepreneurship and self-reliance. But commitment to these values does not logically imply the minimalist state advocated by Rand let alone opposition to, say, minimum wage laws. They merely add to our existing stock of values to reflect on and take into consideration when deliberating.
Rand should have taken more of a cue from Aristotle, who warned, in the second book of the Nicomachean Ethics , that virtues need to be balanced, for excess and deficiency destroy their virtuous nature:. Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect; and again it is a mean because the vices respectively fall short of or exceed what is right in both passions and actions, while virtue both finds and chooses that which is intermediate.
With regard to giving and taking of money the mean is liberality, the excess and the defect prodigality and meanness. In these actions people exceed and fall short in contrary ways; the prodigal exceeds in spending and falls short in taking, while the mean man exceeds in taking and falls short in spending. For Aristotle, virtue required a careful weighing—borne of experience—that was able to discern when a virtue became a destructive vice from either a lack or a surfeit.
An excess of courage results in rashness. A lack of liberality, meanness. And so on. Morality is a code of black and white. When and if men attempt a compromise, it is obvious which side will necessarily lose and which will necessarily profit […] The cult of moral grayness is a revolt against moral values The Virtue of Selfishness. Nothing could be further from Aristotle, not because the doctrine of virtue ethics revels in moral ambiguity—it does not—, but because its methodology involves fallible heuristic deliberation and not absolute fiats: the virtuous man is like this , Aristotle suggests to us, providing practical examples and instructing us to look to those we consider virtuous for guidance so that we improve our character.
Rand claims the moral man does this , laying down final rules and telling us they can never be transgressed. Context never matters. There is nothing wrong with some measure of self-regard or egoism; and there is much to be celebrated in individual accomplishment. No opponent of Rand denies this.
But the mean is the thing. Or for glossing over the plain fact that human behaviour, considered in aggregate, is predictable, and that collective responses to contextual factors is, sometimes, the second-best we can do. Poisoned as her work is by absolutism, dogma, and histrionics, it is perhaps best to leave well enough alone and read, instead, Little House on the Prairie if one hungers for stories of ruggedness and survival. The fate of the recent movie adaptation of Atlas Shrugged provides an illustrative parable about the dangers of deviation from the Aristotelian mean.
Eventually, as the rights were set to expire, the film was rushed to production with a poor script, little budget, and no famous actors. Produced at a cost of roughly twenty million dollars, it took in less than five at the box-office. Critics deemed it a flop; even sympathetic audiences found it stilted and clunky.
In other words, the rational self-interest of the movie producers—who were set to lose the rights to the film—ensured that a shoddy and mediocre money-loser would make it to cinemas. Perhaps if more focus had been put on, say, creativity, or collaboration, or the selfless dedication art requires—perhaps if Aglialoro had been able to put aside his investment, take the hit, and hand over the movie to more capable hands, the value of the brand might have been better served.
As it is, Atlas Shrugged — Part 1 works better as its own cautionary tale about the values it espouses. The forthcoming sequel, financed by a private debt sale, reminds us that even money-losers can get a free lunch if they serve the right interests. We should count ourselves lucky that the fortunate deign to enlighten us, relieve us of our intellectual torpor, provide us with the genuine grounds for an intellectually serious life free of parasitism, to celebrate the entrepreneur within, and, perhaps, just maybe, let little children get some real work experience.
Once free of the encumbrances of a tyrannical collectivist nanny-state that forces unwilling and unwitting children to go to such a vicious and unjust imposition as taxpayer-funded grade school, perhaps the dark ages can be narrowly avoided. Lucky, indeed, that the rich should, just this once, exempt themselves from selfishness to educate pro bono. The polarizing effect is indeed remarkable, and, I think, unnecessary.
I regard myself as a Rand moderate on her specific economic and ethical doctrines, not lukewarm about each separate doctrine, but firmly accepting some and firmly rejecting others. Having said that, I cannot see her as a significant philosopher, because she did not support her views with arguments that can stand up to academic scrutiny.
My thoughts are here:. August 27, by […]. Problematically, most sustained treatments of Rand tend to come either from the converted, or only slightly better the recently lapsed. At the same time, most commentators of the out-of-group perspective tend to be I would say justifiably hostile to the point of engaging mainly through ridicule.
The above assertion is one of the earlier and more blatantly dishonest statements though certainly not the first blatant ad hom made in this blog post — a post overflowing with such lies, smears, and overt dishonesty.
The blogger quotes Alan Greenspan, who states:. In other words, he describes creative individuals who achieve joy and fulfillment by means of undeviating purpose and rationality.
The blogger has claimed the opposite of what Greenspan stated and what Miss Rand promotes. This is not an innocent error on the part of this blogger. It is a deliberate misrepresentation of Miss Rand and her philosophy.
It is the creation of a straw man, which he attacks — because he cannot attack her actual philosophy. Because he cannot attack it, but does not want it to stand, he must resort to fallacies instead. He must create falsehoods — fictions — which he then pretends are Miss Rand. Why do all this — why engage in such massive dishonesty? To try to hide the truth from others. He does not want others to identify the facts — the actual ideas Miss Rand presents. So he pretends to present them and hopes others will accept his falsehoods.
He hopes others will be second-handers. He hopes they will not go to the source but will instead accept his conclusions on faith. Be independent. Be rational. Come to your own conclusions based on actual facts, not false assertions.
Practice reason and independent judgment. That way, whether you end up agreeing or disagreeing with Miss Rand, you will have done so on the basis of fact, reason, and your own independent judgment — not lies and faith. I assure you I was not deliberately trying to misdirect readers by distorting the meaning of the quote. I cannot help but wonder how charitable you would be faced with a quote from, say, Lenin about bourgeois parasites.
The difference seems to be that you think this latter mechanism is moral, because the individual is putatively responsible for their own fate, entirely. But, plainly, there is such a thing as moral luck. Therefore, this view is false. Both those things are not granted automatically but must be achieved. That is the justice referenced. And if one has read Atlas Shrugged, one is quite aware of this fact.
One is quite aware of her views of rationality, independence, and second-handers. In other words, you deliberately drop the context of her entire novel in order to make that assertion, based on a brief summary presented by someone else. That is not an honest error. That is deliberate misrepresentation. It is deliberate dishonesty. This is false. For an individual to celebrate his life and his happiness does not require others to perish. If they indeed initiate force against him, as she makes clear, they are properly stopped.
But other than that protection of his freedom, his life and happiness do not require anything of parasites, etc.. That was one of the fundamental premises of the novel. That the producer does not require anything from the parasite. That was the purpose of the strike — to show that very thing. Again, to make this claim is to completely drop the context of her entire story and philosophy as she explicitly lays it out in her novel.
And now you drop the entire point she made about the difference between voluntary human interaction and the initiation of force. This is why I say you are completely dishonest. You do not argue against Miss Rand. You do not present HER arguments and attempt to use reason against them. You manufacture falsehoods and present them as if they were hers. That is lying. That way they can independently judge her work rationally rather than accepting such lies as if they were the truth.
Facts trump man's feelings, wishes, hopes, and fears. It is man's only guide to action and means to survival. Pursuit of his own rational self-interest and his own happiness is his life's moral purpose. That is the wet dream of libertarian private sector innovation. On the mainland, there are two kinds of neighborhoods, slums that seem to go on forever and middle-class neighborhoods where every house is its own citadel.
In San Pedro Sula, most houses are surrounded by high stone walls topped with either concertina wire or electric fence at the top. As I strolled past these castle-like fortifications, all I could think about was how great this city would be during a zombie apocalypse.
Without collective effort, large infrastructure projects like road construction and repair languish. We walked through the gated walls and past a man in casual slacks with a pistol belt slung haphazardly around his waist. Welcome to an Ayn Rand libertarian paradise, where your extra-large pepperoni pizza must also have an armed guard. Yet devotees of Ayn Rand still argue that unregulated self-interest is the American way, that government interference stifles individualism and free trade.
One wonders whether these same people would champion the idea of removing all umpires and referees from sporting events. What would mixed martial arts or football or rugby be like, one wonders, without those pesky referees constantly getting in the way of competition and self-interest? Perhaps another way to look at this is to ask why our species of hominid is the only one still in existence on the planet, despite there having been many other hominid species during the course of our own evolution.
One explanation is that we were cleverer, more ruthless and more competitive than those who went extinct. But anthropological archaeology tells a different story.
Our very survival as a species depended on cooperation, and humans excel at cooperative effort. Rather than keeping knowledge, skills and goods ourselves, early humans exchanged them freely across cultural groups. When people behave in ways that violate the axioms of rational choice, they are not behaving foolishly.
They are giving researchers a glimpse of the prosocial tendencies that made it possible for our species to survive and thrive… then and today. Denise D. More about her can be found at denisecummins. Support Provided By: Learn more. Wednesday, Nov The Latest.
0コメント