39,327
edits
Objectivism: Difference between revisions
m
cleanup {{Useful Notes}}
m (clean up) |
m (cleanup {{Useful Notes}}) |
||
Line 1:
{{Useful Notes}}
A philosophy inseparably connected to the name of its creator (and namer), Russian-American writer [[Ayn Rand]].
Line 88 ⟶ 87:
(Please note that the ''accuracy'' of any of these premises or conclusions is not the point; the ''logic'' is perfectly valid.)
The conclusion ''logically depends'' on the premises. The premises can thus be said to ''imply'' the conclusion. The conclusion ''assumes'' the premises to be true.
The same applies to concepts; certain concepts ''assume that other concepts are valid'' (i.e. refer to things in reality). For instance, the concept of "orphan"—a person without living parents—assumes that there are such things as "parents".
The point is that certain ideas depend on the correctness of other ideas. There is a ''hierarchy'' of ideas, where certain ideas assume other ideas to be true (and ultimately, the axioms are at the base of this hierarchy, since all ideas assume the axioms to be true).
Rand identified many arguments that ''ignore'' this fact. For instance, the phrase "Reality is an illusion" ignores this fact when read literally in English; the concept 'illusion' refers to a ''falsification of reality'' and if there is no reality in the first place, there is nothing ''to'' falsify. The existence of reality is a ''prerequisite'' or ''assumption'' of the existence of illusions. This is a statement which, according to Rand, ''denies its own assumptions.'' She referred to this fallacy as ''[[Stolen Concept|The Fallacy of the Stolen Concept]]''.
Line 106 ⟶ 105:
Ethics is the area of philosophy that deals with the concept of "the good." What is good? What is evil? And, most importantly, where do notions of good and evil actually come from?
This latter question is known as Meta-Ethics.
Now, this is the part of this long article where all the [[Mind Screw]] over epistemology actually pays off. "The Good" is a ''universal'', and as such every one of the four earlier answers to the Problem of Universals has a significant influence on meta-ethics.
Line 114 ⟶ 113:
For a Moderate Realist, there is an ''essence of goodness'' which subsists in things that are good. Thus, certain things are good ''in themselves'', i.e. intrinsically valuable, independently of their consequences for any other entity. Some of the more [[Animal Wrongs Group|extreme]] branches of the environmentalist movement subscribe to this theory and argue that untouched nature is intrinsically good.
Please note, although Aristotle was a Moderate Realist, he did not argue that "the good" derived from an essence. He argued that something is good if it serves its natural ''function''; the function of a sword is cutting off heads and thus a good sword is one that is very effective at cutting off heads. This argument influenced Roman Catholicism via St. Thomas Aquinas; the Catholic doctrine of Natural Law derives from Aristotle (with God determining the natural functions of things).
For a Nominalist, "the good" is more or less a label. It is assigned for various purposes, but these purposes are determined ''entirely'' by human consciousness. There is ''no'' relationship between objective reality and the concept of "good." This position tends to be accepted by many Postmodernists and many epistemological skeptics (people that argue we cannot reach valid knowledge). At the very least, these people will argue there has never yet been a satisfactory argument that bases morality in reality, and some of these will argue a satisfactory argument that does this is either impossible (or at least very difficult) to prove or impossible to formulate.
Line 145 ⟶ 144:
This is the shortest section because all the previous groundwork has been laid. As stated before, Rand argued that no individual should be permitted to '''start''' the use of Force, Fraud or Coercion against any other individual (this means she accepted what political scientists refer to as ''negative liberty'').
Politics is the field of philosophy that deals with the proper role of the State. The State is defined as an institution that holds exclusive ability to legitimately start the use of force in a specific area. There are multiple answers to this question. For instance, ''Anarchism'' argues that the State should not exist. ''Classical Liberalism'' or ''Minarchism'' argue that the State can be justified if it defends negative liberty. ''Modern Liberalism'' (''Liberal'' as understood in the United States) argues that the State has a legitimate role in providing what political philosophers call ''positive liberty'' (which basically means ''the means to do'' a specific thing, such as (for example) purchase health care or receive education), usually by having the State provide that-which-one-should-have-positive-liberty-to-do (the actual things that individuals should have positive liberty to do are often debated by many modern liberals). ''Conservatism'' (as the term is presently understood in the United States) argues that the State has a legitimate role in protecting traditional beliefs and customs from threats (what beliefs and customs should be protected, and what constitutes a threat to them, is debated by many conservatives). Finally, there are ideologies such as ''Fascism'' and ''State Socialism'' which argue that the State should be the primary organizer of human activity.
Objectivism supports Classical Liberalism/Minarchism and argues that the role of the State should be restricted to defending negative liberty. This logically implies that the State should not interfere in any human actions that do ''not'' involve force, fraud or coercion. For example, voluntary economic activity conducted by fully informed, consenting individuals, should not be restricted in any way. The same applies to capitalist acts between [[Consenting Adults]] ranging from voluntary prostitution to consumption of drugs. This is what Rand and other Libertarians mean by Laissez-Faire Capitalism. They are ''not'' defending [[Corrupt Corporate Executive|Corrupt Corporate Executives]], [[Mega Corp|MegaCorps]], or [[Peace and Love Incorporated]]. Also, they are not using the Marxist or anarchist meanings of the term "capitalism," they are referring to "free market economics" first and foremost.
It has to be emphasised again, however, that this is where most of the [[Flanderization]]/misrepresentation of Rand comes from; the fact that both [[Corrupt Corporate Executive]] types, ''and'' their critics, tend to believe that Rand was in support of amoral/destructive forms of Capitalism.
To those that have read the [[Political Ideologies]] page, this should not come as a surprise. Rand is a textbook case of a Classical Liberal and Objectivism embraces a very similar theory of human nature to that of the Enlightenment philosophers (i.e. human reason as effective, humans possessing rationality and free will).
Note that even amongst Objectivists there is some debate over the finer points of politics. Some are sympathetic to anarchism and think that the ideal society would have no state. Others are more moderate than Rand but are still undeniably Libertarians generally speaking. But the basic political principle of Objectivism is the sovereignty of the individual self over their own life and body. This is often summarized as the ''Non-Initiation of Force'' or ''Non-Aggression'' principle; that as long as no one initiates Force, Fraud or Coercion, all is good.
Line 166 ⟶ 165:
The word "altruism" was coined by Auguste Comte. He defined it as ''live for others'' and intended it to mean, basically, that a person can be called noble if the ''ultimate end'' of their actions is the benefit of others. In other words, the motive of service to others is ''intrinsically'' virtuous.
It is ''this'' definition of altruism that Rand was attacking. And Rand was not the only person to consider it insane. John Stuart Mill, a Utilitarian philosopher (''not'' an ethical egoist like Rand), was quite shocked at the implications of Comte's definition. For more on this, please see Robert L. Campbell's [http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~campber/altruismrandcomte.pdf ''Altruism in Comte and Rand''], The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 7, no. 2 (Spring 2006): 357 to 369.
Rand argued that Comtean Altruism essentially results in a situation where the ends justifies the means with "others" as the end. As long as the intended end is the benefit of others, anything goes. For someone as concerned as she was with individual liberty, this is an understandable concern; Comtean Altruism can easily justify revoking the liberty of individuals if it is "for their own good."
Line 174 ⟶ 173:
This [[Lighter and Softer]] version of altruism has, unfortunately for Rand, had such an influence on ethical discourse that altruism became, in the minds of most people, a synonym for good. And if "the good" and "good for others" became equated, then it was only a matter of time before "good for the self" became equated with evil.
Rand's case against altruism is composed of multiple arguments. The first is that altruism does not actually define "the good", what makes an action good is the intended beneficiary of it (i.e. other people). This in turn is the basis for her aforementioned political argument; that the doctrine can justify revoking individual rights "for the good of others."
Rand also saw Comte's Altruism not as a new idea, but as a variant of a long string of very old ideas that she opposed. Altruism argues that the self must serve others, but there are many ethical traditions that argue the self must also serve something ''other than itself'' in order to justify the self's existence. For instance, monotheistic religions generally argue that individuals must serve God. Feudalism argued that individuals must serve their Monarchs. The common thread is that the individual must ''forego'' being concerned with their own interests and instead live for something outside themself; they must ''sacrifice themself'' for something else.
Line 189 ⟶ 188:
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Objectivism]]
| |||