In preparation for my student's presentation, I've been watching the film Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life, which included a portion of the video clip below (1979):
Start paying keen attention around time marker 3:37. Around time marker 4:15, Ayn Rand says, "Every dictatorship is based on altruism," i.e., selflessness and self-sacrifice.
Later in the video, Ayn Rand and Phil Donahue discuss the oil companies and monopolies.
Find the rest of this five-part interview in the sidebar at YouTube.
79 comments:
Ayn Rand's comments on Altruism are downright evil. They are straight out of Satanism.
She is correct to say that Dictatorships are based on the idea of the individual sacrificing himself to the herd.
But, there is a vast difference between state enforced, or coerced, self-sacrifice and individually-chosen self-sacrifice according to one's own spiritual inclinations.
Pastorius,
Nevertheless, I did find the statement I cited quite interesting.
At one point in the video, she clarified selflessness as an individual trait, but a trait that one should not take pride in. What she said reminded me a bit of "Do not pray on street corners as to be seen by men."
Utopianists (David Horowitz's term, I think) are dangerous, particularly when they determine national policy.
I find some elements of objectivism quite strange and contrary to my own beliefs.
Pasto,
Did you hear the part about Nazis as altruists? I guess that she's referring to eugenics as altruism, i.e., improving mankind.
Always On Watch,
I don't entirely agree with Rand. She's partially correct when it comes to altruism, but its a gross over simplification to say that the Soviet's or Nazi's actions were based purely on altruism, or that they were motivated purely by altruism. If neither of those ideologies promised anything good for their followers, they would have never been able to gain power. Even the Jihadist suicide bomber believes he's going to get seventy two virgins in paradise as a reward, and will be sent to place after death that is worse than a soviet gulag if he doesn't blindly reject Islam.
Also, her claim that there are no innate human tendencies has been debunked.
Stephen Pinker
Evolutionary Psychology
Pastorius,
I also regard egoism, as well as philosophical altruism as incompatible with individual rights.
Pastorius,
Don't get me wrong! I'm not an objectivist nor a "fan" of Ayn Rand.
I do find interesting with another statement of hers: something about the irrational being the root of evil on earth.
I'll be interested in what my student has to say about the Ayn Rand book she's reading. My student is a Christian and from a Christian family -- and a family with powerful political connections. I can't say more than that in a public forum.
I see your point.
So, is Jesus' dying on the Cross the most irrational act in the history of the world?
Is crossing the bridge of Faith an irrational act?
Is Love an irrational act?
My answer? Yes.
To her credit, Ayn Rand despised racism.
And HERE is something interesting: Ayn Rand comments on Marilyn Monroe. Rather strange essay, I think.
I have to say that Ayn Rand remains a conundrum to me.
Pastorius,
Is Love an irrational act?
No doubt.
And Ayn Rand fell in love with O'Connor, later her husband, at first sight. Her later convoluted justifications of why we fall in love ring hollow in my ears.
Always On Watch,
That's one of the areas where I agree with her as well. I also despise racism, and I think that the objectivist definition of racism is a bit better than the one that a lot of liberals today use.
Pastorius,
So, is Jesus' dying on the Cross the most irrational act in the history of the world?
And the act that really matters, huh?
Rand would deny that, of course.
Heh. That's interesting.
Who was it that said, those who lose faith don't believe in nothing, they will believe in anything?
Ayn Rand's believes Marilyn Monroe's screen image reflected a person who seemed to have sprung from a Utopia, and she seems to indicate that we reacted to that out of some visceral internal experience of what it is to be human.
That sounds irrational to me, and it sounds like a matter of faith.
I can relate to what Rand says of Monroe, but let's face it, to put one's faith in Monroe's screen presence as a thing of mystical beauty is far more irrational than to place one's faith in the rational Hebrew God of the Bible, who has stipulated that man can better himself by overlaying a system of law on top of the chaotic animalistic squalor of the human experience.
Sorry, I have to correct a mistake I made in my first comment,
What I meant to say in my last sentence was,
"Even the Jihadist suicide bomber believes he's going to get seventy two virgins in paradise as a reward, and will be sent to place after death that is worse than a soviet gulag if he doesn't blindly accept Islam." I don't know why I accidentally put the word "reject" there instead of "accept" when I first wrote it.
Regardless of whether it's satanic or not, her logic on self-interest is coherent.
Rand is an atheist, and she openly rejects the teachings of Jesus. Having said that, she would not condone harming others to get what you want, either.
Look at where altruistic progressive schemes have gotten us. Free state-funded education, the war on poverty and government largess have left us a dumber, poorer and more indebted country.
The most faithful administrator of an asset is the owner who stands to gain or lose based on how faithfully he marshals his resources. That's self-interest.
Altruistic government has been a terrible steward of our national resources (that they've confiscated by force), because they do not have a self-interest in husbanding these resources. It is folly to believe central planners can allocate resources better than the free market.
Rand is a polarizing figure. Tocqueville has some observations on this subject almost 200 years ago. He himself was not a fan of individualism, but he still makes a distinction between individualism and egotism:
Our fathers were only acquainted with egoisme (selfishness). Selfishness is a passionate and exaggerated love of self, which leads a man to connect everything with himself and to prefer himself to everything in the world. Individualism is a mature and calm feeling, which disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellows and to draw apart with his family and his friends, so that after he has thus formed a little circle of his own, he willingly leaves society at large to itself. Selfishness originates in blind instinct; individualism proceeds from erroneous judgment more than from depraved feelings; it originates as much in deficiencies of mind as in perversity of heart.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/ch2_02.htm
Finally, we can all bust on Phil for his extreme liberalism, but I sure wish we had such shows on TV now. You could actually tune in and learn something back then.
Damien,
From Ayn Rand's essay "Racism":
Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage -- the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.
[...]
Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man's life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination....
Interesting essay -- with many good points.
I've got to get off the web and do some homework: reading in Crime and Punishment, assigned to my class for reading over Christmas break.
Pastorius,
I brought up that essay about Marilyn Monroe because it seemed so contradictory to me.
It is interesting that Rand placed more faith in Marilyn Monroe than she did in most other people.
The film I've been watching -- the life story of Ayn Rand -- does shed some light on understanding. But not enough light.
As I said before, Ayn Rand is quite a conundrum. As Silverfiddle pointed our, she is a polarizing figure.
Silverfiddle,
Rands view of the founding fathers was not entirely accurate either.
Thomas Jefferson for one thing, was not an egoist. Here's a quote from him that she definitively would not agree with.
"Self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality. But I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality. With ourselves, we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, which last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one. To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties, obligation requiring also two parties. Self-love, therefore, is no part of morality. Indeed, it is exactly its counterpart"
BTW, I am a committed Christian, and I think Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is indeed viewed as irrational, not at all self-interested. He talks about man's wisdom vs. God's wisdom.
If we all rejected Ayn Rand and instead imitated Christ, we would have paradise on earth. Unfortunately, there are way too many not ready to do that, so the whole project falls apart.
This is a conundrum. I only added this because we just got done celebrating Christ's birth and I didn't want to leave the impression that I am not a believer.
I take each piece of philosophy as it presents itself and first examine it for coherence, internal logical consistency. The next step is to apply it to the real world and put it in combat with other philosophies.
Even thought I reject Rand's atheism, I can nonetheless learn from her.
That is the beauty of the great writers and thinkers. We can read and learn from them without becoming disciples.
Damien:
I am not a Randite, and my point is not to defend Ayn Rand or her philosophy.
I confine my comments to the video presented. Her argument for rational self-interest was clear and cogent.
Silverfiddle,
I never said that you were a Rand fan anyway, not that I have any problems with people who like her.
I think this is an excellent post because it leads to truly interesting conversation.
Pastorius,
Now lets get Revere Rides Again and Bosch Fawstin involved and it will really get interesting!
And Culturist John.
A fascinating exchange. As an Objectivist that has spent many hours [more than I care to mention} on her philosophy Rand presented the most consistent and rational ethics, morality, politics et all since Aristotle.
As and said in explaining selfishness...
Selfishness is acting in ones RATIONAL self interest.
A rational argument can be made in support of the statement - Christ, given his philosophy of life and his view of existence and the hereafter acted in his own self interest. Food for thought.
The study of Rand requires more than just a handful of selected readings. Her entire body of works is quite extensive and requires own devote considerable time in the study to fully understand her philosophy.
Rand is not for everyone. She does offer a path to happiness for many. And her support for a true capitalism untainted by the effect of the "pull peddlers" is spot on.
My two cents worth.
I too think this was an excellent post and comment thread.
Damien, no offense taken. I just don't know enough about her. I am one of those rare libertarians that did not enter through the "Atlas Shrugged" portals.
Ayn Rand's philosophy conflicts with Christianity's deontological imperatives, as well as Kant's.
Regardless, I can still understand here arguments. I am altruistic and charitable towards others because Jesus told me so. Rand, like Nietzsche, sneers at that.
I can still follow Christ's teachings, while also looking out for my own rational self-interests. Ayn Rand would frown at such synchretism, but it is not incompatible with Christ's teaching.
I'm sure some of you know that I am Objectivist (45 years and counting, thank you) and have been waiting for me to comment. I will do so after I've cleaned off a bit because this feels like walking into a hailstorm of rotten eggs.
Pastorius, you in particular know what it would mean to me to have the philosophy I follow equated with Satanism. I thought we had a couple of honest discussions about that, but apparently I was mistaken.
RN USA said: Christ, given his philosophy of life and his view of existence and the hereafter acted in his own self interest. Food for thought.
I say: Yes, that is a very thought-provoking statement, and I think it is true.
However, the problem, as I see it, is his behavior was meant, then, to be a model for our own. We are supposed to follow Him and become Christ-like in our own individual ways.
RRA,
I'm not saying the entirety of her thought is the equivalent of Satanism.
I'm saying her comments on Altruism are the equivalent of Satanism.
On that subject, Rand consistently makes the mistake of confusing the personal with the political.
Altruism is, at its core, concern for others at the expense of the self. Taken to the extreme it will result in the loss of self and lack of resultant lack of self esteem.
Remember selfishness is concern for ones on self interest. Living ones life like you are the only living being is obviously not rational. Rand understood this and her philosophy supports the statement.
Rand's position on altruism is not satanic in the least. How one arrives at that statement is, well, frankly amazing.
Unless of course One has never studied Rand and is basing the belief on what detractors of her philosophy vehemently hope others will by into. Without questioning premise. When one does question the premise Rand is satanic in her position on Altruism there appear contradictions in the premise. Therefore it can not be true. Rather it is false.
PASTO WROTE:
Ayn Rand's comments on Altruism are downright evil. They are straight out of Satanism.
HE COULDN'T BE MORE WRONG.
THE ANTICHRIST WILL BE HAILED AS A PRINCE OF PEACE.
SATAN DOESN'T WIN SOULS BY PROMISING ETERNITY IN HELL.
ALTRUSIM IS SEDUCTIVE - AS IS SATAN.
THE TRUTH IS HARD TO TAKE.
Pastorious: You note: “I'm not saying the entirety of her thought is the equivalent of Satanism. I'm saying her comments on Altruism are the equivalent of Satanism.
On that subject, Rand consistently makes the mistake of confusing the personal with the political.”
There’s no picking and choosing when evaluating a fundamental moral statement or its consequences of a moral premise in an individual’s or a nation’s life. If altruism is a “personal” code of ethics or morality, it will sooner or later express itself in the political realm when given the opportunity. Which is what happened, for example, during the presidential campaign that got Obama into office. The voters who put him into office weren't voting for his selfishness, egoism, and championship of capitalism. They were endorsing his whole secular altruist agenda.
Altruism must be a personal matter first and foremost, even if it’s an unconscious belief and accepted uncritically by individuals, which is most of them. Only today’s intellectual “elite” – in politics, in academia – talk about altruism, collectivism, “community” and the like in dry, detached terms. With virtually everyone else in this country, altruism is simply a default morality insinuated into their minds by their education and churches and other religious venues. No one in the public eye or in the classroom has deliberated on the alternative to altruism, which is rational egoism (not “egotism,” which is not the same thing), except Ayn Rand, and most conservatives dislike her because they can’t divorce egoism from whatever else they hold as important (capitalism, freedom of speech, personal happiness, owning one’s own life).
Christianity and Islam are just two sides of the same coin, as someone on Jihad Watch noted – they both require belief without proof or evidence, and the suspension of one’s mind and reason, and both are altruist and self-sacrificing to the core.
Reliapundit,
You're wrong.
Have you read the Satanic Bible?
My point is, Rand attacks individual altruism.
Altruism is an individual choice.
If she believes in individual choice, then she ought not call Altruism evil.
Stop being irrational out of allegiance to a Philosopher. It's silly.
Ayn Rand understood the first part of the following very well. She missed the second part:
"What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?"
Says the LORD.
"I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
And the fat of fed cattle;
And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats.
12"When you come (AB)to appear before Me,
Who requires of you this trampling of My courts?
13"Bring your worthless offerings no longer,
(AC)Incense is an abomination to Me
(AD)New moon and sabbath, the (AE)calling of assemblies--
I cannot (AF)endure iniquity and the solemn assembly.
14"I hate your new moon festivals and your (AG)appointed feasts,
They have become a burden to Me;
I am (AH)weary of bearing them.
15"So when you (AI)spread out your hands in prayer,
(AJ)I will hide My eyes from you;
Yes, even though you (AK)multiply prayers,
I will not listen
(AL)Your hands are covered with blood.
16"(AM)Wash yourselves, (AN)make yourselves clean;
(AO)Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight
(AP)Cease to do evil,
17Learn to do good;
(AQ)Seek justice,
Reprove the ruthless,
(AR)Defend the orphan,
Plead for the widow.
"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."
You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
17 My sacrifice, O God, is[b] a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise.
Once again, she understands the first, and does not understand the second part.
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire—
but my ears you have opened[c]—
burnt offerings and sin offerings[d] you did not require.
7 Then I said, “Here I am, I have come—
it is written about me in the scroll.[e]
8 I desire to do your will, my God;
your law is within my heart.”
RN USA wrote: Rand's position on altruism is not satanic in the least. How one arrives at that statement is, well, frankly amazing.
Unless of course One has never studied Rand and is basing the belief on what detractors of her philosophy vehemently hope others will by into.
I respond: I'm basing it on what she says here, and what she says in her interview with Mike Wallace.
The Bible verses are not intended for discussion for anyone who is not a believer.
Reliapundit is a believer. I meant them for him specifically.
Pastorious: You note: “I'm not saying the entirety of her thought is the equivalent of Satanism. I'm saying her comments on Altruism are the equivalent of Satanism. On that subject, Rand consistently makes the mistake of confusing the personal with the political.”
There’s no picking and choosing when evaluating a fundamental moral statement or its consequences of a moral premise in an individual’s or a nation’s life. If altruism is a “personal” code of ethics or morality, it will sooner or later express itself in the political realm when given the opportunity. Which is what happened, for example, during the presidential campaign that got Obama into office. The voters who put him into office weren't voting for his selfishness, egoism, and championship of capitalism. They were endorsing his whole secular altruist agenda.
Altruism must be a personal matter first and foremost, even if it’s an unconscious belief and accepted uncritically by individuals, which is most of them. Only today’s intellectual “elite” – in politics, in academia – talk about altruism, collectivism, “community” and the like in dry, detached terms. With virtually everyone else in this country, altruism is simply a default morality insinuated into their minds by their education and churches and other religious venues. No one in the public eye or in the classroom has deliberated on the alternative to altruism, which is rational egoism (not “egotism,” which is not the same thing), except Ayn Rand, and most conservatives dislike her because they can’t divorce egoism from whatever else they hold as important (capitalism, freedom of speech, personal happiness, owning one’s own life).
Christianity and Islam are just two sides of the same coin, as someone on Jihad Watch noted – they both require belief without proof or evidence, and the suspension of one’s mind and reason, and both are altruist and self-sacrificing to the core.
Come on, Pasto!
===" The Bible verses are not intended for discussion for anyone who is not a believer. "=== ?????
What ? And I thought the Muzoidzs have the "Copy Right" on this sentence concerning the Krayon !
Luther & Spinoza ! Burn in hell ! How dare you discuss the holly verses ? Who the hell are you to criticize and doubt ?!...
JIZFI
.
Alexander,
I only mean that as in, I am not preaching to those who do not believe.
I don't offer arguments from the Bible, as proof of my opinions, to people who do not believe in the Bible.
I sometimes offer passages from the Bible as ways to understand my perspective on a topic, but not as proof.
The point here is, the Bible calls for individuals to sacrifice themselves for widows and orphans and "the least of these".
Now, one could say these are not sacrifices because they are the actions of individuals done in the seeking of God, who is a reward in Himself.
But, Rand does not even deal with the paradigm. She simply dismisses altruism entirely.
Edward Cline posted a comment and then took it down.
Too bad.
For your entertainment, he declared Islam and Christianity to be "two sides of the same coin" in that they both demand self-sacrifice.
Good one.
So, I compare Rand to Satanism, and he compares Christianity to Islam.
Touche.
Cuz, of course, we can observe no difference in the respective cultures of Islam and Christianity, I presume.
Edward,
I challenge you to a duel.
The loser gets to be a martyr.
LOL
42 comments!!!
I take a few hours off to read Crime and Punishment and come back to all these comments!
Guess that I have some catching up to do.
And even more reading to do in Crime and Punishment today. Ugh.
Pastorius,
Let's talk Scripture for a minute if you have time....
Love thy neighbor as thyself.
Years ago, a minister said to me that we are commanded to love ourselves so that we can love others.
I would also offer the following:
Whatsoever things are good...look on these things.
I do think that a lot of us can find "good" in some of what she had to say.
I am certainly no expert on objectivism. I admit that I've never read Atlas Shrugged in full. I did, however, read The Fountainhead decades ago.
Of course, Rand's rabid atheism is something I cannot subscribe to as I am a believer in Christ.
RRA,
I'm sure some of you know that I am Objectivist (45 years and counting, thank you) and have been waiting for me to comment. I will do so after I've cleaned off a bit because this feels like walking into a hailstorm of rotten eggs.
In no way was my post designed to attack you. I wanted to make that very clear -- hence, this comment from me.
Pastorius wrote: Edward Cline posted a comment and then took it down.
Too bad.
For your entertainment, he declared Islam and Christianity to be "two sides of the same coin" in that they both demand self-sacrifice.
I've heard that posited elsewhere, too.
One of my colleagues once said, "Violent zealotry in any form is something to be condemned." Overall, I agree with that statement.
AOW,
Your point is a good one.
Here's a verse for you. In fact, one might say this is the definitive verse of the Christian Bible on the subject of altruism vs. self-gratifying pursuit:
"Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you."
Truth is, I could see that verse two ways, like an optical illusion.
Pastorius,
the definitive verse of the Christian Bible on the subject of altruism vs. self-gratifying pursuit
I agree.
But I also recognize that not all seek the Kingdom of God -- knowingly, at least.
And, still, we can find common ground with those who do not seek His kingdom.
BTW, I discovered today in a Google search that Stormfront isn't too fond of Rand's views on racism. I didn't stay at the thread very often to read the who thing because I despise and loathe Stormfont.
Also, I note how the Left hates Rand. So, in my view, she had to be correct about some matters.
Rand did condemn both liberals and conservatives -- another interesting fact I learned today.
Always On Watch,
Off course Stormfront isn't fond of Rand's views on racism. They're white supremest uber nazi wannabes. I wouldn't be surprised if they disliked anyone who was anti racism.
By the way, I despise and loath racist groups like storm front as well.
I'd say there is plenty of violent zealotry around here in the name of a lot of nonsense written a couple thousand years ago that people only pay attention to because of their desperate, obsessive need to believe there is a Big Father in the sky watching over them. Whatever trust I had for Christians has just gone through the floor and is headed for China. About 3 blocks from me in 1692 a woman was dragged from her home and hanged in Salem for being a "satanist". I know just how she felt.
Hey Pastorius, you want to try that one out on me? Because you know what I think of anyone using the word "satanic" and Ayn Rand's name in the same sentence? I think that little boy needs a DADDY.
AOW -- I know you don't "mean" to attack me. However, in case those of you who are not atheist haven't noticed it yet, you constantly equate our refusal to believe in your religious fantasies with "satanism" plus any and all forms of evil in thought and deed.
And we are effing sick and tired of it. It's the equivalent of being scolded by angry children for saying there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny or Bogeyman from Hell under the bed.
"Rand did condemn both liberals and conservatives -- another interesting fact I learned today."
Condemn... a harsh word to define rational differences of opinion.
Rand indeed had criticism of irrational belief. She was however more critical of the conservative viewpoint than the liberal and said as much.
Rand was as close to a classical liberal as you may find today.
Rand was very careful in what she meant of "altruism." And yes, it is a religious concept that has been co-opted by secular leftists.
"What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value."
"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good."
Altruism means living for others and not your own happiness. It means sacrificing one's happiness for others. Or more accurately, what you think others should want to be happy.
"Even though altruism declares that “it is more blessed to give than to receive,” it does not work that way in practice. The givers are never blessed; the more they give, the more is demanded of them; complaints, reproaches and insults are the only response they get for practicing altruism’s virtues (or for their actual virtues). Altruism cannot permit a recognition of virtue; it cannot permit self-esteem or moral innocence. Guilt is altruism’s stock in trade, and the inducing of guilt is its only means of self-perpetuation."
"Some unphilosophical, eclectic altruists, invoking such concepts as “inalienable rights,” “personal freedom,” “private choice,” have claimed that service to others, though morally obligatory, should not be compulsory. The committed, philosophical altruists, however, are consistent: recognizing that such concepts represent an individualist approach to ethics and that this is incompatible with the altruist morality, they declare that there is nothing wrong with compulsion in a good cause—that the use of force to counteract selfishness is ethically justified—and more: that it is ethically mandatory."
From the Ayn Rand Lexicon - online:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
Rand once asked how Christians could stand the idea of their moral ideal - Jesus Christ - being sacrificed for sinners and evil. But, that is the very nature of altruism. Sacrificing virtue (however defined) to vice.
I don't know who's playing games wit these posts, but I did not "take down" my previous post. It just vanished. So, here it is again. And, Grant Jones, amen.
Pastorious: You note: “I'm not saying the entirety of her thought is the equivalent of Satanism. I'm saying her comments on Altruism are the equivalent of Satanism. On that subject, Rand consistently makes the mistake of confusing the personal with the political.”
There’s no picking and choosing when evaluating a fundamental moral statement or its consequences of a moral premise in an individual’s or a nation’s life. If altruism is a “personal” code of ethics or morality, it will sooner or later express itself in the political realm when given the opportunity. Which is what happened, for example, during the presidential campaign that got Obama into office. The voters who put him into office weren't voting for his selfishness, egoism, and championship of capitalism. They were endorsing his whole secular altruist agenda.
Altruism must be a personal matter first and foremost, even if it’s an unconscious belief and accepted uncritically by individuals, which is most of them. Only today’s intellectual “elite” – in politics, in academia – talk about altruism, collectivism, “community” and the like in dry, detached terms. With virtually everyone else in this country, altruism is simply a default morality insinuated into their minds by their education and churches and other religious venues. No one in the public eye or in the classroom has deliberated on the alternative to altruism, which is rational egoism (not “egotism,” which is not the same thing), except Ayn Rand, and most conservatives dislike her because they can’t divorce egoism from whatever else they hold as important (capitalism, freedom of speech, personal happiness, owning one’s own life).
Christianity and Islam are just two sides of the same coin, as someone on Jihad Watch noted – they both require belief without proof or evidence, and the suspension of one’s mind and reason, and both are altruist and self-sacrificing to the core.
I don't know who's playing games wit these posts, but I did not "take down" my previous post. It just vanished. So, here it is again. And, Grant Jones, amen.
Pastorious: You note: “I'm not saying the entirety of her thought is the equivalent of Satanism. I'm saying her comments on Altruism are the equivalent of Satanism. On that subject, Rand consistently makes the mistake of confusing the personal with the political.”
There’s no picking and choosing when evaluating a fundamental moral statement or its consequences of a moral premise in an individual’s or a nation’s life. If altruism is a “personal” code of ethics or morality, it will sooner or later express itself in the political realm when given the opportunity. Which is what happened, for example, during the presidential campaign that got Obama into office. The voters who put him into office weren't voting for his selfishness, egoism, and championship of capitalism. They were endorsing his whole secular altruist agenda.
Altruism must be a personal matter first and foremost, even if it’s an unconscious belief and accepted uncritically by individuals, which is most of them. Only today’s intellectual “elite” – in politics, in academia – talk about altruism, collectivism, “community” and the like in dry, detached terms. With virtually everyone else in this country, altruism is simply a default morality insinuated into their minds by their education and churches and other religious venues. No one in the public eye or in the classroom has deliberated on the alternative to altruism, which is rational egoism (not “egotism,” which is not the same thing), except Ayn Rand, and most conservatives dislike her because they can’t divorce egoism from whatever else they hold as important (capitalism, freedom of speech, personal happiness, owning one’s own life).
Christianity and Islam are just two sides of the same coin, as someone on Jihad Watch noted – they both require belief without proof or evidence, and the suspension of one’s mind and reason, and both are altruist and self-sacrificing to the core.
Grant Jones. Thank you for posting this clarification in Rand's own words.
Anon - And thank you for your reasoned and accurate follow up.
Thank you, Grant. For those here actually concerned with the meaning of Rand's statements, it is important to remember that she uses the term "altruism" in its original sense of self-SACRIFICE, selfLESSNESS, self-ABNEGATION, not in the popular sense of kindness or benevolence -- and she valued benevolence highly, not that you'll believe that -- but as a philosophical negative: the renunciation of the self. That this has become a "virtue" to some people is their problem, not hers. Islam is a totally self-denying system in which the individual is absolutely nothing in the eyes of his god. Christianity at least recognizes the existence of a self, but denies its value without "god's grace", which means that atheists have no value except as projects for evangelicals out to get them to accept the notion of a god.
Btw, I contacted Ed Cline. He tried posting twice, both anonymously and with his own name. He did not remove anything. Perhaps he had a problem with that word verification box that only works half the time.
Now. My trust in this site has been totally shattered by this comments run. The philosophy I have followed for 45 years has been equated with satanism and worse. The collection of babble posing as comments in this subject show that most of you have no concept of the philosophical issues involved and no interest in finding out, you just want to run off to your BOOK with the numbered sentences and the Lo! and Behold! and the words that end with -eth which all proves that it is HOLY, for the "Lord's" (that's as in kings, emperors, tyrants, and dictators, in case you haven't noticed) alleged words on the subjects. I think I may have said this before, but I don't do kings. Or lords. Period.
Alexander, thank you for pointing out that Rand, though certainly not technically "Zionist", was always staunchly pro-Israel. (Oh, and for those of you who may have somehow missed this? She was a Russian Jew, though non-practicing of course.)
Oh, and AOW -- thanks so much for emphasizing that you are not a "fan" of Ayn Rand. No, you didn't MEAN to insult me, you just sort of spat at Rand and some of it hit me.
And yes, Pastorius, "crossing the bride of faith" is an irrational act. That's what faith is, irrational. It's what you believe when you don't like reason because faith has better fantasies.
No. You have stuck your god, your jesus and your cross in my face for the last time. Sorry I can't stick around to debate Objectivism and Rand, but the emotional cost is too high and I'm going to what's good for MY SELF here. For the past few months I've had the uneasy feeling that the religious, in particular evangelical/fundamentalist Christian opponents of Islam are starting to react to the lack of progress in getting people to wake up and fight the Jihad by embracing the notion that only their gods can solve this problem and are in the process of turning this into a true "crusade". Uneasy allies is one thing, but I try to stay out of gang fights. And in this one, we atheists are going to be the filling in a "holy war" sandwich.
I just can't do this anymore.
Goodbye.
Edward Cline,
I notice that your last comment is no longer visiber here either. I'm thinking it might not be a question of who is taking down your comments, but what is taking down your comments? It might be a bug. Something similar happened to me here before, and it turned out that no one on this site had anything to do with them being taken down. It could be a bug, or maybe something is wrong with your account.
My post just disappeared as well. It posted, there was a double-post in this box, when I got rid of that they both disappeared. So there is something wrong with the posting process besides that damn word verification box that only works half the time.
I am opting out of debating the philosophy on this comments page. Thanks to Ed and Grant for finally bringing reason and accuracy to this half-baked babble trying to pass for a philosophical discussion. I've heard a lot of "debates about that Annnn Rand" in my life, but this has got to rank as one of the stupidest, uninformed, and most insulting ever. Congratulations. I'm sure jesus, if he was still around, will be proud of the lot of you.
This is a personal -- SELFISH -- choice, because I'm fed up with being peed on and told it's raining. Yes, Pastorius, you DID equate Objectivism with satanism and therefore myself with satanism and you should have known that would not get a pass. And AOW, if you can't tolerate my "rabid atheism", then you can't tolerate me either. I am leaving because what trust I still had in this site is gone. You've stuck your god and your jesus and your cross and your stupid Book with its Lo! and Behold! and words ending in -eth so we'll all know it's "holy" and kowtowing to "lords" and "kings" in my face one time too many. The Jihad brings enough pain to my life. I choose not to add to it here any longer.
Goodnight and goodbye.
RRA takes everything very personally. If someone makes a negative comment about one of her cherished beliefs, she launches into attacks and sometimes leaves in a huff.
But, she sees no problem with attacking the beliefs of others with venom and anger.
Whatever.
The Anonymous commenter is Edward Cline. I know that because I got an identical comment emailed to me under the name of Edward Cline.
So, apparently, Edward, your comment was removed again. Sorry about that. Bloggers plays tricks on us sometimes.
Edward, you write: "There’s no picking and choosing when evaluating a fundamental moral statement or its consequences of a moral premise in an individual’s or a nation’s life. If altruism is a “personal” code of ethics or morality, it will sooner or later express itself in the political realm when given the opportunity."
I respond: Are you saying that people can not have personal belief systems which are different than that of Randianism without being unfair to a person such as yourself?
Look, I know personally altruistic human beings. When they privately donate money to charity, they don't receive anything in return.
And, many of these personally altruistic people are Libertarians of a type which is consistent with Randianism. They believe in a division of the personal and the political. Or, in other words, a separation of Church and State.
If that is not good enough for you, then what do you propose?
Edward Cline wrote: No one in the public eye or in the classroom has deliberated on the alternative to altruism, which is rational egoism (not “egotism,” which is not the same thing), except Ayn Rand ...
I respond: I don't think that is true. I know you are a learned man. Have you read Friedrich Nietzsche?
Ayn Rand is not, in my opinion, a Philosopher cut of whole cloth. She is certainly interesting, but she is not the only person to have considered such ideas.
Grant,
You write: Rand once asked how Christians could stand the idea of their moral ideal - Jesus Christ - being sacrificed for sinners and evil. But, that is the very nature of altruism. Sacrificing virtue (however defined) to vice.
I ask: Was there ever any response? Was it a rhetorical question?
What do you think the answer is to that question?
It is a documented fact that modern Christianity is quite different than the ancient version, St.Thomas vs St. Augustine. The former (thanks to Aristotle's influence) was instrumental in creating the 18th century culture that allowed the American Revolution to create the greatest nation ever. If it wasn't for that Greek influence, we'd be living circa the 4th century.
(And it is no accident that Kant saw this and wanted to revive St.Augustine through Lutheran(Platonic) dogma).
Modern christians cannot take the credit for the creation of this country, its ideals are an anthema to all the "originalist" thought in the Old and New testaments. Today's christians are full of contradictions to such an extent that they cannot see themselves as autonomous, self-governing individuals, free by the virtues of "self-esteem or moral innocence"
Online etymology dictionary gives Aguste Comte credit for coining the term ''altruism.'' It seems designed for the purpose for which Rand criticizes it.
Anonymous,
For the most part, Rand used Kant as a scapegoat. No one has ever been able to give me a convincing argument that his ideals caused all the strife in the world today, and In some cases may have even taken what he said out of context. In at least some ways, his thinking was actually surprisingly similar to hers.
Also, the black death had more to do with creating the modern world than St.Thomas.
Anonymous wrote: Modern christians cannot take the credit for the creation of this country, its ideals are an anthema to all the "originalist" thought in the Old and New testaments. Today's christians are full of contradictions to such an extent that they cannot see themselves as autonomous, self-governing individuals, free by the virtues of "self-esteem or moral innocence"
I ask: What is your point in saying this? Is your point that the American project was not created by people with a modern Christian mind? Is it your point that modern Christians can not get there from here?
What is your point?
"If we all rejected Ayn Rand and instead imitated Christ, we would have paradise on earth. Unfortunately, there are way too many not ready to do that, so the whole project falls apart."
Uh, no. You would all give away your worldly goods, give no care to where your next day's bread would come from, since "the lord will provide". And, like the "lilies of the field", you would "neither toil nor spin" -- and you would all starve to death within a few months.
In contrast, with Ayn Rand's philosophy, where creative achivement and production is man's highest glory, we'd already be flying around in space cars and colonizing other galaxies.
Anonymous,
I remember those passages from the Bible where Jesus told his followers to give up all their Worldly positions. Obviously, not many Christians, other than monks or nuns are willing to do such a thing. Truth is, even many of the early Christians, were not willing to do such a thing. A few of them were pretty wealthy and powerful men in fact, and that's one of the reasons why Christianity eventually become the dominate religion in the western world.
AOW,
My best friend was badly wounded in the Six Days War. He lost an arm, both legs and was badly burned !
Years later a was invited to his first daughter's wedding and I saw him dancing the first Tango with her!...
Was it the result of the "Florence Nightingale effect" ? If so, I like Altruism !
Altruism is the stuff from which Heroes, Pioneers and Legends a made !
Some say it is a state of mind or even a "Mental state"... Any how, I agree with Anonymous 100% :-
===" Altruism must be a personal matter first and foremost, even if it’s an unconscious belief and accepted uncritically by individuals, which is most of them. "===
-------------------------------------------
Lo! in that house of misery
A lady with a lamp I see
Pass through the glimmering gloom,
And flit from room to room.
-------------------------------------------- Henry Longfellow
Alex.
.
RRA,
in case those of you who are not atheist haven't noticed it yet, you constantly equate our refusal to believe in your religious fantasies with "satanism" plus any and all forms of evil in thought and deed.
Have I ever said any such thing? I don't think so.
RRA may no longer be looking at this thread, but I want to clear up something.
I said: Rand's rabid atheism is something I cannot subscribe to as I am a believer in Christ.
I said that I don't SUBSCRIBE to atheism. I never said that I don't TOLERATE atheism.
In fact, my father-in-law is a militant atheist, and I love him very much. Love is many steps beyond toleration.
Atheism and Satanism are by no means the same thing.
Attacking the personal choice of altruism, the cornerstone of the Christian life, is Satanic.
That is my opinion.
If a person does not agree with me, what does it matter. Go on believing what you want to believe.
In fact, in your belief system, you have a really good way to dismiss me. After all, I'm a Christian, and Christians are foolish people who believe in fairy tales over truth.
See if any of this, from the Satanic Bible, sounds familiar
LaVey's "Nine Satanic Statements":
1. "Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!"
2. "Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!"
3. "Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-deceit!"
4. "Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates!"
5. "Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek!"
6. "Satan represents responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires!"
7. "Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his 'divine spiritual and intellectual development,' has become the most vicious animal of all!"
8. "Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!"
9. "Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!"
I thought AOW had posted something similar but can't find it. Apologies if I'm reposting but these biblical passges actually support Rand's denouncement of altruism. Also remember that the term, "atruism," was created by the creator of "Catholicism without Christ." To conflate it with Christian charity is a mistake, which Comte did invite you to make.
Mathew 6:2 "Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward."
As Rand suggests to Donahue, you are free to give as it pleases you, but do not celebrate it as a virtue.
Further distinguishing charity from altruism is:
1 Corinthians 13:3 "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."
The individual cannot deny itself entirelly, and still remain any type of positive agent. Give out of a self-rewarding love, or you may as well not bother.
I agree with that.
Pastorius,
I'd never before seen those statements by LaVey. Does objectivism really parallel Numbers 1-4? I don't know enough about objectivism to make an evaluation in that regard.
It is always fascinating to watch intelligent people struggle to stave off Rand's threatening ideas with very little knowledge of the system of which those ideas are an integral part and its derivation. I think that well more than half of those on this planet who count themselves as subscribing to Objectivism in their daily life did the same in the first year they began to digest it. So, if you do not agree with Rand, that's OK—it's early yet.
On that note, I thought it might be of interest to you all to know some of the facts about the nature of man that can lead one to understand the difference between egoism and altruism and why egoism is the moral prerequisite of liberty, and thence of laissez-faire capitalism (the kind that has never yet existed).
1) The existence of living organisms is conditional on self-generated action in the face of alternatives.
2) The most fundamental of all alternatives for all living creatures is life or death.
3) Of all living creatures, only man can choose which alternative to pursue.
4) The choice (deliberate or implied in all other choices) to act in pursuit of life makes life one's most fundamental goal.
5) One's fundamental goal is implicitly the standard of measure for all values one acts to gain or keep in its pursuit.
6) Therefore, that which contributes to one's life (consistent with one's nature) is necessarily the good, and that which detracts from it is the bad.
7) Thus, the pursuit of life necessitates a hierarchical code of values in principle (= ethics) to guide one's spontaneous choices in any alternative faced, and it requires one to opt for the higher value per that code in lieu of the lower one (= egoism).
8) Man's singular means to fulfill these requirements of his nature in the pursuit of life is by applying the product of his reason to his actions for the production and exchange of values needed to survive and flourish.
9) The extension of individual ethics to the social context of an individual living in a society of other volitional (and therefore fallible) men mandates that one seek to preserve one's own autonomy over the application of reason to action in the pursuit of life.
10) The only threat to a man's pursuit of his life in that context would be the initiation or threat of physical force by others to coerce certain choices of action against his will that would impede his individual autonomy.
11) The most fundamental political alternative is therefore: freedom vs. force.
12) The sole moral requirement for any government of a society of men must therefore be to remove the use or threat of force from human interactions and guarantee thereby that all human interrelationships shall be entered into and conducted voluntarily. (= Rand's radical capitalism)
Post a Comment