My friend thinks Ayn Rand is a genius. How do I save them?

Hugh Akston wrote:Altrusim is a term coined by the philosopher Auguste Comte to denote a specific philosophical concept.

I completely get where you are coming from here (I really do), but it needs to be reiterated that there is a huge distinction between always acting in others interests and sometimes doing so. Replacing altruism with self-interest merely inverts the relative strengths and weaknesses of such an absolutist view. In short, it's still bound by the deontological framework of an old Prussian who Rand hated so much.

Gosh, Hugh, I wasn't talking about voting or forcing or anything of the kind. I was just asking if you'd be bothered by serving others. You, know, like doing anything, even a favor, for a fellow man. I did not indicate anything about not having a choice. You ...have quite a chip on your shoulders, don't you?

Has there ever been a right wing genius.

Or a right wing comedian who was funny or a right wing actor with any talent, for that matter?

I think Robt. Duval is a rightie -- I'd have to say he may be the one exeption

Here is Rand's definition of altruism:

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.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”

Your property could never exist without the collective efforts of society. Unless you live all alone in Siberia, you are of course dependent on the efforts of others and thus have to pay taxes and follow the rules that people as a society have agreed upon. A society of objectivists accomplishes nothing.

So you want to live in a world where everyone does everything based on selfish motives, where people of pride would chose to go, where no Love (altruism) exists, and where the weak are therefore simply play-things of the strong? Well, if you so choose, I think you'll get the chance one day...

Unfortunately for you, you'll be one of the weak ones.

Personally, I think I'll go with the world where Love rules and EVERY action is altruistic.

An Kitten wrote:

Your property could never exist without the collective efforts of society. Unless you live all alone in Siberia, you are of course dependent on the efforts of others and thus have to pay taxes and follow the rules that people as a society have agreed upon. A society of objectivists accomplishes nothing.

In a decent society, men would trade the products of their labor on voluntary terms rather than initiating force against each other by means of government coersion to get what they want. An "objectivist society" is a society of voluntary cooperation; an altruist society is a society of brute force, lying politicians, and mob mentality.

I think I know of a place wrote:

Personally, I think I'll go with the world where Love rules and EVERY action is altruistic.

Which world is that? Pluto?

Cooperation in an objectivist society (and every established society, whatever the -ism) is still necessary, not voluntary.

Unless you are completely self sufficient, you will always rely on someone else for some aspect of your well being. You will always be indebted to other men and women. You will never survive on your own. Now if it makes you feel better that you're able to pay those debts with the "products of your labor," great, but know that cooperation will always be required.

You have any idea what a boring windbag you are?

You imply that we live in the "altruistic society" as you define it and the sole alternative is your "objective society." No we don't, and no it isn't.

You take up a lot of space and use a lot of time to say nothing that's even vaguely applicable to...anything.

Voluntary cooperation is the only kind of cooperation; anything else is an oxymoron. When the government forces people to serve society by performing unremunerated labor, the word for that is slavery, not cooperation. The only means of cooperation on an industrial scale is the free exchange of MONEY. Men will not work in factories, code search engines, and loan large sums of money to each other out of love for humanity. Money is the economic energy that powers all of industrial civilization. Love is for hippie f******.

You must be a real joy at parties. Come back when you're older than 17 and taken off daddy's trust fund.

It was a nice effort Hugh, but you wandered into the Land of Illogic. Trying to reason with this crowd, especially those who haven't bothered to read Atlas Shrugged (but are somehow experts on Rand), is a futile effort. According to them "altruism" is when they get to tell you how to be "charitable" with your money. If you insist that you know best how to do that, then you're a selfish, cold hearted, bastard. Good luck and keep up the good fight.

What "good fight?" What he's arguing and warning against simply does not exist.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

It was a nice effort Hugh, but you wandered into the Land of Illogic. Trying to reason with this crowd, especially those who haven't bothered to read Atlas Shrugged (but are somehow experts on Rand), is a futile effort. According to them "altruism" is when they get to tell you how to be "charitable" with your money. If you insist that you know best how to do that, then you're a selfish, cold hearted, bastard. Good luck and keep up the good fight.

He probably got sick of the personal attacks: "windbag", "joy at parties", etc. If you're gonna argue, it's best to keep it civil.

What I'm saying is that the cooperation you describe is not voluntary. Tomorrow I'd like you to make it through the whole day without any kind of cooperation (remunerated or otherwise) from your fellow man. No clothes, no food, no housing, no transportation, unless you produce it yourself without any cooperation from others. You can't do it. If you want to participate in modern society, you must cooperate with others. Sure, you can choose who you cooperate with, but you must cooperate in order to live. There's nothing voluntary about it. Even Rand's beloved supermen could not do it.

I read Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead. I found both books to be very difficult to read, mostly because of Rand's poor prose. And while I did find a few good points in each, overall I found the premise absurd.

Muppet Rand wrote:

Give me your best concise arguments against her. thanks.

Rand: Man is a rational animal.

Me: Since when? We frequently act in a rational manner and sometimes in an irrational manner, but I think we spend a lot of the time acting in a non-rational manner (i.e. not contradictory to reason, but not dictated by it either).

As a practical philosophy I think that Objectivism suffers from many of the same problems as communism (!). If everyone has a similar outlook then it can work pretty well (and does, on small scales). But in both cases the Lone Asshole can screw things up and, in a world full of people who aren't all like me, we are definitely going to run up against that Lone Asshole.

Note that Rand's books are filled with archetypes, grand heroes and craven villains. Okay, sure, she's writing fiction, but how does her vision work with the vast number of unwashed masses? The mediocrities? The people who con others into thinking they are heroes? Good and honest people who apply reason and nevertheless come to opposite conclusions? People who think they are wise and good, but aren't anywhere near as competent as they believe themselves to be? Rand's vision works okay in a world of black and white, but its absolutist stance doesn't give it the flexibility to deal with the real world.

the flats man cometh wrote:

What I'm saying is that the cooperation you describe is not voluntary. Tomorrow I'd like you to make it through the whole day without any kind of cooperation (remunerated or otherwise) from your fellow man. No clothes, no food, no housing, no transportation, unless you produce it yourself without any cooperation from others. You can't do it. If you want to participate in modern society, you must cooperate with others. Sure, you can choose who you cooperate with, but you must cooperate in order to live. There's nothing voluntary about it. Even Rand's beloved supermen could not do it.

I read Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead. I found both books to be very difficult to read, mostly because of Rand's poor prose. And while I did find a few good points in each, overall I found the premise absurd.

I'm not sure what your point is. Driving a car that you bought from someone else is not cooperation; the act of exchange with the dealer is. Living in a house that someone else built is not cooperation; the act of exchanging money with the builder is. The builder cooperates with the construction workers by paying them. We survive by means of voluntary exchange, not some mindless form of humanitarian brotherly love, as you seem to be implying.

I think this guy just described hell and heaven. I don't think you got it.