NationStates Jolt Archive

I still don't understand how objectivists can argue that being selfish is morally good. I can see how one could argue that there is no right and wrong (like Nietzsche said) but there are too many proplems with egoism, it seems. If you can rape a child and get away with it, surely objectivists wouldn't seriously argue that it is good, would they?

Another thing I never understood was how objectivism implies capitalism. If it supports doing what is in your best interest, then why is it bad for the average person who benefits from a classless society to overthrow the upper class?

Ewww poking Melkor! This should be fun. ;)

I certainly hope not. Anyone who could advocate the rape of a child deserves a boot-fucking from my new stompers (steel toe and steel sole work-boots, mmm steel).

I'm not familiar with objectivism, but I can't imagine how selfishness can be considered a good thing by anyone with any sense of compassion or kindness. I don't know about the rest of you, but even acting a little bit selfish makes me feel horribly guilty.

As I have mentioned before, I am not an expert on Objectivism. But I think that you are misunderstanding the tenents of the philosophy.

People are self-interested but that doesn't mean that all actions, motivated by this self-interest, are morally correct. Someone who is self-interested and decides to make his wealth by killing others would be commiting morally culpable acts under Objectivism.

But what you are getting at, I assume, is that self-interest with regards to economic activities is immoral. Well in that case, Objectivists just hold that as long as the activity isn't violent/fradulant then it is acceptable. Instead, it would be immoral to force someone to be charitable with their own property.

But anyway, it's probably best for you to wait until Melkor comes around to explain :D


Edit: I also wanted to add that Objectivism implies capitalism because that is the only system which allows people to retain the property that they have earned. It also implies free-markets because they are the fairest and free...est? form of exchange relations.

I still don't understand how objectivists can argue that being selfish is morally good. I can see how one could argue that there is no right and wrong (like Nietzsche said) but there are too many proplems with egoism, it seems. If you can rape a child and get away with it, surely objectivists wouldn't seriously argue that it is good, would they?
You're thinking a little too simply here. Selfishness, in the Objectivist view, is only countenanced as a virtue when it is in keeping with rationality. Raping a child, to answer to your specific example, commits the rather obvious moral error of failing to allow others to live their lives the same way you choose to live yours; that is to say, that most of the rapists probably wouldn't want to be raped themselves. However, in a more overt sense it's morally abhorrent because the act in and of itself consitutes the initiation of force against another person, regardless of whether or not the rapist would mind turnabout.

Problems with egoism arise when people discard rationality and consistency. A lot of people assume, when I mention the "virtue of selfishness" that I mean doing anything and everything it takes to get ahead. An understandable misconception, but a misconception nonetheless.

Another thing I never understood was how objectivism implies capitalism. If it supports doing what is in your best interest, then why is it bad for the average person who benefits from a classless society to overthrow the upper class?
This isn't really a question I can answer here in any sort of concise fashion, but the upside is there isn't really all that much to say about this that hasn't already been discussed by Rand and her cohorts.

However, if I had to give the shortest answer I could think of, it would be that, again, such an overthrow would consitute the initiation of force to acheive one's ends. If said force is in reaction to a previous application, the circumstances might change. It really would depend on what the upper class did/does to deserve it and what the 'average person' actually ends up doing with them and with the rest of society. I don't really think that forced equality is a morally sound principle.

Objectivists define a just society was one where people are happy and comfortable because they earned it and miserable and poor because they didn't work hard enough. Objectivism emphasises individual responsibility and advocates capitalism and the free market because it sees the individual as inherently more important than the government or the "common good".

Very right wing.

You're thinking a little too simply here. Selfishness, in the Objectivist view, is only countenanced as a virtue when it is in keeping with rationality. Raping a child, to answer to your specific example, commits the rather obvious moral error of failing to allow others to live their lives the same way you choose to live yours; that is to say, that most of the rapists probably wouldn't want to be raped themselves. However, in a more overt sense it's morally abhorrent because the act in and of itself consitutes the initiation of force against another person, regardless of whether or not the rapist would mind turnabout.

Problems with egoism arise when people discard rationality and consistency. A lot of people assume, when I mention the "virtue of selfishness" that I mean doing anything and everything it takes to get ahead. An understandable misconception, but a misconception nonetheless.

So it's like "do onto others as you would have do onto you" but with more respect for your own desires (in contrast to the added commandments against sex and so on in Christianity)? It sounds like a middleground between egoism and altruism (Do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others, basically).

I still don't understand how objectivists can argue that being selfish is morally good. I can see how one could argue that there is no right and wrong (like Nietzsche said) but there are too many proplems with egoism, it seems. If you can rape a child and get away with it, surely objectivists wouldn't seriously argue that it is good, would they?

Another thing I never understood was how objectivism implies capitalism. If it supports doing what is in your best interest, then why is it bad for the average person who benefits from a classless society to overthrow the upper class?

As I understand Rand's writings (and to be fair, quite a few libertarians are not Randians, so their credit IMO), her argument was that what was moral or immoral was a more limited one than you subscribe to: that of impingement of government activity upon the freedom of citizens in society. To put it more bluntly, freedom is the ultimate good, and government is only good to the extent that it maximizes freedom. Okay, sounds good so far.

The self-interest point applies in several ways. For one thing, Rand argued that altruism is really just societal conditioning that trains you to do something unnatural: consider the needs of the group or the state above and ahead of your own. Secondly, her view of (IMO a very skewed view) history was one in which "altruist" systems of government simply were not able to provide for the needs of their citizenry in the way that the egoistic capitalist system could, so from a pragmatic perspective, capitalism (and by extension egoism) was superior. Third, she argued that altruist thinking and capitalism were simply incompatible, and I personally think she has a point here. After all, if capitalism is driven by the free movement of the invisible hand, and the movements are based on the actions of rationally self-interested people, and furthermore destroyed by the rearranging of goods on the basis of something other than supply and demand, and charity is based on a principle other than supply and demand (those who receive supply nothing, and those who give in turn demand nothing), then charity is a contravention of capitalist ethic.

To address your final point, Rand would argue that it is never in a person's long-term interest to abandon the market, no matter how screwed you are here and now, because all alternative systems are so much worse, for the reasons mentioned above.

I still don't understand how objectivists can argue that being selfish is morally good.

Since goodness and badness are 100% subjective, you can argue that ANYTHING is "morally good," and be just as right as the person who argues the opposite.


I can see how one could argue that there is no right and wrong (like Nietzsche said) but there are too many proplems with egoism, it seems. If you can rape a child and get away with it, surely objectivists wouldn't seriously argue that it is good, would they?
The Christian holy book, believed by millions of people to be the supreme source for moral guidance, states that raping children is excusable or even praiseworthy under certain circumstances. Granted, many Christians choose to believe that those passages are not a part of the "big picture" of their faith and morality, and I'm not saying Christians all support raping children, I'm just saying that the idea of rape being moral is not unique or unusual in this world. Sad, but true. Why should it surprise you that there are people who support such things?

There are people who will argue that murder is moral. There are people who will argue that racism, homophobia, sexism, etc, are moral IMPERATIVES. Name a quality or a behavior, and you'll be able to find somebody who argues that it's morally good.


Another thing I never understood was how objectivism implies capitalism. If it supports doing what is in your best interest, then why is it bad for the average person who benefits from a classless society to overthrow the upper class?
Objectivism, as I understand it, carries several integral values that are incompatible with a classless society. Not the least of which is that an objectivist recognizes that all human beings are not equal in ability, and the objectivist concludes that humans who are not equal in ability should not have equality of social/economic status. Objectivism is not compatible with classlessness, unless humans can be made to have identical abilities.

As I understand Rand's writings (and to be fair, quite a few libertarians are not Randians, so their credit IMO), her argument was that what was moral or immoral was a more limited one than you subscribe to: that of impingement of government activity upon the freedom of citizens in society. To put it more bluntly, freedom is the ultimate good, and government is only good to the extent that it maximizes freedom. Okay, sounds good so far.

The self-interest point applies in several ways. For one thing, Rand argued that altruism is really just societal conditioning that trains you to do something unnatural: consider the needs of the group or the state above and ahead of your own. Secondly, her view of (IMO a very skewed view) history was one in which "altruist" systems of government simply were not able to provide for the needs of their citizenry in the way that the egoistic capitalist system could, so from a pragmatic perspective, capitalism (and by extension egoism) was superior. Third, she argued that altruist thinking and capitalism were simply incompatible, and I personally think she has a point here. After all, if capitalism is driven by the free movement of the invisible hand, and the movements are based on the actions of rationally self-interested people, and furthermore destroyed by the rearranging of goods on the basis of something other than supply and demand, and charity is based on a principle other than supply and demand (those who receive supply nothing, and those who give in turn demand nothing), then charity is a contravention of capitalist ethic.

To address your final point, Rand would argue that it is never in a person's long-term interest to abandon the market, no matter how screwed you are here and now, because all alternative systems are so much worse, for the reasons mentioned above.

So basically, it's a sort of deontological view, where property and egoism are right no matter what happens?

No offense, but objectivism sounds like a philosophy for sociopaths and rich élites rather than a serious model for society and living.

So it's like "do onto others as you would have do onto you" but with more respect for your own desires (in contrast to the added commandments against sex and so on in Christianity)?
Sort of, yeah. That's a good way to think about it. I'm hesitant about the "more respect for your own desires" part though; since I'm not sure exactly what you mean by it.

It sounds like a middleground between egoism and altruism (Do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others, basically).
Well, Objectivism contends that Altruism doesn't really exist: it's impossible for any human being to live entirely by that credo in every facet of his life: if he tried, he'd die of thirst pretty quickly. Basically, the argument is that all voluntary action is selfish but is only morally justified when it is properly denoted within the context of the rest of your values.

For instance, if you like to give money to people, and you do it because it fulfills your values [i.e. providing for society, caring for people, and so on] and makes you feel like a better person, then Objectivism sees no problem with this, and I'd fight as vigorously against people who attempt to infringe on [i]this right of ours as those who attempt to infringe on our right to act in the furtherance of our own lives.

If, however, you claim to value human harmony and interdependence, it becomes a grotesque contradiction to initiate any manner of force to acheive these ends, since you're destroying the very value structure that the principle of charity relies upon in the first place. It's like standing at the fortieth floor of a skyscraper while dynamiting the first thirty-nine.

I still don't understand how objectivists can argue that being selfish is morally good. I can see how one could argue that there is no right and wrong (like Nietzsche said) but there are too many proplems with egoism, it seems. If you can rape a child and get away with it, surely objectivists wouldn't seriously argue that it is good, would they?

Another thing I never understood was how objectivism implies capitalism. If it supports doing what is in your best interest, then why is it bad for the average person who benefits from a classless society to overthrow the upper class?

Nietzsche denounces the religious simpilization; that all occurences are "good or evil." He did advocate the more archaic view that reduced the world into "good and bad," but did not use it himself. What Nietzsche did was denounce morality as a whole, but I don't think he could have completely destroyed "right and wrong" or he would have annhilated his own arguments. In the end, Nietzsche did end up labelling a few things as good: health and nature. He too believed in soul.

I am not an objectivist, but I am a fan of Nietzsche's. I think there might be a difference in doing something selfishly, and doing something naturally.
And I do not know what exactly you mean by selfishness. Do you mean someone doing something with only the ends of pleasure in mind? Or something else?

I don't see how egoism is moral or immoral, objectively speaking.

I still don't understand how objectivists can argue that being selfish is morally good. I can see how one could argue that there is no right and wrong (like Nietzsche said) but there are too many proplems with egoism, it seems. If you can rape a child and get away with it, surely objectivists wouldn't seriously argue that it is good, would they?
Egoism (concern for self) and egotism (self-importance) are not the same thing. Having a good, healthy ego is a very positive thing. It is expressed in self-confidence, self-assurance and having one's feet firmly planted on the ground (self-centered in the world). What does egoism (or egotism for that matter) have to do with raping children?

EDIT: Nevermind my question - the thread answers it.

So basically, it's a sort of deontological view, where property and egoism are right no matter what happens?

No offense, but objectivism sounds like a philosophy for sociopaths and rich élites rather than a serious model for society and living.

Well, it might be my explanations coloring your view, but yes. In my understanding of objectivism, the perfect Randian objectivist would be a sociopath.

I don't think she was around enough sociopaths to know how screwed up her system was, however. She was motivated primarily by a virulent opposition to the Soviet Russia she grew up in, and associated all the problems with that state with altruism.

Nietzsche denounces the religious simpilization; that all occurences are "good or evil." He did advocate the more archaic view that reduced the world into "good and bad," but did not use it himself. What Nietzsche did was denounce morality as a whole, but I don't think he could have completely destroyed "right and wrong" or he would have annhilated his own arguments. In the end, Nietzsche did end up labelling a few things as good: health and nature. He too believed in soul.

I am not an objectivist, but I am a fan of Nietzsche's. I think there might be a difference in doing something selfishly, and doing something naturally.

Wasn't he for the will to power and such? Never liked that idea, myself.

And I do not know what exactly you mean by selfishness. Do you mean someone doing something with only the ends of pleasure in mind? Or something else?

Yes, the ends of your own pleasure, basically.

I still don't understand how objectivists can argue that being selfish is morally good. I can see how one could argue that there is no right and wrong (like Nietzsche said) but there are too many proplems with egoism, it seems. If you can rape a child and get away with it, surely objectivists wouldn't seriously argue that it is good, would they?


Indeed, there are very serious problems with pure egoism. However, Objectivism doesn't call for pure egoism. Instead, Objectivism calls for "rational selfishness" or "rational self-interest:"


Rational selfishness, a term generally related to Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, means to seek to make yourself happy before others. Critics argue that rational selfishness permits harming others. However, Ayn Rand adds the proviso that you mustn't use force to impose your will on others. ... Further, Ayn Rand discusses rational self-interest in which your happiness, in limited circumstances, can be enhanced by helping others; a related term is enlightened self-interest.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_selfishness )

Wasn't he for the will to power and such? Never liked that idea, myself.


Yes, he was for the "will to power", but that shouldn't be construed as "power over others" or something like that. The Nietzschian overman would be a person who, in Nietzsche's words "mastered his passions and became creative", or elsewhere in Nietzsche's works was described as an "artistic Socrates".

The basic idea was that an overman, far more than simply having power over others, would have that power because he had power over himself, and rather than allowing his passions to dominate his will, drove his will to create. As such, Nietzshe called political leaders like Napoleon overmen, but he also called artists like Goethe and religious leaders like Jesus overmen as well, because in each case they were able to master themselves and use their will to radically change the world around them in a way that they thought best.

A good example in contemporary literature would be, of all things, Lord Voldemort. This isn't because Voldemort is evil or does terrible things, mind you, but because he set his mind to doing great things, and accomplished them. It was the greatness that Nietzsche thought we should value, not the moral quality of that action. In that way, I think he's mistaken.

Yes, he was for the "will to power", but that shouldn't be construed as "power over others" or something like that. The Nietzschian overman would be a person who, in Nietzsche's words "mastered his passions and became creative", or elsewhere in Nietzsche's works was described as an "artistic Socrates".

The basic idea was that an overman, far more than simply having power over others, would have that power because he had power over himself, and rather than allowing his passions to dominate his will, drove his will to create. As such, Nietzshe called political leaders like Napoleon overmen, but he also called artists like Goethe and religious leaders like Jesus overmen as well, because in each case they were able to master themselves and use their will to radically change the world around them in a way that they thought best.

A good example in contemporary literature would be, of all things, Lord Voldemort. This isn't because Voldemort is evil or does terrible things, mind you, but because he set his mind to doing great things, and accomplished them. It was the greatness that Nietzsche thought we should value, not the moral quality of that action. In that way, I think he's mistaken.

I see, but I still don't see how he could have rejected ethics, even basic things like being nice to others.

Wasn't he for the will to power and such? Never liked that idea, myself.

I'm about half-way through the book right now, as he explains it I don't much like it, but when he gets poetic, it becomes somewhat appealing.

Nietzsche does state many places he despises tyrants. He goes out of his way to make sure his "ubermensch" is not such a creature.
And he also denounces the "master morality" (the one that splits the world into "good and bad") because in it, the masters only have power derived from squashing other people. He believed power could come from within oneself, and not merely from dominating the weak.

What have you heard/read about Der Wille zur Macht?

And Nietzsche also had a sense of psychology about him (Freud was influenced by his work) Nietzsche sees man as not only being driven by basic desires (lust, hunger, etc) but also driven by something deeper. As a counter-point to the Marxist attempt to destroy all human suffering, he points out that suffering itself is not the problem. The problem, the true suffering comes from not knowing why you are suffering. As an example; a religious person not only doesn't mind suffering, but goes out of their way to suffer when they put themselves through various types of fasting, and they do this because they have a reason for this pain; God will admire them (or something like that). In the end this is yet another way to be pleased, but it is a combination of suffering and pleasure; Is it selfish?

And if so, what isn't selfish? I do not know.

Also, for his sake I'll say he may have disliked women, but he did not hate children, at least from some of his quotes.

I see, but I still don't see how he could have rejected ethics, even basic things like being nice to others.

He didn't; if an overman had a moral code in which being nice to others was paramount, then by all means, Nietzsche was for it. He just objected to proto-utilitarians describing altruism as some kind of natural condition of humanity and trying to use ancient languages to prove it. Originally, Nietzsche was a philologist, and he could clearly see that in ancient Greek, good was not used as the opposite of "evil", but "bad" or "poor quality".

Xeno, you seem well read, how much Nietzsche have you gone through?
And by all means correct me if I'm wrong about something (I frequently am)

Xeno, you seem well read, how much Nietzsche have you gone through?
And by all means correct me if I'm wrong about something (I frequently am)

Only some. On the Geneology of Morals, The Birth of Tragedy, and a bit of Thus Spake Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil. Basically, I know enough to tell you what his general project was, as well as some of the particulars, such as his critique of morality, how his objections to Christianity played into his will to power theory, etc. It helps that I have a friend who is probably the foremost expert on Nietzsche not just in the philosophy dept., but in the entire university.

And I didn't see anything wrong with what you wrote.

The Christian holy book,

What you can't say 'The Bible', do you not say 'The Koran' ?

believed by millions of people to be the supreme source for moral guidance, states that raping children is excusable or even praiseworthy under certain circumstances. Granted, many Christians choose to believe that those passages are not a part of the "big picture" of their faith and morality,

Really? I'm rather intersted. Which passages would these be?

Really? I'm rather intersted. Which passages would these be?

I do believe there is a passage that says "Happy is he who dashes thy little ones against the rocks" or something to that effect, but I'm not aware of anything supporting pædophilia. Then again, I heard that there are a few pro-pædophilia passages in the Torah but I'm not positive.