How to Lose Readers (Without Even Trying) : Sam Harris
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-lose-readers-without-even-trying/
”It is difficult to ignore the responsibility that Ayn Rand bears for all of this. I often get emails from people who insist that Rand was a genius—and one who has been unfairly neglected by writers like myself. I also get emails from people who have been “washed in the blood of the Lamb,” or otherwise saved by the “living Christ,” who have decided to pray for my soul. It is hard for me to say which of these sentiments I find less compelling. As someone who has written and spoken at length about how we might develop a truly “objective” morality, I am often told by followers of Rand that their beloved guru accomplished this task long ago. The result was Objectivism—a view that makes a religious fetish of selfishness and disposes of altruism and compassion as character flaws. If nothing else, this approach to ethics was a triumph of marketing, as Objectivism is basically autism rebranded. And Rand’s attempt to make literature out of this awful philosophy produced some commensurately terrible writing. Even in high school, I found that my copies of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged simply would not open. And I say this as someone who considers himself, in large part, a “libertarian”—and who has, therefore, embraced more or less everything that was serviceable in Rand’s politics. The problem with pure libertarianism, however, has long been obvious: We are not ready for it. Judging from my recent correspondence, I feel this more strongly than ever. There is simply no question that an obsession with limited government produces impressive failures of wisdom and compassion in otherwise intelligent people. Why do we have laws in the first place ? To prevent adults from behaving like dangerous children. All laws are coercive and take the following form: do this, and don’t do that, or else. Or else what? Or else men with guns will arrive at your door and take you away to prison. Yes, it would be wonderful if we did not need to be corralled and threatened in this way. And many uses of State power are both silly and harmful (the “war on drugs” being, perhaps, the ultimate instance). But the moment certain strictures are relaxed, people reliably go berserk. And we seem unable to motivate ourselves to make the kinds of investments we should make to create a future worth living in. Even the best of us tend to ignore some of the more obvious threats to our long term security.
..”Followers of Rand, in particular, believe that only a blind reliance on market forces and the narrowest conception of self interest can steer us collectively toward the best civilization possible and that any attempt to impose wisdom or compassion from the top—no matter who is at the top and no matter what the need—is necessarily corrupting of the whole enterprise. This conviction is, at the very least, unproven. And there are many reasons to believe that it is dangerously wrong. Given the current condition of the human mind, we seem to need a State to set and enforce certain priorities. I share everyone’s concern that our political process is broken, that it can select for precisely the sorts of people one wouldn’t want in charge, and that fantastic sums of money get squandered. But no one has profited more from our current system, with all its flaws, than the ultra rich. They should be the last to take their money off the table. And they should be the first to realize when more resources are necessary to secure the common good.”
Sam Harris Couldn’t Help But Smear Ayn Rand http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/05/sam-harris-couldnt-help-but-smear-ayn-rand/ Ari Armstrong: ”Rand did not treat “selfishness” as a fetish; rather, she saw it as a factual, life-serving necessity. She advocated rational self-interest, recognizing that one’s interests entail thinking long range about the requirements of one’s life and happiness, and acting in accordance with principles formed on the basis of such thinking. The principles she recognized as necessary to human life include (among many others) respecting people’s rights, developing loving romantic relationships, and building meaningful friendships. Rand did not confuse altruism with being friendly or helpful;rather, she saw it as a creed of self -sacrifice, a morality that demands that one sacrifice the values on which one’s life and happiness depend for the alleged benefit of others. Consequently, she rejected altruism because it holds “that man has no right to exist for his own sake.” Nor did Rand reject compassion; rather, she viewed it from the perspective of justice : She endorsed compassion “toward those who are innocent, but not toward those who are morally guilty.” RRD:Harris also makes other non- sequitur's
Speaking of the--legitimate--need of the government to fight nuclear terrorism Harris says:
”If private citizens cannot be motivated to allocate the necessary funds to mitigate such problems—as it seems we cannot—the State must do it. The State, however, is broke.”
Objectivism holds that the state has a legitimate role in protecting its citizens from foreign & domestic murderers,& in enforcing contracts & operating the Courts,prisons,the Justice system AND NOTHING ELSE. Why are we broke Mr.Harris? We are broke because of the efforts of those who wished to "impose wisdom or compassion" from the top down. But of course they didn't have the right people running the show.
Harris then adds that people are not ”self-made” because certain things are outside their control:e.g. where they are born,whether they have a crippling injury etc.
It is true that there are those who will oversimplify and say things like:"whether you succeed or fail is entirely up to you".
But a reading of Rand's work as a whole,would show that she does understand and address the question of the nature of success.
In fact Rand frequently makes the point that people owe a moral debt (not a financial debt) to the creators:whether industrialists or inventors or doctors or pro-freedom statesmen etc.But the fact that some things are outside of your control,does NOT make you responsible for the illnesses of others.The fact that Edison was not responsible for his not being retarded,does not make him responsible for his neighbors retardation.He may choose to help his neighbor,but it is not a moral obligation in Objectivism,and he certainly may not be forced to do so. Nor can one dismiss human achievements with the word "luck".
Luck did not make Edison a hard-working genuis.Nor did Edison's intelligence alone make him a success.
Intelligence was a necessary--but not sufficient--condition of Edison's success.
There are countless examples of people who are intelligent,but irrational and self-destructive.This is not due to their being "unlucky"(excluding the cases of those with actual mental illnesses),but due to their embrace of irrational ideas.
Nor can "luck" explain the difference between a Neville Chamberlain and a Winston Churchill,or a Lincoln and a Calhoun,or a Wilberforce and a Thomas Carlyle. To paraphrase someone who once wrote a letter to Ayn Rand:
One can be born with a crippling disability,but one cannot be "born as a Galileo",that is,as someone who devotes years of rigorous work to a endeavor. You are not responsible for things outside your control,but you are responsible for everything that is in your power to control.
It is true that in a free-market some do gain their wealth through luck(or pandering),and that some undeservedly languish and suffer despite their work and inventiveness.
But to prevent that by force would be to compel people to serve others against their own judgement,and in violation of their rights.
Success is never guaranteed in any society,a statist society merely imposes the dictates of a bureaucrat--"enlightened" or not--upon others by state sanctioned
force.
In a fully,free society this is not the case.
Criminals do exist in such societies but if they are in the government,they are not permitted to use their offices to commit their crimes with impunity.
Even if there was a particular bureaucrat who was correct on a given issue regarding the value of a particular product or art work,it would be immoral,and a violation of individual rights for him to impose his view upon other innocent people by force and--in the long term--a system that permits that would be destructive. But back to "autism".
When I was 16 & discovered Ayn Rand's writings,I knew that she was unpopular among liberals & academics but assumed that at least there were some out there who would write a fair--or at least factually accurate--account of her views. To date,scattered among the mountains of smears & bald-faced lies that have been hurled at Rand by writers, I can think of maybe a handful of people who actually accorded her the scholarly respect that would be afforded a Peter Singer,a Nietzsche,a Stalinist or Maoist or any number of other people whose views are quite mad. In fairness to Harris though insulting and condescending,(and wrong)his criticism of her is less slanderous than that directed against her by others:He repeats the assorted assertions that she is indifferent to suffering,men must be forced to be "good",that "no man is a island",but unlike Whitaker Chambers,he does not imply that Ayn Rand would send people to gas chambers.
This is Progress!
Let us go over the key points of the ”autistic” philosophy of Objectivism,(perhaps Harris was playing off on the fact that "autism" and "altruism" sound alike). She had a basically Neo-Aristotelianism outlook in Metaphysics & Epistemology.
That is,she believes in that Reason,not faith,is man's means of knowing the truth.
She believes in enlightened self-interest: Selfishness — Ayn Rand Lexicon
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html ....”Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None—except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self -interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they don’t, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs.”...
Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual , 133
”Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egoist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel,judge or act.These are functions of the self. Here the basic reversal is most deadly.The issue has been perverted and man has been left no alternative—and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egoism and altruism. Egoism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism—the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal—under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.
This was the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals of life.
The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander.This is the basic issue. It rests upon the alternative of life or death. The code of the creator is built on the needs of the reasoning mind which allows man to survive. The code of the second -hander is built on the needs of a mind incapable of survival. All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil. The egoist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.”
“The Soul of a Collectivist,” For the New Intellectual , 81
"To redeem both man and morality, it is the concept of “selfishness ” that one has to redeem. The first step is to assert man’ s right to a moral existence —that is: to recognize his need of a moral code to guide the course and the fulfillment of his own life . . . . ”The reasons why man needs a moral code will tell you that the purpose of morality is to define man’s proper values and interests, that concern with his own interests is the essence of a moral existence, and that man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions.”
”Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men’s actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors, of the moral to the immoral. Nothing could ever justify such a breach, and no one ever has.”
”The choice of the beneficiary of moral values is merely a preliminary or introductory issue in the field of morality. It is not a substitute for morality nor a criterion of moral value, as altruism has made it. Neither is it a moral primary : it has to be derived from and validated by the fundamental premises of a moral system.” ”The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life—and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self -interest. It is not a license “to do as he pleases” and it is not applicable to the altruists’ image of a “selfish” brute nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims.” ”This is said as a warning against the kind of “Nietzschean egoists” who, in fact, are a product of the altruist morality and represent the other side of the altruist coin: the men who believe that any action, regardless of its nature, is good if it is intended for one’s own benefit. Just as the satisfaction of the irrational desires of others is not a criterion of moral value, neither is the satisfaction of one’s own irrational desires. Morality is not a contest of whims”. . . .
”A similar type of error is committed by the man who declares that since man must be guided by his own independent judgment, any action he chooses to take is moral if he chooses it. One’s own independent judgment is the means by which one must choose one’s actions, but it is not a moral criterion nor a moral validation: only reference to a demonstrable principle can validate one’s choices. Just as man cannot survive by any random means,but must discover and practice the principles which his survival requires, so man’s self -interest cannot be determined by blind desires or random whims, but must be discovered and achieved by the guidance of rational principles. This is why the Objectivist ethics is a morality of rational self-interest—or of rational selfishness.” ”Since selfishness is “concern with one’s own interests,” the Objectivist ethics uses that concept in its exact and purest sense. It is not a concept that one can surrender to man’s enemies, nor to the unthinking misconceptions, distortions, prejudices and fears of the ignorant and the irrational. The attack on “selfishness” is an attack on man’s self-esteem; to surrender one, is to surrender the other.”
“Introduction,” The Virtue of Selfishness, ix Sacrifice — Ayn Rand Lexicon
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html "Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. “Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. “Sacrifice” is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t.”
”If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is . If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is . If you own a bottle of milk and give it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is . If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is . If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself—that is the virtue of sacrifice in full. If you renounce all personal desires and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate—that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice. A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward—if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection. You are told that moral perfection is impossible to man—and, by this standard, it is. You cannot achieve it so long as you live, but the value of your life and of your person is gauged by how closely you succeed in approaching that ideal zero which is death.
If you start, however, as a passionless blank, as a vegetable seeking to be eaten, with no values to reject and no wishes to renounce, you will not win the crown of sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to renounce the unwanted. It is not a sacrifice to give your life for others, if death is your personal desire. To achieve the virtue of sacrifice, you must want to live, you must love it, you must burn with passion for this earth and for all the splendor it can give you—you must feel the twist of every knife as it slashes your desires away from your reach and drains your love out of your body. It is not mere death that the morality of sacrifice holds out to you as an ideal, but death by slow torture. Do not remind me that it pertains only to this life on earth. I am concerned with no other. Neither are you. If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a “sacrifice”: that term brands you as immoral. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty. If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of man who’s willing. If a man refuses to sell his convictions, it is not a sacrifice, unless he is the sort of man who has no convictions. Sacrifice could be proper only for those who have nothing to sacrifice—no values, no standards, no judgment—those whose desires are irrational whims, blindly conceived and lightly surrendered. For a man of moral stature, whose desires are born of rational values, sacrifice is the surrender of the right to the wrong, of the good to the evil. The creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral—a morality that declares its own bankruptcy by confessing that it can’t impart to men any personal stake in virtues or values, and that their souls are sewers of depravity, which they must be taught to sacrifice. By its own confession, it is impotent to teach men to be good and can only subject them to constant punishment.”
Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual , 139
Altruism — Ayn Rand Lexicon
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
”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 .” “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 61
Rand believes in Individual Rights: Individual Rights — Ayn Rand Lexicon
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html "The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind,it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.
Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual , 182 ”Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual,since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind.”
“What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 17 "There is no such thing as “a right to a job”—there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no “right to a home,” only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it. There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals."
“Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 97 Charity — Ayn Rand Lexicon
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html
"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue." Playboy , March 1964
”The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.
It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal” . . . . ”To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self -sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.”
“The Question of Scholarships,” The Objectivist , June 1966, 6
Etc. I can go on but her works are readily available for review and criticsm;if one is actually serious about reading and studying her writings,(which generally requires reading something three or four times). And as for economics,literally tons of books have been written explaining--in granular detail--why it does not matter who is "at the top",in attempts to "impose wisdom or compassion"
because these efforts were and are doomed to failure in the long term,(even leaving aside the question of whether assaulting innocent people and stealing the fruits of their labors can ever be considered wise or compassionate.)
I also find this phrase--"impose wisdom or compassion" --quite bizzare.Neither of these things can be imposed.
You can threaten people with force if they do not comply with your allegedly wise and your allegedly compassionate desires,you can fine them,arrest them or even guillotine them,but you cannot force them to believe that what you are doing is right or just. I have not read his other writings,and--unlike him--I will abstain from characterizing work which I have not read--but if this is representative of his writings,then his worldview is statist and far removed from my own,and it is difficult to see how it can fairly be called "Libertarian".
Speaking for myself I find it impossible to be enraged by these types of dismissive "arguments" any longer.
I was to be angered by them the past,but my reaction has since become like that of Hank Rearden's reaction to his ex-wife Lillian's final tirade:"Why tell it to me?",i.e. boredom,indifference,and contempt. As I noted below:When they pop up,briefly respond and move on.
How to deal with anti-#Objectivist & anti-#aynrand smears:a sample form letter - fightingstatism
http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/how-to-deal-with-anti-objectivist-anti-aynran
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-lose-readers-without-even-trying/
”It is difficult to ignore the responsibility that Ayn Rand bears for all of this. I often get emails from people who insist that Rand was a genius—and one who has been unfairly neglected by writers like myself. I also get emails from people who have been “washed in the blood of the Lamb,” or otherwise saved by the “living Christ,” who have decided to pray for my soul. It is hard for me to say which of these sentiments I find less compelling. As someone who has written and spoken at length about how we might develop a truly “objective” morality, I am often told by followers of Rand that their beloved guru accomplished this task long ago. The result was Objectivism—a view that makes a religious fetish of selfishness and disposes of altruism and compassion as character flaws. If nothing else, this approach to ethics was a triumph of marketing, as Objectivism is basically autism rebranded. And Rand’s attempt to make literature out of this awful philosophy produced some commensurately terrible writing. Even in high school, I found that my copies of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged simply would not open. And I say this as someone who considers himself, in large part, a “libertarian”—and who has, therefore, embraced more or less everything that was serviceable in Rand’s politics. The problem with pure libertarianism, however, has long been obvious: We are not ready for it. Judging from my recent correspondence, I feel this more strongly than ever. There is simply no question that an obsession with limited government produces impressive failures of wisdom and compassion in otherwise intelligent people. Why do we have laws in the first place ? To prevent adults from behaving like dangerous children. All laws are coercive and take the following form: do this, and don’t do that, or else. Or else what? Or else men with guns will arrive at your door and take you away to prison. Yes, it would be wonderful if we did not need to be corralled and threatened in this way. And many uses of State power are both silly and harmful (the “war on drugs” being, perhaps, the ultimate instance). But the moment certain strictures are relaxed, people reliably go berserk. And we seem unable to motivate ourselves to make the kinds of investments we should make to create a future worth living in. Even the best of us tend to ignore some of the more obvious threats to our long term security.
..”Followers of Rand, in particular, believe that only a blind reliance on market forces and the narrowest conception of self interest can steer us collectively toward the best civilization possible and that any attempt to impose wisdom or compassion from the top—no matter who is at the top and no matter what the need—is necessarily corrupting of the whole enterprise. This conviction is, at the very least, unproven. And there are many reasons to believe that it is dangerously wrong. Given the current condition of the human mind, we seem to need a State to set and enforce certain priorities. I share everyone’s concern that our political process is broken, that it can select for precisely the sorts of people one wouldn’t want in charge, and that fantastic sums of money get squandered. But no one has profited more from our current system, with all its flaws, than the ultra rich. They should be the last to take their money off the table. And they should be the first to realize when more resources are necessary to secure the common good.”
Sam Harris Couldn’t Help But Smear Ayn Rand http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/05/sam-harris-couldnt-help-but-smear-ayn-rand/ Ari Armstrong: ”Rand did not treat “selfishness” as a fetish; rather, she saw it as a factual, life-serving necessity. She advocated rational self-interest, recognizing that one’s interests entail thinking long range about the requirements of one’s life and happiness, and acting in accordance with principles formed on the basis of such thinking. The principles she recognized as necessary to human life include (among many others) respecting people’s rights, developing loving romantic relationships, and building meaningful friendships. Rand did not confuse altruism with being friendly or helpful;rather, she saw it as a creed of self -sacrifice, a morality that demands that one sacrifice the values on which one’s life and happiness depend for the alleged benefit of others. Consequently, she rejected altruism because it holds “that man has no right to exist for his own sake.” Nor did Rand reject compassion; rather, she viewed it from the perspective of justice : She endorsed compassion “toward those who are innocent, but not toward those who are morally guilty.” RRD:Harris also makes other non- sequitur's
Speaking of the--legitimate--need of the government to fight nuclear terrorism Harris says:
”If private citizens cannot be motivated to allocate the necessary funds to mitigate such problems—as it seems we cannot—the State must do it. The State, however, is broke.”
Objectivism holds that the state has a legitimate role in protecting its citizens from foreign & domestic murderers,& in enforcing contracts & operating the Courts,prisons,the Justice system AND NOTHING ELSE. Why are we broke Mr.Harris? We are broke because of the efforts of those who wished to "impose wisdom or compassion" from the top down. But of course they didn't have the right people running the show.
Harris then adds that people are not ”self-made” because certain things are outside their control:e.g. where they are born,whether they have a crippling injury etc.
It is true that there are those who will oversimplify and say things like:"whether you succeed or fail is entirely up to you".
But a reading of Rand's work as a whole,would show that she does understand and address the question of the nature of success.
In fact Rand frequently makes the point that people owe a moral debt (not a financial debt) to the creators:whether industrialists or inventors or doctors or pro-freedom statesmen etc.But the fact that some things are outside of your control,does NOT make you responsible for the illnesses of others.The fact that Edison was not responsible for his not being retarded,does not make him responsible for his neighbors retardation.He may choose to help his neighbor,but it is not a moral obligation in Objectivism,and he certainly may not be forced to do so. Nor can one dismiss human achievements with the word "luck".
Luck did not make Edison a hard-working genuis.Nor did Edison's intelligence alone make him a success.
Intelligence was a necessary--but not sufficient--condition of Edison's success.
There are countless examples of people who are intelligent,but irrational and self-destructive.This is not due to their being "unlucky"(excluding the cases of those with actual mental illnesses),but due to their embrace of irrational ideas.
Nor can "luck" explain the difference between a Neville Chamberlain and a Winston Churchill,or a Lincoln and a Calhoun,or a Wilberforce and a Thomas Carlyle. To paraphrase someone who once wrote a letter to Ayn Rand:
One can be born with a crippling disability,but one cannot be "born as a Galileo",that is,as someone who devotes years of rigorous work to a endeavor. You are not responsible for things outside your control,but you are responsible for everything that is in your power to control.
It is true that in a free-market some do gain their wealth through luck(or pandering),and that some undeservedly languish and suffer despite their work and inventiveness.
But to prevent that by force would be to compel people to serve others against their own judgement,and in violation of their rights.
Success is never guaranteed in any society,a statist society merely imposes the dictates of a bureaucrat--"enlightened" or not--upon others by state sanctioned
force.
In a fully,free society this is not the case.
Criminals do exist in such societies but if they are in the government,they are not permitted to use their offices to commit their crimes with impunity.
Even if there was a particular bureaucrat who was correct on a given issue regarding the value of a particular product or art work,it would be immoral,and a violation of individual rights for him to impose his view upon other innocent people by force and--in the long term--a system that permits that would be destructive. But back to "autism".
When I was 16 & discovered Ayn Rand's writings,I knew that she was unpopular among liberals & academics but assumed that at least there were some out there who would write a fair--or at least factually accurate--account of her views. To date,scattered among the mountains of smears & bald-faced lies that have been hurled at Rand by writers, I can think of maybe a handful of people who actually accorded her the scholarly respect that would be afforded a Peter Singer,a Nietzsche,a Stalinist or Maoist or any number of other people whose views are quite mad. In fairness to Harris though insulting and condescending,(and wrong)his criticism of her is less slanderous than that directed against her by others:He repeats the assorted assertions that she is indifferent to suffering,men must be forced to be "good",that "no man is a island",but unlike Whitaker Chambers,he does not imply that Ayn Rand would send people to gas chambers.
This is Progress!
Let us go over the key points of the ”autistic” philosophy of Objectivism,(perhaps Harris was playing off on the fact that "autism" and "altruism" sound alike). She had a basically Neo-Aristotelianism outlook in Metaphysics & Epistemology.
That is,she believes in that Reason,not faith,is man's means of knowing the truth.
She believes in enlightened self-interest: Selfishness — Ayn Rand Lexicon
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html ....”Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None—except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self -interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they don’t, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs.”...
Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual , 133
”Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egoist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel,judge or act.These are functions of the self. Here the basic reversal is most deadly.The issue has been perverted and man has been left no alternative—and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egoism and altruism. Egoism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism—the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal—under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.
This was the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals of life.
The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander.This is the basic issue. It rests upon the alternative of life or death. The code of the creator is built on the needs of the reasoning mind which allows man to survive. The code of the second -hander is built on the needs of a mind incapable of survival. All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil. The egoist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.”
“The Soul of a Collectivist,” For the New Intellectual , 81
"To redeem both man and morality, it is the concept of “selfishness ” that one has to redeem. The first step is to assert man’ s right to a moral existence —that is: to recognize his need of a moral code to guide the course and the fulfillment of his own life . . . . ”The reasons why man needs a moral code will tell you that the purpose of morality is to define man’s proper values and interests, that concern with his own interests is the essence of a moral existence, and that man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions.”
”Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men’s actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors, of the moral to the immoral. Nothing could ever justify such a breach, and no one ever has.”
”The choice of the beneficiary of moral values is merely a preliminary or introductory issue in the field of morality. It is not a substitute for morality nor a criterion of moral value, as altruism has made it. Neither is it a moral primary : it has to be derived from and validated by the fundamental premises of a moral system.” ”The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life—and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self -interest. It is not a license “to do as he pleases” and it is not applicable to the altruists’ image of a “selfish” brute nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims.” ”This is said as a warning against the kind of “Nietzschean egoists” who, in fact, are a product of the altruist morality and represent the other side of the altruist coin: the men who believe that any action, regardless of its nature, is good if it is intended for one’s own benefit. Just as the satisfaction of the irrational desires of others is not a criterion of moral value, neither is the satisfaction of one’s own irrational desires. Morality is not a contest of whims”. . . .
”A similar type of error is committed by the man who declares that since man must be guided by his own independent judgment, any action he chooses to take is moral if he chooses it. One’s own independent judgment is the means by which one must choose one’s actions, but it is not a moral criterion nor a moral validation: only reference to a demonstrable principle can validate one’s choices. Just as man cannot survive by any random means,but must discover and practice the principles which his survival requires, so man’s self -interest cannot be determined by blind desires or random whims, but must be discovered and achieved by the guidance of rational principles. This is why the Objectivist ethics is a morality of rational self-interest—or of rational selfishness.” ”Since selfishness is “concern with one’s own interests,” the Objectivist ethics uses that concept in its exact and purest sense. It is not a concept that one can surrender to man’s enemies, nor to the unthinking misconceptions, distortions, prejudices and fears of the ignorant and the irrational. The attack on “selfishness” is an attack on man’s self-esteem; to surrender one, is to surrender the other.”
“Introduction,” The Virtue of Selfishness, ix Sacrifice — Ayn Rand Lexicon
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html "Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. “Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. “Sacrifice” is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t.”
”If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is . If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is . If you own a bottle of milk and give it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is . If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is . If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself—that is the virtue of sacrifice in full. If you renounce all personal desires and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate—that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice. A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward—if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection. You are told that moral perfection is impossible to man—and, by this standard, it is. You cannot achieve it so long as you live, but the value of your life and of your person is gauged by how closely you succeed in approaching that ideal zero which is death.
If you start, however, as a passionless blank, as a vegetable seeking to be eaten, with no values to reject and no wishes to renounce, you will not win the crown of sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to renounce the unwanted. It is not a sacrifice to give your life for others, if death is your personal desire. To achieve the virtue of sacrifice, you must want to live, you must love it, you must burn with passion for this earth and for all the splendor it can give you—you must feel the twist of every knife as it slashes your desires away from your reach and drains your love out of your body. It is not mere death that the morality of sacrifice holds out to you as an ideal, but death by slow torture. Do not remind me that it pertains only to this life on earth. I am concerned with no other. Neither are you. If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a “sacrifice”: that term brands you as immoral. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty. If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of man who’s willing. If a man refuses to sell his convictions, it is not a sacrifice, unless he is the sort of man who has no convictions. Sacrifice could be proper only for those who have nothing to sacrifice—no values, no standards, no judgment—those whose desires are irrational whims, blindly conceived and lightly surrendered. For a man of moral stature, whose desires are born of rational values, sacrifice is the surrender of the right to the wrong, of the good to the evil. The creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral—a morality that declares its own bankruptcy by confessing that it can’t impart to men any personal stake in virtues or values, and that their souls are sewers of depravity, which they must be taught to sacrifice. By its own confession, it is impotent to teach men to be good and can only subject them to constant punishment.”
Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual , 139
Altruism — Ayn Rand Lexicon
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
”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 .” “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 61
Rand believes in Individual Rights: Individual Rights — Ayn Rand Lexicon
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html "The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind,it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.
Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual , 182 ”Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual,since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind.”
“What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 17 "There is no such thing as “a right to a job”—there is only the right of free trade, that is: a man’s right to take a job if another man chooses to hire him. There is no “right to a home,” only the right of free trade: the right to build a home or to buy it. There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay it, to hire a man or to buy his product. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no producers choose to manufacture such items (there is only the right to manufacture them oneself). There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals."
“Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 97 Charity — Ayn Rand Lexicon
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html
"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue." Playboy , March 1964
”The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.
It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal” . . . . ”To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self -sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.”
“The Question of Scholarships,” The Objectivist , June 1966, 6
Etc. I can go on but her works are readily available for review and criticsm;if one is actually serious about reading and studying her writings,(which generally requires reading something three or four times). And as for economics,literally tons of books have been written explaining--in granular detail--why it does not matter who is "at the top",in attempts to "impose wisdom or compassion"
because these efforts were and are doomed to failure in the long term,(even leaving aside the question of whether assaulting innocent people and stealing the fruits of their labors can ever be considered wise or compassionate.)
I also find this phrase--"impose wisdom or compassion" --quite bizzare.Neither of these things can be imposed.
You can threaten people with force if they do not comply with your allegedly wise and your allegedly compassionate desires,you can fine them,arrest them or even guillotine them,but you cannot force them to believe that what you are doing is right or just. I have not read his other writings,and--unlike him--I will abstain from characterizing work which I have not read--but if this is representative of his writings,then his worldview is statist and far removed from my own,and it is difficult to see how it can fairly be called "Libertarian".
Speaking for myself I find it impossible to be enraged by these types of dismissive "arguments" any longer.
I was to be angered by them the past,but my reaction has since become like that of Hank Rearden's reaction to his ex-wife Lillian's final tirade:"Why tell it to me?",i.e. boredom,indifference,and contempt. As I noted below:When they pop up,briefly respond and move on.
How to deal with anti-#Objectivist & anti-#aynrand smears:a sample form letter - fightingstatism
http://fightingstatism.posterous.com/how-to-deal-with-anti-objectivist-anti-aynran
No comments:
Post a Comment