Atlas Shrugged is a piece of junk!

Post Reply New Topic

Perhaps some, but the true meaning of charity is to do something for someone less fortunate than yourself because it is the right thing to do, not because it makes you feel good, or because you want to improve your reputation for being a "good person".

You beat me to it. Yes, exactly! It's the RIGHT thing to do for its own sake. So many Randians (if I can call them that) seem to have this rather bizarre idea that people only ever do what is right in order to gain something, which just goes to show how utterly clueless they are.

A story that perfectly illustrates just how skewed the 'Randian' concept of charity (i.e. being 'generous' for ultimately selfish reasons) truly is.

I tried to get through that awful book myself when my sister recommended it. She thought, for some bizarre reason, that it was actually good. One of the worst, if not THE worst, novel that I have ever tried to read (I only made it to about the 25-30 page mark). It's only good for the paper that can be recycled from it, or as someone else already suggested, for use as toilet paper.

If she’s a hypocrite and a fraud, that’s not why. Criticisms of Rand because of social security are saaaaaaaaaaad if that’s the best they can do.

Whether you are a hypocrite or not, according to Rand, depends on where you stand on the issue. Rand was opposed to the redistribution of wealth. In her view, if I were to take a percentage of money from your bank account and gave it to someone else or kept it for myself, I’d be STEALING. Yet this is precisely what the government does. So if Rand was stealing taxpayer money and funneling it into her bank account while ranting against the redistribution of wealth, then sure, she’d be a hypocrite.

Except that’s not what she did. You have to take into account that SS is a REQUIRED tax. We don’t get to opt out of it as long as we’re working. We don’t get a choice. On the other hand, entitlement payouts after one has been forced to pay into the welfare system cannot be viewed as stealing since the government can already be viewed as stealing from us in the first place. Rather, the government giving back what we’ve already paid in is RESTITUTION.

Rand is thus justified in accepting SS payments. She paid her taxes just like everyone else. Therefore she deserves the benefits.

If someone was to cure AIDS, I doubt it would be done to lessen the chance of him or herself getting it. Not everyone has been poisoned by Rand's vile philosophy.

It has nothing to do with being “poisoned” by a philosophy. It’s more a condition of the world, at least according to my preferred formulation of reciprocity. You can’t help it.

Earlier I quoted David Kelley. Here’s another quote that addresses that very thing:


You cannot even treat strangers well or give anonymously to charity without assigning them “potential value.” When you do those things, you are partially applying Objectivist ethics. You are acting within your own rational self-interest.

Now, as a Christian I have some obvious concerns. I disagree with Rand’s own morality, plus she was an outspoken atheist. But look at religion even. Why do many Christians even go to church? Think megachurches. There is something they feel they can get by going, maybe fill a spiritual void. Perhaps the promise of health and prosperity. Perhaps it’s the longing for heaven or the fear of hell. Even the love of God itself is a value. So no matter the reason, one is always acting in one’s own rational self-interest.

Everyone does this. All objectivism does is expand that to encourage and empower the individual and pursue freedom.

I have never stepped foot inside a megachurch. Nor has my church attendance ever had anything to do with health or prosperity. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
As a Lutheran, I know I already have God's love and salvation, even without going to church to claim it.

"Doing right" is the same selfish motivation as "being a good person".

Also, considering .... that charity can cause harm, maybe charity is not "the right thing to do".

But God’s love and salvation are still values. As long as something or someone has value, you are acting in your own self-interest in pursuing it.

It doesn't matter if it's restitution; it's a moral issue.

Rand preached selfishness (maximizing one's self-interest) is the highest moral virtue.

So, of course, she's going to take that SS money.

That’s a bit of an oversimplification, though. Not even Rand could ignore rational self-interest as mutually beneficial. The government was wrong to take the money as a form of wealth redistribution; it’s only fair that the government give it back in her time of need.

The concept of trade is important in Objectivism for that very reason. Acting on your own self-interest means building the self-esteem of others. Giving up your time to spend with someone you value is compensated by the company of that person, while in exchange the other person has someone he can rant to. Both end up feeling valued and important. It doesn’t have to involve a literal, material exchange.

It should also be noted that Objectivism is an optimistic worldview. “Normal” is everything as it should be, as is expected. Pain, for example is not normal and thus is not to be expected. Nobody complains about being healthy, for instance. But a broken arm while playing a sport is not expected and must be dealt with. Many people have a negative view of the world. For them, pain and suffering are the norm. Therefore they always seek to comfort and aid those in need in order to somehow make life livable. For the Objectivist, happiness and positivity are the norm. He has no need for human comfort. Rather, he chooses to comfort those in need because he sees their value potential, plus the sense of pride in helping one achieve the same positivity he knows.

The highest moral virtue IS rational self-interest, yes, but what does that mean? The thing is, EVERYTHING points to rational self-interest. If Rand wasn’t owed the SS money, exactly what REASON would there be to take it? Detractors focus on the self-interest bit and leave out the rational part.

Yes, I don't know.

Seems like "necessity of money" could rationalize almost anything.

Oh, absolutely if we’re talking about what people do in the real world. Rand was never about people mistreating others or ruthlessness in competition.

But of course, people do rationalize whatever they want. I once read an author who defined a rationalization as “rational lies.” You might think of it as self-delusion.

Objectivism was never about that. Now, I do think Rand’s behavior and how she treated certain people crossed lines that her written philosophy seemed opposed to. That’s why I said taking welfare isn’t hypocritical, but you might make a case for other conflicting attributes.

I’m not exactly in love with Rand or Objectivism. It’s just that Objectivism is a formulation of egoism that I find easy to understand and apply to real life. Elements of egoism are present in virtually all inspirational, leadership, and self-help works, so it’s a pattern of thinking that I’m used to. Other philosophers are dour and pessimistic by comparison.

Objectivists also seem to be too hard on Jesus. It’s the actualization of altruism I think that threatens them the most, and that’s totally unfounded. Even God acted in His own rational self-interest just by creating the universe in the first place. Rational self-interest is not sinful because it is a human attribute that reflects the image of the Creator. Jesus’ atoning self-sacrifice also stems from the same divine desire for reconciliation with man. If we held no value for God, He could have consigned us to oblivion. His effort to redeem us speaks volume for His nature being benevolent, NOT altruistic. Jesus teaching us to look after each other more than for ourselves is an extension of rational self-interest to ensure EVERYONE can enjoy individualism and freedom. This has nothing to do with salvation, but rather Christian ethics.

Side note: Rand was an atheist, but her argument was flimsy. When asked to prove her point, her usual response was that “the atheist cannot be called upon to prove a negative.” Actually, yes you CAN. Negatives and non-existence CAN indeed be proven. The problem is she was lazily shifting the burden of proof. The problem I DO have with Objectivism consistent with Rand’s atheism is its emphasis on empiricism. If all that is knowable is linked to the 5 classic senses, then the 5 senses are left to prove themselves. This creates a circularity in which empiricism is absurd. In order to accept empiricism, one must necessarily accept its many assumptions. Theists only require one. So it’s striking to me that Rand had so many detractors and that Objectivism was so hastily dismissed by academics. They display the exact same tendencies!

First off: I think Ayn Rand is mostly shite, 95% of that.

I agree with some of her reasoning but as far as I can see, she based many of her ideas on the works of others - what is natural. Now for the quote ... the particular reason I chose to quote this is because many people in the thread seemed to be going the same way. It's not personal, please.

That's beside Rand's point, really. It doesn't really matter if others will never know.

People do a little bit of charity so that they can wash their hands off the social injustice and tell off others, feeling as if they don't have anything else with the problem, because they "naturally just did their part". So much so if they do that in secrecy, "exactly as the Lord commanded, so that my left hand doesn't know what my right hand is doing...". They do it for some reward, may it be inner peace of mind or the promise of spiritual redemption, it's always a reward nevertheless.

I'm not saying people should refrain from doing charity, though. People should just face it: they do that because they want to feel better about themselves and/or better than the rest.

That's how I see people, though. I am not asking people to agree with me... maybe because I still have the hopes of being totally wrong, one day.

What?! How? I'm the type of person who, when confronted by a red light at an intersection, will still stop even at 3 A.M. when there are clearly no other cars for miles around, because that is what I am supposed to do. I don't seek anyone's approval; that's absurd.

If that's the case then their motives are not pure.