Ayn Rand - Objectivist Ethics

From the Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand explains the essence of her philosophy. www.LibertyPen.com

[@NightRadio1]

Ayn rand changed my life, i adopted 100% her philosophy. now im 82 years old, happily married, and 2 kids, and that philosophy maked me better than i was before, i really can say that thanks to ayn rand, my soul evolved to what it is now. thank you ayn rand.

[@ianmacewan6069]

I was the child of Rand's opposite: Presbyterians, the bleakest variety of Christian mystics. I was totally miserable under the hatred for the human mind especially mine, that adherents to that religion hold as the good. Reading Rand felt like being avenged.

[@dominickstewart433]

Ian MacEwan I’m honestly curious. I don’t know much about that branch of Christianity. What was so bad about it?

[@johnroberts5992]

Ayn Rand was a truly a remarkable person. Her thoughts deserve serious consideration.

[@etiquettefiend]

virtue of selfishness pg 27 to pg 30 of centennial edition. just finished this a week ago. extremely well presented. the last line after video: "to live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is mans highest moral purpose"

[@Shystichu]

Ayn is my spiritual animal. She gets it

[@MrRob1967]

Letter to Ayn Rand: "Dear Ayn Rand: Help! I've lost my car keys! My wife says they're somewhere in our house, but my son says they're not. What should I do? Signed - Keyless in Milwaukee. Dear Keyless: Check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. Signed - Ayn Rand.

[@meredrums1]

Dear MrRob1967: Look for them until you find them - Ayn

[@williammueller6639]

@@meredrums1 Psst, this is what you missed: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. " -Ayn Rand

[@TheAgnosticNerd]

Y-know what's great about this? I actually understand, and agree with this. God I love being smart. What irritates me about people is they write off ways of life and thought that oppose their own, without putting any thought into why, nor whether or not the position they hold is the correct one. Many seem to stumble through life, not giving a damn. They don't bother to question their beliefs, they don't think about the big issues. Is this just high schoolers, or does everyone do this?

[@Waaagh40KRed]

It's the Far Left, you nailed down everything wrong with them.

[@eitatrembom]

What she says is that, even in this case, you don't have ( and is a more crime to do so) to sacrifice for that person but you should and can keep the help and the 'exchange' at the level of respecting your own values and not sacrificing your own goals for that person ( i.e. not sacrifice nor your goals nor your resources needed to achieve that goal to him like time, materials goods, nor for instance accept unjustifiable ideas just to please him (intellectual sacrifice)).

[@j2y2k3]

You should look up David Harriman, he does a good job of explaining the objectivist outlook on Einstein and where he went wrong.

[@SwordOfApollo]

I find that most who dismiss Ayn Rand’s morality don’t really understand it. Her “selfishness” is long-term, principled self-interest. People are a combination of the physical and mental, and your self-interest includes psychological values. Self-interest is not to be reduced to only the physical, such as money. Other people can be of tremendous psychological value (i.e. friends, lovers, children.) Rand recognized that benevolence toward strangers is in one’s own interest, in a free country.

[@luukzwart115]

That's why I like the term wellbeing more than the terms 'happiness' or 'health'. Happiness stresses the spiritual part of life and health the physical part. Wellbeing includes both evenly.

[@Avidcomp]

"made me better" - I also concur with your thoughts on Ayn

[@Onelove-Oneheart-h4c]

I have listened to this clip countless times. It was too deep for me to listen once.

[@karib1370]

What an intelligent, confident, strong woman.

[@fzqlcs]

selfish = that pertaining to self. self-esteem = giving value to the self. that is how Ayn Rand uses the term selfishness. she advocates holding the self as the primary value in one's own life. without self-esteem, humans are reduced to the status of sacrificial animals, to be placed on the alter of altruism.

[@clubsandwedge]

The reason why so many people are Objectivists when they are young but become disillusioned later on in life is due to ignorance of Objectivist epistemology. Only a grounding in epistemology will make clear the meaning and origins of the ethics.

[@greghorvay]

@asdfgasdfasdful I'm not talking about fasting. I'm talking about not eating at all. Life is based on doing certain things to maintain it. No matter how hard to try to avoid this fact, it will catch up with you. I know all about is-ought, and it never ought to have been a dichotomy because of the fact that if you want to live, you can't do it by sitting on a bonfire. Go run into a wall for awhile, and come back when you accept the fact that you have to go around to get to the other side of it.

[@ianmacewan6069]

Start with "Philosophy, Who Needs it?"

[@scoutblair]

Disagreeing is great! You have an opinion! So it's okay to disagree with Ayn Rand if you feel indifferent. But rather than bashing and smutting others who agree with her philosophy like some stereotypical zealot why can't you express your argument be calm and open minded? Ayn Rand isn't trying to tell us we should live our lives as selfishly as possible, because then we produce nothing and take from others and thus contradicting Objectivism.

[@MotownWes]

Steve Ditko brought me to Objectivism. Ayn Rand kept me here. “Who is John Galt?”

[@Silvsilvchan]

"voluntary altruism is still based on self-interest" You mean this in the sense of creating friendships and image, correct? I'd say yes and no. Voluntary alturism can be based in that but not always. There are alturists who don't do what they do to make themselves seem better to others (or themselves). You can tell the difference by who spends time announcing their charity and who doesn't feel the need to constantly bring it up. Though even then, you could argue being humble is image building

[@centurion180ad]

This is beautiful.

[@SwordOfApollo]

I like that attitude; that's the attitude that a serious thinker should have when he doesn't know much about a topic. I definitely recommend learning more. My new playlist, "Introduction to Objectivism: Best Playlist" may be able to help: the full description of that playlist contains important information about how to find out more about Objectivism.

[@21s]

I would too after being forced to pay for it.

[@norcofreerider604]

Yes, I find that many will dismiss her philosophy without understanding it. One reason I do not call myself an Objectivist is that I do not feel I have a comprehensive enough understanding of her philosophy to either accept it or deny it.

[@fzqlcs]

makes sense to me

[@makeithappen3918]

I dont get, what on earth would have caused any negation of this philosophy by any pseudo intellectual for any reason but to be well reasoned.

[@fab006]

@Johannes999999999 As Ayn Rand herself points out: before you ask WHAT humans ought to do, you have to ask WHY they ought to do some things and not others. So your conception of ethics is incomplete because it lacks context. What brings you to the idea that humans are "imperfect"? What is this "perfection" and why is it outside of man's nature? And finally, if we "tended" to follow the correct ethics (according to Ayn Rand), why would we need to think about it in the first place?

[@NightRadio1]

Good for you.

[@centurion180ad]

If you value your own offspring and forgo short term pleasures for the sake of the long term success of your own children, THAT IS NOT A SACRIFICE.

[@SwordOfApollo]

@artistphilosopher Nope. Look up utilitarianism for Spock's morality. What you are saying here is that if people aim their actions at what they rationally believe will make them happy in the long-term, they will achieve only suffering. So you think that people must aim at their own suffering to find happiness. But there are many more ways to be miserable than to be happy, so if people aim at suffering, they are practically guaranteed to achieve it.

[@NightRadio1]

you obviously dont understand her philosophy. I guess its because you haven't read her book Atlas Shrugged, the chapter where she talks about soul.

[@Silvsilvchan]

Libertarian =/= Objectivist Objectivism is a school of thought that coincides with Libertarianism on a political level. But Objectivism also goes deeply into how to guide your own life, as demonstrated here and that is where Rand and I disagree on many things. Though in the political arena Rand is a sister in arms, as is her followers and I recognize that fully. There is no reason to spurn objectivists there just because outside of politics we disagree.

[@samjudge1240]

I do agree to this.

[@greghorvay]

@GlobalAlternateMedia Lets see if I can explain this, because I think you are right that it is about right and wrong, but also that I am right. My immediate question to you is what is the standard of right and wrong? I say life. But don't get me wrong here, it is hard work pursuing enhancing your life. It takes a rational long ranged look, that requires weighing many facts. Life is not subjective. Drink oil paint if you don't believe me. Even murder and dishonesty are bad for one's own life.

[@Johannes999999999]

@fab006 This comment was made before I realized that... so I understand now. But I do believe the idea of ethics is to express how we ought to act in some subjective sense. But I do not believe a true objective morality exists, as calling something good or bad requires some sort of reference frame.

[@mnshariff9101]

According to objectivism Reality is direct perception of things but sometime the direct perception of things doesn't reveal many facet of the things.Natural science is an example what you see is not always real forcexample mirage.

[@greghorvay]

@asdfgasdfasdful That makes no sense at all. And quite frankly, there is no point to going on with each other. You live your life not judging people, and I'll live mine condemning child molesters.

[@Coremungus]

Intelligent response.

[@greghorvay]

@asdfgasdfasdful Saying, because I feel that way! is not a means of validation. Rand (and I) DO have a way of condemning these things. But I'm not going to be able to explain it to someone like you. Read her work yourself if you care, but I'm done here. I'm responded to you for other's sake, not yours.

[@eitatrembom]

I think the problem here is that you didn't understand her idea of 'selfshness'. If someone asks your help or wants to talk to you about subject in which you are more skilled than him, you have to be selfish and help him not as a sacrifice but by selfish reasons. For instance, you can help someone you love because helping him to achieve his own self potential contributes with your help.

[@mirabileamavi]

@1RationalMind eh, 'x' is x for y. 'q' is q for p. doesn't make sense to me.

[@greghorvay]

@asdfgasdfasdful For something to be a value, it must be both WANT by you and FACTUALLY good for you. It requires both. If I want to cut my arm off, that doesn't make the act a value to me yet. If my arm is stuck in a rock and I'm alone, then it might be a value to me. So it is neither subjective nor intrinsic, but objective. If you knew Ayn Rand, you would know that she clearly was NOT an Nihilist and often had very strong values and emotions.

[@nurbSoldier]

uh, no, it's called "starting with the basics" kinda like when arguing with creationists or flat earthers

[@teamcrumb]

@eitatrembom thats a really bad way of putting it. you can do for others because you don't want every one else living in a miserable ditch, because you want a society about you that is healthy and happy. also you can do for others quite easily without 'sacrificing' a single thing, and its not always for the sense of 'accruing virtue' that you are seeking it could be that your joy arises from others joy.yes this act can be of the self, its not that it has to be justified and perceived as selfish

[@Johannes999999999]

The philosophy of ethics describes what humans ought to do, not what we do or want to do. Humans are imperfect beings, thus we are inclined to act imperfectly. The ethics that arise from our behavior, which Ayn Rand largely wants us to follow (pursuing one’s one desires and being selfish) is the ethical philosophy we imperfect beings tend to follow.

[@ianmacewan6069]

Anyone who lies, cheats, and steals is hardly an Objectivist, and if you've read Rand you'd know that.

[@slybuster]

You'll find that the trait you mention is common and necessary among Randians. OBJ has its roots in a failed cult (these roots are still very visible). Google Rothbard's "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult" and do some personal research into the split between ARI & TAS. Rand's essays are entertaining reads--however, I'd stop short of declaring a Cold War pop-culture pulp-fiction novelist the be-all-end-all authority on what constitutes reason and ethics. She's L Ron w/out the celebrities lol.

[@greghorvay]

@asdfgasdfasdful Labels we use for words are in a large part subject, but not the meaning. If I said this (holding a cup) is an elephant (that thing in reality with four legs and weighs tons), it wouldn't make it true. Truthfulness is a relationship between a concept and it's percepts, or in other words, between ideas and if it's based on facts. Morality is not subjective or intrinsic. While we each have values that could relate to just us, just wanting something doesn't make it a value(cont)

[@TEHSMISH]

Well said :)

[@Coremungus]

Interesting how you crowned yourself superior... while using nothing more than vulgar language and destructive intent to an incredibly engaging intellect.

[@norcofreerider604]

Not really interested. I've already thrown in with the Anarcho-Capitalist/Libertarian lot... I just don't dismiss her theory without comprehensively studying it.

[@cushnut81]

I much prefer J S Mill.

[@garrywarne1]

*Shiver*

[@greghorvay]

@horvay I've been responding*

[@TheGreatDeciever55]

ahahahaaa the soul doesn't exist within her philosophy.... so the fact you just said that it evolved your soul means you haven't adopted her philosophy 100 percent---not even close. major fail

[@mikefavre35]

"...which is not blindness, but the refusal to see...which is not ignorance, but the refusal to know." this is where these philosophies utterly collapse into failure. capitalism has always assumed a sort of infinite potential of individuals which simply does not exist. freedom of the individual to determine purpose and personal logic is the most destructive idea imaginable. it redistributes all concerns to the self and one's personal endeavors instead of realizing that there is no "ego" at all.

[@Coremungus]

What the hell are you talking about? WHAT REPUBLICAN SUBSCRIBES GREED AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER PEOPLE?!?! SPECIFICALLY!!! Mindless dribble!

[@Silvsilvchan]

Exactly, which is the bare most basic libertarian principal. I don't accept drug use. I think it is abhorrent and stupid. I think you should wear your seat belt, be charitable (Rand and I disagree here), and not be a rude ass. But what I think is right and what should be made into law are not always the same things.

[@HarroldSmith-sk2oh]

Where has Rand ever said to not be charitable? She says not to self-sacrifice or allow yourself to be used as a sacrifice by being robbed by government. There is a vast difference between helping a person who is trying to improve themselves and being an enabler that gives government permission to rob from producers to fund those who are nothing more than beggars with their hands grabbing at money.

[@Kemenesfalvi]

Hi! I don't realy understand some things, maybe someone could explane to me: 1. objectivism says that perception is direct contact with "reality" but science tells us that lot of things in "reality" are diffrent from how we percept them (time and space in Einstein's relativity theory) 2.Values come from "racional thinking"? Does that mean if I think it through I can do anything, or she supposes that everyone would arrive at the same conclusion?

[@PoLanka65]

1. There's no contradiction here. All Ayn Rand says is that if you perceive something by your senses then you percieve it as SOMETHING real. She never says that senses give you automatic objective knowledge of WHAT that something is in reality. So if your senses perceive something, then you know that something is REAL to you, but you still don't know it's objective identity, you can only discover it by reason. 2. No, values come from your choices. That what you choose to obtain or keep is what you value regardless of how much think you put through it. But the only real choice you can make is to think or not, the rest determines itself in your mind by your understanding of causality, so it's not like you can do anything. She does not say that everyone will arrive to the same conclusions, she just says that the process by which we validate our conclusions is the same, and that it is a gradual process oriented towards reality as an object that exists regardless of the process itself. So whether we reach to the same ideas depends on what we focus on, and how much we focus on it.

[@nurbSoldier]

which she paid for with taxes oh, so sorry

[@slybuster]

I've read a few short papers Nozick wrote on Epistemology (they were interesting) and a few excerpts of him speaking about Rand (he gives her too much respect lol). Rand is useful in a counter-intuitive way (i.e. a dose of the mindset of certain fringe elements of the Right, understanding of cultish ideology vs. actual philosophy, & the history of it is interesting). People who actually think that the epitome of philosophical understanding is in a Cold War era pulp fiction novel deserve mocking.

[@StopFear]

@coconutMoral Hey I agree with you. If someone wants to be selfish or something like that, why do you need a "philosophy book" to justify it? Then all these fresh out of high school kids read her book and think they've become intellectual all of a sudden.

[@aynrand78]

You're welcome.

[@StopFear]

all I have to say is "lol" at people who analyze what is "good" or "bad" using Ayn Rand. If someone needs help or asks you for something, even ask you for an opinion, are you going to quote Ayn Rand to them to justify your helping and ignoring them? I dont think so! That said, I admit that Ayn Rand had a sad life and I wish someone could have helped her and her family when she suffered from the bolsheviks in Russia

[@Sivels]

@asdfgasdfasdful Yeah maybe, she was also very intolerant. But that doesn't make her philosophy erroneous.

[@polymath7]

I haven't. I've read (skimmed, actually) some of Nozick's critiques; but really, Rand (as I'm fond of saying) is not even worthy of being ignored.

[@boundsy65]

i have recently become aware of rands philosophies, and i do agree with some of her thinking, but i think the republicans and conservatives have taken her writings to far, greed at the expense of other peoples lives and lively hoods ie making huge profits whilst employing near slave wages is awful etc

[@HarroldSmith-sk2oh]

If not for the thinking men & women who create the companies to produce the products , what would all those job fillers be doing to sustain themselves? ||| What happens to rent costs when the Welfare State starts paying for more non-workers rents in an area? The 'near slave wages' are the result of government interference in the economy that PAYS the non-producer ever increasing (COLI) benefits at taxpayers expense.

[@Kemenesfalvi]

Thank you for the advice. I've found some videos where he's talking about quantummechanics and relativity. I'm sorry to say this but it seems to me that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

[@PabloAlvestegui]

He? LMFAO

[@slybuster]

Interesting that you can't tell the difference between deciding upon a superior idea, one reasoned out via logic and instigation, and a shallow internalization of ideology. More interesting, in your eyes it is I myself who somehow becomes the petty egotistical destruct-or--makes sense seeing as you're buying into a cult lol...

[@SatchmoSings]

She went to her grave with that 1920s "Flapper" hairdo; she should have gotten a makeover at some point.

[@slybuster]

Too bad that in taking the time to adopt her philosophy you apparently sacrificed the time needed to learn basic grammar.

[@slybuster]

Haha, nice... I always enjoy it when I criticize Randianism and am met with emotive reactions and non sequitur accusations such as 'Statist!...Looter!...Unthinking product of a corrupted educational system...[and even the much dreaded] Social Democrat!" Haha, these people are fucking jokes.

[@polymath7]

"When a man of true genius appears the the world, you shall know him by this infallible sign: the dunces are in confederacy against him" -Johnathan Swift That quote is inversely apposite. Rand was not a man, not a genius, and it is certainly not the dunces who are in confederacy against her.

[@EyeLean5280]

You may be happy but I know if I were the child of a Randian, I would be completely miserable.

[@Coremungus]

Weak argument!

[@Coremungus]

Whatever.

[@polymath7]

*chortle* The day I sustain such severe lead poisoning, meningitis, or head trauma as to render me only as intelligent as Ayn Rand is the day I truly cease to be "horrible" by putting a definitive stop to my neuronal activity altogether. To my eye, even in the luster her pre-haggish youth she's roughly as sexy as my great aunt Unis, and I'm afraid without a wit and charm greatly surpassing hers, she'd better have the mental ability to bend spoons like Uri Gellar, if you know what I mean.

[@polymath7]

I. I don't even own a television, and I have read more books and journal articles than you have street signs. It is the height of irony that you should accuse me of intellectual or attentional shallowness on behalf of a woman real philosophers don't even bother to ignore, who bastardized Kant, Nietzsche and Aristotle with comically jejune incompetence, and whose present defender I would unhesitatingly bet my life has not read Hayek, Nozik, Quine, Nietzche, nor indeed has even the sketchiest...

[@fzqlcs]

people who analyze good and bad, using Ayn Rand, are using Aristotle's law of identity. because she holds reason as an absolute, all believers in the irrational, particularly believers in the mystical, find her threatening. why? reason (knowledge based on evidence) is the archenemy of faith (a belief in that for which evidence does not exist). one does not have to justify helping or not helping another individual. that is a simple choice.

[@greghorvay]

@asdfgasdfasdful And if you tell me that the need for food is a social convention, then you are way to crazy to respond to anyways.

[@Nobody-j9e]

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand

[@fab006]

@Johannes999999999 And that frame of reference - what could it be, other than reality, i.e. the world around us and our own human nature? If you accept that notion, you will get an objective code of morality.

[@budoraclenomoreharper]

Sometimes the message is much more powerful than the messenger.

[@Silvsilvchan]

@GlobalAlternateMedia Fair enough but I don't think you can pin that on every alturist. Some people give money out of pity (doormats) or love (also doormats).

[@waksibra]

I find it hard to follow her reasoning.

[@weichen1369]

八

[@EyeLean5280]

Yes, I can picture Randians who are not sociopaths. But I believe a certain amount of personality is inborn and I still would not fit in with such a family, so yeah, I'd still be unhappy. Not sure which mud-slinging/ad hominems your'e referring to but I am sure that such comments do not always come from weak minds. Sometimes, it's just a weak moment.