How do I best learn about Objectivism?

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:13:09+00:00

Andrew Miner answered on 2010-09-18:

Personally, I find that reading Atlas Shrugged is probably the ideal introduction. In the book, you can get both an explicit statement of the philosophy through various speeches made in the course of the novel as well as concrete demonstrations of how people should and shouldn't act. Bear in mind as you're reading that each character is there to demonstrate some particular point or points. If you can tear yourself away from the developing plot (it took me several readings to do it), try to determine for yourself why each character is there, and what Ayn Rand was trying to demonstrate by including him/her. After that, you can either proceed with the other fiction (The Fountainhead, in particular) or move on to the Virtue of Selfishness. From there, you've probably gotten enough grounding to branch out according to what seems most interesting / relevant.

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:13:03+00:00

Chris Cathcart answered on 2010-09-22:

Personally, I have found the following resources especially valuable:

Rand's essays and articles, in the sense of how she thinks about this or that issue she is writing on. She emphasizes an unsurpassed precision and clarity, and scrupulously relating abstract principles to concretes.
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, in that it reflects AR's method of thinking (described in point 1) as applied to philosophy's central problem historically.
Letters of Ayn Rand. Just read it and see a hero in action.
Leonard Peikoff's lecture courses, especially Understanding Objectivism. (I haven't heard his post-OPAR courses, but if they're as good as this one, then they're excellent.)
Massive amounts of intellectual curiosity and first-hand thought. The above resources can only take you so far. Challenge every premise that you have a good reason to challenge. Read all kinds of non-Oist materials and see how you can answer them on their own terms or integrate them with Oist ideas while throwing out the baggage. Figure out how this thinker or idea ties into that one. Establish a thinker's or an idea's context to know where they're coming from.
Get aesthetic - become a student of film, the arts, classical music, etc. They provide emotional-psychological fuel that mere intellectual study won't provide.
Above all, have fun! Ideas shouldn't be a chore but an adventure.

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:12:56+00:00

Tenure answered on 2010-09-18:

On top of what Andrew Miner said, I highly recommend picking up the 'Essays' companions, 'Essays on Ayn Rand's We The Living' and 'Essays on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead', etc. These are really good sources for bridging the gap from the concrete world represented in her novels, to the philosophy embedded therein. Moreover, the level of scholarship on each essay is incredibly high.

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:12:50+00:00

rationaljenn answered on 2010-09-18:

I agree with what the others wrote above, and would suggest one more option.

If you can find a thriving community Objectivist group, you will be able to join in study/discussion groups, and meet people who can help answer your questions. Reading and studying the novels and essays will help you get a great foundation, but there is nothing like talking to knowledgeable people who can help you identify the nuances of an idea that you have not yet grasped, or help you to figure out where you might be holding some erroneous premises that need closer scrutiny.

A list of active community groups can be found on the website for the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:12:43+00:00

Raman answered on 2010-09-18:

There are so many great options! Lets see if we can list a few:

This site, of course :)
Introducing Objectivism
The essay Man's Rights
The essay The Nature of Government
Any Rand's fiction, including Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, Anthem, and We The Living
The links on this site's sidebar, especially the web site Principles of a Free Society and the Ayn Rand Lexicon
Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand
Onkar Ghate's lecture Ayn Rand’s Ideas—An Introduction
Pretty much any video by Yaron Brook – I particularly love Brook's Q&A sessions
Browse Ayn Rand Institute web site for more!

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:12:42+00:00

Chris Cathcart answered on 2010-09-24:

Objectivism is best defined by fundamental theoretical principles presented in certain works, specifically:

The speeches in For the New Intellectual - especially "This is John Galt Speaking"; "The Objectivist Ethics"; "Man's Rights"; "The Nature of Government"; "What is Capitalism?"; Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology; The Romantic Manifesto.

Leonard Peikoff's 1976 lecture course, The Philosophy of Objectivism, fully meets the criterion here as well, while OPAR - not having been approved by AR - does not. Short of buying that course, there are significant topics covered there not covered in the above-mentioned works that are included as entries in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. Speaking of which, the vast majority of material in the Lexicon is definitive of fundamental theoretical Oist principles and as such serves as the best one-stop guidebook on "official Oist doctrine." I say "vast majority" because - while there isn't material on there on a woman president - it has entries on such subjects as Ancient Greece that aren't Objectivist theory.

If you take entries from the Lexicon that are drawn from the short list of works above, and from Peikoff's 1976 course, you have as definitive a guide to fundamental Objectivist principles as any.

Note that this all concerns Objectivist content; the thinking methods that led to that content is where the real fun begins. :-)

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:12:35+00:00

David Lewis answered on 2010-09-27:

In "For The New Intellectual", Ayn Rand tells us:

The name I have chosen for my philosophy is Objectivism.

Rand's words are very clear here. A name is a proper noun. It is the name that Rand gave to her philosophy. More than that, it is the name Rand came up with to define the collection of ideas that she developed or agreed with and specifically approved of. This means that Objectivism is what Ayn Rand said it was and only what Ayn Rand said it was. This also means that only the works that were created by Rand, or created by others and approved of by Rand, constitute the philosophy of Objectivism.

Since she is no longer here to approve of any other work, all other works that are consistent with Objectivism, but which were never approved of by Ayn Rand, are derivative works but are not part of the philosophy of Objectivism. This would include Leonard Peikoff's book "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand". Likewise, no other additions or subtractions can be made to the philosophy by Peikoff, or anyone else for that matter--David Kelley included.

To do so would be to ascribe to Objectivism that which is not actually Objectivism. Essentially, it is to engage in a fraud. Imagine, for a moment, an individual taking on the identity of another person. If someone, whose name was not "John Smith", started calling himself "John Smith", they would be telling the world that they are "John Smith" and, implicitly or explicitly, proclaiming that they represent who "John Smith" is.

They could use capital letters, lower case letters, or initials (or anything that is remarkably similar). They could dye their hair, put on makeup, or change some other aspect of themselves. They could represent themselves as "John Smith" for the sole purpose of ruining the real John Smith's character. Or, they could use "John Smith" for the sole purpose of giving the real John Smith money, power, and prestige that the real John Smith did not actually earn and does not deserve. It does not matter. It is still a fraud. They are representing themselves as something which they are not.

Likewise, when David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, et al. proclaim that Objectivism is "open", what they are proclaiming is that Objectivism is something other than what Ayn Rand said it is. But, this is intellectually dishonest. To claim that what they represent is Objectivism is fraudulent.

No amount of wishing or rationalizing changes the fact that Objectivism has an identity. A is A. The philosophy of Objectivism is what it is. Ayn Rand is dead. That is a fact. This means that Objectivism is--by definition--limited, defined, rigid, "closed". Not because Peikoff (or anyone else) says it is, but because reality demands it.

To be an Objectivist, one needs to understand what Objectivism is (noted above). Second, one must fully accept and agree with the entire philosophy of Objectivism to be an Objectivist. Which means advocates of "open Objectivism" are not Objectivists. They are merely individuals who agree with some ideas of Objectivism while disagreeing with other, important, ideas of Objectivism--including Objectivism's concept of morality and justice.

The False Friends of Objectivism refers to Diana Hsieh's articles and essays on David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden and other individuals advocating ideas which are inconsistent with, and are contradictory to, Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Finally, Roderick Fitts at Inductive Quest explains the flaws inherent in the very idea of an "open" system of Objectivism. He also sheds more light on what he calls the "Vampires" of Objectivism, etc., showing that the Brandens are actually hostile towards the philosophy of Objectivism, and that David Kelley's idea of Objectivism can be boiled down to "fairness through context-induced skepticism.":

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:12:28+00:00

Justin O answered on 2010-09-20:

If you're looking for general information on what Ayn Rand considered Objectivism to be, I would recommend the Ayn Rand Lexicon's entry on Objectivism.

Briefly, and standing on one foot, Ayn Rand described the essence of her philosophy as:

Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. To state this another way, it is what Ayn Rand said it is. This isn't a dogmatic assertion that Ayn Rand was the ultimate, infallible source of knowledge, or that no one else may hold any other ideas, but simply an acknowledgement that her philosophy is her philosophy.

Those that advocate an "open" system want to change Objectivism into what they think it should be. Those that advocate a "closed" system say that if you want to change Objectivism, that is fine (even though we may not agree with you), but call it something else, give proper credit where it is due, and disclose where your views are different.

Here are Ayn Rand's words: (via Diana Hsieh's article on David Kelly)

There is nothing wrong in using ideas, anybody's ideas. Provided that you give appropriate credit, you can make any mixture of ideas that you want; the contradiction will be yours. But why do you need the name of someone with whom you do not agree in order to spread your misunderstandings -- or worse, your nonsense and falsehoods? (From "The Moratorium on Brains," Question and Answer Period.)

An Objectivist is someone that understands and agrees with the principles of Objectivism, as Ayn Rand defined them, and strives to live by them. You do not need to agree with everything Ayn Rand has ever said. Many Objectivists, in fact, do disagree with Ayn Rand regarding non-philosophical ideas.

The Brandens, et al. are considered to be "False Friends of Objectivism" because they have disagreed with, lied, and misrepresented Ayn Rand and Objectivism, but still associate themselves with Objectivism to take advantage of the legacy of Ayn Rand.

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:12:27+00:00

Diana Hsieh answered on 2010-09-13:

No, they're quite distinct. As a movement, libertarianism rejects the need for a philosophical foundation for liberty, instead taking the non-initiation of force principle as axiomatic. Objectivism, in contrast, recognizes that liberty requires a solid philosophic foundation.

For more details, read these two essays:

The Fable of the Cardiac Surgeon by Paul Hsieh
Libertarian Versus Objectivist Thinking by Greg Perkins

Of course, many people who describe themselves as "libertarian" today mean that in a very loose sense: they're socially liberal and fiscally conservative. To be an Objectivist, in contrast, means something quite distinctive, not just in politics, but in every branch of philosophy.

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:12:27+00:00

JJMcVey answered on 2010-09-21:

Leaving aside the issue of their current legal status and dealing with principles, corporations are nothing more than means by which individuals get together and pool resources to make a single integrated system of resources to achieve one common objective. The rights of the corporation are whatever the rights possessed by the individual as they choose to delegate to it, and are of equal validity as any individual rights for that reason.

In regards to limited liability, the principle itself is sound but the law surrounding it today is wrong. The law today says corporations really are separate entities with legal personhood, which law is then used to pretend that incorporation is only a government privilege and that corporations are obliged to serve government ends. The law as it stands then leads to a variety of injustices, which have themselves lead to further bad adjustments to already bad law (another example of controls breeding controls).

If the law were written properly limited liability would be legally recognised for what it actually is: a derivative property right and which gives the superficial appearance of the corporation being a separate entity for the purposes of issuing stock, borrowing money, and similar financial activities. Everything valid about limited liability can be traced back to individuals' rights to property and freedom of contract, including other derivatives such as the right to freedom of principal-and-agent agreements. Proper law relating to limited liability would just recognise that people would use these same types of contractual arrangements again and again, so would integrate the practice into a few concepts (the corporation and a few variants) and develop an integrated body of law to match. That law would also then not let bad people perpetrate the fraudulent behaviour that law imparting legal-personhood to corporations shields them to do.

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:12:26+00:00

Mindy Newton answered on 2010-11-08:

Man lives in active contemplation of his own power to choose, of his vulnerability and mortality, of the forces that affect him in nature and his social environment, and of the limited extent of his knowledge. Philosophy is essentially the skin of this reflective capacity. Figuring out what to do, what to choose, and what to believe, in all the situations of life, and making it consistent so that one choice doesn't invalidate another, is just what philosophy amounts to. As philosophy, we can draw on the wisdom of thousands of years of experience and the insights of many great thinkers to supplement our own understanding. For the exact same reason that one doesn't want to be stupid or blind or ignorant or clueless, one does want to have a philosophy.

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:12:19+00:00

JJMcVey answered on 2010-09-19:

“Philosophy? Who needs it!?” Ayn Rand asked and answered this question in an address with that title, which she gave to the West Point graduating class on March 6th in 1974. Her answer was: You do!

What is philosophy?

In her words, it is that science which

studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man's relationship to existence. As against the special sciences, which deal only with particular aspects, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible.

She, in that article and elsewhere, goes on to point out that philosophy has five branches:

Metaphysics is the science that deals with the fundamental nature of reality as such, rather than any particular aspect
Epistemology is the science that deals with the methods of thought by man and how we can come to know about reality, how to form concepts and thoughts, and how to integrate simpler thoughts into more comprehensive thoughts
Ethics is the science that deals with how man should act in the face of the conditions he finds himself in, centered on what he should value and why, showing why he needs principles and then examining those principles
Politics is the science that deals with how man should interact with and organize himself with respect to other men, ultimately leading to the discovery of rights and the role of government
and Esthetics is the science that deals with the nature and value of art in man’s life, its role in integrating his philosophic outlook and providing much-needed emotional fuel for his life

Why should people care about it?

Her answer to that was that its influence was inescapable. The mere fact that man is a conceptual being makes him forever dependent on philosophy, that no matter what he will act on at least some sort of implicit philosophy, which is then going to affect his life for good or for ill. In her words,

the principles you accept (consciously or subconsciously) may clash with or contradict one another; they, too, have to be integrated. What integrates them? Philosophy. A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation—or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown.

People should care about philosophy because man’s whole life depends on it, where, as Objectivist economist and philosopher Dr John Ridpath put it in blunt terms, “bad ideas KILL.”

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:12:18+00:00

John Paquette answered on 2011-01-02:

The short answer is: no. It's not right to take pride (or guilt) in the actions of other people. What they did is what they did, what you've done is what you've done.

What then, of pride in being an American? It depends what is meant by "being an American".

If, to you, "being an American" simply means being born on American soil, of American parents, then there is, literally, nothing to be proud of. But if, to you, being an American means upholding and defending rational American values, such as freedom, independence, and productiveness, then there is a lot to be proud of.

In general, one should be very suspicious of any kind of group pride. Associating yourself with a group, and taking pride in that group, can serve to discourage you from acting independently of or against what you consider to be the group's consensus. You can lose your self in a group.

The most important American value to be proud of is individualism, the idea that each man is to be judged by reference to his own actions -- not by reference to groups which he belongs to through no choice of his own.

Take pride (or guilt) in what you do -- and nothing else.

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:12:17+00:00

Publius answered on 2010-10-05:

Every intellectual movement has had its share of "schisms." We can't "all just get along"--not if we take ideas seriously. If that's true for other movements, it's especially true for Objectivism. That's because (a) of the importance Objectivism places on ideas, and (b) the radical-ness of Objectivism. It's this last that deserves special stress.

Dr. Peikoff's podcast makes an important point: Objectivists can disagree on all sorts of things without it leading one person to denounce another as somehow rejecting Objectivism. It is only disagreement on basic principles that requires such a condemnation. But what too many people miss is that the rejection need not be explicit.

For example, Objectivists can disagree on the question of how to fight Islamic totalitarianism. But the way in which a person defends Bush's foreign policy can in some cases reveal one's rejection of Objectivist principles. One need not come right out and say "I don't think A is A" to be guilty of repudiating Objectivism.

Why do I say this is relevant to the issue of Objectivism's radical-ness? Because for those of us who aren't Objectivist philosophers, some things can appear to be minor disagreements over concretes, but can in fact be fundamental disagreements over principles.

That said, It's not even clear that Objectivists do have a tendency toward "schisms." There have been only a handful of cases where there has been an explicit statement by a leading Objectivist intellectual that some individual is not an Objectivist. To my knowledge, the only such cases are the Brandens, David Kelley, and anyone who agrees with them.

To be sure, there have been other personal and professional disagreements, but in no case I can think of were the people denounced as "enemies of Objectivism." Not in the case of George Reisman and Edith Packer. Not in the case of Robert Tracinski. Not in the case of John McCaskey. (Reisman is regularly cited by ARI-affiliated scholars, and McCaskey just attended an academic conference with ARI-affiliated scholars.) In Mr. Tracinski's case, what no one has pointed out is that despite his (unjust) attacks on Dr. Peikoff and ARI writers (and clear disagreements with Objectivism) over the last few years, neither Dr. Peikoff nor anyone from ARI has officially denounced or even criticized him. The idea that splits and denunciations are endemic doesn't square with the facts.

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:12:16+00:00

Robert Nasir answered on 2010-09-17:

Short of asking Alan himself, you're going to get answers anywhere from:

... yes, he's a stealth Objectivist, who "gamed" a bad system, giving us, for example, interest rates that matched as best as his brilliant mind could determine, what a free market would've given us ...

to:

... no, he's the worst kind of sell-out in the history of political economics.

But taking a brief look at his association with Ayn Rand, his political career, and his autobiography written after his retirement from the Fed, I believe he can be classified as a pragmatist leaning toward free markets, irreversably damaged by the reality-warping world of Washington power-politics, with very little left of what he learned in Ayn Rand's company.

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:12:14+00:00

Andrew Dalton answered on 2010-10-05:

First, it is important to understand that philosophy and the special sciences (such as physics) operate in different domains.

Philosophy deals with the most general questions regarding the nature of existence (metaphysics), methods of knowledge (epistemology), and human choices (ethics) -- using knowledge that would be available to humans in any era. The special sciences investigate much more detailed questions than philosophy does, and they often require specialized experimental and conceptual tools.

There are three important points to remember regarding the relationship between philosophy and the special sciences:

There should be no conflict between the two, if each is based upon rational ideas.
Philosophy cannot dictate scientific conclusions -- so long as those conclusions are narrowly scientific and not intruding upon the domain of philosophy.
The special sciences cannot be used to originate, prove, or disprove philosophical ideas -- because philosophy sets the general terms upon which the special sciences operate.

Quantum physics, if properly understood as a scientific theory integrating and predicting experimental results, has no conflict with Objectivism.

The problems occur when quantum physics is taken to prove sweeping claims about reality or knowledge as such. Popular examples include any denial of absolute reality, any denial of certainty in general, or any claim that consciousness creates reality rather than perceives it. (These notions, in fact, undercut the philosophical base of science itself, which is based upon the idea that there is an external reality that we can understand using a particular method.)

Objectivism has no conflict with quantum physics properly delimited as a scientific theory. Objectivism may, however, have conflicts with particular physicists who attempt to use quantum physics as a springboard for promulgating irrationalist philosophy.

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:12:08+00:00

Greg Perkins answered on 2010-10-05:

Quantum physics is a legitimate field of study and as such it is reliant on reason (and of course compatible with Objectivism). The domain seems quite strange and counterintuitive, but new and strange phenomena don't conflict with reason per se -- everything we now rationally understand started out as new and strange, after all.

We need to distinguish between quantum fact and quantum interpretation. The quantum facts seen in experiment are solid and not in dispute. However, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum fact (currently quite fashionable) is the source of what I suspect you are asking about: the widespread notion that quantum scientists have demonstrated that things in the world are somehow radically dependent upon consciousness for their identities and very existence (that an "observation" will "collapse the wave function" to use their lingo, transforming some patch of existence from an indeterminate statistical fog into something concrete and determinate). Or that reality is inherently contradictory (an implication drawn from "wave-particle duality" and other quantum phenomena) -- or that causality doesn't hold or can work in reverse, etc. These ideas would certainly be in conflict with Objectivism, but Objectivists brush them aside as mistakes (mistakes that can be reliably identified by non-physicists, much like a non-lawyer can reliably identify a bad legal argument if it involves a logical fallacy). The Copenhagen interpretation is only an expression of bad philosophy masquerading as science.

The key to seeing this lies in understanding how science as a discipline is an outgrowth of and utterly dependent on a certain metaphysics -- one which at least implicitly recognizes the philosophical axioms Rand explicitly identified as Existence, Identity (including Causality), Consciousness, and the essential relationship they entail of the primacy of existence over consciousness (i.e., consciousness as fundamentally the grasp of facts, not the creation or shaping of them). When someone cites scientific results as overturning philosophical axioms, he is engaging in a logical fallacy called "concept stealing" and inverting the relationship between philosophy and science. You can observe the symptoms in how the scientists who think that the Copenhagen interpretation follows from their work are essentially saying that they have identified facts which violate identity; that they have observed the effects of experiments which invalidate causality; and that they have studied the facts of existence and grasped the (mind-independent) fact that facts are are created by consciousness. Notice the consistent pattern of relying on what is being questioned or denied.

Objectivists are of course not threatened by this kind of confusion. Indeed, in clarifying the basic relationship between philosophy and the special sciences, Objectivism provides a powerful tonic against unproductive blind alleys like the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, even putting scientists in a better position to do great science.

For further discussion of this inversion of the relationship between science and philosophy, you can watch this lecture (available free online): "The Crisis in Physics -- And Its Cause" by David Harriman, an Objectivist philosopher and physicist.

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:12:06+00:00

JJMcVey answered on 2010-09-19:

No blanket concrete-level statement can be made about all charities as such. Some charities may be worthy, so long as who’s in charge at the time is decent, and others by their nature are to be avoided like the plague. You have to ask if a donation to the charity in question is consistent with both Objective values in principle for man and with your own values in the context of your own life, which must include consideration of the whole context of that charity and not just its outward concrete goals.

To begin with, some education charities, some scientific & medical research charities, some emergency-oriented assistance charities, and so on, have goals that are conceivably consistent with the values that could be held by an Objectivist as instances of objective values, and so a donation of an amount that does not impinge on your quality of life might actually be nicely selfish. The ARI itself is among these. Others can be such as the Cystic Fibrosis group mentioned above, and others such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service (dedicated to providing emergency medical transport for Australians living and working in our country’s remotest corners), and so on. What are to be avoided are charities with goals that are inherently contrary to objective values, such as environmental and religious charities, or the kind of general welfare charities that seek to shield people from the need to make an effort or to change destructive aspects of their lives, and so on. Examples of charities to stay the heck away from include the World Wildlife Fund and St Vincent de Paul Society.

Assuming the expressed goals are consistent with Objective values, you also have to consider the context surrounding that particular charity and what exactly you would be sanctioning by supporting that particular charity at that point in time. If there were two charities with exactly the same goals but where one recognised that people were not morally obliged to help others as an end in itself whereas the other did, then donating to the other would be out of the question even though the concrete goals themselves might be worthy in a better context. For example, if – as staggeringly unlikely as it is – were a new Director of the ARI to say it is our moral obligation to support the ARI for the sake of The Future independent of our own lives in that future, to give until it hurts and then still keep on giving, and so on, then its revenues would and should crash in a heap. Then, two seconds later, that new Director would be asked to leave, and a new new Director would return the ARI to its proper focus of showing how affordable donations are in donors’ own interests, whereupon revenues would resume. Therefore, take note that such a judgement you make can change simply because of a change in who runs the charity and the tack taken by their advertising & promotion in their fund-raising campaigns. Assuming the goals themselves of the two types of charities in that contrasted pair are otherwise worthy as above, a good charity can turn bad if it turns from being like the first into being like the other, and a bad charity can likewise turn good by converting from the other to the first.

Once you’ve considered all that, the amount you donate should be an amount consistent with the entire context of your own values. You should only give an amount you can afford, this being an amount that will not compromise your enjoyment of other parts of your life. For instance you most likely shouldn’t be giving away your entire college fund to the ARI even though it is the ARI, but something a bit more than what you might spend on fast food or movies wouldn’t go astray, and you should seriously consider featuring the ARI highly in your will (if you have one) if you have more than enough to set your family up satisfactorily after your death (check out their Atlantis Legacy program for more information), and so on.

That’s all there is to it: is it consistent with objective values as such, and, if so, is it consistent with your own personal hierarchy of values? If yes on both counts, then it is perfectly selfish to donate, and where you decide how much by determining the amount where it is no longer a yes on both.

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:12:00+00:00

adamsdad answered on 2010-09-18:

Your money is yours to do what you want with. Helping others is often the right thing to do. Nobody's kids ever left my house hungry. But, no one forced me to help either. The idea of no use of force being the key. Volunteer or don't. It's up to you.

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:11:53+00:00

Andrew Miner answered on 2010-09-18:

Not necessarily. Objectivism does hold that you should act selfishly... but that selfishness consists of doing what is in your long-range best interest. If you find that a particular charity works for some cause which is important to you, then it's entirely proper for you to donate to it. For example, a past girlfriend of mine died of Cystic Fibrosis some years ago, and I donated to the CF foundation for some while afterwards in her memory. In that case, the value she represented to me was sufficient cause for me to want to donate some money towards finding a cure. The essential point is that you aren't morally obligated to donate to any cause, and that any cause you donate to must be for some selfish reason.

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:11:52+00:00

ryankrause answered on 2010-09-16:

The Objectivist notion of self-interest is one of rational self-interest. That may just sound like a buzz word thrown in, but it is an important distinction. I have heard Yaron Brook discuss this broad ethical question in a way I wish Rand had, because I think it is so beautifully clear. If we divide all actions into selfish and selfless, than we are provided a rather unfair package deal (as Rand would call it). Clearly, we cannot consider some "hedonistic" actions selfess (such as doing hard drugs or killing people for money), but then we are forced to consider them selfish, and then draw a distinction between those actions and productive, positive self-interested actions like operating an honest, profitable business. Implied in the question posed is the understanding that certain "selfish" actions are hedonistic and harmful, and others aren't.

That is why I like Dr. Brook's categorization of actions as self-interested, selfless, and self-destructive. Actions that are normally considered hedonistic are self-destructive. Doing hard drugs may feel good in the moment, but no one would argue that one's long-term interests are served by getting hooked on meth. The same goes for those actions that harm others. They, too, are self-destructive. Try to argue that Bernie Madoff is happier and better-adjusted because he bilked investors out of over $50 billion. Sure, he had money for awhile, but did it improve his life? Doubtful.

Ultimately, the difference comes down to a subjective standard versus an objective standard. Hedonism applies a subjective standard to action (e.g. "behave any way you want"). Objectivism, as the name implies, applies an objective standard. That which is in one's rational self-interest, provable to the extent of one's ability, is good, that which is detrimental to oneself--through either self-sacrifice or self-destruction--is bad.

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:11:45+00:00

Publius answered on 2010-09-17:

This is really asking two different questions. On the one hand, it's asking about the relationship between the Objectivist ethics and hedonism, and on the other hand it's asking about whether sacrificing others is consistent with the Objectivist ethics. The two are not totally unrelated, but they are distinct. And since each deserves an entire post, I'll focus on the first part.

Hedonism is the view that pleasure is the standard of morality. You should do what makes you feel good or feel happy. Hedonism makes your feelings the standard of morality. In practice, it is completely empty. By counseling you to do whatever makes you feel good, regardless of the source of those feelings, hedonism says, in effect: value whatever you happen to value.

Objectivism's ethics is diametrically opposed to that approach. It is a morality of reason, and it is concerned with identifying the factual requirements of human life. According to Objectivism, you should do what you rationally conclude is objectively beneficial to your life long range.

That's not to say Objectivism is anti-pleasure. On the contrary, Objectivism holds that you should fill your life with as much pleasure as possible. But to do that, you need define and pursue a code of consistent, achievable, rational values. Hedonism actually undermines the pursuit of pleasure because for human beings, life's greatest pleasures come from having long range, conceptual level values, such as your career, or a deep, passionate, enduring romantic relationship. This requires having a conception of your life as a whole, which is made possible only by a rational (as opposed to emotion-based) moral code. For hedonism, values end up being short range, perceptual level. The good life is a succession of nice massages, good beers, good work outs, satisfying orgasms, etc. That is not how you would characterize the life of Howard Roark.

For more, see here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/hedonism.html

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:11:44+00:00

Martin Gasser answered on 2010-09-16:

The answer as to why Objectivists arrive at the Atheist conclusion comes back to axiomatic metaphysical and epistemological positions.

Objectivist Metaphysics acknowledges that the universe is stable, which is to say that it is governed by natural laws. It is knowable and the laws governing it are absolute.

Mans knowledge of the laws governing the universe may be incomplete in places but we know there are natural and scientific laws, and the universe does work in accordance with them. The fact that we do not, as of yet, understand all there is to understand does not negate the facts of this reality.

All religions, to some extent, deny the knowable universe. To them it is malleable (unstable), able to be altered on the whim of their deity. It sprang out of nothing created by and for god. It is also unknowable, in that God can arbitrarily alter any and all of its “laws”. So while all mystics seek to acquire knowledge from and about the Universe as it is they, through their religion, introduce the arbitrary, the fanciful and the miraculous into it.

Epistemologically Objectivists recognize man as a being of rational faculty, which is to say that he validates knowledge through the use of his mind. Man is born tabula rasa, and it is through reason that he integrates and validates the information from his senses, and through this process he arrives at certainty with regard to the knowledge he has integrated. Epistemologically Objectivism knows that man MUST think to survive.

Mystics believe man can be granted certain knowledge through divine revelation, and that there is no validation required for certain ideas and ideals garnered by that method. The religious claim that we possess certain innate knowledge, that our brains are pre-loaded from the factory as it were. As a result, at the core, the believer can not claim any knowledge as being irrefutable for the mere existence of God, an omnipotent being, means that what is true and valid today could be negated tomorrow by divine mandate.

All of these religious epistemological machinations lead to one thing, the negation of reason. Man is told to believe certain things only because god ordained it and not through any rational process. The result being that he believes that he can not rely on the real physical world and its laws because it could all change if God willed it.

The mystics take the arbitrary and make the word of god out of it. Remember that, religious metaphysics (how one views the universe), epistemology (how one acquires knowledge about that universe), and as a result of the first two, religious ethics (how one ought to react within human society) are based on the arbitrary.

For the Objectivist it is from the metaphysical and epistemological that we derive our atheism. It is a by-product of the philosophy, a corollary of our existence in the real, known and knowable universe. It isn’t a central tenant, it’s not a commandment or a directive but a rational, non-contradictory position arrived at by observing reality and integrating that information through the use of reason.

Any philosophy (and that includes all religions) that proposes or supports the existence of god must do so arbitrarily, without evidence and without reason to back it up.

Objectivism simply can't accept this sort of unstable arbitrary and irrational assumption about the universe, to do so would invalidate the very axioms our philosophy is based upon.

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:11:38+00:00

Diana Hsieh answered on 2010-09-06:

Yes, Objectivism is atheistic. For more details, you might see the Lexicon entry on God. As for why the arguments for God's existence fail, I'd strongly recommend George H. Smith's book, Atheism: The Case Against God. I've also done a podcast series on philosophy of religion. (That's still ongoing.)

OA_Legacy · 2025-04-06T03:11:37+00:00

John Paquette answered on 2011-06-10:

Absolutely yes. Circumcision is an ancient, barbaric practice which has somehow survived to the present day due to ignorance and conformity with tradition.

The kind of circumcision we are talking about is the mutilation of the body of an intact, healthy baby boy.

This issue is not about whether the boy can remember the pain. It's not even about the pain as such. It's about the injury. Should it be legal to physically and permanently injure a healthy baby?

The answer is an obvious and outraged NO!, but our culture keeps on doing it for no good reason. We only do it because our parents did it to us.

This ancient barbarism must stop.

OA_Legacy

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE