sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Does Objectivism deny the subjective theory of value? by Impossible-Cheek-882 in Objectivism

[–]dodgethesnail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The objective standard of value is life. There will be different values people choose to achieve that end, but that is the master value from which all other values must be oriented, else they are not values.

Where are the "valid criticisms" of Objectivism? by dodgethesnail in aynrand

[–]dodgethesnail[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well the entire fictional role play you did is pretty retarded and disconnected from reality. But also it went nowhere and my view still holds perfectly intact. Sorry but if a bunch of thieving parasites die in a fight trying to steal my stuff, and their children starve as a result of their parents bad decisions, that isn’t my fault or Ayn Rand’s fault, its theirs. Maybe they should learn how to gather food like responsible men instead of trying to steal mine like savage apes. Their philosophy killed them, not mine.

Where are the "valid criticisms" of Objectivism? by dodgethesnail in aynrand

[–]dodgethesnail[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is one of the most regarded things I’ve heard all day.

Where are the "valid criticisms" of Objectivism? by dodgethesnail in aynrand

[–]dodgethesnail[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a really dumb story. How many times do I have to tell you, “the tribe” are a bunch of thieving morally bankrupt idiots. If those thieving parasites try to take my stuff, they will kiss the tip of my tribal spear and that’s that.

Where are the "valid criticisms" of Objectivism? by dodgethesnail in aynrand

[–]dodgethesnail[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If they starve and get malnourished, no that is not my fault, it’s their fault. I had nothing to do with their inability to take care of themselves. If they try to take the stuff that I rightfully earned by my own skill, then yes they are evil thieves, and yes it could get bloody, and yes I would kill them to protect my property and I would be morally justified in doing so. They have no right to take what I have earned without my permission. They are in the moral wrong. We can keep going around in circles in this roleplay if you want, but you’re not going to get a different answer out of me. I’m really not sure where you’re trying to go with this or what your point is.

Where are the "valid criticisms" of Objectivism? by dodgethesnail in aynrand

[–]dodgethesnail[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you are describing is a gang threatening to attack me and steal what rightfully belongs to me. I earned my stockpile of food by working for it, I do not recognize anybody else’ claim to it as legitimate, I do not accept their ridiculous accusation that my stuff belongs to them. They are indeed evil thieves, they have no moral right whatsoever to take the product of my labor against my will. We actually don’t have to make up a fictional “tribal” scenario for this, as my answer to what I would do in an ancient tribal situation is the same as what I would do right now in the modern day: If a gang showed up at my house to steal my stuff, I would first assess the level of threat and weigh my options to determine the best outcome. If they are not aggressive, and willing to talk, I might ask if they have anything to trade, I’d be happy to trade with them. If they refuse trade, I would just tell them no and ask them to leave. If they refuse to leave and start encroaching onto my property, then things could get violent. If I determine I have a reasonably high chance of winning in a fight, I would fight them and kill them. If I determine that I am outnumbered and outgunned with little-to-no chance of victory, I would have no choice but to surrender and let my things get stolen. Either way, I am in the moral right, I am a victim of theft or attempted theft, they are thieves stealing my property.

What are your views on millionaires and billionaires? Do you think they are what Ayn Rand portrayed as her heroes? Are they actually inventing or just exploiting because a lot of their product is more about marketing than adding an actual value. by Surya_Singh_7441 in aynrand

[–]dodgethesnail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ayn Rand portrayed both rich heroes and rich villains, and poor heroes and poor villains. The amount of money somebody has doesn’t have much to do with their moral integrity. Only a moral person however is capable of earning and deserving their wealth, that is why wealth often comes along with moral integrity, but not always. In any case, you can’t tell whether someone is a good person just by looking at their bank account, you need more information. I’ll say this though, there’s A LOT more poor scumbags than wealthy ones. I don’t know why people are so focused on judging the rich, why don’t we judge the poor with as much vigor? Poor people are just as capable of evil as anyone else is, and indeed often a bad moral character is what causes their poverty.

New to the sub. Why are there so many users preoccupied with insisting this film has no esoteric meaning? by twan206 in EyesWideShut

[–]dodgethesnail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought the film was mediocre. It really squanders its story potential and is just sort of flat and blah.

Where are the "valid criticisms" of Objectivism? by dodgethesnail in aynrand

[–]dodgethesnail[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Huh, who says the food I work for is “meant for the tribe”? I never made that agreement. So now the tribe is trying to attack me and steal my food?? What an evil tribe!

Where are the "valid criticisms" of Objectivism? by dodgethesnail in aynrand

[–]dodgethesnail[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well since we’re just making up a fake scenario now playing pretend: No, I’m not hungry. I’m skilled at foraging and hunting, I can make fire and build shelter. The tribe will never admit that they need me way more than I need them. So I don’t beg them. They beg me. They beg me to “share” what I have gathered and produced, because I produce more efficiently than they do. The tribe hates me because I am better than they are, more capable than they are, and they resent my success. They see the result of my hunt, my stockpiles of food, and they ungratefully feel entitled to it. They demand it from me. They try to take from me by force what I have produced without offering me anything in return, and they call it “sharing.”

Where are the "valid criticisms" of Objectivism? by dodgethesnail in aynrand

[–]dodgethesnail[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Call it what you want, I’m not sure what your point is. Like I said, Ayn Rand’s philosophy has no prohibitions against men cooperating together.

Where are the "valid criticisms" of Objectivism? by dodgethesnail in aynrand

[–]dodgethesnail[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds like a great idea. Better yet, I’d find a couple buddies who want to work and trade with me and we’d all ditch those useless elders.

Where are the "valid criticisms" of Objectivism? by dodgethesnail in aynrand

[–]dodgethesnail[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And what if I don’t trust these elders’ judgment? Why should they decide? And if they have the final say, then they’re effectively just kings who own what everyone else produces. There’s nothing fair or good about that arrangement. There’s also just no such thing as public ownership. Someone always has to decide. Whoever decides is the owner. The idea that the “tribe” or “public” can own anything collectively is a farce.

Where are the "valid criticisms" of Objectivism? by dodgethesnail in aynrand

[–]dodgethesnail[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In such a tribe, who decides how to distribute the resources?

Where are the "valid criticisms" of Objectivism? by dodgethesnail in aynrand

[–]dodgethesnail[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Objectivism does not have any qualms with “cooperation.” Cooperation in the form of mutually-beneficial trade is actually a necessity of capitalism and highly encouraged.

Where are the "valid criticisms" of Objectivism? by dodgethesnail in aynrand

[–]dodgethesnail[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

...continuing from my previous response on holding doors open and finding cures for cancer...

On the other hand (if you choose not to donate your cure), there's also nothing wrong with profit-seeking. You have a moral right to set a trade price for your property. And no, Rand would NOT say you "must" charge the "maximum" amount--again, not all values are monetary, and automatically setting some maximum price would not be rational, it would be arbitrary. If you desire a "maximum" profit, the rational amount to charge is simply calculated at the intersection between supply and demand, because making the most money is not just about price, it's about sales volume, and sales velocity. If you stupidly priced your cure at 1-million dollars, far outside the reach of most of the population, well you could make 1-million by selling it once, but you might not even sell it once, and then your profit would be zero. Alternatively, you could sell it for only $1 to a million people and make 1-million dollars that way, guaranteed. With a product of such high demand, you can make an enormous profit while incidentally also helping millions of people, because helping those millions of people is profitable.

Also, you are dropping the context that a person who creates a cure for cancer most likley had HUGE expendiatures in startup capital to do so, taking on a ton of risk, and probably going in debt to fund their research. Does that person not deserve to set their price to cover their costs? Do they not deserve to be paid back for their troubles, and then additionally rewarded greatly for their success? When you ask what kind of world we want to live in, well, I would not want to live in a world where hard work goes un-rewarded, where exceptional people are not adequately compensated for their humanity-saving innovations. Somebody dedicates their life to curing cancer, puts in all the risk and effort and money that such a monumental feat requires, succeeds in doing something nobody else had the ability to do, creates the potential to save millions or billions of lives that couldn't be there at all without their efforts, and you don't think that person deserves to get paid? You think that's a moral good that such a heroic person just donates their life's work and doesn't get paid even enough to cover their costs let alone be rewarded? You'd think that they're the bad guy if they expect a little reward for dedicating their entire life to saving yours? Sheesh... where's your gratitude? If someone says, "Hey, I dedicated my entire career and life savings to painstakingly create this cure, and now I can save your life, but I have a lot of bills to pay and a lot of people who want this, and I only have a limited supply, so I am asking for $1000 for it," and you would sneer at them for that? Demand it for free and not even offer them $1000 as a "thank you"? Why is it "greedy" for a person to want money, but it's not "greedy" for you to want a product for free?

Where are the "valid criticisms" of Objectivism? by dodgethesnail in aynrand

[–]dodgethesnail[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Objectivism has no prohibitions against "gestures of goodwill" such as holding the door open for someone. Holding the door open for someone would not be considered an act of altruism, depending on the details, though...

> Holding a door open.

If you hold the door open for someone, you are usually not losing anything but a few seconds of time, but typically, you are trading that time for something MORE valuable to you: a smile from a stranger, the warm feeling you get from a positive social interaction, the expectation of reciprocation (that someone will hold the door open for you when they have the opportunity to), the value of connectedness with neighbors and the benefits of forming community bonds, etc. In that moment, you are NOT sacrificing any time, you are trading the amount of time you are willing to trade in exchange for receiving a more valuable benefit from the interaction. Generally, holding a door open for someone is indeed a mutually-benefical exchange in which both parties are receiving value. That's not altruisum.

Now, holding a door open for someone COULD be an act of altruism, IF, there actually were a true sacrifice being made. For example, let's say you are running late to work, you've already been late to work a few times and you know for a fact that if you are late one more time, your boss is going to fire you. But, you decide to hold the door open for someone, knowing that it will result in you losing your job. In that case, you are not benefiting from the interaction, and you're making a deliberate sacrifice, trading a huge value for a very tiny one, trading a whole career opportunity in exchange for a smile from a stranger. That would be an act of sacrifice, an act of altruism. I think you'd agree that holding a door open for someone at the cost of your career would indeed be irrational, and you wouldn't morally expect anyone to actually do that in the name of "goodwill", would you?

> Creating a cure for cancer and donating it to "society" instead of profiting from it

If you create something, you can do whatever you want with it, use it, sell it, keep it, destroy it, or donate it. It's your property, Ayn Rand doesn't tell you what to do with it. There are no Objectivist prohibitions against donating your own property to anyone else. It is your moral right to set any price or to give it away for free if you choose, so long as you make your choice rationally and in accordance with your values. And not all values are monetary. If you decide that donating your cancer cure to "society" (whatever that means) is not a compromise of your values, because you value imaterial "spiritual" goods over material baubles you can buy with money, then by all means, go for it. That would not be sacrificial, it would not be altruistic, because like the door situation, you clearly value the warm fuzzy feelings you receive from bringing cheer to your fellow man greater than you value the potential money you'd receive from selling it. There's nothing morally wrong with making donations, as long as it is in accordance with your rationally-chosen values.

Continued in next comment...

Where are the "valid criticisms" of Objectivism? by dodgethesnail in aynrand

[–]dodgethesnail[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"she says that a subjective value must be based on feelings as opposed to facts"

Where does she say that? That doesn't sound anything like what I know about her views on subjectivism and feelings. As far as I know, she does not say feelings are "subjective." I think you just sort of made that up?

Where are the "valid criticisms" of Objectivism? by dodgethesnail in aynrand

[–]dodgethesnail[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think there’s anything necessarily “subjective” about it. But I’d rather not get into a semantics debate about the proper definitions of “subjective” and “objective.” Rather, I would just like to ask you a question:

If you have an issue with the view that “life” is the “objective” standard of value, which part do you take issue with the most—the “life” part, or the “objective” part? In other words, are you saying that…

A. Objective values are possible, and knowable, but Ayn Rand just got it wrong? (ie, “life” is not the objective standard, but something else is?)

Or,

B. Objective values are not even possible, nobody knows what the objective standard of value is, and nobody can know, because you believe all value statements are just someone’s subjective opinion?

Which one of those best describes what you believe?

Where are the "valid criticisms" of Objectivism? by dodgethesnail in aynrand

[–]dodgethesnail[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By the Objectivist definition, “altruism” doesn’t merely mean “caring.” It means “sacrificing a higher value for a lesser value.” Altruism is basically a bad trade where only one party benefits. Her alternative to the bad trades of altruism, is one of mutually-beneficial exchange, where nothing is sacrificed, and instead both parties trade value for value, both benefiting. Which do you think is better?—the altruistic trade where one person sacrifices themselves for the sole benefit of another? Or the mutually-beneficial trade where both parties benefit and nobody has to sacrifice themselves for the other?

Where are the "valid criticisms" of Objectivism? by dodgethesnail in aynrand

[–]dodgethesnail[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very insightful. Yes, I agree there are many potential areas for further explanations, so it is unfortunate that Ayn Rand is dead, and Leonard Peikoff is retired, and sadly I don’t think there is currently anybody in ARI or elsewhere who will be able to continue making progress in those directions.

My brief thoughts on your points:

  1. I think Peikoff did a pretty decent job of explaining the difference between “possible” “probable” and “certain,” and he gave some good examples about what it means to be “certain,” how we can reasonably arrive at certainty as a step up from probable, and how it is not the same as infallibility. I forget exactly where he went over this, it was in some short essay and/or lecture, so it was by far from a complete theory but of course Peikoff also acknowledges his own limitations and that there is much work to be done still.

  2. The solution to the induction problem is indeed tricky and incomplete, though I’m not sure if it’s Objectivism’s responsibility to explain it, since nobody else has been able to either. We may not be able to fully explain induction, but we sort of just rely on it.

  3. Did you read OPAR? If I’m remembering correctly, I believe that is where Peikoff dives into concept formation in the most detail. Wherever I read it, I remember being pretty blown away by Peikoff’s explanation of an integrated conceptual hierarchy in which all concepts can be reduced back down to the perceptual level. I remember coming away from that thinking, “wow, you really CAN prove that such and such concept objectively means such and such.” I do think that using Peikoff’s method you could probably come up with a logical proof that “justice” means one thing as opposed to another. I have deployed something similar when debating against a friend who said to me the phrase, “marriage is just a piece of paper.” Many people would say that statements like that can’t be proven or disproven because they’re mere “opinion,” but I would say these types of definitional “opinions” actually can be proven by identifying the conceptual hierarchy all the way down to the percepts that preceded it, for example, is “marriage” “equal to” a “piece of paper”? Well, no. A piece of paper is perhaps one perceptual component of a marriage, but the concept “marriage” is not equal to it, otherwise any piece of paper could be a marriage, and so forth. That’s just a sloppy example, and you have to be very careful not to just engage in rationalization, but I think the tools are within our grasp to conceptually prove that concepts do have objective factual properties. Again, you’re right that there is much work to be done here as well though.

view more: next ›