Philosopher views
Political And Ethical Implications
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Attacking Objectivism
- Rands Fiction
Political And Ethical ImplicationsThese philosophical ideas have some interesting implications for ethics and politics. Ethically, objectivists are very hedonistic, despite all of the self-control. Reason tends to rationalize desire in objectivism instead of desire being created by reason. Respect for others is explicitly against the tenets of objectivism if it means sacrifice, and Christianity, Kant and Marx are reviled as the movement’s great Satans because their perspectives involve collectivism. Rand’s objectivism hates nothing more than living for others because it means that one’s own creative potential is going to waste. She likens the condition to slavery, and condemns altruisms of all kinds no matter what their intentions. The influence by Nietzsche and his ‘superman’ here is obvious, although Rand herself denied it. Objectivist politics are very libertarian. Objectivists want to actualize their own potential in a selfish free market economy, so the goal of any good government is to facilitate that and to avoid restricting it. Despite the parallels in her beliefs with libertarians, Rand and her objectivists rejected any connections with them because they would not adhere to objectivist tenets on egotism and rationality. Objectivists claim not to be anarchists, but the philosophy tends to be pretty vague on what sort of government exists and how it should be constituted. Some descriptions by Rand mirror Robert Nozick’s “protective associations” (see his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia) where a person could potentially be protected by several governments that were not restricted by geopolitical borders. On the other hand, the primacy of the individual in objectivism makes it entirely possible that such governments would not having binding authority upon individuals except through threat of force (which Rand does not believe would be necessary in an objectivist nation because all of the citizens would be ‘objectively rational’ and therefore would not disobey the rational decisions made by a government). Attacking ObjectivismYou might already see that there are some things about objectivism that will make it difficult to answer. Although objectivism is seriously flawed as a persuasive argument against societal rights, and despite how extremist objectivism is as a whole philosophy, you are unlikely to debate against someone advocating it in its entirety. In fact, it is highly unlikely that your opponent will acknowledge many of the flaws we will go over here since objectivism tends to be obscure on its own details. Also, some of the ideas are highly appealing to mainstream Americans who are centrists or right-wingers. Individual rights and their protection are staples of American identity. Free market capitalism is the rage of the last decade, following increases in globalized trade and increased individual investments in the stock market. While communism is dead, capitalism dominates the world. The best place to begin an attack on objectivism is its zealous love of selfishness. Objectivism shamelessly claims that selfishness is the highest virtue and the most basic value from which all others come. They simultaneously attack altruism as an evil to be guarded against because it means slavery to others. Simply stating that this is what objectivism means should be helpful to you for three reasons. First, it gives you some great rhetorical moral high ground to work from. It will be easy to paint your opponent’s case as insensitive, even to the most obvious moral wrongs, because individuals would be too selfish to acknowledge the needs or feelings of others. Civic duty is not necessarily recognized by objectivists, and an objectivist government would probably not think of civic duty at all. Second, it is highly likely that your opponent will grant that you are correct about objectivism’s love of selfishness. Objectivists fall in love with the doctrine and tend to repeat it straight out of The Fountainhead. If they know anything about objectivism, they should agree that it advocates selfishness prior to altruism. They should also be especially adverse to the idea of sacrifice, which Rand condemns unconditionally. Objectivists expect complete reciprocity in all exchanges. Only robbers expect something for nothing. Finally, your judges should be easily moved by your attack no matter how much they love free market capitalism. Most judges have families, friends, religious communities, or other things that they care about for altruistic reasons. The will very likely agree with your position that objectivism carries individualism too far, especially if you can trap your opponent by implying that there is no mechanism for ensuring that individual objectivists do not ignore their community’s needs and dictates altogether. It is possible that your objectivist opponent will argue that the only reason that we ever care about other people is because they add something to our lives. This line of reasoning appears to prove that the root of our care for others is still only our selfish care for our selves. Kantian arguments effectively refute that tactic. Objectivists appear to be “using people as means to an objectivist’s ends.” That proves beyond any doubt that objectivists will harm people, because people are only valuable to the objectivist insofar as they benefit the objectivist’s life. We might even hypothesize that objectivists will harm other people if they wish to gain benefit from such harm. Your opponent would respond that objectivists never harm others because that is a form of slavery to them, but this claim is ridiculous. If doing wrong to others is slavery, why is gaining from their friendship not slavery? Your opponent cannot have cake and eat it too. Rand's FictionIt is also possible that your opponent will draw heavily from Ayn Rand’s fiction for arguments. Anthem is Rand’s vision of a post-apocalyptic world where people have forgotten their individuality. The narrator moves from a state of slavery, where he appears unable to refer to himself in individual terms using words only like “we” as self-references, to a state of enlightened self-empowerment when he rediscovers the word “I.” While Rand is probably correct that most people in our society shouldn’t devote themselves entirely to others, she fails to consider that most people in society don’t care for the reverse either. The Fountainhead follows the difficult career of an architect with a gift for beautiful designs, but hated by the whole world for his unapologetic selfishness. Perhaps most bizarre among Rand’s fiction is Atlas Shrugged, the story of a group of corporate CEOs who answer the unfair demands of their employees by going on strike, causing a global collapse into anarchy and chaos. Bill Gates, Rupert Murdock, and Donald Trump all disappear and the world is so lost without their inspiring leadership and economic brilliance that civilization dies out. There are some important things to know about these books. First of all, the main characters are totally unrealistic. The protagonists are unrealistically cold, logical, and stoic to the point of being programmed. Apparently, objectivists have no character flaws, as though following reason alone were possible all of the time. Antagonists are always unbelievably low, cowardly, and obtuse. Rand’s narrative does not count as argument and you should not let your opponent refer to characters in these books as realistic examples of how people behave. Second, objectivism’s ideals as portrayed by Rand are white men. In the three books I have mentioned, the ideal characters are always white men. Atlas Shrugged is told from the perspective of a woman, Dagny, but Rand downplayed her powerful status in the novel, and most of it surrounds Dagny’s calculation over which of the men to surrender herself to. Walker’s critique points out that Rand claims the diamond band Dagny wears on her wrist, “gave her the most feminine of all aspects: the look of being chained” (116). Female protagonists in Rand’s novels are frequently raped, but they all are portrayed as really wanting to be. On a talk show, Rand openly denounced feminism and claimed that women holding positions of responsibility such as President of the United States was ridiculous. Walker tops off his review of Rand’s sexism quoting her from a letter that, “an ideal woman is a man-worshiper” (116). Racial minorities are non-existent. One wonders if Rand even knew that they existed. No one in Rand’s fiction is presented as a racial or ethnic minority. In fact, Rand pays no attention at all to employment barriers, discrimination, hate speech, or harassment. These things are all irrelevant to an objectivist because ‘he’ will always succeed at his task no matter what is thrown at him. In The Fountainhead, the main character is repeatedly thrown out of jobs, but doesn’t seem to care. One cannot be certain that Rand was aware that segregation happened in the South during the very time she was writing her works. She probably opposed civil rights legislation because it offered special treatment or protection to people who should have been able, according to Rand, to succeed in any circumstances if they just believed in their own egocentric powers. Rand very likely thought that Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and all others were simply whining about their mistreatment and should get a job. Poverty, by the way, was nothing to speak of for Rand since all individuals are completely responsible for their own fates. Objectivism unapologetically blames people for their own social status. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|