Philosopher views
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Perspectives Critiquing Rand
RationalityIn addition to believing that people are never oppressed (except for capitalist CEOs), Rand doesn’t appear to acknowledge the power of emotions on people. Objectivists unrealistically believe in the power of their rationality to control their feelings, even choosing relationships with other objectivists out of ‘rational choice’ rather than emotional attraction. Nathaniel Brandon, a psychologist in the objectivist movement and a number two to Rand for many years, admits to messing up many of his patients by insisting on their need to repress feelings with rationality. Objectivism has no respect for irrationality or irrational people, and Robbins goes so far as to suggest that objectivists might not even respect the rights of such people, subjecting them to oppression or even genocide. That suggestion would fit in well with the Kantian view that objectivists simply use all of the people in their lives, never really caring about them. It is also consistent with what Rand has to say about politics. Rand argues at some points that the source of a person’s rights is a person’s choice to use reason. The implication of this might be that people who do not use whatever objectivists think is reason would not have any rights that an objectivist was bound to respect. Differences in culture, health, ability, gender, and most anything else were totally irrelevant. Objectivity itself would not appear to be a culturally sensitive or vaguely tolerant point of view since it refers to a universal truth that Rand claims can be known and should be obvious to everyone who isn’t insane. It seems to be a massive contradiction that individualism should be so celebrated by a movement while the movement is simultaneously claiming that there is only one truth and anything that deviates from it is too irrational to respect. Any claim to ‘common sense’ is simply an attempt to avoid thinking critically about a subject. Do not let your opponent get away with failure to explain what ‘reason’ is. They cannot define it, and they are only hiding behind the phrase ‘common sense’ so that they can gloss over the weak logic of objectivist theory. Homosexuality, according to objectivists and especially Rand, was irrational and therefore unacceptable. While some critics of objectivism, such as Robbins, attack objectivism for its apparent hedonism, Walker portrays objectivism’s cult-like control over its members as prescribing certain types of behavior through its subjective definitions of what was rational. Objectivist psychologists were clearly not in favor of a hedonism that sacrifices rationality, and since homosexuality was irrational (for reasons that are not specified by objectivists) then it is also wrong. It is an interesting double-standard considering Rand’s own approval of open-marriages and multiple sexual partners, examples of obvious hedonism, while homosexual relationships would not appear to necessarily involve greater personal pleasure than any other monogamous relationship. This brings us to a necessary warning. Be careful not to claim that objectivists were totally hedonistic while attacking objectivists for oppressively controlling their emotions. While it is probably the case that these two things exist in objectivism to certain degrees that are attackable, it is also probably true that you do not have enough time to explain your way out of an apparent contradiction if your opponent calls you on it. Perspectives Critiquing RandIt is also unlikely that you will be able to prepare an entire case in response to an objectivism argument, but if somehow you do there are three good options: Marxism, Kant’s Deontology, and libertarianism. Marx is the least likely to be persuasive since most Americans aren’t too keen on communism, but a couple of Marxist arguments have some rhetorical value that you might consider making use of in the debate. Marx complained that capitalism reduced workers to dehumanized labor, a point that Rand gleefully grants and prides herself in displaying as a virtue. The idea that money isn’t everything should be persuasive to many people. Post-Marxist and anti-globalization critiques of capitalism could also go very far against objectivism. Free market capitalism might be great to the individual, but it also lets those individuals damage the lives of many others by moving plants to find the cheapest labor, the fewest environmental restrictions, and the greatest wealth of resources for exploitation. Sweatshops, pollution, and massive development debts are all products of the victory of capitalism. Claiming unapologetically that individual economic gain is the highest value allows you to beat them over the head with these great examples of collective duties that are ignored. Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethical theory is probably my favorite answer to objectivism. Kant might let Nazis in his home to get Jewish friends of his just so that he can avoid lying, but Ayn Rand doesn’t advocate lying to them either. Two useful things go with Kant’s categorical imperative: First, the imperative treats all human beings as ends in themselves, while Rand claims that the only people with rights are the ones who have claimed them by asserting reason. We don’t really know what reason is, even while both Kant and Rand claim to know what it is, but only Rand denies humanity to those that do not agree with her vision of reason. Second, Kant’s categorical imperative is a clearer and more objective test of universal law than Rand gives us. Kant tells us not to act in a way that we would not like to be treated, while Rand just says that we must be stupid if we don’t already know what is rational. Kant is a great strategy to use if you believe that your judge will vote on the flow because all of the good arguments against Kant apply just as well to objectivism. Libertarianism would be an ugly, dirty way of dealing with objectivism. It would claim all of the beneficial values of objectivism without the selfish rhetoric and anti-social egotism. Claiming the central ground and arguing that your opponent is too extreme is a classic strategy that keeps on working. Probably the only flaw with this strategy is that it undercuts your ability to attack objectivism’s love for the free market. On the other hand, what is objectivism going to say against you? Conclusion Objectivism takes the worst parts of capitalism, individualism, and utilitarianism and claims them as virtues. Arguing for objectivism is very daring, but not very strategic. It makes grandiose claims about truth, humanity, rights, and justice without anything to justify such claims except that they are self-serving for capitalists. Why should the individual’s selfishness be the source of all rights and values? Objectivism cannot answer this question because the individual’s selfishness is the first premise of the movement. Without having faith that selfishness should be the center of one’s existence, there is no justification for anything else claimed by objectivists. You should expect to have to answer values like individualism, autonomy, or rights. I think that it is a stretch for your opponents to try to argue objectivism with any other sort of value since it flies in the face of what Rand called the very source of objective reason and purpose for living. Justice is a plausible value, but the sort of justice they have to advocate with objectivism leaves them open to attacks that the philosophy is entirely self-serving, defining justice according to Wall Street. Objectivists have a hard time demonstrating that their philosophy does not nullify principles surrounding just action because they attempt to base both justice and life’s purpose in personal gain. Why should a person act just if they can gain from injustice? Objectivism tries to say that objectivists do not want to steal from others because it is better for one’s own ego to earn things, to avoid a vulture-like slavery to others. I do not think that objectivism is very clear about why the desire to avoid being a vulture will be enough to deter objectivists from acting unjust toward others. The philosophy of objectivism really lacks big sticks. There do not appear to be any consequences for acting immoral or unjust since the government’s job is to stay out of the way and the individual is the final arbiter of objective reason. The only reason the government exists, according to Rand, is to settle disputes over property between objectivist citizens, but we must wonder how objectivists could be objectively reasonable and still have disputes. Either they know what is objectively right or they do not. The utopian state of CEOs imagined by Rand in Atlas Shrugged does include a judge for settling disputes, but the characters in the book report that they have never had need of him. Perhaps Rand is interested in government because she thinks that not all people will have objective reason and so objective capitalists will need protection from the ignorant masses. A debate round against an objectivist is likely to be muddled in a ‘ships passing in the night’ contest if you simply assert what objectivism is and they disagree. Use your cross-examination to flush out exactly what your opponent means by objectivism and they use whatever attacks apply. No matter what, you should be able to make use of objectivism’s selfishness and its ignorance of the oppression of racial and gender minorities. It should also be implicit that your opponent is not interested in social justice or improving the lives of others altruistically. Painting the philosophy of objectivism as more greedy than selfish, more self-centered than is necessary for happiness should be more than enough to win you the ballot. Grant out that individualism is great, but argue that a moderate take on it is much better for everyone, not just Bill Gates. 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:
|