Home | Philosophy | General

The Sophistry of an Objectivist
By: Ben.

Ayn Rand, as Dr. Bernstein summarizes, stated that man's purpose (read: the meaning of life) is to achieve personal happiness whilst retaining the ideal that man's survival is in everyone (including your own) best interest. He stated that there are no moral dilemmas, but did not elaborate why this is never the case. He merely said that if you run a term by term comparison of the "goods" of a situation, you can derive the proper course of action for any situation.

I would like to note that this is not a new concept. In fact, Ayn Rand says nothing revolutionary. She is merely taking what has already been said millions of times over, rewrapping, repackaging it, and stating it as her own. While this may be ok if she were an actual historian, it appears as though she isn't giving proper credit to her predecessors.

She states that there is a universal good... a set of actions that benefits all men while which also benefits herself, but doesn't give a nod to Kantian ethics. She also states that moral dilemmas are able to be quantified by comparing relative goods and evils into their component parts. Of course, no mention of utilitarianism was said.

Objectivism, as Dr. Bernstein stated, contends with the mind/body problem by stating that the two are inseparable. Of course, no mention of materialism was heard... just good 'ol Scientolo... err objectivism. He also made no direct mention of the freewill argument, but did state that man has the right to choose. However, this does not clarify if Ms. Rand is a supporter of soft determinism or full-on free will. I assume free will, but I was left with many questions as to how she could justify this in the face of current deterministic science. Plus, it’s rare to find a materialist who supports freewill. Reductionist principles of materialism really seem to require a deterministic stance; however I won’t ignore the possibility of the two principles coexisting.

His commentary on Ayn Rand's portrayal of the hero as a man deserving worship for "doing" is rather interesting. I, like most intelligentsia, am strongly opposed to the concept of worshiping anyone other than myself. In fact, I'm rather baffled that Dr. Bernstein supports the idea of respecting creators at the same time as he's supporting "egoism in ethics". It would seem to me that it would be contradictory to practice idol worship and at the same time worship yourself. The two are opposed on the most base subconscious level. If you idolize others, how can you view yourself with any level of worth? For instance, lets say I idolized Bill Gates b/c he has so much money (which, by the way, I do not). Then I would have to have more money than Bill Gates to retain value in myself. If I do not, then I am not the best. If I am not the best, then it is implied that I am inferior. Now, the problem with this is simple, not everyone can be "the best". As a result, objectivists set in place a set of unrealistic expectations for everyone but the most elite and motivated. This means nothing more than those in power are "philosopher kings", that those who succeed are "Herculean", that those who represent the society merely represent the superior minority. Does the part represent the whole? Apparently, in objectivism, it not only does, but it is desired.

There is a complete lack of empathy. See, I have major issues with the Capitalist stance of the Objectivists. The problem with the free-capitalist economy that they stated is that it's not considering that once one is at the top of what they do, there's nothing left to do but branch out. Eliminate others, prevent competition, find loop holes, and buy officials. See, when you live in a society where the acquisition of power (remember, knowledge is powerful), then the most powerful man has nothing to do but grow his own power on his own or to acquire the power of others. This is often as the sacrifice of those less powerful. The result is the gradual coalescence of wealth into very few hands. I find this undesirable, as it leads to economic totalitarianism. This makes Capitalism self-defeating. The richest man is not necessarily a philosopher or altruistic, or heck, even a hero. He is more than likely a villain who has no appreciation for the acts of the martyrs he crushes. If you want evidence of this, look at the Capitalist nations in North America, Europe, and Asia.

Speaking of altruism, apparently it’s a bad thing. Go figure. Dr. Bernstein stated that as altruistic principles (apparently supported by ALL subjectivist philosophers… according to him) taught us that acts of kindness were reward in and of themselves. We then began to act nice to an extreme degree. This is … for some reason that I don’t agree with… exceedingly evident in the world today. I wonder how we can convince anyone to fight for our country if they are to be selfish about it. But, I’m sure this is a special application of objectivist principles that I’m missing. All I want to say is that if I’m missing it, there are probably a lot more people who are missing it too. Ahhh, the dangers of philosophy.

I also felt that calling Kant a subjective moralist who was 180 degrees of separation from Ms. Rand’s objectivist ideals showed a great abuse of terms. The objectivist moral system IS the Categorical Imperative. Sure, Kant may not have condoned egoistic ideas that Rand does, but I would hardly call him an out-and-out subjectivist. He, too, stated that rules of morality could be determined by reason. In the process he found that there was a subset of acts that could be determined as good. These were those acts that could be universally proven to be good. He stated that man should ascribe power to reason and that this power is fundamental. From the talk given, and the explanation when queried, the distinction between Rand and Kant was not made crystal clear. If anything, it was clouded more. While I’m sure most people will hear a professor open an argument with a claim such as “Kant is like Rand in so far as they are complete opposites,” and stop there, I did not. Stating that the appreciation of altruism is the difference between Kant and Rand and that egoism is not supported by Kant is NOT sufficient reason to state that they are “complete opposites”. It ignores the very fundamental premises that they both ascribe to, and they both used to derive their answers. These premises are as follows: morality can be known by reason and reason alone, there is an absolute set of ethics that is indisputable with ideal reason, ethical principles are knowable by man because man has the will to reason. It is because of this that I do not agree with the statement that Kant is the “complete opposite” of Rand.

Furthermore, there are major issues with the form of discourse during the question and answer session. Two questions were not answered at all. This is understandable. It is hard to remain on track when speaking publicly. However, almost ignoring a question as though it was stupid is not really something one would expect from a philosopher. For instance, the question posed about moral dilemmas was very good. It was unclear whether or not there is a possible situation where two options had equally distasteful results. If there is, then how do objectivists overcome this? If there is not, then what is the reasoning to explain this? Another problem is the complete lack of arguments against idealism and solipsism. The problem of solipsism may seem stupid to one Dr. Andrew Bernstein, but certain other philosophers that are heroes to many do not agree. I’m sure Sartre didn’t spend so much energy in a (self admitted) failed attempt to disprove the idea if it was “psychotic” and “ludicrous”. Perhaps it is indeed something that those in the “Looney Bin” think, but I’m not quite sure you’re able to prove to yourself that you’re not in a “Looney Bin”. I found that response to be lacking.

All in all, Dr. Andrew Bernstein is extremely knowledgeable. This much is obvious. However, I do not agree with his arguments for objectivism. I found it to be somewhat naïve and extreme. I will even venture to say that Objectivism is to Capitalism what Marxism is to Socialism. While it may sound good, it lacks the proper perspective and understanding of human nature. Sure, if you can convince every single person on the planet to relinquish their dogmatic moral codes and obey reason even when it interferes with their own personal aspirations, great. Until that agreement is made, I don’t plan on forgetting that sometimes people will act selfish independent of human survival. I also won’t shun martyrs for their lack of accomplishments. Despite me being an agnostic with atheistic leanings, I cannot support the idea that Jesus is not a hero because his self sacrifice was shamefully altruistic. I find that, like all objectivists I have ever met (I have not met all objectivists, mind you), Dr. Bernstein was not really as open minded as a true philosopher should be. He seemed frustrated by subjectivism and almost hostile towards the idea that morality is inconsistently applied because it only exists in the mind of the actor. Such is his right, and I’ll defend his right to his arguments to the death, but I do not see the reason behind Ayn Rand. It’s as though it is personal opinion dressed with the word reason and packaged as real philosophy. I will do more research on the matter.

Article Source: http://journal.ilovephilosophy.com

Please Rate this Article

 

# of Ratings = 2 | Rating = 4.5/5

Click the XML Icon Above to Receive General Articles Via RSS!
Additional Articles From - Home | Philosophy | General
Sign Up as an Author.
Submit Articles
Member Login
Top Authors
Most Popular Articles
Submission Guidelines
Ezine Notifications
Article RSS Feeds
New Stuff
Forum
Link to Us
Contact Us

Powered by Article Dashboard