This is a continuation from another thread:
liberty student: marquise: liberty student:But then you're saying that humans deserve coercive government because they are inherently bad I am not saying that they deserve it, but that it is a logical reaction to their actions. "... My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as is noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. ..." Ayn Rand, 1957
marquise: liberty student:But then you're saying that humans deserve coercive government because they are inherently bad I am not saying that they deserve it, but that it is a logical reaction to their actions.
liberty student:But then you're saying that humans deserve coercive government because they are inherently bad
I am not saying that they deserve it, but that it is a logical reaction to their actions.
"... My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as is noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. ..."
Ayn Rand, 1957
I disagree with this statement. I do agree that the purpose of men and women is to obtain happiness. However, it is not a "moral" purpose. It is just what humans seek. As to a "noblest activity", well that is just plain subjective. And reason is folly as well. If reason were absolute, then we would be living in a free society already.
I do not think human nature is "evil" by nature. One would have to believe in "good" and "evil" in the first place to make that statement. Instead, it seems to me, from my experience, that humans are generally short sighted and inconsistent. For example, immigration laws are fine between countries, but not between states. Or stealing from people without consent is fine if the government does it, but not if individuals do it. Or, water-boarding is fine if done to Muslims, but not to Americans.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Or maybe you just misread Rand so badly that I am at a loss to understand how this is possible. Where, in that statement, does she say reason is his absolute (as opposed to should be, given that was a moral statement not a generic description of man...)? What is "subjective" about production being noble? As for the identification of happiness with man's moral purpose, saying "it is just what humans seek" betrays a misunderstanding of her ethical system which is based, like any other eudaemonist ethical system, on the fact that man seeks happiness (and for these systems this is where the rules of moral conduct are ultimately to be found.)
To darkness I condemn you...
Production being noble is entirely subjective, not to mention vague.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Elaborate.
I understand the notion of man's pursuit of happiness as being moral, I'm not sure whether I accept it but I don't think I've read enough to decide either way. From what I've read of Veatch it seems reasonable.
On the other hand, I don't see what is meant by production in this sense. Is the Chinese man in the sweat shop making Nike shoes for 11 hours a day "noble"? I wouldn't say so, on the other hand what about the writer who writes a "brilliant" peice of work that nobody reads? Is he noble for producing such a work.
Why would production be noble?
She means producing value to exchange (or consume) as opposed to living off others as a parasite, not industrial production per se. The quote makes sense when taken in the context of her work, e.g. The Virtue of Selfishness.
Jon Irenicus:Or maybe you just misread Rand so badly that I am at a loss to understand how this is possible.
It is probably just the grammar.
Spideynw: I do agree that the purpose of men and women is to obtain happiness. However, it is not a "moral" purpose. It is just what humans seek. As to a "noblest activity", well that is just plain subjective. And reason is folly as well. If reason were absolute, then we would be living in a free society already. I do not think human nature is "evil" by nature. One would have to believe in "good" and "evil" in the first place to make that statement. Instead, it seems to me, from my experience, that humans are generally short sighted and inconsistent.
I do not think human nature is "evil" by nature. One would have to believe in "good" and "evil" in the first place to make that statement. Instead, it seems to me, from my experience, that humans are generally short sighted and inconsistent.
Well put. Objectivism really seems to personify the sort of rationalistic pseudo-individualism Hayek was talking about in Individualism: True and False.
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
Spideynw: I do not think human nature is "evil" by nature. One would have to believe in "good" and "evil" in the first place to make that statement.
Solomon:Well put. Objectivism really seems to personify the sort of rationalistic pseudo-individualism Hayek was talking about in Individualism: True and False.
I haven't read that essay in a while, I'll read again soon to see if the relationship if there. Robert Nisbet claimed that often when people want emancipation from social groups such as the family and the church they appeal to individualism and to the state, asking the state to defend said individualism by removing all other intermediaries.
I've always thought the Objectivist man is very similar to homo economicus.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap