Talk:Objectivism

	This Philosophy related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes Likely vandalism target

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

The ultimate problem with objectivist ethical egoism

The first argument reads: "This can be criticized on several grounds. Firstly, this arguably means that it is immoral to be a child, or to raise a child, or to prevent a child from working, since a child requires constant attention and aid from the parents. " This makes absolute no sense. The very reason people have children is their own self-interest to receive sexual pleasure from sex and/or to have a family, which is some of the life goals of many if not most people.

The second argument reads "Secondly, society depends on altruism to a degree. Saving a person from drowning would be an altruistic act, since you can't exactly stop to dicker over payment for your services.". People save others from drowning, not surprisingly, out of self-interest to a) save a person that matters to them, b) uphold their moral values which bring them sense of being a good person, c) follow the laws that (depending on the country) may penalize not helping a drowning person. Would a completely lunatic person living in a lawless society fully devoid of any moral values save a person that he/she despises? War crimes are a testament of how altruistic people are when the self-interest to be nice to others is removed.

The third argument reads "Thirdly, to continue the drowning example, if you let someone die for no good reason, other people will consider you an asshole of the highest order.". This is purely an argument in favor of people not being altruistic.

The case of Simo Häyhä is also in favor of the argument that true altruism is difficult to find. He, as most of Finns of that time and today, despised communism so much that he was willing to risk his life resisting it. It was very much in his self-interest not to have his fine democratic country slip into the hands of the brutal communist USSR. 84.250.31.167 (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Option a) is not meant to be available here, obviously. Option b) isn't possible for an Objectivist because his/her moral values cannot be like zhat. (According to Rand, it's weakness, and weakness is forbidden.) Option c) isn't meant to be available here eizher. It's America, stupid! :D And if you had to do it by zhe law, you -- as an Objectivist -- would do it only under protest against zhis law and zhe state (compare Rand's position in regards to zhe matter of paying taxes) -- so if Objectivists had zhe say-so, zhere wouldn't be such a law. Cause only zhe hardest, biggest and power-potentest dicks shall survive. --79.207.213.143 (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC) (PS: Wasn't it more in the Finnish sniper's "rational self-interest" to survive (by surrendering/cooperating wizh the Soviets or by fleeing zhe war region) zhan to risk zhe high probability of dying in the war for zhe sake of living a life in a democratic Finnland?) --79.207.213.143 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

naturalistic fallacy

"One counterargument would be that passing on one's genes would certainly be in a person's best interest from an evolutionary standpoint, and justifies the effort put into raising children, although this would fall apart in the case of a child who will be unable or extremely unlikely to reproduce for any number of reasons. Furthermore, cloning is more selfish than sexual reproduction, but is disadvantageous in the long run."

No, it's not an counterargument, because zhere isn't such an "evolutionary standpoint" (zhe evolution has no standpoint, it just happens, according to zhe Zheory of Evolution), it's like saying "from an human nutrition standpoint, it's in a person's best interest to make zhe soil, zhe water, zhe day-and-night-rhyzhm, zhe clouds, zhe rain, zhe wind(s), zhe temperature, zhe (ozher) rays, zhe microbioms, ...". See zhat in zhe footnote linked Wikipedia article yourself! Your genes don't define your interests in such a way, because -- according zhe Zheory of Evolution -- zhey evolved so zhat zhey give you zhe drive(/urge -- if you're male and have a regular testosterone production ;-)) to have sex, not necessarily to get/have children -- zhis is, according to zhe Zheory of Evolution, just zhe regular consequence of having sex as much as possible wizh as fertile and fitting as possible humans of zhe opposite sex; especially if you're an Objectivist, you don't see anyone/-thing else existant zhat could define your rational self-interests (Objectivists believe only in an absolute free will, and "To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem." (see zhe rationalwiki article "Ayn Rand" and go to "Philosophy" zhere)). --79.207.213.143 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Objectivism and monopolies

After reading from a self proclaimed Ayn Rand follower that "the government created big tech monopolies" I got curious, because my limited understanding of objectivism and Rand's positions makes me think that if you leave capitalism to its own devices, they'll naturally form monopolies and/or oligopolies. After a quick google, Rand indeed blames anti-trust laws for creating "coercive monopolies".

I keep thinking that, given enough time, larger companies will invariably use their own resources to either buy or merge with competitors and, failing that, actively work to undermine them. Can someone explain to me how exactly a completely free market as envisioned by Ayn Rand would avoid that? Or is that solely derived from wishful thinking that entrepreneurs who try that get "blacklisted" and "shunned"? Mistermano (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 15:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Ops, my bad. Fixed. Mistermano (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep. That's one of the major reason why anarcho-capitalism, and Objectivism in particular, are just as fanciful and ignorant of reality and human nature as Communism. IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mistermano So this is a bit complicated. While it's true that governments maintain monopolies, this is a very limited viewpoint. The problem is Rand and co fail to acknowledge that the reason companies compete in a market system is in fact to become monopolies. As in, that's the whole end point of the process. A completely deregulated market will spawn monopolies, and without a state to enforce their dominance they will enforce it themselves. But ultimately, even with regulations the underlying drive remains because it is nominally beneficial, from the perspective of a company, to achieve the status of a monopoly since it would then be "safe" from other companies trying to siphon its profits. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

false definition of altruism

Zhe article says:

"In normal-speak, altruism is simply acting to benefit humanity".

No, you don't need zhe assumption/mental construct of "humanity" for a definition of altruism at all. And using zhis definition, it wouldn't even be possible to say wizh certainty if an act is altruistic or not. (What's humanity? all living humans? all living humans and all humans who get born in zhe future? What is a "benefit" to "humanity"? judging by which "humanity values/morals/goals"? who else if not "humanity" could find it out? so "humanity" is a subject? It's impossible answer all of zhis in a way zhat it fits to the common sense/understanding/meaning of zhe words.) By common sense, you can even act altruistic just by doing somezhing for anozher human (or even anozher animal?) wizhout expecting somezhing done for you by zhis human(/animal?) cause of your done act. --79.207.213.143 (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)