5 ms·
My job is helping people start business, and I do it in large part because I think it's good for the world, so you don't need to preach to me on the benefits of
by paul 14y ago
My job is helping people start business, and I do it in large part because I think it's good for the world, so you don't need to preach to me on the benefits of business.
The mistake being made by many here is concluding that since business can be good for the world, therefore everything that isn't a for-profit business must be a waste. Not all good things are profitable.
- javert 14y agoyou don't need to preach to me on the benefits of business OK... fine. But if you aren't going to fully understand Ayn Rand's work, then you don't need to preach to us about how misguided you think it is. The whole point of discussions like this is to have an intellectual discussion. To dismiss people who disagree with you by accusing them of "preaching" (when they aren't) has no place on HN. (As I'm sure you well know.)
- _delirium 14y agoI like to think I'm fairly familiar with Ayn Rand's work, though I'm by no means an expert. I'm a computer scientist, but my philosophy minor was supervised by one of the few tenured professors who specializes in Rand scholarship in academia (and he is a fan of hers). I don't really see this as far off, though. Rand really did believe that it was unethical to be altruistic. Not because it led to negative outcomes, or was inefficient, but because it was, in her view, inherently unethical to be altruistic. The altruistic sentiment was a character flaw at best. She did approve of philanthropy in some circumstances, such as foundations that were set up to advance their founders' views. But it had to be for reasons other than altruism, and it would ideally take into account whether the recipients were "worthy" of the help, not be Christian-style unconditional charity.
- xenophanes 14y agoYou neglect to mention why Rand opposed altruism and considered it inherently immoral: because it means putting other people above oneself and therefore self-sacrificing for others.
- _delirium 14y agoThat's true, but there isn't really much argument for that position in her work (certainly not argument I found convincing). It's almost assuming the consequent: you prove that putting your own good above collective good is moral because the alternative would be putting collective good above your own good. Well, yes, that's definitionally true. But what's wrong with putting collective good above any one individual's good (including your own)? Her answer wasn't the consequentialist one that Adam Smith and other market-economy defenders proposed: that self-interest produces the best overall outcome. It was instead somehow more metaphysical, that somehow self-interest is the highest good, and putting any other goods above one's own good is corrupting the greatest good. I see it as a kind of take off on Nietzsche's master-morality/slave-morality dichotomy, except, unlike Nietzsche, she ties it to the free market and commerce. (Nietzsche believed in great people putting their own self-development ahead of the masses, in the elitist sense that if you're better than everyone, you should focus on your own development first... but he considered business and money-making to be a dirty, mass occupation that in no way qualified as "great" or "elite".)
- javert 14y agoYou clearly have no idea what you're talking about WRT Ayn Rand.
- xenophanes 14y agoShe does provide various arguments. There's no shortage there. Whether you find them convincing is up to you but please don't mix that up with her not publishing stuff to argue her point. For example, not living in a second-handed way is a main theme of The Fountainhead, and that's closely related to the altruism issue. > Her answer wasn't the consequentialist one that Adam Smith and other market-economy defenders proposed: that self-interest produces the best overall outcome. Correct. One thing that might be helpful is to understand Rand's view on compromise. She said you can compromise on concretes when you agree on a principle, but you must never compromise your fundamental principles. For example, if you agree on the principle of trade, you can compromise (haggle) on the exact price or contract terms, and you're still both following a good principle and can both benefit. But you must never compromise between collectivism and individualism, capitalism and socialism, life and death, freedom and slavery, rationality and irrationality. Those sorts of compromises between opposite principles amount to sacrificing some good that one shouldn't give up, and allowing in some unacceptable evil. Nor should you compromise your values in order to get something that you don't value or value less. That isn't a reasonable compromise, it is surrendering your values and principles for the benefit of others. Given this sort of view of compromise, it's no good to ever compromise your own life, no good to ever sacrifice yourself. Anything that asks you to do that is evil. If there is a rational trade to make, then make the exchange and benefit, but don't sacrifice yourself for unspecified or vague future benefits which no one is accountable for providing to you.
- javert 14y agoWho was your supervisor?