3 ms·

That's wonderful, if you can hack it. However, in the real world, we have billions of people on the planet who are not capable of living the life they imagine.

That's wonderful, if you can hack it. However, in the real world, we have billions of people on the planet who are not capable of living the life they imagine. What people take issue with is Rand's ideological claim that the best way for the people of Earth to achieve a future in which everyone has the capability to "self-actualize" is to focus primarily on their own "self-actualization." That's not obvious at all. Most people feel that our overall well-being is served when the most fortunate among us (those with the resources to pursue their own dreams, and excess resources beyond that) are taxed to some degree to try to give other people a better chance at a self-actualized life.

grandalf 17y ago
If Rand is wrong and morality is to be found only in doing things one doesn't enjoy, doesn't that sort of take the wind out of the sails of anyone who might claim to enjoy something like working to help the homeless, etc? Do you view all of those people as noble souls who would quite rather be working on a trading floor somewhere but are gritting their teeth in self-suppression as they provide social services to others? Rand would argue that if someone derives meaning from solving a world problem such as homelessness, that his/her selfish (self-actualized) pursuit of that goal is the highest thing he/she can do. note: Rand's essay is not at all about taxation. The conceptual overlap comes from the tradition of the church to use the ethic of self-sacrifice to get members to do its bidding... a meme that has also been used by the state to justify unequal taxation regimes. I don't think the "ethic of self-sacrifice" argument is necessary to justify basic taxation -- simple social contract theory is enough -- but the meme works quite well b/c it allows the state to also be the arbiter of virtue.
- mquander 17y ago
  Well, I don't believe that morality has anything to do with whether you enjoy what you do. I don't think I completely understand how I perceive morality, though, so I wouldn't want to get in an argument about it. So perhaps we are on the same page. I don't think that the pursuit of self-sacrifice is inherently noble (or useful), but I don't think that the pursuit of self-actualization is inherently noble (or useful) either. I think that we should be enacting policies and laws encouraging people to act for the overall good of society, which often, but not always, will correlate with their own purely selfish aims. I think that it's possible to do that in a way that creates a better world than what we would find when everyone acts in their own interest alone.
  - grandalf 17y ago
    Fair enough. It sounds like your view could be described as a utilitarian value system that you impose after the fact based on a preconceived notion of some ends you hope society will achieve. You also seem to perceive that there exists a true greater good. I challenge you to introspect on that issue. I personally don't believe that the greater good really exists, and I attribute the creation of the meme to religious leaders who used their divine authority to declare what the greater good is so that the faithful would work to promote it in order to save their souls from eternal damnation -- notice the parallels with the modern secular notion? More mathematically, every individual has a set of interests/preferences. You can consider a function that maps from possible choices (individual, state, etc.) to everyone's preferences and try to maximize the amount of utility generated. But the problem for planners is that sometimes what is in an individual's best interest is not actually what the person wants. So calculating the greater good involves myriad assumptions and fudges... and at its core any notion of the greater good involves making an aesthetic choice of how to transfer benefit/harm across some set of people. For instance, any notion of the greater good applied to US politics probably neglects the harm inflicted on those who live just across the border who would be happy to work in the US but starve due to US immigration policies. Pretty soon the concept of the greater good (for any meaningful policy choice) conflicts with the idea of nationhood itself and becomes meaningless.
    - mquander 17y ago
      I recognize upon reading your comment that it is really quite a cycle -- culture changes our opinion about what the greater good is, and then we all go and talk about how to reorganize the culture to get it! I'll think about this some more tonight.
codyrobbins 17y ago
As Francisco d'Anconia would say, 'check your premises.' Your argument is predicated on the assumption that there are billions of people on earth not capable of living the life they imagine. Exactly Rand's point is that this assumption of yours is not the case, and that, in fact, these people choose not to live the life they imagine, either because they refuse to work hard enough for it (they're lazy), they consciously decide to loot the efforts of others by force (they steal), or they simply don't have the ability to do so (they're incompetent). In all cases Rand's argument is that these people should not be entitled to any of the productive efforts of those who produce. I agree with the original commenter that the essay completely misses Rand's point. Rand does not ignore the complexities of social systems set up to repress and down-trod the disadvantaged. Such social systems are precisely the product of the looters who attempt to destroy productivity and creativity, not the result of a self-actualized group who achieves their collective self-actualization at the expense of others. The essayist's example of Genovese's murder and the conclusion he draws from it is a complete oversimplification. A selfish person would help a fellow human in distress for any number of reasons: to stop an injustice they see as unconscionable, for a reward, so that they could live with themselves afterwards, etc. 'Selfish' does not mean that one does not help others; it simply means that if one helps others it is for their own purposes, not because of charity or pity. I've thought many times, though, that Rand conveniently ignores (insofar as I've read) the case of those who truly can't care for themselves: the sick, the insane, and perhaps the crippled as well. But it should be noted that when asked, Rand categorized herself as a novelist who developed a philosophy for the sake of writing her novels, not a philosopher who wrote novels.
- dmix 17y ago
  >I've thought many times, though, that Rand conveniently ignores the case of those who truly can't care for themselves: the sick, the insane, and perhaps the crippled as well. There is an interview with Ayn on a talk show and was asked about what should happen to the "ungifted". She believes that first it is the parents responsibility to support them but if they are poor and can't afford to then private charities should look after them. Found the clip if your interested (around 5-6min in): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTHn-9hhU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTHn-9hhU
- 17y ago
radu_floricica 17y ago
That would work if self actualisation would be brought by money. But it's not, it's something which is much more encouraged by individual freedom then by any kind of welfare, however indirect. There are cases where abject poverty stops one from living the life he wants - but abject poverty is something completely eradicated in western countries (yes, including the homeless). I am not completely against taxation btw (I support the idea of free healthcare, for example). But when it comes to getting to live "for yourself", taxes and welfare don't matter. Attitude does.

grandalf 17y ago

If Rand is wrong and morality is to be found only in doing things one doesn't enjoy, doesn't that sort of take the wind out of the sails of anyone who might claim to enjoy something like working to help the homeless, etc? Do you view all of those people as noble souls who would quite rather be working on a trading floor somewhere but are gritting their teeth in self-suppression as they provide social services to others? Rand would argue that if someone derives meaning from solving a world problem such as homelessness, that his/her selfish (self-actualized) pursuit of that goal is the highest thing he/she can do. note: Rand's essay is not at all about taxation. The conceptual overlap comes from the tradition of the church to use the ethic of self-sacrifice to get members to do its bidding... a meme that has also been used by the state to justify unequal taxation regimes. I don't think the "ethic of self-sacrifice" argument is necessary to justify basic taxation -- simple social contract theory is enough -- but the meme works quite well b/c it allows the state to also be the arbiter of virtue.

mquander 17y ago
Well, I don't believe that morality has anything to do with whether you enjoy what you do. I don't think I completely understand how I perceive morality, though, so I wouldn't want to get in an argument about it. So perhaps we are on the same page. I don't think that the pursuit of self-sacrifice is inherently noble (or useful), but I don't think that the pursuit of self-actualization is inherently noble (or useful) either. I think that we should be enacting policies and laws encouraging people to act for the overall good of society, which often, but not always, will correlate with their own purely selfish aims. I think that it's possible to do that in a way that creates a better world than what we would find when everyone acts in their own interest alone.
- grandalf 17y ago
  Fair enough. It sounds like your view could be described as a utilitarian value system that you impose after the fact based on a preconceived notion of some ends you hope society will achieve. You also seem to perceive that there exists a true greater good. I challenge you to introspect on that issue. I personally don't believe that the greater good really exists, and I attribute the creation of the meme to religious leaders who used their divine authority to declare what the greater good is so that the faithful would work to promote it in order to save their souls from eternal damnation -- notice the parallels with the modern secular notion? More mathematically, every individual has a set of interests/preferences. You can consider a function that maps from possible choices (individual, state, etc.) to everyone's preferences and try to maximize the amount of utility generated. But the problem for planners is that sometimes what is in an individual's best interest is not actually what the person wants. So calculating the greater good involves myriad assumptions and fudges... and at its core any notion of the greater good involves making an aesthetic choice of how to transfer benefit/harm across some set of people. For instance, any notion of the greater good applied to US politics probably neglects the harm inflicted on those who live just across the border who would be happy to work in the US but starve due to US immigration policies. Pretty soon the concept of the greater good (for any meaningful policy choice) conflicts with the idea of nationhood itself and becomes meaningless.
  - mquander 17y ago
    I recognize upon reading your comment that it is really quite a cycle -- culture changes our opinion about what the greater good is, and then we all go and talk about how to reorganize the culture to get it! I'll think about this some more tonight.

codyrobbins 17y ago

As Francisco d'Anconia would say, 'check your premises.' Your argument is predicated on the assumption that there are billions of people on earth not capable of living the life they imagine. Exactly Rand's point is that this assumption of yours is not the case, and that, in fact, these people choose not to live the life they imagine, either because they refuse to work hard enough for it (they're lazy), they consciously decide to loot the efforts of others by force (they steal), or they simply don't have the ability to do so (they're incompetent). In all cases Rand's argument is that these people should not be entitled to any of the productive efforts of those who produce. I agree with the original commenter that the essay completely misses Rand's point. Rand does not ignore the complexities of social systems set up to repress and down-trod the disadvantaged. Such social systems are precisely the product of the looters who attempt to destroy productivity and creativity, not the result of a self-actualized group who achieves their collective self-actualization at the expense of others. The essayist's example of Genovese's murder and the conclusion he draws from it is a complete oversimplification. A selfish person would help a fellow human in distress for any number of reasons: to stop an injustice they see as unconscionable, for a reward, so that they could live with themselves afterwards, etc. 'Selfish' does not mean that one does not help others; it simply means that if one helps others it is for their own purposes, not because of charity or pity. I've thought many times, though, that Rand conveniently ignores (insofar as I've read) the case of those who truly can't care for themselves: the sick, the insane, and perhaps the crippled as well. But it should be noted that when asked, Rand categorized herself as a novelist who developed a philosophy for the sake of writing her novels, not a philosopher who wrote novels.

dmix 17y ago
>I've thought many times, though, that Rand conveniently ignores the case of those who truly can't care for themselves: the sick, the insane, and perhaps the crippled as well. There is an interview with Ayn on a talk show and was asked about what should happen to the "ungifted". She believes that first it is the parents responsibility to support them but if they are poor and can't afford to then private charities should look after them. Found the clip if your interested (around 5-6min in): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTHn-9hhU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTHn-9hhU
17y ago

radu_floricica 17y ago

That would work if self actualisation would be brought by money. But it's not, it's something which is much more encouraged by individual freedom then by any kind of welfare, however indirect. There are cases where abject poverty stops one from living the life he wants - but abject poverty is something completely eradicated in western countries (yes, including the homeless). I am not completely against taxation btw (I support the idea of free healthcare, for example). But when it comes to getting to live "for yourself", taxes and welfare don't matter. Attitude does.