hybridizing ethics and possible conclusions.

[mdsimpson92]

I enjoy the ethics of Objectivism. It's a fair mix of utilitarianism and deontology.

Does it go under the title "rational egoism." I have personally never considered them, but then my professors have such a low opinion of Ayn Rand that I was discouraged from really studying her ethics.

Personally I am a form of virtue ethics. I probably come closest to the Stoic tradition due to my personality as a professional stick in the mud and snarker . Marcus Aurelius was actually the very first philosopher I had ever read (though the whole works of plato was the first I read to completion). Taking that into account I guess it is virtue mixed with a touch of deontology due to the valuing of rational beings.

[mdsimpson92]

Still want to talk about this thread.

[Kane Augustus]

I enjoy the ethics of Objectivism. It's a fair mix of utilitarianism and deontology.

Does it go under the title "rational egoism." I have personally never considered them, but then my professors have such a low opinion of Ayn Rand that I was discouraged from really studying her ethics.

Personally I am a form of virtue ethics. I probably come closest to the Stoic tradition due to my personality as a professional stick in the mud and snarker . Marcus Aurelius was actually the very first philosopher I had ever read (though the whole works of plato was the first I read to completion). Taking that into account I guess it is virtue mixed with a touch of deontology due to the valuing of rational beings.

Your professors probably have a low opinion of Rand because -- as is the case 99% of the time -- they don't really understand her. She is certainly not right on all accounts. For example, her 'objectivity' can only go so far because sooner or later one has to make a decision about things, and decisions are always subjective because one is always invested in their decisions. However, there are a great many useful insights in Objectivist epistemology and ethics that really clear up (at least, they did for me) understandings of human value and ability.

Also, people are turned off of Rand because she comes across quite terse and unsympathetic. But such perceptions, even if they are accurate (which they're not, overall), are more about the person who is offended than about Ayn Rand: many people do not know where they begin and where others end (personal boundaries). So, consequently, they respond to Rand with disdain and offense, as if somehow Rand is intending to hurt them. This only tells me that the person who is offended by Rand has chosen to be offended and refuses to take responsibility for their own limitations, so they thrust that responsibility back on Rand. It's really rather comical, to me.

In any case, Rand is not the whole picture. Her once-spurned lover, Nathaniel Branden, has a much better view of human nature and ethics. More specifically, his book The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem is a beautiful tour of human nature and ethical reasoning.

[mdsimpson92]

I have an article by rand supporting egoism back home as well as a rebuttal. I guess I will read that after I finish John Rawls or at the same time it isn't that long.

Tell me, how is it a hybrid between util and deontology? Also, isn't it true that Rand despised Immanuel Kant for some reason?

[Metacrock]

I have an article by rand supporting egoism back home as well as a rebuttal. I guess I will read that after I finish John Rawls or at the same time it isn't that long.

Tell me, how is it a hybrid between util and deontology? Also, isn't it true that Rand despised Immanuel Kant for some reason?

I have a very low opinion of Rand. It started in high school when I was just discovering great literature. I have been reading Hemingway and Fitzgerald even Aldus Huxley for a couple of years, then read a Rand novel in a class. It seemed like a real step back.

I never really delved into her philosophy until after I became a Christian so it was as an adversary that I first read about objectivity. I'm sure I have a certain degree of bias. I still think her views are all screwed up. I don't think she understood Kant.

I also have to admit that there used to be a private organization of philosophy buffs in Dallas which had large gatherings and good speakers it was one of the best forums for philosophy in the area. The great thing it was for the common man. So it took ordinary people and introduced them o philosophy. The objectivity swept in like brown shirts on patrol and took it over, made all the speakers objectivity. They now campaign for tea party candidates and every single thing they send out is brazen propaganda. Everyone of them were ignorant idiots who knew nothing about philosophy.

That wonderful forum is ruined. It's not even about real philosophy anymore. None of them even knew anything about philosophy. One time when I spoke there one of them raised his hand then started reading from the table of contents of a intro philosophy text book for no reaosn. One of them ask what my political views were I said "Social Democrat." She ask for an example of a country that was social democrat and I said "Sweden." She said "isn't that where they are all shooting each other." I said "no that's where thy are taxing each other."

She confusses Sweden with Sarajevo I guess.

[Kane Augustus]

Metacrock,

You know I respect you and a majority of your views. I enjoy learning from you. However, your last response was a large ad hominem and really doesn't help develop, let alone advance, the conversation.

You were disappointed by some Objectivists. Fine. You didn't agree with Rand. Fine. But could you at least spell-out why you disagree with Rand's ethics? If you don't, we're only left with your statement that you don't like her, and that's really just a shrugger.

[Kane Augustus]

I have an article by rand supporting egoism back home as well as a rebuttal. I guess I will read that after I finish John Rawls or at the same time it isn't that long.

Tell me, how is it a hybrid between util and deontology? Also, isn't it true that Rand despised Immanuel Kant for some reason?

Rand was disgusted by Kant's emphasis on duty-bound ethics (deontology), because Kant extended duty beyond the individual and homogenized humanity into a collective that ought to do what is right according to what is lawfully deemed to be right. That's, at least, the way Rand saw it. She was not entirely right because she didn't really understand Kant very well. That's fairly typical when it comes to Kant, however. Hence the philosopher's joke, "I Kant understand him."

In any case, the individual is duty-bound to do what s/he understands is rationally the right thing to do, in any given situation (deontology). On a large scale, this would see people, as individuals, working together on the whole to effect a co-operative environment for individual happiness (utilitarianism). That's the combination.

[Metacrock]

Metacrock,

You know I respect you and a majority of your views. I enjoy learning from you. However, your last response was a large ad hominem and really doesn't help develop, let alone advance, the conversation.

You were disappointed by some Objectivists. Fine. You didn't agree with Rand. Fine. But could you at least spell-out why you disagree with Rand's ethics? If you don't, we're only left with your statement that you don't like her, and that's really just a shrugger.

not an ad hom. I wasn't trying to say Rand is no good becuase her followers took over the Philosopher's forum. I'm just talking about experience with them and giving you background on what I know about her, which admittedly is not too much.

I am well acquainted with the idea that a great leader can't be measured by his dopy followers.

[Metacrock]

I have an article by rand supporting egoism back home as well as a rebuttal. I guess I will read that after I finish John Rawls or at the same time it isn't that long.

Tell me, how is it a hybrid between util and deontology? Also, isn't it true that Rand despised Immanuel Kant for some reason?

Rand was disgusted by Kant's emphasis on duty-bound ethics (deontology), because Kant extended duty beyond the individual and homogenized humanity into a collective that ought to do what is right according to what is lawfully deemed to be right. That's, at least, the way Rand saw it. She was not entirely right because she didn't really understand Kant very well. That's fairly typical when it comes to Kant, however. Hence the philosopher's joke, "I Kant understand him."

In any case, the individual is duty-bound to do what s/he understands is rationally the right thing to do, in any given situation (deontology). On a large scale, this would see people, as individuals, working together on the whole to effect a co-operative environment for individual happiness (utilitarianism). That's the combination.

Tell me why we should consider her as a serious philosopher? The notion of making selfishness into virtue is contradictory to the concept of ethics. It's wrong on the face of it.

[Kane Augustus]

Tell me why we should consider her as a serious philosopher? The notion of making selfishness into virtue is contradictory to the concept of ethics. It's wrong on the face of it.

I will not tell you or anyone else what to think. Consider Rand how you will. I can suggest to you, however, that if you're really not that familiar with her thinking, then reading Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology will set you on a path to better understanding of her thoughts.

Selfishness is not an ethical concept. To be concerned about one's interests is not a moral platform. We are all selfish, and insomuch as we tend to the pursuit of our lives and happiness we are selfish; i.e., we regard our selves as having meaning and being worth preservation and happiness. If you want to understand more about this, read The Virtue of Selfishness. Don't be mislead by the title: it is explained within the book itself.