Is Objectivism a cult?

[Perfection]

Really Cool Article, by Skeptic editor Michael Shermer:
http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml

 

[Tycoon101]

It is in my rational self interest to say that Objectivism is a cult.

 

[dh_epic]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt. And just like most fundamentalists, they tend to hijack the terminology of moderates. Never have I seen such abuse of the word "reason".

 

[LightFang]

That was a pretty interesting article there.

I voted yes.

 

[El_Machinae]

Really Cool Article, by Skeptic editor Michael Shermer:
http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml

I dunno: sell me on the idea.

 

[Fifty]

Indeed.

It sucks impressionable kids in with words like "objective" and "reason" and "rational" and "axiom" in the same manner that "eastern practices" suck in kids of a different persuasion. Add to that a supposed philosophical justification of hating taxes and acting self-interested and you have all sorts of silly kids clamoring all over it.

It is so incredibly obvious to anyone with ANY ability to analyze philosophical arguments that it is false. I mean seriously, it's that bad.

The unfortunate catch-22 of objectivism, and a large part of what makes it cult-like, is that it is so obviously moronic that anybody who buys into it is probably far too dumb to be able to understand an explanation of why it is so moronic. So it basically just sucks you in and doesn't let go.

 

[dh_epic]

I think a lot of it comes from the fact that if you talk to ANYONE -- even someone of mediocre intelligence -- if you ask them "aren't people stupid?" they'll be like "totally!" It's easy to sell someone the idea that everyone else is highly illogical and irrational, except you. You're the one who gets the objective truth!

And there's the appeal. That and the co-opting of such universal ideas of heroes and self-interest.

 

[Shadylookin]

I think it's mostly for young people that want an absolute ideology, but find communism too cliche

but no i don't think it's a really a cult since they aren't subject to the typical forced mental manipulation you would find in a traditional cult.

 

[JollyRoger]

I know that the word "cult" has negative connotations and all, but is it really necessary to add insult to injury by linking the term to Objectivism?

 

[puglover]

Like Nihilism and Relativism, Objectivism is just another one of those philosophies that bases itself first and foremost on the self, seeking only the survival of the person who claims to use "reason" to solve their problems. Such philosophies are most certainly cults, but probably worse.

 

[Phlegmak]

Why has LordRahl not participated in this discussion?

The description of a cult that Shermer wrote is almost perfect for communism. And Reagan conservatives.

 

[JollyRoger]

It's not in his rational self interest.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

It's not in his rational, objective, self-interest.

Damn you JollyRoger.

 

[The Yankee]

Probably, given the emphatic defenses of it and the denials of anything else. But probably no more so than some people are so committed to other ideologies, parties, you name it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

From the article, which was excellent.

The fallacy in Objectivism is the belief that absolute knowledge and final Truths are attainable through reason, and therefore there can be absolute right and wrong knowledge, and absolute moral and immoral thought and action.

The attainment of absolute truth through reason is almost enough to push her over into a religious cult all by itself.

I believe (and here I speak strictly for myself and not for the Skeptics Society or any of its members) that reality exists and that reason and science are the best tools we have for understanding causality in the real world. We can achieve an ever-greater understanding of reality but we can never know if we have final Truth with regard to nature. Since reason and science are human activities, they will always be flawed and biased. I believe that humans are primarily driven to seek greater happiness, but the definition of such is completely personal and cannot be dictated and should not be controlled by any group. (Even so-called selfless acts of charity can be perceived as directed toward self-fulfillment--the act of making someone else feel good, makes us feel good. This is not a falsifiable statement, but it is observable in people's actions and feelings.)

The logical extension of this belief (bolded) is that once we understand the brain better and can replicate emotions we enjoy, then plugging into happiness will be both appropriate and our fate at the expense of everything else.

The reason is straightforward. Morals do not exist in nature and thus cannot be discovered. In nature there are just actions--physical actions, biological actions, and human actions. Human actors act to increase their happiness, however they personally define it. Their actions become moral or immoral when someone else judges them as such. Thus, morality is a strictly human creation, subject to all the cultural influences and social constructions as other such human creations. Since virtually everyone and every group claims they know what right and wrong human action is, and since virtually all of these moralities are different from all others to a greater or lesser extent, then reason alone tells us they cannot all be correct. Just as there is no absolute right type of human music, there is no absolute right type of human action. The broad range of human action is a rich continuum that precludes its pigeonholing into the unambiguous yeses and noes that political laws and moral codes require.

Does this mean that all human actions are morally equal? No. Not any more than all human music is equal. We create standards of what we like and dislike, desire or not, and make judgments against these standards. But the standards are themselves human creations and not discovered in nature.…. A society that seeks greater happiness for its members by giving them greater freedom, will judge a Hitler or a Stalin as morally intolerable because his goal is the confiscation of human life, without which one can have no happiness.

Well written description of morality in the atheistic camp. The question it raises is whether this is preferred over the dogmatic and often absolute morals posited by religions. Freedom of action and abuse by many is the rational path, while greater orderliness (and control) and abuse by a few grow from religions. Of course our choices are not so simple, since as humans we tend to mix things inconsistently and include personal opinions in places they may not fit rationally.

Anyway, great post Perf.

 

[Fifty]

Like Nihilism and Relativism, Objectivism is just another one of those philosophies that bases itself first and foremost on the self, seeking only the survival of the person who claims to use "reason" to solve their problems. Such philosophies are most certainly cults, but probably worse.

Nihilism and Relativism are MUCH more serious and coherent than Objectivism. I'm not a Nihilist or a Relativist, but they are at least in some ways respectable philosophically, and worth consideration.



As for the article. It's pretty good. Shermer gets off base when he starts ruminating on metaethics, but its silly to expect a scientist to really know what he's talking about in that regard. In any case, it's not like he was trying to be authoratative. He clearly stated that it was just his opinion, so its all good.

 

[Japanrocks12]

from the way that I see them act, they are a cult as far as I'm concerned.

 

[warpus]

The fallacy in Objectivism is the belief that absolute knowledge and final Truths are attainable through reason, and therefore there can be absolute right and wrong knowledge, and absolute moral and immoral thought and action.

There are objective truths and there are subjective truths...

I don't see how thinking that absolute truths can be attained through reason implies that morality must be absolute

Morality is a social construct, it doesn't rely on any absolute truths... even though they exist.

 

[Rambuchan]

I voted yes and already posted what I think of Objectivism here.

 

[Elta]

I voted maybe.

I will say that I am not a fan of any ideology that deals in absolutes. We do not live in a world of absolutes. We may be in a unbalanced world according to the definition(s) of many but, we certainly do not live in a world of absolutes.