Is Objectivism a cult?

[drachasor]

The $10 in the bank will give me a couple pennies a year. Even compounded, I won't see much benefit from that $10 in a couple decades.

My position is that in a couple decades, the feedback from the charity would be similar (or even greater) in benefit than the interest from the bank.

If it doesn't help you in the bank, then spending it on yourself will still benefit you more (or investing it in the market).

Also, in the bank you can always take out the $10, since you haven't actually spent it. You won't be able to do that with a charity.

-Drachasor

 

[El_Machinae]

Also, in the bank you can always take out the $10, since you haven't actually spent it. You won't be able to do that with a charity.

Yes, good point. Thanks.

 

[Perfection]

It's obviously untrue that donating to charity benefits you on a similar amount to a bank account.

If many people donate millions of dollars to your charity, I don't think you can expect to have something on the order of millions of dollars in returns.

That fact won't change if you become the donor instead of someone else.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, the bank account analogy has a weakness because (as was pointed out) you can always get your 10 bucks back.

But most charities have economical feedback effects (some greater, some lesser), and these feedback effects are bound to influence my life in the future. Wise charity giving is more likely to see a benefit, of course.

I'll use a simple example: a cure for cancer is worth $50 trillion*to the economy. Getting to this cure will occur more quickly based on charitable input, putatively. Of course, a $10 donation makes the tracking of the personal benefits very, very hard to do - but I think it's obvious that I benefit if there's a cure (with a greatly expanded economy in which I have customers). This cure is also more likely to occur sooner based on my personal charity efforts.

*I know the valuing of a cure for cancer is roughly done, but it's just an example.

 

[drachasor]

Well, the bank account analogy has a weakness because (as was pointed out) you can always get your 10 bucks back.

But most charities have economical feedback effects (some greater, some lesser), and these feedback effects are bound to influence my life in the future. Wise charity giving is more likely to see a benefit, of course.

I'll use a simple example: a cure for cancer is worth $50 trillion*to the economy. Getting to this cure will occur more quickly based on charitable input, putatively. Of course, a $10 donation makes the tracking of the personal benefits very, very hard to do - but I think it's obvious that I benefit if there's a cure (with a greatly expanded economy in which I have customers). This cure is also more likely to occur sooner based on my personal charity efforts.

*I know the valuing of a cure for cancer is roughly done, but it's just an example.

Let's say it is 50 years ago though, and you are 50 years old. Those charities are basically useless to you, since a cure won't be found in your lifetime. Money spent there is wasted. Charities are very, very unlikely to pay off to the donor within his/her lifetime.

Now, they certainly benefit society a great deal. If you are a billionaire, for instance, then $1000 to a charity probably has more marginal returns to society than it would if spent on you. So society has a net gain, but you will have a net loss. It would be better to buy something for yourself or invest the money if you want to maximize your personal benefit. Yes, everyone being self-centered in this manner would harm society in the long run (fewer cures for diseases, less research, less economic advancement in the long run). Rational self-interest doesn't care about this however (which is one reason why it fails).

-Drachasor

 

[LordRahl]

Now, they certainly benefit society a great deal. If you are a billionaire, for instance, then $1000 to a charity probably has more marginal returns to society than it would if spent on you. So society has a net gain, but you will have a net loss. It would be better to buy something for yourself or invest the money if you want to maximize your personal benefit. Yes, everyone being self-centered in this manner would harm society in the long run (fewer cures for diseases, less research, less economic advancement in the long run). Rational self-interest doesn't care about this however (which is one reason why it fails).
-Drachasor

Check your premises. Why do you assume that cures for diseases come from charities? Most of the time your $10 will buy a blanket for a homeless guy - hardly a scientific breakthrough. The fact is, it's the big "bad" pharmaceutical companies that make most of the important discoveries. They can get the top chemical engineers, because they pay top salary. If people follow their rational self-interest, instead of wasting their money on a charity, they'll invest in a profitable company (like that pharmaceutical company). If the company wants to attract investors, it will have to show results. Acting in it's self-interest it will try to out-research the competition. You end up with new cures.

It's just the opposite without self-interest. The investors don't have any money left, because they gave it away to charities. The pharmaceutical companies have no capital to spend on R&D. Everybody loses - except for a few social parasites.

Things in your daily life, work because majority of people have their rational self-interest as their main goal. Your local store doesn't stock food for you, because they don't want you to get hungry. They do it to make money. The farmer that grows the food doesn't do it out of the kindness of his heart either - he's in it for money as well, that selfish bastard...

Donating to charities is fine - as long as it is in your rational self-interest. I donate myself, mostly to organizations helping sick kids - it makes me feel better - it enhances my life in that (you could say selfish) way.

I've seen first hand what collectivist ideologies like Communism or Fascism do to humanity. Until somebody shows me a failed Objectivist society - I'm sticking to it. I have yet to find a more appealing philosophy - this was the only one that perfectly aligned with my views on pretty much all major issues from Abortion through Economic Policy through Religion to Euthanasia. Call it a "cult" if you want, though I don't see how it applies to me - I don't accept anything on faith - reason is my only absolute.

 

[LightFang]

Boundless belief in reason is a faith~

All that stuff is just stemming from capitalism. Rational self-interest, phooey.

 

[Norbert]

That's kind of like saying humanist libertarianism is a cult, isn't it? I disagree that it is a cult, and I also disagree that it is "inherantly moronic" as someone above stated. I just finished Atlas Shrugged, as a matter of fact, and while I'm an authoritarian, and therefore found A LOT to disagree with in the book, I also found A LOT to agree with. (See political compass numbers below.) Of course, I'm just saying this because it's in my rational, objective, self-interest to state my opinion...

EDIT: oh yah, Lord Rahl, I couldn't tell from your sig and such that you would post here...hehe. I love your Winston quote, BTW.

Multedit: hehe, you even said check your premises!!! <3

 

[LordRahl]

Boundless belief in reason is a faith~

What do you have left if you don't trust the faculty of your reason? How do you gain knowledge without it?

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I believe that when taken to ridiculously extreme levels, Objectivism could have catestrophic consequences. Couldn't the same thing be said about any other ideology? When tempered according to the realities of society, I think it makes a much better worldview than most competing ideologies.

 

[drachasor]

Check your premises. Why do you assume that cures for diseases come from charities? Most of the time your $10 will buy a blanket for a homeless guy - hardly a scientific breakthrough. The fact is, it's the big "bad" pharmaceutical companies that make most of the important discoveries.

That's blatantly false about cures for most diseases. Most of the important medical discoveries have been funded by the government or charities. Additionally, a lot of important breakthroughs will take more than 1 life-time to achieve (such as a cure for cancer or aids), so from a rational-self interest perspective, few people will have any desire to pay for such research.

Pharmaceutical Companies largely come up with palliatives -- medication that you take regularly to suppress the symptoms of a disease or condition. Those things can pay for themselves eventually (especially with current patent laws). However, true cures wouldn't pay for themselves within one person's life-time, since one set of treatments eliminates the problem (so a company has to charge a high price, and even if they have full rights for the cure forever, that's a low return on investment for a long time). So such companies generally aren't looking for cures, but instead look for treatments. However, it is blatantly obvious that a cure is better for society, since society will spend far fewer resources on a disease when it has a cure.

In short, yes, there'd be fewer cures for diseases if everyone operated according to their own rational self-interest as opposed to caring about the interests of society as a whole or just other people in general.

Things in your daily life, work because majority of people have their rational self-interest as their main goal. Your local store doesn't stock food for you, because they don't want you to get hungry. They do it to make money. The farmer that grows the food doesn't do it out of the kindness of his heart either - he's in it for money as well, that selfish bastard...

There are certainly cases where rational self-interest is helpful and works just like a more noble intent. Certainly multiple motives might be in play for a grocer (perhaps he likes knowing that he provides food for the community). However, as a general moral precept rational self-interest has several large drawbacks, one of which I already mentioned. Another failing is that it encourages evil behavior when you can get away with it.

Donating to charities is fine - as long as it is in your rational self-interest. I donate myself, mostly to organizations helping sick kids - it makes me feel better - it enhances my life in that (you could say selfish) way.

That's not in your rational self-interest, unless you are a fundamentally a person who is not self-interested. Why do you care about these strangers? Certainly the money you spend on them doesn't give as strong an economic return to you as other things you could spend it on. You are sacrificing money you could spend on your betterment for the betterment of others. That's a good thing, but not in your rational self-interest.

I've seen first hand what collectivist ideologies like Communism or Fascism do to humanity.

Authoritarianism is what fails. Social Democracy works well in Europe, for instance. Caring about other people helps societies function and prosper.

-Drachasor

 

[Perfection]

What do you have left if you don't trust the faculty of your reason? How do you gain knowledge without it?

You can't reason a moral truth without irrationally taking others as axiomatic. In morality, while reason has its place, there is a large amount of irrational preference and there is a strong reliance on intuition. Objectivisim completely ignores this and continues to erroneously insist it is the only logical moral code with a vigor I've only seen by those who follow divine command morality.

 

[El_Machinae]

The problem with getting Big Pharma to find cures is that they'll only research cures that they can patent and profit from. No Pharma is going to spend a billion dollars proving that a generic is capable of curing cancer, in solid clinical trials.

Drach: yes, I agree that charity "investments" are less likely to pay off in the short-term. Meanwhile, they're more than capable of paying off in the long-term. And don't worry, I still understand how the Free Rider fits into this!

 

[drachasor]

The problem with getting Big Pharma to find cures is that they'll only research cures that they can patent and profit from. No Pharma is going to spend a billion dollars proving that a generic is capable of curing cancer, in solid clinical trials.

Drach: yes, I agree that charity "investments" are less likely to pay off in the short-term. Meanwhile, they're more than capable of paying off in the long-term. And don't worry, I still understand how the Free Rider fits into this!

I think they pay of for society in the short and long term (because the happiness of individuals matters -- I'm a Utilitarian). I don't think they necessarily have an economic pay-off within the life-time of one individual. I am pretty darn certain that the one individual doesn't get a pay off if charity is voluntary (he'll get essentially the same benefit whether or not he contributes) -- from a rational self-interest perspective, the more I think about it, I think the government would definitely have to mandate certain charities (which is against the free market emphasis of Objectivism) -- because, based on rational self-interest, each person will know his contribution doesn't amount to much, and that his contribution won't make others contribute, so there is no reason for him to contribute at all. Hence charities would have no money, which would hurt the economy overall (ironically).

-Drachasor

 

[Chandrasekhar]

What if the concept of the individual is extended to one's own descendants?

 

[drachasor]

What if the concept of the individual is extended to one's own descendants?

That's certainly not Objectivism, from what I know of it.

Also, it seems rather stupid and short-sighted, what the heck does it matter if someone has DNA a little bit similar to yours? It says nothing about their value as a human being. It is certainly going to matter less and less as time goes on (genetic engineering, cyborgism, etc).

-Drachasor

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Oh, I'm not contending that it's mainstream Objectivism either. All I'm saying is that the basic concepts behind it might be salvaged. As to the argument about descent not mattering... I think it's not so much the physiological aspect as the fact that your kids are your greatest investment into the future. Most parents I know don't raise their kids for the sole purpose of having someone to take care of them when they get older. Furthermore, I don't think anyone could call it immoral to value one's own kids more than they do other people.

 

[dh_epic]

That's part of the problem. Objectivists don't account for things like parental instinct, because they don't really believe in instinct, or argue that it's obsolete with the faculty of reason. But we evolved from animals. We have instincts. Even Ayn Rand herself wasn't able to live a life guided by reasonable self-interest. Often, self-interest is unreasonable and short-sighted by evolutionary design!

Once you realize that irrationality is a part of the human condition, you pretty much have to design civilization with that in mind. We're not about to outlaw family and auction kids off to the highest bidder just so we can have a more rational society. Family instincts are as much a reality of humanity as reason.

 

[drachasor]

That's part of the problem. Objectivists don't account for things like parental instinct, because they don't really believe in instinct, or argue that it's obsolete with the faculty of reason. But we evolved from animals. We have instincts. Even Ayn Rand herself wasn't able to live a life guided by reasonable self-interest. Often, self-interest is unreasonable and short-sighted by evolutionary design!

Once you realize that irrationality is a part of the human condition, you pretty much have to design civilization with that in mind. We're not about to outlaw family and auction kids off to the highest bidder just so we can have a more rational society. Family instincts are as much a reality of humanity as reason.

I'd further add that it would be a BAD thing for everyone to live life according to rational self-interest. It would not be good for society overall (which is the aggregate interest of its members). Rational self-interest is not a worthy ethic to strive for.

-Drachasor

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I'd further add that it would be a BAD thing for everyone to live life according to rational self-interest. It would not be good for society overall (which is the aggregate interest of its members). Rational self-interest is not a worthy ethic to strive for.

-Drachasor

Well, I've understood rational self-interest to be a means to an end, but what, specifically, works better than rational self-interest?