Is Objectivism a cult?

[drachasor]

Are you sure about that? You've shown that it will "cause" people to make immoral choices when given a clear advantage, certainly. However,so long as the police are efficient enough that it's generally against your rational self-interest to commit crimes, I don't see how that's a point against it.

On the previous page I discussed health care and those arguments relate to other public goods. Certainly it is a stronger mark against Objectivism in general.

And it IS a point against it if your ethical code advises that you do unethical things. It's failing as an ethical guideline, and in the critical area where someone isn't watching over your shoulder, it tells you to do wrong. Anyhow, basically nobody generally murders other people for profit. It is the exceptions that concern us. I suppose murder could controlled to a good level in such a world if privacy laws were basically non-existent so that everything could be taped. Otherwise there will always be ways for clever people to get away with murder.

More importantly, rational self-interest isn't an ethic or principle that promotes or supports trust, and societies rely on trust to survive and thrive. If people can't trust each other and have to spend a lot of time making sure everything around them (e.g. government, police, other people, etc), then that's a lot of resources that could be better spent. I am comparing, of course, a world where rational self-interest is the accepted norm of behavior vs. one more like where we live today.

-Drachasor

 

[greekguy]

wow, I didn't know Objectivism was such a fringe movement! Then I might have a problem.

In school last year we had to read Anthem and then write and essay afterwards, which was then sent into the Ayn Rand organization or something like that. anyway, I ended up being a semi-finalist and won some $ and some certificate. I was planning on including it on my brag sheet when I apply to college my senior year. based on what i've read here, i'm not so sure i should. what do you guys think?

 

[Chandrasekhar]

It's not that much of a fringe movement. I think CFC's crowd just dislikes it more than most. That said, your political compass doesn't precisely make you look like a Randian to me.

 

[drachasor]

wow, I didn't know Objectivism was such a fringe movement! Then I might have a problem.

In school last year we had to read Anthem and then write and essay afterwards, which was then sent into the Ayn Rand organization or something like that. anyway, I ended up being a semi-finalist and won some $ and some certificate. I was planning on including it on my brag sheet when I apply to college my senior year. based on what i've read here, i'm not so sure i should. what do you guys think?

I'd try to get advice from a guidance counselor or some other person that knows for sure whether it would help or hurt you. I am tempted to say it wouldn't hurt, though personally I'd never brag about rewards I had gotten from any kind of Ayn Rand organization (just general principles).

-Drachasor

 

[greekguy]

It's not that much of a fringe movement. I think CFC's crowd just dislikes it more than most. That said, your political compass doesn't precisely make you look like a Randian to me.

well, I don't think I consider myself a Randian either, but I do agree w/some of her basic ideas (capitalism=good, commies=bad ). that said, I did think Anthem was decent, though from what I've read here, that book didn't really go in depth towards explaining her whole philosophy.

I'd try to get advice from a guidance counselor or some other person that knows for sure whether it would help or hurt you. I am tempted to say it wouldn't hurt, though personally I'd never brag about rewards I had gotten from any kind of Ayn Rand organization (just general principles).

-Drachasor

thanks, I'll make sure to ask when teh time comes (though I've still got awhile--entering my junior year this Sept.)

 

[El_Machinae]

Since the probability of being discovered (in doing an unlawful act) increases with time (evidence can be discovered: evidence degrades, but not to zero), then in a longer-lived society people would be more motivated to not engage in crimes. Society would endeavour to punish people who had committed crimes and then later been found out.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Actually, I'd say as a moral philosophy, rational self-interest is an awful principle to go by.

You could do worse (give the devil her due), but you could definitely do better.

As to the OP, Objectivism has a disturbingly high quotient of that very cultish quality of groupthink. I'm reminded of that scene from Life of Brian:

Brian (Rand): You are all individuals!
Crowd (Objectivists), in unison: Yes, we are all in-di-vid-u-als!
Zen Master somwhere in the crowd: I'm not!

 

[drachasor]

Since the probability of being discovered (in doing an unlawful act) increases with time (evidence can be discovered: evidence degrades, but not to zero), then in a longer-lived society people would be more motivated to not engage in crimes. Society would endeavour to punish people who had committed crimes and then later been found out.

I'd be shocked if this was the case. Evidence certainly can degrade to being worthless, and a well-crafted crime can leave no good leads. I'd also note that unsolved cases, once left as unsolved, typically remain unsolved (AFAIK). If you have some evidence that the longer the Police have a case, the more and more likely it is they will solve it (no matter what), then I'd like to see it, because otherwise you are just trying to wave away the real difficulties in solving crimes.

This website seems to indicate that in the US, that a good number of murders go unsolved:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/imputationandweighting.htm

-Drachasor

 

[Brighteye]

You're fighting a straw man there. I never said that police weren't necessary. I did say that crimes being ok if the police don't catch you is crazy.

You said that objectivists were living in a dream world if they thought that they could ever make it so that people would not murder, simply through economic forces.
I was pointing out that it's no more of a dream world than thinking that you can prevent all murder through indoctrination into utilitarianism, or some other code.
If you want to say instead that crimes being right is a crazy idea, then I agree. Crimes, by definition, are wrong. But you seemed more to be having a go at rational self interest itself than its link to moral goodness.

A mother dying for her children is not in her self-interest...

Clearly she's not an objectivist then. But just because some people do not follow objectivism does not make it a bad moral code: it means that it's not a certainty for predicting actions

Additionally, I am talking about how Rational Self-Interest is a bad moral code. That's been the point of the posts I've made which you have responded to. Since you seem to no longer be defending Objectivists with this new post of yours.

But why is it a bad moral code? Where do you get your objective measures of good and bad from? Isn't the whole problem of comparing moral codes that you cannot necessarily agree on which are better because you want them to do different things?

Our laws are based on moral principles, and the reason for them is obvious: it benefits society as a whole (e.g. the masses of people). A good ethic is good at this, and a bad ethic is poor at this.

Our laws are moral principles. Their effect is not necessarily their purpose. I would say that we have laws because they benefit every individual.

I've already stated how Rational Self-Interest makes humanity worse off, and hence how that makes it a bad ethic. I've also pointed out how it fails to support and be supported by the law -- in fact it would advocate breaking the law if you can get away with it. That sort of thing doesn't help society function. While many people would ignore that, you also don't have a very good ethic, pragmatically, if basically no one would ever follow it.

-Drachasor

If it's making humanity worse off, is it rational? It supports law: it supports making law harsh enough to deter anyone from committing a crime, by ensuring that even if he does not subscribe to another standard of morality he will find no benefit in crime.
Rational self-interest often motivates people to break the law. We see it in a great number of legal cases every day. I don't think that it is a moral code: I think that it's an objective fact, but your argument about a 'good pragmatic ethic' is more appropriately applied to utilitarianism, which far fewer people follow.

And it IS a point against it if your ethical code advises that you do unethical things.

If your ethical code commands them, I hardly see that they can be called unethical.

...there will always be ways for clever people to get away with murder.

well, yes. And there will always be people willing to murder, no matter how we try to convince them otherwise.

More importantly, rational self-interest isn't an ethic or principle that promotes or supports trust, and societies rely on trust to survive and thrive.

If it makes everyone, including oneself, worse off, is it rational?

 

[drachasor]

You said that objectivists were living in a dream world if they thought that they could ever make it so that people would not murder, simply through economic forces.
I was pointing out that it's no more of a dream world than thinking that you can prevent all murder through indoctrination into utilitarianism, or some other code.

There's a HUGE difference here. Rational Self-Interest advocates killing other people for your own benefit if you can get away with it. Since no legal system is ever going to be able to catch everyone, Rational Self-Interest advocates murder for personal gain.

Utilitarianism doesn't advocate murder. End of story.

It isn't about whether people will murder or not. My argument is about what the ethical systems are advocating as acceptable behavior. Rational Self-Interest fails here as a good moral system, because it advocates atrocious behavior that only monsters would accept.

If you want to say instead that crimes being right is a crazy idea, then I agree. Crimes, by definition, are wrong. But you seemed more to be having a go at rational self interest itself than its link to moral goodness.

Crimes are only "wrong by definition" legally speaking. You can have unjust laws and ethical systems that prescribe breaking an unjust law. Rational Self-Interest advocates breaking a just law, however.

Clearly she's not an objectivist then. But just because some people do not follow objectivism does not make it a bad moral code: it means that it's not a certainty for predicting actions

You said:

Self-interest is not a moral code: it's what governs nature, and is thus a fact, even if it can be overcome in people's decision-making.

And I just pointed out how a very natural behavior resulted in someone acting against their own self-interest. My point is that self-interest is not what governs nature (on the level of full-blown organisms anyhow). We have plenty of non-selfish instincts.

But why is it a bad moral code? Where do you get your objective measures of good and bad from? Isn't the whole problem of comparing moral codes that you cannot necessarily agree on which are better because you want them to do different things?

We expect a good moral code to jive with moral precepts everyone accepts, such as "don't kill people for personal gain" that basically every culture in the history of the planet as accepted as true. Rational Self-Interest doesn't pass this inspection (and murder for personal gain happens to be an easy example).

Our laws are moral principles. Their effect is not necessarily their purpose. I would say that we have laws because they benefit every individual.

Laws ideally benefit society, not necessarily the individual. They don't even necessarily benefit everyone alive today, since some are crafted to largely benefit people that haven't even been born.

And it is a mistake to assume that laws are moral principles. They are based on moral principles, but almost everyone agrees the laws are wrong now and then.

If it's making humanity worse off, is it rational?

It's not rational for society as a whole, but that doesn't mean it isn't seflishly rational for an individual. There are plenty of things that can benefit a small number of people and that are still quite bad for society. Rational Self-Interest doesn't encourage people to think about the benefits for society, but rather only the selfish benefits. Sometimes there are overlaps, but there are plenty of cases where the two views are diametrically opposed.

It supports law: it supports making law harsh enough to deter anyone from committing a crime, by ensuring that even if he does not subscribe to another standard of morality he will find no benefit in crime.

Doesn't work if he doesn't get caught.

Rational self-interest often motivates people to break the law. We see it in a great number of legal cases every day. I don't think that it is a moral code: I think that it's an objective fact, but your argument about a 'good pragmatic ethic' is more appropriately applied to utilitarianism, which far fewer people follow.

You are saying that Rational Self-Interest is a good moral code, are you not? If you aren't then why are we having this discussion? A good moral code doesn't motive people to break good laws. You don't see, for instance, Utilitarianism motivating people to break the law every day.

If your ethical code commands them, I hardly see that they can be called unethical.

You think it is impossible for someone to have a bad code of ethics?

If it makes everyone, including oneself, worse off, is it rational?

It's basic game theory, and the prisoner's dilemma highlights this. You have two criminals, A and B, and either one can plead guilty or innocent to a crime. If one pleads guilty and the other innocent, then the guilty pleader gets a deal and goes free, but the other guy serves 10 years in prison. If they both plead innocent, then they both only serve 6 months in jail. If they both plead guilty, then they serve 5 years in prison. They are not allowed to communicate with each other (or we could assume they even if they do communicate, they can't necessarily trust the other).

Now, what is best for the group (these two prisoners) is for them to both plead innocent. However, this only works if BOTH of them do it, and what is best for the individual is for him to plead guilty and the other one to plead innocent. So Rational Self-Interest would result in both of them serving 5 years, because they'd plead guilty (both knowing the other followed a similar precept and wouldn't be trustworthy). Because of the break-down of trust, both people serve 5 years instead of 6 months.

It isn't ideal, but both of them acted rationally and in their own best interest on an individual level. As it happens this can cause a lot of damage on the group level (and even be flat-out worse than a group-centered ethic).

-Drachasor

 

[Angst]

It sounds like it.