Ayn Rand: Architect of the culture of death

[meow2u3]

(snip)

Thus spake, not Zarathustra, but Ayn Rand's philosophical mouthpiece, John Galt, the protagonist of her principal novel, Atlas Shrugged. The "moral crisis" to which he refers is the conflict between altruism, which is radically immoral, and individualism, which provides the only form of true morality possible. Altruism, for Galt and Rand, leads to death; individualism furnishes the only path that leads to life. Thus, in order to go on living with any degree of authenticity, we must abandon the immoral code of altruism and embrace the vivifying practice of individualism.

Throughout the course of history, according to Ayn Rand, there have been three general views of morality. The first two are mystical, which, for Rand, means fictitious, or non-objective. The third is objective, something that can be verified by the senses. Initially, a mystical view reigned, in which the source of morality was believed to be God's will. This is not compatible either with Rand's atheism, or her objectivism. In due course, a neo-mystical view held sway, in which the "good of society" replaced the "will of God. The essential defect of this view, like the first, is that it does not correlate with an objective reality. "There is no such entity as 'society,'" she avers. And since only individuals really exist, the so-called "good of society" degenerates into a state where "some men are ethically entitled to pursue any whims (or any atrocities) they desire to pursue, while other men are ethically obliged to spend their lives in the service of that gang's desires."

Only the third view of morality is realistic and worthwhile. This is Rand's objectivism, a philosophy that is centred exclusively on the individual. It is the individual alone that is real, objective, and the true foundation for ethics. Therefore, Rand can postulate the basic premise of her philosophy: "The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A – and Man is Man."

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/philosophy/ph0014.htm#.Ub_kYby7o7k.facebook

[hunter]

1. I enjoyed that essay -- thanks.

It seems so silly to see humanity as selfish individuals when all around us is the evidence that we are social creatures.

We are individuals, yes, but we are also creatures of our human communities. It is the giving that moves us forward, not the taking, it is the loving that moves us forward, not the hating.

[Igel]

2. Rand was warped by her childhood.

Her family was punished harshly because of what they had and believed.

She was punished because of her family, not because of what she had or believed. She was a minor.

Yet the attitude was to glorify the collective, to emphasize that one only lived through the collective, had to give all to the collective, and was only granted what was necessary by the collective. The collective was all--the individual was nothing, a mere piece of sand in the concrete that was society. One aspect was disposing of private property; one couldn't allow individuals to decide their own course of study or careers; and child-bearing was good because it provided the foundation of society (provided, of course, that state-run daycares took the infants to raise with the proper moral underpinnings so that the women could work).

Like many, she let others define her. She despised collectivism and the mass murder committed in its name, and therefore adopted the diametric opposite view: The individual is all. So where the state banned private property and abortions, she supported private property and abortions.

Don't like Rand? Blame Lenin and Stalin.

[hunter]

3. But that doesn't explain people who haven't suffered that sort of oppresion...

... embracing her "philosophy."

[IrishAyes]

7. If not so tragic, it would be hysterically funny

the way our own Religious Right Taliban tries to follow both the philosophy of a sociopath (Rand, among others) and Christ at the same time. Can't be done.

[IrishAyes]

6. If one espouses unrestricted individualism (ie, sociopathy)

then one must prepare to accept PERSONAL responsibility of the consequences.

Blame Lenin and Stalin? or anyone else? Nope.

If Rand was such a supposedly independent individual, the onus is on HER. Otherwise it's like she 's saying the devil made her do it. Don't fall into the same trap, friend. How would it play out if someone decided to 'cleanse' the world of teabaggers??????

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

4. "There is no such entity as 'society'"

Margaret Thatcher made a similar remark:

And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

If there is no such thing as society, then what did Thatcher believe she was Prime Minister of?

[IrishAyes]

5. No telling.

But it was crystal clear what her victims thought of her: Ding dong, the witch is dead!