Her ethics don't follow from her metaethics. The strict deontology upon which she bases her defense of the night watchman capitalist state does not follow from the premise that the good is that which serves the ultimate value and life being the ultimate value.
To my knowledge, the only time she even remotely tries to address this question is in the Ethics of Emergencies essay, but very weakly. There is no reason for someone who needs a life-saving surgery but is too poor to pay for it not to engage in crime and fraud to get the resources they need for it, as the long-term benefits of a "rational order" no longer make sense for someone about to die.
Likewise, if what is good for one is a matter of objective truth, then there is no reasonable objection within her system to forcing one to choose one's good, since what is good for someone is measured by an objective standard: the furthering of their life. Slapping a poisonous mushroom out of the hand of someone about to eat it, or banning cigarettes from public consumption: both of those are forceful interventions that nevertheless further the life of those subjected to them. Her quote that the moral is the "chosen" contradicts her premises: the good is the good regardless of whether it is forced or chosen.
On a broader view, her "sense of life" was not always perfectly aligned with the ideal men or societies she presented. Howard Roark dynamites a third party's property in the climax of The Fountainhead, under the argument that the deal he had made with Keating for his project to be unaltered was broken (broken by a third party, no less). But his claim there would be, at best, damages - his project does not give him a claim on the physical objects, nor does Rand ever justify how it does.
Deep down, Rand just believes her ideal men should be able to do as they please because they are superior. She never really overcome the thought she expressed through We the Living's Kira that the masses should be "trampled underfoot", despite removing that line from the novel later on. Which is why she leaves Eddie Willers to die in Atlas Shrugged, despite actually singling him out as one of the few "average" men of morality in the novel.
On a broader view, her "sense of life" was not always perfectly aligned with the ideal men or societies she presented. Howard Roark dynamites a third party's property in the climax of The Fountainhead, under the argument that the deal he had made with Keating for his project to be unaltered was broken (broken by a third party, no less). But his claim there would be, at best, damages - his project does not give him a claim on the physical objects, nor does Rand ever justify how it does.
Deep down, Rand just believes her ideal men should be able to do as they please because they are superior. She never really overcome the thought she expressed through We the Living's Kira that the masses should be "trampled underfoot", despite removing that line from the novel later on. Which is why she leaves Eddie Willers to die in Atlas Shrugged, despite actually singling him out as one of the few "average" men of morality in the novel.
Great posts. the impression this topic gives me is that Rand was yet another in a line of people to espouse the "great man" ubermen idea without diving into its contradictions and consequences.
Question, i know that the great man idea came before Nietzsche from reading about it in crime and punishment, where did the idea originate? and why does it appeal so much to young people like leopold and loeb and people who read atlas shrugged in highschool?
On a broader view, her "sense of life" was not always perfectly aligned with the ideal men or societies she presented. Howard Roark dynamites a third party's property in the climax of The Fountainhead, under the argument that the deal he had made with Keating for his project to be unaltered was broken (broken by a third party, no less). But his claim there would be, at best, damages - his project does not give him a claim on the physical objects, nor does Rand ever justify how it does.
Deep down, Rand just believes her ideal men should be able to do as they please because they are superior. She never really overcome the thought she expressed through We the Living's Kira that the masses should be "trampled underfoot", despite removing that line from the novel later on. Which is why she leaves Eddie Willers to die in Atlas Shrugged, despite actually singling him out as one of the few "average" men of morality in the novel.
Life being the ultimate value does not mean doing whatever it takes to live.
In the arificial scenario you proposed, the act of infringing on other people's rights so you can not starve to death is wrong because that act counters the corollaries of the right to life, the right to property and the right of freedom.
Further, what is the context of this scenario? For ethical questions or any other question, you cant just make up a situation and say what to do. This is the same shit as the trolley problem. How did the man get so poor or sick? And according to you, how does this need give him the right to force others?
You have a clear confusion of rands argument for rights. The right to life, is not just living longer.
Rands ethics means each person has the right to life, meaning the right to be free, free from coercion. He can go take drugs or go kill himself.
Roark had the right to destroy the building, because his contract explicitly stated that his plans shouldn't be altered. Why are you talking about damages, when you dont even know the legal framework in the novel? Dont apply the real life framework to the fiction.
Rand did not believe that superior men should do whatever they want. She is opposed to Nietzsches idea of the superman deciding his own morality and having the power to not be bound by simple good and evil.
Rand is arguing for a morality free from the rooted morality of altruism and secularized religious morality. This morality does not mean that the ideal man is above it.
In regards to eddie, her point is that in a world where the ideal men are not allowed to be free, the average men are also not free or can even survive. Because it is the few that change history and civilization.
She dabs on the socialists. A lot of low life losers who blame capitalism for the fact they're bad fiance, and make bad personal decisions. >There is no reason for someone who needs a life-saving surgery but is too poor to pay for it not to engage in crime and fraud
And there's no reason for you not be punished for this since you're harming another individual for your selfish actions.
>And there's no reason for you not be punished for this since you're harming another individual for your selfish actions.
So? I don't necessarily disagree with you as per as my own actual ethics go, but there is no reason someone in that situation should consider himself evil in that case if the metric for good and evil is "furthers my life" and "hinders my life". And that is the metric Rand uses.
She tries to reconcile it with her adoration of capitalist society, because she's been in love with America since she was a child, but in my view she failed at it and was one of the cases where she did so because she wanted to force the premises to fit a conclusion instead of the other way around.
There is no way to jump from "the good is that which furthers my life" to "starting force or defrauding as someone is intrinsically evil" because that would mean: "starting force or defrauding someone 99% of the cases hinders my life."
>There is no way to jump from "the good is that which furthers my life" to "starting force or defrauding as someone is intrinsically evil"
But this is a straw man because she argues its good to further your life without the use of force or fraud. I don't see why being poor gives you a right to induce force on people who didn't steal from you. If that's the case, you should be fine with people robbing you.
>because she argues its good to further your life without the use of force or fraud.
No, she argues that using force and fraud is ultimately self-destructive. Like, I may think it gives me a headstart, but it would destroy me later on. It's not a matter of "if I use force I can't complain about others using it against me," like a kind of estoppel argument, which presupposes that using force COULD further your life if you just happen to be stronger than the other guy.
This is the point of the entire climax of Atlas Shrugged: the bureaucrats destroy themselves because they run out of victims to loot so there is no one left to keep society running. They don't lose because stronger bandits show up to defeat them, they ARE the strongest bandits. They lose because using force is, according to Rand, self-destructive in the long run.
Her and Rothbard are great. Rothbard said, "unleash the police", and I couldn't agree more. Self preservation is natural. Your own life is more important than the lives of others. Humility is for nobodies. Only great men man.
>there is no reason someone in that situation should consider himself evil
There is a reason if he's religious; there aren't any religions I can re-call where stealing and crime isn't a sin. This argument is so ironic you're trying to argue selfishness can't be a virtue for someone who is suffering to the point where they're willing to harm innocent parties for their problems. Its just an alibi for terrorism. And that makes sense, you're a socialist, you need some justification for why you have a right to harm others for your personal woes. to rationalize acts you know are morally reprehensible. Its easy for you to be like this until you're a victim of your own medicine. Which tends to happen to a lot of socialists after the revolution.
startwith the greeks
The appeal of her works for functional adults.
Her ethics don't follow from her metaethics. The strict deontology upon which she bases her defense of the night watchman capitalist state does not follow from the premise that the good is that which serves the ultimate value and life being the ultimate value.
To my knowledge, the only time she even remotely tries to address this question is in the Ethics of Emergencies essay, but very weakly. There is no reason for someone who needs a life-saving surgery but is too poor to pay for it not to engage in crime and fraud to get the resources they need for it, as the long-term benefits of a "rational order" no longer make sense for someone about to die.
Likewise, if what is good for one is a matter of objective truth, then there is no reasonable objection within her system to forcing one to choose one's good, since what is good for someone is measured by an objective standard: the furthering of their life. Slapping a poisonous mushroom out of the hand of someone about to eat it, or banning cigarettes from public consumption: both of those are forceful interventions that nevertheless further the life of those subjected to them. Her quote that the moral is the "chosen" contradicts her premises: the good is the good regardless of whether it is forced or chosen.
On a broader view, her "sense of life" was not always perfectly aligned with the ideal men or societies she presented. Howard Roark dynamites a third party's property in the climax of The Fountainhead, under the argument that the deal he had made with Keating for his project to be unaltered was broken (broken by a third party, no less). But his claim there would be, at best, damages - his project does not give him a claim on the physical objects, nor does Rand ever justify how it does.
Deep down, Rand just believes her ideal men should be able to do as they please because they are superior. She never really overcome the thought she expressed through We the Living's Kira that the masses should be "trampled underfoot", despite removing that line from the novel later on. Which is why she leaves Eddie Willers to die in Atlas Shrugged, despite actually singling him out as one of the few "average" men of morality in the novel.
Great posts. the impression this topic gives me is that Rand was yet another in a line of people to espouse the "great man" ubermen idea without diving into its contradictions and consequences.
Question, i know that the great man idea came before Nietzsche from reading about it in crime and punishment, where did the idea originate? and why does it appeal so much to young people like leopold and loeb and people who read atlas shrugged in highschool?
Life being the ultimate value does not mean doing whatever it takes to live.
In the arificial scenario you proposed, the act of infringing on other people's rights so you can not starve to death is wrong because that act counters the corollaries of the right to life, the right to property and the right of freedom.
Further, what is the context of this scenario? For ethical questions or any other question, you cant just make up a situation and say what to do. This is the same shit as the trolley problem. How did the man get so poor or sick? And according to you, how does this need give him the right to force others?
You have a clear confusion of rands argument for rights. The right to life, is not just living longer.
Rands ethics means each person has the right to life, meaning the right to be free, free from coercion. He can go take drugs or go kill himself.
Roark had the right to destroy the building, because his contract explicitly stated that his plans shouldn't be altered. Why are you talking about damages, when you dont even know the legal framework in the novel? Dont apply the real life framework to the fiction.
Rand did not believe that superior men should do whatever they want. She is opposed to Nietzsches idea of the superman deciding his own morality and having the power to not be bound by simple good and evil.
Rand is arguing for a morality free from the rooted morality of altruism and secularized religious morality. This morality does not mean that the ideal man is above it.
In regards to eddie, her point is that in a world where the ideal men are not allowed to be free, the average men are also not free or can even survive. Because it is the few that change history and civilization.
/lit/'s thoughts on Mises? As in seriously.
the ten commandments are the non-aggression principle
libertarians are the real israelites
She dabs on the socialists. A lot of low life losers who blame capitalism for the fact they're bad fiance, and make bad personal decisions.
>There is no reason for someone who needs a life-saving surgery but is too poor to pay for it not to engage in crime and fraud
And there's no reason for you not be punished for this since you're harming another individual for your selfish actions.
>And there's no reason for you not be punished for this since you're harming another individual for your selfish actions.
So? I don't necessarily disagree with you as per as my own actual ethics go, but there is no reason someone in that situation should consider himself evil in that case if the metric for good and evil is "furthers my life" and "hinders my life". And that is the metric Rand uses.
She tries to reconcile it with her adoration of capitalist society, because she's been in love with America since she was a child, but in my view she failed at it and was one of the cases where she did so because she wanted to force the premises to fit a conclusion instead of the other way around.
There is no way to jump from "the good is that which furthers my life" to "starting force or defrauding as someone is intrinsically evil" because that would mean: "starting force or defrauding someone 99% of the cases hinders my life."
>There is no way to jump from "the good is that which furthers my life" to "starting force or defrauding as someone is intrinsically evil"
But this is a straw man because she argues its good to further your life without the use of force or fraud. I don't see why being poor gives you a right to induce force on people who didn't steal from you. If that's the case, you should be fine with people robbing you.
>because she argues its good to further your life without the use of force or fraud.
No, she argues that using force and fraud is ultimately self-destructive. Like, I may think it gives me a headstart, but it would destroy me later on. It's not a matter of "if I use force I can't complain about others using it against me," like a kind of estoppel argument, which presupposes that using force COULD further your life if you just happen to be stronger than the other guy.
This is the point of the entire climax of Atlas Shrugged: the bureaucrats destroy themselves because they run out of victims to loot so there is no one left to keep society running. They don't lose because stronger bandits show up to defeat them, they ARE the strongest bandits. They lose because using force is, according to Rand, self-destructive in the long run.
Her and Rothbard are great. Rothbard said, "unleash the police", and I couldn't agree more. Self preservation is natural. Your own life is more important than the lives of others. Humility is for nobodies. Only great men man.
Rothbard was a prolific moralist.
>there is no reason someone in that situation should consider himself evil
There is a reason if he's religious; there aren't any religions I can re-call where stealing and crime isn't a sin. This argument is so ironic you're trying to argue selfishness can't be a virtue for someone who is suffering to the point where they're willing to harm innocent parties for their problems. Its just an alibi for terrorism. And that makes sense, you're a socialist, you need some justification for why you have a right to harm others for your personal woes. to rationalize acts you know are morally reprehensible. Its easy for you to be like this until you're a victim of your own medicine. Which tends to happen to a lot of socialists after the revolution.
everything because she is ugly
i’ll never read this roastie no matter how hard IQfy memes her
she was a women....the better question is what she wasn't wrong about.
Being a woman she is qualified to write about people's behavior and attitude. And she wrote keenly about the behaviors and attitudes of collectivists.
Objectivism and the idea that she should write books. Universal consensus on these two facts.