Question: How can a trial be conducted fairly if one party can afford a much better lawyer than the other? In many countries, the state provides lawyers to the poor; in partially socialized Britain where I am from, the state will provide a lawyer if the defendant can prove he cannot afford one himself. I am aware that these lawyers are paid through taxation, which is initiation of force. I am fairly new to Objectivism and was caught out recently in an argument about whether or not out of court settlements were just if the one side won or lost depending on the amount of money they were able to pay to lawyers. This of course applies to the entire criminal justice system if the quality of defense one gets is dependant on ability to pay. Do you have an answer to this? Answer: There is no settled Objectivist view on whether there should be public defense funds or not. This is a matter for a developed Objectivist legal philosophy, which does not exist yet. Moreover, it is also a matter of determining the practical consequences of a state institution in the context of a free society. This might require more evidence and experience with a free society before it could be definitively settled. At our 2002 Advanced Seminar, we discussed a paper by Christopher Robinson arguing that state-funded legal defense was as justifiable as state-funded prosecution.
Question: Since all living things die after one lifespan (humans included), why doesn't Objectivism recognize reproduction as the primary virtue? Answer: Since all humans live as individual beings fundamentally, and do not continue their own existence when they reproduce, reproduction is simply not a straightforward means of prolonging one's life. I have children and let me tell you, love them as I might, they are not me. Indeed, my own father is dead, and I am not him living on.
Objectivism holds that in a society in which people deal with each other by trade, there will exist a "pyramid of ability." It is a pyramid
To engage in rational philosophical discourse, one must understand and bear in mind the differences between the subjects of ethics and
If only Progressivism could be a genus of Objectivism! But, alas, no.The Progressive movement was originally an intellectual and political
Ayn Rand indeed regarded Anna Karenina as her least favorite novel. She presented her negative analysis of Anna Karenina in the article...
Morally there is a kind of symmetry between the two types of reparations cases: In general, there is no justice in blaming a group for the
On the general level, Objectivism and Rationalism differ because the former is a philosophical system encompassing metaphysics, epistemology
Objectivism is totally opposed to racism. It is an individualist philosophy, and it holds that all people, first and foremost, should be....
Every initial property rights claim involves seizure of property, in a sense. As no property rights exist before property rights are founded
Objectivism holds that honesty is one of the major virtues. In the end, one gains nothing by dishonesty; it leaves one trapped in a web of f
Question: Would an Objectivist be in favor of uniform environmental regulations enforced by law as a compromise between profitability and environmental protections, at least for those resources which nobody owns? Is there any coherent alternative? Answer: The only laws and regulations that are justifiable under a system of laissez-faire capitalism are those that protect individual rights. The goal is to maximize the freedom of each individual to act as he wants, without harming anyone else. Environmental laws as they exist today usually do not protect individual rights, but there can still be reason behind the existence of some of them. If the pollution caused by an individual or corporation physically harms the health of others, then it comprises a violation of the victims' rights. In such a case, if there is evidence to show that pollution above a certain level leads to an established danger level, then the government could legitimately impose restrictions. These laws are only justified when aimed at protecting individual rights. Their motivation should not be reaching a compromise between profitability and the environment. The specifics would be tricky to work out, and would probably lead to some amount of litigation in areas (or cases) in which laws cannot be applied.
Question: What has " Objectivism " got to opine on the outsourcing of American jobs to third world countries? Answer: Objectivism advocates the separation of the state from the economy, for the same basic reason that there should be separation of the state from religion: Both the economic choices of individuals as they trade the goods and services they need, and their choice of groups or belief systems to associate with, are exercises of the individual conscience that only have meaning if undertaken freely.
Question: Having studied Objectivism for several years, I see tremendous potential in the ideas contained within the philosophy. It seems to be a system of ideas far more correct and plausible than today's major philosophies/religions/ideologies. Furthermore, it's an optimistic philosophy with a genuinely positive view of life, man, and the world.Is it a problem with the philosophy itself? Is the problem how it is presented and "marketed"? Answer: Objectivism is true, and it does make sense. Because of this, it is easy to understand and to live by. But it also stands against many of the received traditions in philosophy and religion. And because of this, most people find it counter-intuitive and hard to integrate into their existing values and emotional commitments. All people have what Ayn Rand called a "sense of life." A sense of life is an emotional sum, a feeling of how the world is and how it ought to be, that serves as the equivalent of a kind of basic philosophy. If you thrill at the idea of taking responsibility for your life's major problems, or you shrink at it, or you feel wry resignation, or you feel something else, whatever you feel in facing such a big question reflects your sense of life. Like the values that drive all our emotions, we hold our sense of life subconsciously, and it is not always easy to identify its content or judge whether that content really makes sense.
Question: Is Objectivism bound to what Ayn Rand said, or can certain parts of it be further developed by other philosophers? Answer: This is an issue that has divided the Objectivist movement. The Atlas Society is founded on the principle that Objectivism is an open system of ideas, founded by Ayn Rand but open to further development, revision, and extension by rational thinkers with a solid understanding of her ideas. In The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand (available to students for free), TAS founder and executive director David Kelley outlines the key ideas that make Objectivism distinctive as a system, and discusses the reasons for regarding Objectivism as an open system. Those remarks were composed in response to an attack on Kelley by Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's heir, in which Peikoff attempted to defend the principle that Objectivism is simply the brand name for whatever philosophical thought of Ayn Rand's that has been recorded.
Ayn Rand defined a right as a "moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context" (The Virtue of
"Individualism" is a term for classifying theories, such as ethical or social theories. Any theory that places the individual foremost or
Rights are fundamental political principles. As such, they are based in morality. They summarize how human beings ought to be treated in a
What Objectivism opposes is the idea that nature has inherent value, apart from any human needs, values, or purposes. In general, Objectivis
As everyone grows up, they develop a set of values: ways they interpret and respond to the world. At the basis of their values lies what...
Question: How can a trial be conducted fairly if one party can afford a much better lawyer than the other? In many countries, the state provides lawyers to the poor; in partially socialized Britain where I am from, the state will provide a lawyer if the defendant can prove he cannot afford one himself. I am aware that these lawyers are paid through taxation, which is initiation of force. I am fairly new to Objectivism and was caught out recently in an argument about whether or not out of court settlements were just if the one side won or lost depending on the amount of money they were able to pay to lawyers. This of course applies to the entire criminal justice system if the quality of defense one gets is dependant on ability to pay. Do you have an answer to this? Answer: There is no settled Objectivist view on whether there should be public defense funds or not. This is a matter for a developed Objectivist legal philosophy, which does not exist yet. Moreover, it is also a matter of determining the practical consequences of a state institution in the context of a free society. This might require more evidence and experience with a free society before it could be definitively settled. At our 2002 Advanced Seminar, we discussed a paper by Christopher Robinson arguing that state-funded legal defense was as justifiable as state-funded prosecution.
Question: Since all living things die after one lifespan (humans included), why doesn't Objectivism recognize reproduction as the primary virtue? Answer: Since all humans live as individual beings fundamentally, and do not continue their own existence when they reproduce, reproduction is simply not a straightforward means of prolonging one's life. I have children and let me tell you, love them as I might, they are not me. Indeed, my own father is dead, and I am not him living on.
Objectivism holds that in a society in which people deal with each other by trade, there will exist a "pyramid of ability." It is a pyramid
To engage in rational philosophical discourse, one must understand and bear in mind the differences between the subjects of ethics and
If only Progressivism could be a genus of Objectivism! But, alas, no.The Progressive movement was originally an intellectual and political
Ayn Rand indeed regarded Anna Karenina as her least favorite novel. She presented her negative analysis of Anna Karenina in the article...
Morally there is a kind of symmetry between the two types of reparations cases: In general, there is no justice in blaming a group for the
On the general level, Objectivism and Rationalism differ because the former is a philosophical system encompassing metaphysics, epistemology
Objectivism is totally opposed to racism. It is an individualist philosophy, and it holds that all people, first and foremost, should be....
Every initial property rights claim involves seizure of property, in a sense. As no property rights exist before property rights are founded
Objectivism holds that honesty is one of the major virtues. In the end, one gains nothing by dishonesty; it leaves one trapped in a web of f
Question: Would an Objectivist be in favor of uniform environmental regulations enforced by law as a compromise between profitability and environmental protections, at least for those resources which nobody owns? Is there any coherent alternative? Answer: The only laws and regulations that are justifiable under a system of laissez-faire capitalism are those that protect individual rights. The goal is to maximize the freedom of each individual to act as he wants, without harming anyone else. Environmental laws as they exist today usually do not protect individual rights, but there can still be reason behind the existence of some of them. If the pollution caused by an individual or corporation physically harms the health of others, then it comprises a violation of the victims' rights. In such a case, if there is evidence to show that pollution above a certain level leads to an established danger level, then the government could legitimately impose restrictions. These laws are only justified when aimed at protecting individual rights. Their motivation should not be reaching a compromise between profitability and the environment. The specifics would be tricky to work out, and would probably lead to some amount of litigation in areas (or cases) in which laws cannot be applied.
Question: What has " Objectivism " got to opine on the outsourcing of American jobs to third world countries? Answer: Objectivism advocates the separation of the state from the economy, for the same basic reason that there should be separation of the state from religion: Both the economic choices of individuals as they trade the goods and services they need, and their choice of groups or belief systems to associate with, are exercises of the individual conscience that only have meaning if undertaken freely.
Question: Having studied Objectivism for several years, I see tremendous potential in the ideas contained within the philosophy. It seems to be a system of ideas far more correct and plausible than today's major philosophies/religions/ideologies. Furthermore, it's an optimistic philosophy with a genuinely positive view of life, man, and the world.Is it a problem with the philosophy itself? Is the problem how it is presented and "marketed"? Answer: Objectivism is true, and it does make sense. Because of this, it is easy to understand and to live by. But it also stands against many of the received traditions in philosophy and religion. And because of this, most people find it counter-intuitive and hard to integrate into their existing values and emotional commitments. All people have what Ayn Rand called a "sense of life." A sense of life is an emotional sum, a feeling of how the world is and how it ought to be, that serves as the equivalent of a kind of basic philosophy. If you thrill at the idea of taking responsibility for your life's major problems, or you shrink at it, or you feel wry resignation, or you feel something else, whatever you feel in facing such a big question reflects your sense of life. Like the values that drive all our emotions, we hold our sense of life subconsciously, and it is not always easy to identify its content or judge whether that content really makes sense.
Question: Is Objectivism bound to what Ayn Rand said, or can certain parts of it be further developed by other philosophers? Answer: This is an issue that has divided the Objectivist movement. The Atlas Society is founded on the principle that Objectivism is an open system of ideas, founded by Ayn Rand but open to further development, revision, and extension by rational thinkers with a solid understanding of her ideas. In The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand (available to students for free), TAS founder and executive director David Kelley outlines the key ideas that make Objectivism distinctive as a system, and discusses the reasons for regarding Objectivism as an open system. Those remarks were composed in response to an attack on Kelley by Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's heir, in which Peikoff attempted to defend the principle that Objectivism is simply the brand name for whatever philosophical thought of Ayn Rand's that has been recorded.
Ayn Rand defined a right as a "moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context" (The Virtue of
"Individualism" is a term for classifying theories, such as ethical or social theories. Any theory that places the individual foremost or
Rights are fundamental political principles. As such, they are based in morality. They summarize how human beings ought to be treated in a
What Objectivism opposes is the idea that nature has inherent value, apart from any human needs, values, or purposes. In general, Objectivis
As everyone grows up, they develop a set of values: ways they interpret and respond to the world. At the basis of their values lies what...