The definition you quote for productive achievement accurately states the Objectivist view (though Ayn Rand's wording is slightly different
Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individ
July/August 2000 -- In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises wrote: The direction of all economic affairs is, in the market society, a task of the entrepreneurs.Theirs is the control of production. They are at the helm and steer the ship. A superficial observer would believe that they are supreme.
When George W. Bush was President Captureand Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, some despairing liberals turned to George...
A central focus of the Business Rights Center is prosecutorial misconduct, as I suggested in my editorial last week: “ Let’s Jail Prosecutors Who ‘Obstruct Justice .’” It is also a particularly potent issue, because it is a problem for all classes of people, and so does not immediately provoke an anti-business reaction from Leftist journalists. Yet once a person is sensitized to prosecutorial misconduct, he will likely be wary of it even in white-collar cases. Thus, a press more aware of the problem might not have accepted out-of-context leaks from Eliot Spitzer and used them to vilify his helpless targets.
Question: In Viable Values, Tara Smith expresses the view that things can only be objectively good or bad for someone who has adopted life as his final end. I wonder then, if one saw clearly what life would mean for oneself and decided that he didn't want that, would this mean that he could not rationally avoid things that he would find painful or displeasurable? For example, although if I decided I didn't want to live I could not possibly have anything which would be objectively GOOD for me, could other things nonetheless appear to me not to be bad, or to be avoided (such as avoiding a torturer, for example)? Answer: There is a difference between what can appear to be good or bad for us over the short term or out of context, and what really is objectively good or bad for us in the full context. Metaphysically, a life is an end-in-itself, because its continued existence depends on one's actions. Biologically, our abilities to feel that something is pleasurable or painful, or good or bad, evolved as capacities we need to survive. But we have free will: We are not required to act for the sake of our lives, nor even do what feels pleasurable. Indeed, we are not even required to act as we judge right. This is why we need ethics: Consistently acting for the sake of our own lives is not automatic nor easy. And because it is not automatic, it depends, at root, on a voluntary choice to live.
Question: If suicide could sometimes be the right course to take, then wouldn't ethics (which tells man how to act rationally) have to advise one as to how to go about it in the cases where it would be the rational thing to do? I'm assuming of course that a man would need principles of some kind in order to be successful in?any kind of endeavor, including suicide.? It seems to me that this?may be a problem with the Objectivist ethics. Answer: Your question is a bit peculiar. After all, if one truly wants to commit suicide, there are not that many decisions to make after that. At a minimum, one could let nature take its course. But perhaps you are wondering about choices regarding how to commit suicide, and how to hurt one’s loved ones as little as possible, which might be issues that ethics should address. That is how I understand your question. Objectivism holds that life is the ultimate value. In nature, all values derive from the self-generated and self-sustaining actions of living things. Moral values derive from one’s choice to embrace life and happiness, rather than suffering and death. In this context, morality is not merely a guide for action, it is a guide for living.
Question: Each man as a sovereign intellect, I agree, has a moral duty to learn and adhere to the objective facts of his existence and life-preservation. My question falls into an ambiguous and somewhat objective stance. Man, even productive man, can fall victim to illness, disability, disaster, etc. If a group of productive, trading people, who accept that at any time a brother can fall, decides to pool a portion of their productive wealth into social safety nets, and have those nets for themselves as well as others, is this not a selfish and rational idea that a civil aware society may subscribe to despite its apparent siphoning of wealth? Answer: The Objectivist politics is basically libertarian: It holds that the proper function of government is to protect individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property. Objectivism is opposed to government programs that violate the rights of some to redistribute wealth to others, and as such it is opposed to government insurance and government-provided pensions. Morally, Objectivism stands for rational selfishness, or the idea that each of us has the ultimate moral claim on our own life and happiness. It is not just wrong to take from others politically, it is also wrong to demand that others sacrifice what they value for the sake of others.
Question: I would like to know what word an Objectivist uses to denote what the rest of the world would call "selfish." This person would be called a ??? person. Answer: There isn't one Objectivist code for this. Ayn Rand's comments in the preface to The Virtue of Selfishness notwithstanding, some people with a good grasp of Objectivism prefer to use "selfish" in a pejorative sense. I am not one of them, however, and I agree with Ayn Rand that the equation of self-interest with evil is a cultural artifact that we must not keep reaffirming. What follows reflects my own usage.
Question: What will be the view of an Objectivist on the detention of terrorists who were captured during the Afghanistan war? What is the Objectivist view on war in Iraq? Answer: In our "War for Civilization" commentary section, you can find all our commentaries on the war on terrorism and the Iraq war. The Atlas Society as such is a philosophical organization. We do not have a formal position as an organization on either of these issues.
Question: If humans are selfish, how come they go out of their way to help a baby or save a dog out of the kindness of their heart, without even thinking about the action before doing it? Answer: Objectivism does not hold that humans are selfish. It holds that humans should be rationally selfish and act in support of their own lives and happiness. In fact, few people are consistently and rationally selfish. People are taught to sacrifice themselves to others, and do sacrifice themselves to others all the time.
Objectivists mean by "spiritual values" those values that fulfill the needs of human consciousness. The word "spirit" indeed refers
It is my view that scholarly writing has several distinctive characteristics: It shows careful reading of primary sources and a thorough
The Business Rights Watch covers a number of different issues: Overcriminalzation is one, obviously, the process of making illegal that whic
Perception gives one an integrated awareness of an entity, distinct from the background of everything else in the universe, in some form...
The question of the moral permissibility of suicide for an egoistic philosophy is fascinating. It is challenging for Objectivism , which
If I understand the Bush administration's proposal from early 2005, it was intended to transition the Social Security system to something
Sociobiology is the doctrine that we have fundamental behaviors and psychological characteristics that are explained by the incentives
Sports are stylized, physical activities that call on a usually limited range of human talents, but they showcase excellence in the areas
The definition you quote for productive achievement accurately states the Objectivist view (though Ayn Rand's wording is slightly different
Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individ
Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individ
July/August 2000 -- In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises wrote: The direction of all economic affairs is, in the market society, a task of the entrepreneurs.Theirs is the control of production. They are at the helm and steer the ship. A superficial observer would believe that they are supreme.
When George W. Bush was President Captureand Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, some despairing liberals turned to George...
A central focus of the Business Rights Center is prosecutorial misconduct, as I suggested in my editorial last week: “ Let’s Jail Prosecutors Who ‘Obstruct Justice .’” It is also a particularly potent issue, because it is a problem for all classes of people, and so does not immediately provoke an anti-business reaction from Leftist journalists. Yet once a person is sensitized to prosecutorial misconduct, he will likely be wary of it even in white-collar cases. Thus, a press more aware of the problem might not have accepted out-of-context leaks from Eliot Spitzer and used them to vilify his helpless targets.
Question: In Viable Values, Tara Smith expresses the view that things can only be objectively good or bad for someone who has adopted life as his final end. I wonder then, if one saw clearly what life would mean for oneself and decided that he didn't want that, would this mean that he could not rationally avoid things that he would find painful or displeasurable? For example, although if I decided I didn't want to live I could not possibly have anything which would be objectively GOOD for me, could other things nonetheless appear to me not to be bad, or to be avoided (such as avoiding a torturer, for example)? Answer: There is a difference between what can appear to be good or bad for us over the short term or out of context, and what really is objectively good or bad for us in the full context. Metaphysically, a life is an end-in-itself, because its continued existence depends on one's actions. Biologically, our abilities to feel that something is pleasurable or painful, or good or bad, evolved as capacities we need to survive. But we have free will: We are not required to act for the sake of our lives, nor even do what feels pleasurable. Indeed, we are not even required to act as we judge right. This is why we need ethics: Consistently acting for the sake of our own lives is not automatic nor easy. And because it is not automatic, it depends, at root, on a voluntary choice to live.
Question: If suicide could sometimes be the right course to take, then wouldn't ethics (which tells man how to act rationally) have to advise one as to how to go about it in the cases where it would be the rational thing to do? I'm assuming of course that a man would need principles of some kind in order to be successful in?any kind of endeavor, including suicide.? It seems to me that this?may be a problem with the Objectivist ethics. Answer: Your question is a bit peculiar. After all, if one truly wants to commit suicide, there are not that many decisions to make after that. At a minimum, one could let nature take its course. But perhaps you are wondering about choices regarding how to commit suicide, and how to hurt one’s loved ones as little as possible, which might be issues that ethics should address. That is how I understand your question. Objectivism holds that life is the ultimate value. In nature, all values derive from the self-generated and self-sustaining actions of living things. Moral values derive from one’s choice to embrace life and happiness, rather than suffering and death. In this context, morality is not merely a guide for action, it is a guide for living.
Question: Each man as a sovereign intellect, I agree, has a moral duty to learn and adhere to the objective facts of his existence and life-preservation. My question falls into an ambiguous and somewhat objective stance. Man, even productive man, can fall victim to illness, disability, disaster, etc. If a group of productive, trading people, who accept that at any time a brother can fall, decides to pool a portion of their productive wealth into social safety nets, and have those nets for themselves as well as others, is this not a selfish and rational idea that a civil aware society may subscribe to despite its apparent siphoning of wealth? Answer: The Objectivist politics is basically libertarian: It holds that the proper function of government is to protect individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property. Objectivism is opposed to government programs that violate the rights of some to redistribute wealth to others, and as such it is opposed to government insurance and government-provided pensions. Morally, Objectivism stands for rational selfishness, or the idea that each of us has the ultimate moral claim on our own life and happiness. It is not just wrong to take from others politically, it is also wrong to demand that others sacrifice what they value for the sake of others.
Question: I would like to know what word an Objectivist uses to denote what the rest of the world would call "selfish." This person would be called a ??? person. Answer: There isn't one Objectivist code for this. Ayn Rand's comments in the preface to The Virtue of Selfishness notwithstanding, some people with a good grasp of Objectivism prefer to use "selfish" in a pejorative sense. I am not one of them, however, and I agree with Ayn Rand that the equation of self-interest with evil is a cultural artifact that we must not keep reaffirming. What follows reflects my own usage.
Question: What will be the view of an Objectivist on the detention of terrorists who were captured during the Afghanistan war? What is the Objectivist view on war in Iraq? Answer: In our "War for Civilization" commentary section, you can find all our commentaries on the war on terrorism and the Iraq war. The Atlas Society as such is a philosophical organization. We do not have a formal position as an organization on either of these issues.
Question: If humans are selfish, how come they go out of their way to help a baby or save a dog out of the kindness of their heart, without even thinking about the action before doing it? Answer: Objectivism does not hold that humans are selfish. It holds that humans should be rationally selfish and act in support of their own lives and happiness. In fact, few people are consistently and rationally selfish. People are taught to sacrifice themselves to others, and do sacrifice themselves to others all the time.
Objectivists mean by "spiritual values" those values that fulfill the needs of human consciousness. The word "spirit" indeed refers
It is my view that scholarly writing has several distinctive characteristics: It shows careful reading of primary sources and a thorough
The Business Rights Watch covers a number of different issues: Overcriminalzation is one, obviously, the process of making illegal that whic
Perception gives one an integrated awareness of an entity, distinct from the background of everything else in the universe, in some form...
The question of the moral permissibility of suicide for an egoistic philosophy is fascinating. It is challenging for Objectivism , which
If I understand the Bush administration's proposal from early 2005, it was intended to transition the Social Security system to something
Sociobiology is the doctrine that we have fundamental behaviors and psychological characteristics that are explained by the incentives
Sports are stylized, physical activities that call on a usually limited range of human talents, but they showcase excellence in the areas