I am sorry that, living in Argentina as you do, you have suffered through a terrible economic collapse. But you were not living in anything
To my knowledge, Ayn Rand came somewhat independently to her own views. She may have imbibed Paine second-hand through such Old-Right
At the time when Ayn Rand wrote most of her non-fiction (the 1960s), half the world’s population was under avowedly Communist or Socialist
Objectivity , as Ayn Rand defined and clarified it, is a certain characteristic describing the use of one’s reason and the degree to which
Before I get into the similarities and differences between Social Darwinism and Objectivism , I should point out that this accusation you...
Ayn Rand herself smoked, and many Objectivists still do. Objectivism has no particular position on smoking as such. However, I will comment
Objectivism does not hold that happiness is the ultimate goal. It holds that happiness is the ultimate purpose in life.This is an important
Question: According to Objectivism , am I being rational by putting nothing above the judgment of my own mind? Or (according to Objectivism), am I being irrational by rejecting the authority of an MD? Answer: Objectivism holds that one key element of the virtue of independence is thinking for yourself. Ultimately, no matter what anyone tells you, you have to decide what is true based on your own context of knowledge. Only you can judge for yourself the objectivity of your reasoning. Only when you think something through do you know fully that the conclusion is logically derived from the facts. However, it is a fact that on any given topic there are usually others who know a heck of a lot more than most of us do. If we have very good reasons to think that they are not lying and have been objective in their reasoning, then we have good reason to incorporate their information into our knowledge (provided, of course, that we can integrate it with what we already know and with our own experience). You can get news of the world from a newspaper. You can learn science by testing the theories in a textbook. You can take medicines based on the advice of doctors, pharmacists, and medical researchers. And those are just a few examples of rational ways in which we use the information of reliable experts.
Question: I've read most of Ayn Rand's work, and aside from her views on theism [which in my view, can be a rational belief] and abortion, I am in total agreement with her philosophy (I am still a Christian). Would the Objectivist movement be welcoming of people like me? And, would it be acceptable for me to refer to myself as an Objectivist or, at the very least, a quasi-Objectivist? Answer: The extent to which you agree or do not agree with the ideas of Objectivism is ultimately a fact you must evaluate for yourself. There are a variety of levels on which one might consider oneself an Objectivist, from the brief description of Objectivism (from the appendix to Atlas Shrugged) that appears on our "About Objectivism" page, to the sketch of distinctive positions in Objectivism that David Kelley describes in The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand. At an extreme, one might be in lockstep with all and only what Ayn Rand said and wrote, but this would probably reflect such a lack of independent thought—because it would at least fail to integrate one's own context and current events with Rand's ideas—that one would not deserve the appellation "Objectivist" in that case.
Question: How does Objectivism view the concept of "public health services"? I'm aware that, largely, the concept of a "right to health care" is rejected, however there are health issues that are larger than individuals; with epidemics, for example, an individual who chooses to not seek treatment can threaten a population (a "typhoid Mary"). Public health departments have been highly successful in protecting populations in the past century through monitoring and managing health risks. The departments are more cost-effective than individual physicians, preventing illness before it occurs and treating large numbers of people with each policy. This service has historically been governmental, and required a coercive component, such as forcing restaurants to be clean, individuals to vaccinate, etc. I was curious, given that Objectivism values life and detests coercive government, what would be an Objectivist opinon on the necessity (or lack of) governmental public health? To what degree does an individual have a right to be a risk to themselves and others? Answer: We can answer your question by working backwards from the purpose of government, rights, and morality, and where physical safety threats such as disease work into this equation.? Ayn Rand said that morality stems from the need to make decisions in order to live. One's life is the standard of value.?Since the free use of one's mind and body is essential to the life of a thinking being, one needs rights to pursue life, free from the initiation of force.? Knowingly exposing others to one's disease is initiating force against them, and hence in violation of their rights.?Such a person could be punished by the state or in a civil suit.The state would also be justified in preventing the introduction of the disease in the first place, if it had reasonable cause that the person had the disease.?
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
I am sorry that, living in Argentina as you do, you have suffered through a terrible economic collapse. But you were not living in anything
To my knowledge, Ayn Rand came somewhat independently to her own views. She may have imbibed Paine second-hand through such Old-Right
At the time when Ayn Rand wrote most of her non-fiction (the 1960s), half the world’s population was under avowedly Communist or Socialist
Objectivity , as Ayn Rand defined and clarified it, is a certain characteristic describing the use of one’s reason and the degree to which
Before I get into the similarities and differences between Social Darwinism and Objectivism , I should point out that this accusation you...
Ayn Rand herself smoked, and many Objectivists still do. Objectivism has no particular position on smoking as such. However, I will comment
Objectivism does not hold that happiness is the ultimate goal. It holds that happiness is the ultimate purpose in life.This is an important
Question: According to Objectivism , am I being rational by putting nothing above the judgment of my own mind? Or (according to Objectivism), am I being irrational by rejecting the authority of an MD? Answer: Objectivism holds that one key element of the virtue of independence is thinking for yourself. Ultimately, no matter what anyone tells you, you have to decide what is true based on your own context of knowledge. Only you can judge for yourself the objectivity of your reasoning. Only when you think something through do you know fully that the conclusion is logically derived from the facts. However, it is a fact that on any given topic there are usually others who know a heck of a lot more than most of us do. If we have very good reasons to think that they are not lying and have been objective in their reasoning, then we have good reason to incorporate their information into our knowledge (provided, of course, that we can integrate it with what we already know and with our own experience). You can get news of the world from a newspaper. You can learn science by testing the theories in a textbook. You can take medicines based on the advice of doctors, pharmacists, and medical researchers. And those are just a few examples of rational ways in which we use the information of reliable experts.
Question: I've read most of Ayn Rand's work, and aside from her views on theism [which in my view, can be a rational belief] and abortion, I am in total agreement with her philosophy (I am still a Christian). Would the Objectivist movement be welcoming of people like me? And, would it be acceptable for me to refer to myself as an Objectivist or, at the very least, a quasi-Objectivist? Answer: The extent to which you agree or do not agree with the ideas of Objectivism is ultimately a fact you must evaluate for yourself. There are a variety of levels on which one might consider oneself an Objectivist, from the brief description of Objectivism (from the appendix to Atlas Shrugged) that appears on our "About Objectivism" page, to the sketch of distinctive positions in Objectivism that David Kelley describes in The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand. At an extreme, one might be in lockstep with all and only what Ayn Rand said and wrote, but this would probably reflect such a lack of independent thought—because it would at least fail to integrate one's own context and current events with Rand's ideas—that one would not deserve the appellation "Objectivist" in that case.
Question: How does Objectivism view the concept of "public health services"? I'm aware that, largely, the concept of a "right to health care" is rejected, however there are health issues that are larger than individuals; with epidemics, for example, an individual who chooses to not seek treatment can threaten a population (a "typhoid Mary"). Public health departments have been highly successful in protecting populations in the past century through monitoring and managing health risks. The departments are more cost-effective than individual physicians, preventing illness before it occurs and treating large numbers of people with each policy. This service has historically been governmental, and required a coercive component, such as forcing restaurants to be clean, individuals to vaccinate, etc. I was curious, given that Objectivism values life and detests coercive government, what would be an Objectivist opinon on the necessity (or lack of) governmental public health? To what degree does an individual have a right to be a risk to themselves and others? Answer: We can answer your question by working backwards from the purpose of government, rights, and morality, and where physical safety threats such as disease work into this equation.? Ayn Rand said that morality stems from the need to make decisions in order to live. One's life is the standard of value.?Since the free use of one's mind and body is essential to the life of a thinking being, one needs rights to pursue life, free from the initiation of force.? Knowingly exposing others to one's disease is initiating force against them, and hence in violation of their rights.?Such a person could be punished by the state or in a civil suit.The state would also be justified in preventing the introduction of the disease in the first place, if it had reasonable cause that the person had the disease.?
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