Your answer was good, but boy, the question, and other answers to it, show why I find most Objectivists repugnant. Even the one that got that doing things of societal value was ok went all evil at the end.
Here you can find answers to such burning questions as "Does a fetus initiate the use of physical force against its mother?" and "Is eating bread immoral?"It should give you pause that a philosophy, which roots itself in the notion of objective morality, projects itself this way to others.
What compels most people when they first encounter objectivism are its positive notions: the value of productive work, honesty and integrity; the idea that people are basically good and each has within him the ability to make great choices and become what he sets his mind to; the value of independent thought and never substituting another's judgment for one's own; the notion that life can and should be enjoyed and suffering is not essential.
It is only once these positive notions are well-understood and integrated, can one begin rejecting the things in our culture that contradict them. Let me go through an example.
Co-operation between member of society is crucial to its success. One of my favorite objectivist notions is that there is no conflict in interests of rational people. This means that it is likely in my best interest to donate blood as I understand the medical need for having blood banks. It is not in my best interest to give my blood to a stranger when donating blood will undermine my health (for some strange medical reason) and will undermine my ability to care for my children, pursue my productive goals and enjoy life. Few will disagree with either of these statements and understanding why one would choose to engage in a positive activity (donating blood and cooperating with others) is far more valuable than understanding a bizzarre edge-case of the other.
Finding the joy in life, the ability to pursue values despite obstacles and happiness attained in the process are the core values of objectivism that I implicitly teach to my children. Learning to find compromise when there is a conflict is one of the skills they will need to achieve happiness (which is ultimately the purpose of one's life.) Cooperating with classmates without hitting them over the head and finding value in the interaction will enable them to succeed in the classroom today and in the society as adults. At some point they will learn that some people believe they have the right to something that belongs to another and can use force to attain it. They will be able to combat this notion through the complete understanding of the value of cooperation and benevolence, of the rights innate to an individual, not because they are indoctrinated against self-sacrifice (a notion that's foreign to the child anyway!)
When we discuss our life philosophy, it is valuable to envision that you are standing on a street corner sharing your views with the passers by. Some are arriving, some are leaving. What they retain is bits and pieces of what you have said. What would you like for them to have heard come out of your mouth? "One should exert productive effort to achieve his values" or "... it is wrong to offer one a job on the basis of the need to feed his family..." (In case you are wondering: Yes, making such an offer would hurt the employer *and* the employee who will subsequently get fired from a job he was unqualified for, likely leaving in a worse shape than he arrived.)
And if you are awake at night, bothered with questions about whether a fetus is initiating physical force... There is nothing wrong with asking whatever question comes to mind in a forum - I don't hold it against you! However... have you focused on and understood the value of having children in all stages? Have you examined the motivations behind a mother getting pregnant? Have you determined whether either can be a rational choice? Is the fetus's action against its mother the only remaining unanswerable question you have? You will understand objectivism, philosophy generally and your own life far better if you focus on the things that are essential first - and the remainder might become self-evident faster than you might have thought.
In other words, focus on the positive values when you think about philosophy or advocate it. The "why it is wrong" questions will often answer themselves when you integrate the "why this is right, good and joyful" type.
(If you are curious, you will find the questions I have answered in my Objectivist Answers profile.)
Good post Kate. I'd just like to point out that those *asking* questions on Objectivist Answers are obviously not necessarily Objectivists, so the nature of the questions that are posted shouldn't be taken as a reflection on the philosophy. I'd think that some people probably post ridiculous questions just for the purpose of making Objectivists look ridiculous for attempting to answer them, or ask deliberately phrased questions to get responses that appear callous. If anything, I think this phenomenon only exists because Objectivists are consistent in their views and are willing to apply their principles to any topic.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Heather! I am not so sure, most of these questions come from non-objectivists. I think, they are coming from the young just-figuring-it-out objectivists, who found something in the philosophy that appeals to them and are failing to integrate the essentials. When listening to Peikoff's podcasts, I often hear the eye-rolling at this phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteThe title of this post is "Are objectivists evil?"
ReplyDeleteTo what does the term/idea "objectivists" refer that isn't named by "Objectivists"? Do you have someone in mind other than those who understand and agree with Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand?
Brava, Kate!
ReplyDeleteI was raised by an Objectivist-leaning father (in those days it was NOT alright to call oneself and Objectivist without the imprimatur of Rand or Branden) who tended to focus on the wrongness of our childish thinking, rather than teaching us the philosophy as a path to happiness. For this reason, by my teen years I thought of Objectivism as a fussy, defensive and overall negative philosophy whose practitioners were too busy judging others to live their own lives. In searching for a workable philosophy of life, I traveled far afield from the parental dictates before giving Objectivism a second look in my late 40's.
Since I havw a thicker skin that I did as a teenager, I was able to stand my ground with the negative fussers that I did encounter, and I avoid a lot of what I refer to as the Objectivist Dogma Wars, where the purpose seems to be to establish turf within the community rather than live one's life objectively. (Not all arguments are worth having, but that does not mean that some are not important. I have my own criteria for the difference here, and I suspect the rest of you do as well).
What I was delighted to see in exploring the O-World today was that the younger generation of Objectivists, on the parenting blogs and others, seem to have the Yiddish virtue of "shepping naches"--the ability to take joy in watching a human being coming up in the world.
I suspect that I am still an O-heretic, because I make my own decisions about what I think about certain O-dogma, but I do find the positive focus on loving one's life and living it fully through the use of the philosophy to be a happy development that was missing from my childhood introduction to Objectivism.
Burgess: You are right. What I mean by little-o-objectivist are those who believe themselves to be objectivists. The big-O distinction is not very interesting unless you are going to award certificates. People, who believe themselves to be objectivists, and present themselves to the world in that fashion make up the community as it is viewed from the outside and within. It is to them that this post and its encouragements are directed.
ReplyDeleteElisheva, it's been so much fun to be getting to know you as you bring uniqueness into the community. Your responses and comments always make me think.