Atlas Shrugged

well yes - however none of the other comments are incorrect in their assessment; her views go slightly further than those shown in Altas Shrugged.They seem both fair and accurate - her system is entirely about self-interest, that's why I asked the question about running the girl over in your car while trying to commit suicide. To change direction would mean that you are not acting in "proper" self-interest, therefore you should run her down.

Doesn't seem consistent with Ayn Rand's own words from Introducing Objectivism: Understand, I'm not trying to advocate for or against Ayn Rand, it just didn't seem to me that her views were being fairly represented. Most of what I've seen is a caricature. Dan Carroll just posted some useful links.--Percy

Isn't that redundant?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi, Percy.The quote seems to support my impression of Rand -- a self-interested hyper-individualist. The only thing by Rand I have read is Anthem, and although it may be an intentional parody (and so an exaggeration) of what she feels is wrong with society, I still find it to be an extremely annoying novel. Maybe I am mischaracterizing her, but my impression is that she really takes a dim view of collective action and collective knowledge.By the way, I do realize that Ann Rand is dead, but it is conventional to represent the views of scientists, philosophers, and others who engage in academic persuits in the present tense.

True. But a lot of Rand's writing uses lofty grandeur about heroism and nobility to describe the general overview, and then when it gets into specifics, sneaks in something like, "and that's why it's okay to hit nuns with puppies!"Okay, not literally. But I don't have any Ayn Rand books with me at work, so I have to fall back on being a smartass.

Percy I'm too lazy to explain all of this and will just assume that your knowledge of objectivism and the key players is pretty good.The crux of the question is "do I have a moral obligation at all to avoid running this little girl?".Because I am dead set on suicide and wish to get it over and down with, then in this siutation I am confronted with a source of obligation besides my own choice (axiomatic or otherwise) to live one, indeed, it is one that is altogether independent of my choice, and one that sets limits within which my suicide can be carried out.Since Rand denies that I have any such obligation, she must also deny that the well-being of persons other than myself directly imposes any sort of moral constraint on my behavior.Quoting Scot Ryan's book on the subject - David Kelley has noticed the difficulty here. As regards rights, he acknowledges that even if I understand that your freedom is good for you in exactly the same way that my freedom is good for me, I don’t yet have a reason for regarding your freedom as good for me. But this is precisely the point that must be established if we are going to validate rights on the basis of ethical egoism [How Principles Work, in Liberty, November 1992, pp. 63-76; quoted in Jeff Walker, The Ayn Rand Cult, pp, 235-236]

Rand's answer is yes, and it's included in the quote I provided to you: Perhaps you and Dan and others are right, but so far you've only quoted others writing about Rand, while I've quoted Rand herself. I've read five of Rand's books, though not recently, and the views you describe are not consistent with my interpretation of them. What can you provide that would allow me to tell that you're accurately characterizing her views rather than ridiculing them through overextended extrapolation.--Percy

What I've always wondered is how this can possibly be reconciled with full-bore lassez-faire capitalism which is all about using other people as means.I'll also add that I felt that a lot of what I read about Rand was explained when I learned that her family had lost heavily in the Russian Revolution.

Percy - I did start to produce a reply for you, but I then found that I actually have to do some further research or re-examine the source material to produce a coherent argument.I find that I just can't work up the motivation to do so, I remember doing this one to death about two years ago and just can't be bothered again. Maybe Dan wants to tackle it?(didn't want to leave you hanging for a reply).This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 15 February 2005 12:51 AM

Well I'll try an answer based on what I remember. By leaping out at you the girl is initiating force. You are therefore entitled to respond with whatever force you feel like applying. Running her down is a valid choice. But you can't try to hit her deliberately unless she does something that can be construed as initiating force.

Can't. Work, then banjo practice. I have time for snarky comments, but nothing approaching a cogent argument.

I'm not that interested either, it was only the dichotomy between what I thought her views were and what people were saying her views were that caught my attention. If in everything I read there was a message of careless disregard for your fellow man, I somehow missed it. Whether it was the compassionate pragmatism of Atlas Shrugged or the triumphalism of The Fountainhead and or the stridency of Anthem, no such thing was apparent to me. It sounds more like EST than Rand.My own guess is that opponents are pouncing on expressions like this from the appendix to Atlas Shrugged: Even in the face of such statements, it seems an obviously erroneous overextrapolation to conclude she believed it okay for suicides to not care if anyone else is killed by their actions. If Rand actually accepted and promoted such a philosophy I don't think it would take much work to expose it.--Percy

I think you hit on a very good point Crash. In Rand's book the protagonists are all out to earn what they get. They are greedy but only in regard to what they earned thru their own labor and with their own mind. In the real world, not everyone will be as "honorable" in a free market. Ah, but that is the real kicker. A product or service to provide is a must. Otherwise, it would not be Capitalism. I don't see it as a "side effect" but as the main drive in the system.thanx
PM1K

I like the way the book presents society as a non-automatic entity. For a society to exist (any type) it requires active envolvement from it's members. We often take for granted our infrastructure and don't think about the great effort it to takes to maintain it.It might not matter if tomorrow I don't show up for work but what if nobody showed up for work? Society is just an idea that we actively keep going. I'm glad to find a book that reminds me how fragile it truly is and what happens when apathy sets in.thanx
PM1K

It's not, though. For instance, a thief takes your money without offering a service (unless you wanted your windows broken.) We have laws to discourage that; but what if the thieves are allowed to make the laws? Well, that's the real question, now isn't it? Is Capitalism the end state of Capitalism? Or, as appears to be happening in our country, is Capitalism the run-up to Fascism? Or Kleptocracy?At some point, resources and influence converge among an elite few, giving them the opportunity to direct a change in our society if they wish it. Why would they choose capitalism? Why wouldn't they choose the system where they gain wealth for absolutely no exchange of goods or services whatsoever?I think capitalism is great; I think it's way better than any of the other systems devised so far. But it's fatal flaw is that it can't persist. Every competition has an end; a winner and a loser. We the people only win while the race is still being run. When someone hits the finish line, we all lose.