Destruction of Objectivism: Ayn Rand is Dead
Sep 3rd, 2010 by MrCult
A video of concision that fires directly to the foundations of the novelist Ayn Rand’s Objectivist ethical theory, thereby destroying it. If the video were longer, it would only consist of further examples and side-notes based around the fundamental error of ‘Objectivism’: that a condition for a set is not thereby necessarily a member of that set. An example of Rand’s error: ‘let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life.’ (- The Virtue of Selfishness, p.14) All political theories based on Objectivism are thus flawed. (See Shermer on how Objectivism is a religious cult: www.2think.org
@LaughingMan0X
You’re essentially arguing against a position I do not hold.
I never argued that a prescription can be nothing other than the description of a means – this is in fact my very point. See my video on neo-nihilism.
@Ontologistics
If you remove the “ought” then you’re not prescribing but describing.
Furthermore, laying out the necessary and sufficient conditions for the actualization of a desire isn’t an “imperative” or “prescription” at all, but an attempt to describe facts of reality
If prescriptions could be true (I argue they’re all false), then presumably they (the true ones) must correspond with some sort of moral law or property inherent in nature. To which you could theoretically give a typology
@LaughingMan0X
Regarding P2’s response, one can simply reply, “The ought is not necessary.” One thereby avoids circularity or an infinite regress.
Also, ‘a description of the necessary and sufficient conditions for the actualization of something’ IS a ‘hypothetical imperative’/a practical prescription (which is fine).
Furthermore, even if ethical prescription (normativity) were logical, it would still not lead to any ethical type (i.e. one could prescribe pride as a virtue or a vice).
However, if you’re using the term “ought” in a conditional to mean “necessary condition” or “is required for,” then you’re not making a prescription at all, but a description of the necessary and sufficient conditions for the actualization of something.
Furthermore, using conditional value descriptions has good logical form (Modus ponens or Modus tollens), that don’t run into the question begging or lack of a foundation that conditional value prescriptions do.
Not agreeing with Rand at all here, but trying to say that ought’s are conditional are problematic
Exemplified by the following dialogue
P1: If you want to open my door, then you ought to turn the handle and push
P2) Why ought I do whats necessary to fulfill my desires?
The convo at this point either turns: circular (you ought because you ought), or into foundation-less reason giving (each reason given supported by a further reason which in turn is contingent on a further reason ad-infinitum)
well, what else can an ought come from, if not from what is?
how bout this; what IS is a rationalization of what MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN, which is an abstraction of WHAT NEVER WAS. The OUGHT is a dynamic between 2 facts, or IS’s.
In other words the fact that someone is in a certain position and the fact that the percieved circumstances are such, directly implies the decision, or ‘ought’.
We’re all following a robotic pattern unwittingly, until we realise it, and break it, then a new pattern etc.
@Ontologistics You’re right natural rights are not objectively true, as you say you can choose not to be rational. I am saying you can’t choose to be rational without accepting reason from other people too. So you can’t steal and than complain the victim issues an arrest warrant. I don’t have the moral right to impose rationality upon you, that I agree with.
@PJCelis
You say: “You can’t rationally argue that you don’t have to respect rational argumentation”.But I say you can: you don’t have to respect my argument IF you don’t want to be rational.
I’d say ‘Natural rights’ is again a notion not objectively true. ‘Nonsense on stilts’ as Bentham calls them. And they are not true for the reasons I set forth in my nihilism video, so I don’t argue for them. As Ragnar Redbeard wrote, “If a man smite thee on one cheek, smash him down.” Humans are animals.
@Ontologistics Indeed, it’s more clear to say “You can not rationally argue that you don’t have to respect rational argumentation”. You’re right that you can choose to be an “animal”, but that choice implies you can no longer argue for your natural rights (coming from rational argumentation) if someone else hurts you, steals from you, kills you, … So basically rational humans than threat you as an animal, with the care of a pet if they like you but can morally kill you if they don’t trust you.
@PJCelis
Interesting point. But I’d point out that a proposition is only a contradiction if the opposite is a tautology. “One must respect argumentation” is not a tautology as the predicate is not in the subject. Thus there is in fact no contradiction.
One OUGHT to respect argumentation IF one (subjectively) WANTS to be rational; if one does not, then one ought not even respect that last clause.
And what’s wrong with animals?
Ontologics, I don’t agree with “an ought can only come from an if.” What about the presuppositions of argumentation itself? It is a performative contradiction to argue that one must not respect argumentation. Respecting dialogue implies not agressing against one’s right to life, liberty and property. Not respecting dialogue implies giving up one’s communicative rationality, and more importantly giving up one’s claim to life, liberty and property. The outlaw is like an animal. What do you think?
I’d like to address your 3rd point, with life also being a condition for disvalue, thus creating a paradox that exposes the “flawed logic” of Ayn Rand.
The problem is, you’re thinking of disvalue in terms of conscious disvaluation. But the true opposite of a value is a non-value…which results from a lack of life.
You don’t need life to have non-value. Non-value exists without life.
And it’s not a contradiction to value certain things above one’s own life, objectivism is very clear on this.
A value has to come from a fact of reality. Where do your values come from, if you value anything at all. Good luck finding happiness.
@anthonzi
@anthonzi
Perhaps you should have a look at my video on neo-nihilism first where I go into more depth regarding is/if/ought topics. I’d be glad to read your views.
@anthonzi
1) Yes, but this does not affect the argument as one can value death.
2) I think you don’t understand the logic behind Hume’s Guillotine. The whole point is that facts (‘is’) cannot derive values (‘oughts’) – thus cosmology, biology, etc are impotent vis-a-vis normative ethics.
1:40 Well certainly if you stop valuing your own life, the probability of you surviving decreases, and consequently the probability of you theorizing about this question decreases.
But what does this have to do with is/ought? The presupposition in #1 can be refuted by simple revelations in cosmology, biology, etc. No need to resort to shady heuristics from the 18th century.
@anthonzi
The point is that the if-clauses are not universal within populations or between populations. Thus no moral prescription can be made.
I don’t see how Hume’s is-ought paradox is insightful. And it certainly can’t be used as a dogma.
1:05 The if causes are hardly personal if they happen to be a shared interest among a population.
Number four fails. have you even seen the this is john galt series? she says it is moreally objective and right to die in war if one perefes to die fighting for freedom then to live as a slave.
@chewymatty1
Have you read Nietzsche’s theory of Wille zur Macht which replaces the will to survive as an identification of life? Survival only explains that aspect of life, not more – it is deficient.
Irrationality exists in all aspects of life, and thus attempting to quantify life, or any of its aspects, rationally is a rather pointless exercise.
Yes, I realize the contradiction of using a logical statement to show the pointlessness of logic. But, I do not care about the fact that I’ve contradicted myself. I am irrational. So are you. So is everyone. In fact, the portion of the human brain that guides decision-making is not the neo-cortex, it does not understand language or logic.
Good vid, prefer old style, where you speak:D
@Beethovens7th
“Talking about the ethics of a dead-man is just plain silly.”
Who is talking about the ethics of a dead-man? Is it your straw-man friend?
Ontol, your augment is very humancentric. The life rand talks about is the life of a human, or a frog, or a plant with its natural desire to rise towards the sun. There are no animals or organisms on earth who follow another agenda
@XxxNuMbxxX0301 Okay, thanks for the info. I always read that Nietzsche had a great influence on her. In fact,to be more precise I wanted to say that i disliked the attitude of many Ayn Rand fans who assert a nietzschean influence: to many, Nietzsche’s philosophy is essentially soluble in Ayn Rand’s views, which is not.
Thank you very much for this clarification.