Is life meaningless without service to others or do you lean towards a more objectivist ideology which states that to serve others is an insult both to them and to oneself?

Well, I’ll leave Rand alone then.

I thrive on connection with other people, though, oblique as it is sometimes, and I feel if I were to look at life as an objectivist would then I’d be effectually severing my dependency on them and their dependency on me. And while that probably seems pretty appealing to some, it’s not for me.

So, yeah, I think for me – personally, because it could work otherwise for others – I need to help people somehow in order to feel relevant.

sigh well, this will be a lovely Rand hate fest, it seems. At some point, I’ll rejoin this and try to explain the actual philosophy behind Rand, and not the things that everyone hates her for. Like “I can be selfish and an ass and never like anyone”, which everyone thinks it means, and it doesn’t. I’m too busy now, but I’ll give a real response later.

@BhacSsylan I look forward to that…you are probably more of a scholar on Rand and that’s always good…point is just like with the Bible, people read Atlas Shrugged and get all sorts of ideas from it that maybe (debatable, cause I read plenty of interviews with her and I disagree with her actual words not just Atlas Shrugged) she never meant to come to fruition…and please don’t assume anything about the discussion just because of one post…besides you didn’t even answer the actual question…

I do attempt to be one. I have done a lot of research and reading on rand, so I will give a full response later (and I do follow her and am not an ass, so that helps). Just happen to be in a D&D session right now, and my Dm wouldn’t be happy with me writing a philosophy essay.

@BhacSsylan Dm?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Dungeon master. The guy running the game.

@BhacSsylan dirty, I like it, :)~
to be fair, I find some of her ideas perfectly applicable to my own philosophy on life so she wasn’t completely off but you can’t take all of her ideas and live any kind of a meaningful life, imo

@BhacSsylan: Rand-bash withdrawn. I look forward to your thoughts. My grasp on the woman is admittedly weak.

@nxknxk GA

@nxknxk Thanks. Hopefully my response will be worth the wait >.<

I agree that life without service to others is meaningless. I look at the way people treat each other and feel like our humanity is dying. I really worry about how the death of compassion is affecting children because they are the ones who are victimized the most. Sometimes, I feel like all these innocent kids are just running through a field of rye and right past this field is a cliff, and I wish I could be the guy who springs up out of the rye and catches them before they fall.

@holden you said ‘humanity is dying’ do you really think we ever had ‘it’? in that in the past there was less humanity, imo

I am in service to myself, to be honest. I am no believer of altruism. But, myself is more satisfied when I do for others. Thinking only of myself fuels my depression and alienation. The satisfaction I receive from thinking of and doing for others might be a result of societal mores or personal upbringing, but what does it really matter? It’s not like it’s a bad thing.

@tinyfaery it’s not a bad thing…

@Simone_De_Beauvoir that’s a good point…but I feel that there is not enough humanity now. Perhaps there never was.

Helping people is good and you don’t have to make yourself a slave in the process.
Living only for oneself is an empty thing.

@holden it’s a definite possibility

Hmm, I’m not a philosophy major (not even college edumacated) so maybe I have no business posting an answer here. Anyway, here is a simple man’s view of this question.

The point of being selfish is to be for you and fuck everyone else, so to speak. Life is pretty pointless, given that no matter what you do, you will die, and you will no longer be around to enjoy it. There is no meaning of life. Life is a meaningless accident, as far as anyone can tell. We are born, we live X number of years, and then we die. End of story. Doesn’t get anymore meaningless than that.

Fortunately, I have given my life meaning by doing something. I serve others. I share with others. I spend time with others, and sometimes I teach them, and sometimes, I learn from them. It is a two-way street. While a wise person once said that other people are Hell, I can agree with that, but a life without other people is Hell also.

Never read Rand, but from what I gather, I am not missing much.

@Psychedelic_Zebra man, could you please please stop it with the self-deprecation…college edumacation never meant anyone was complex and simplicity just so happens to be a great philosophy

I try to take life, and it’s various subtleties, as they come instead of locking myself into some preconceived social constraint.

@Blondesjon so when you take life with its subtleties, do you find yourself to be more about helping others or more about helping yourself? neither is necessarily a social constraint, imo but various people put more value on one over the other

@Blondesjon Just to say, identifying with a philosophy does not need to be a social constraint. it just means, in my opinion, that you agree with the core of the philosophy. And, in many cases, most periphery ideas follow, but just because you believe in something doesn’t mean you’re being a conformist.

Also, In my opinion, a philosophy should be a guiding principle for your life. It should be the rules under which you act at all times. Not because you’ve decided you have to, but because it’s what makes sense to you, what you understand as right. So, it’s not an issue of whether or not you take things as they come, but whether or not you believe there is a reason behind your actions.

Please go ahead and insult me as much as you want, and do not stop me to do the same.

@BhacSsylan . . . In my life, the reasons behind my actions change from instance to instance. My philosophies are very fluid.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir . . . I just favor helping period no matter who benefits from it.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir but it is so much fun.

@BhacSsylan Well, that, in a way, is a philosophy. But that would be arguing definitions, so I don’t care to go any further. Anyway, i agree with Simone’s question. Do you tend to help people, in general?

@nitemer Um, what?

I have decided to devote the rest of my working life to helping people, but I haven’t overthought it. It just seems like the right thing to do, given that I must do something, and that I require retraining.

@Psychedelic_Zebra oh..then by all means

The only meaning of life must be service to others. Objective Ideology if there is such a thing is only another excuse for avoiding this moral responsibility.

@nitemer sure but why do you think we have such a moral responsibility?

This would only make sense to those who believe their social responsibilities have priority over personal self indulgence of any type.

you’re asking a question about the meaning of life without defining what “life” means. this is mucking up your search fpr truth on the matter because you’ve set yourself up to never have an adequate enough answer.

I submit that the “meaning” of the word “Life” is: “Your Memory.”

Given that definition, no matter what you’re doing, helping others or helping yourself, life’s meaning persists… until you are dead and can no longer remember anything. Further, your “goal” in life ought to be the creation of good memories. And yes, I think helping others definitely leaves you with the best kind of memories for your life to consist of.

Okay, so, out of D&D. Here goes.

First, though, I severely hope I do not derail this thread. If you want to argue objectivism, P me or start a new question. I just want to make sure people have accurate information, since this philosophy was specifically brought up, and is rarely well understood.

So, first, the main axiom (that is, something which cannot be proven): We have free will. This is the central and necessary tenent of Objectivism. You can argue with it, sure, but I take it as true, and so I believe what follows. Frankly, I think if you don’t agree, anything you say is self-defeating, and I don’t believe it’s worth living without it, but that’s another argument. As I said, I cannot prove free will, so I have to take it as given. The other axiom, which goes hand in hand, is that we can and must trust our senses. Again, this can’t be proven, but we must take it in order to operate in this world. Otherwise we might as well just flail around going “Blah blah blah”. Anyway, moving on.

From that springs everything else. Literally. Objectivism is a build-up philosophy. We start with that, and every other conclusion is built upon the earlier ones, in a logical progression. Hense ‘Objectivism’, because the idea is that, if you take the axiom of free will and use logic, the same conclusions will apply, and thus it is an ‘objective’ philosophy. An important point to bring up here is that that also makes it a symmetrical philosophy. Any conclusion one draws for oneself must automatically be applied to all other humans. many people who dislike or misrepresent (like that ass friend of yours), do not get this very, very important point.

So, what comes from this? Well, the first thing is this: since we are defined by free will, we are not acting as humans when we do not have free will. This has two implications. First, we wish to protect our free will. We will not be forced. Any act to force someone’s free will is an act to inhumanize them. As such, force, in all it’s forms (which applies to fraud, and stealing. more on that later), is evil, unless in self defense. The other implication is that I will never force my will on another human. I will never steal, lie, cheat, fraud, or in any force another human, as much as I can in this imperfect form, and will rectify any mistakes as readily as I can. Because every human deserves the same treatment.

From this also comes our ‘Rights’: all humans have the right to life, liberty, and property. The first two are easy. Life, because taking life is denying free will. Liberty, because free will needs the liberty to enact it. Property is a little trickier, but the idea is this: we have the right to property, because property allows us to produce, and to live. To put property in another person’s hands is to allow them to decide how we produce, how we live. We give them our liberty. “Sure, you can be free, but if you don’t do what I say, you won’t eat” or “you won’t have shelter”, etc. To be free, we need to own our own property.

Hense the reason stealing and fraud is force. Because by either method you are, without the subject’s knowledge, removing their property from them, and thus forcing your will upon them.

So, this is getting long, so I’ll stop there in terms of general descriptor. That’s the main tenents. Under this, yes, in a way you can be an ass, be selfish, etc. But it also means you have to allow others their rights. You can’t take something that is theirs. You have no right to something you do not earn, and have no right to property another doesn’t want you to have. And, mos importantly, you have no right to another person’s mind. It’s free. And that’s the reason I have no want to convert anyone here. I would like to have my philosophy respected, but I have no need to convince anyone to join it, because I will never and can never force you to change it.

Now, to finally answer the original question:

You have, Simone, in your question, answered for me. “not that one can not find meaning and value in one’s own talent + intelligence”. Our value is ourselves. It’s all we have! Only what we are and what we can do. I can never posses anyone else in any way shape or form, so i must take pride in what I and I alone can do. Granted, if I can offer my services to someone who uses those services for even more benefit, then that is something I have done, and can take pride in. So I help other people in ways that help myself, yes, but it also doesn’t mean I don’t serve them. I serve people who make me greater. my boss is a great man, and working with him will make me better. I have no qualms serving him. Giving to another, if it also helps me, I do readily. I give and serve (in a way) my significant other, because I get the same in return. I will not serve those I do not believe will benefit me, because then I am weakening myself for them, I am willfully losing of myself to make someone I don’t want to gain my strength, this is the definition of sacrifice.

This also has more implications, by the way. Anyone I wouldn’t want to serve would have to give me nothing in return. They’d have to be doing nothing I want them to do. Keep that in mind. But, I go on to long. Hoped this helped someone understand where I’m coming from.

“I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

I think you should help yourself by helping others. A mother who nurses her baby is enlightened while caring for her young. I feel like a better person when I assist another person, I feel like I make a difference in their day. Maybe by my one action, their whole outlook on the day is changed for the better. You can’t allow yourself to become a doormat however. There’s a difference between helping others and being walked all over.

@BhacSsylan what is the connection between D&D and objectivism, is it the prototype model for a kind of Randian world. Monopoly is similar although i believe the game in it’s current form was based upon an original idea that was specifically conceived to demonstrate the injustices of the landlord/tenant system. As Chris Hitchen’s pointed out, not sure selfish behaviour needs any further endorsement by literature or a profoundly flimsy philosophical edifice. Sounds like she has twisted the enlightenment concept of objectivity to her own ends. People used to do that with God once upon.

@mammal Would you like to properly debate me in a PM, or just insult me? Also, D&D has no connection, I was just explaining why I could not answer immediately, but wanted to let it be known I was going to offer a response.

Oh, and for the record, that type of response is precisely the reason I do not normally voice my opinion on the matter. People who do not know it and don’t care to attempt to understand it simply belittle it, thinking they have the moral ‘higher ground’, and because, frankly, most people agree with them, right or wrong. But, also, this is NOT something to be discussed here. If you would like to debate me, and be respectful, send me an PM, and don’t clutter this thread. If you want to be an ass, I’ll just ignore you.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir and @nxknxk thanks for giving me the time to respond, and being respectful. I hope my response helped you at all.

I disagree with 95% of the people here, so I’m just going to answer the question alone.

I am a fan of the Golden Rule. I am also a fan of objectivism. I don’t put myself into any single philosophical category because I live by my rules and mine alone. This is another reason why I do not subscribe to a single religion, I have a set of my own beliefs which take a little from every religion, ultimately summing up to a tweaked version of the Golden Rule.

I do not think that public service is the only way to find meaning in one’s life. I think everyone needs something different and just needs to find it. I also do not think any person should force their opinion about the meaning of life onto any one else.

Speaking as someone who has raised hundreds of dollars for charities as a high school student, I can say that no amount of public service will define the meaning I put into life. I live because I enjoy this world and being in it. I enjoy learning about the scientific wonders of the world, I enjoy making a beautiful drawing every now and then, I enjoy waking up to the love of my life every morning, and I love finding a creative way to solve a problem. It is not a question of “do you like to help people or not.” It is a question of what you personally hold as meaningful and that can be a number of things. In my opinion, that’s what Rand was saying.

And for an example of why charity will never be the only meaning in my life, I used to focus on UNICEF as my main charity of interest, but I have fully stopped and put my support into other organizations because I will never help a charity the guilts you into helping it. I have received (despite many a letter asking not to, and threatening to stop supporting them) pictures of starving children in Africa, stories about a mother holding a dead baby, and various other terrible letters. They had me at “small amount of money goes a long way” and “Hey, would you like to help some starving children out?” I did not need them to paint me a picture every week to make my heart explode.

Ultimately, it’s best to forget, I suppose.

Though serving others’ isn’t a bad way to go down.

@BhacSsylan i happen to like D&D And monopoly it was just coincidence that the Chris Hitchens essay referred to both Ayn Rand and D&D So i drew my own conclusions. To be honest i didn’t know if you subscribe to objectivism or are just explaining it, so it wasn’t personal. It seems that Ayn Rand had burning issues against a government that actually took the trouble to educate her, all be it, reluctantly, perhaps they knew that she would eventually bite the hand that feeds her. This moribund state where a nefarious central politburo scuppers any attempt at innovation, we are talking about a the same people who successfully put a man into orbit right? Or were scientists and engineers tortured into complying with the space project.

My problem with Objectivism isn’t so much the idea of rational self-interest, but the demonization of those who live for others. In The Fountainhead, Peter Keating truly is a tragic character with no real talent or substance and pretty much gets what he deserved (his fate isn’t that bad). What about Katy though? She is shown to be a cold, vapid woman with no identity, presumably because she dedicated her life to being a nurse and helping other people. Ellsworth M. Toohey is a critic and lover of the arts, hero to and supporter of the common man, selfless, generous, religious and intelligent. And yet, he is the villain of the story, described at one point as a maggot, because he feeds on the misery of others (and he drove his own niece Katy into the state she’s in).

Rand is right about how a man should have his own opinions, benefit from his own work, ignore the judgment of others, break from tradition when necessary and never compromise his ideals. However, much like communism, her philosophy looks good on paper but does not function in real life. Not everyone is talented, not everyone is capable and not everyone is intelligent; some people need help. Her “philosophy” appears to have no room for these people. Civilization is built upon the idea of people coming together for the good of all. Why do we have a government? It’s a structure designed to allow us some degree of security in the pursuit of what we want. Humans formed into different societies for the mutual benefit of everyone involved. According to Rand, humans were fooled into it by religion and collectivist thinking.

She claims that the desire for power by some is what created many of the “evil altruisms” so many subscribe to. Somehow, preaching selflessness, self-sacrifice, equality, etc. is what takes away power from the many and gives it to the few. Rand seems to ignore the good that comes out of ideas that benefit the many, such as charity and universal literacy/education. Without these, how much smaller would the pool be from which “ideal men” are to arise? In other words, how likely would people be able to reach their full potential and pursue their own happiness if they didn’t live in a place that would feed them when they’re hungry and educate them for free? Yes, a Howard Roark can be born in New England, USA, but what about the villages of rural China? War-torn Bosnia? Drought-plagued Somalia? An ideal man can be created in a place that provides certain starting points from which to grow, starting points that are in place due to the efforts of those who believe in altruism and helping others.

I didn’t mean to go on for so long, but I’ve been thinking about The Fountainhead quite a lot since finishing it recently.

I don’t know much about the Fountainhead. Have you read Atlas Shrugged?

@drdoombot you were crafting that response for sometime, and it shows, good work.

@ms De Beauvoir ref DM – dungeon master dirty i like it that just blew my mind ha ha ha, HA xx

@ninjacolin actually I was not searching for the meaning of life through this question
I never searched for it but I have meaning IN my life – that’s the difference

@BhacSsylan well thanks the time to writing it all up
I didn’t learn anything new about objectivism from your explanation
that is NOT to say it wasn’t informative
In a way you think of serving others differently from me
you mentioned serving your boss which helps you
but the way I write service is that you are helping, not being a slave to a master
I suppose all of us are slaves to others but if we have free will, which I believe some of us do, then we are willingly slaves to those we serve…finding meaning in service to others is a benefit to us because it brings forth meaning…so in some ways we’re all objectivists…except that, as I’ve mentioned previously, groups that have spun off off objectivism argue against social services, welfare, health insurance…because they think each person is to pull themselves up so to speak…but THE big flaw is that we are NOT born equal though we should be born equal…in that there are classes and races and genders and disparities so people don’t start out with a level playing field…if people would be equal , objectivism maaaaaybe could be something I’d look into…but people aren’t…still, I am a huge fan of free will, liberty, reason and logic…but I already mentioned that she wasn’t all mad…yet a lot of other times she sounds positively raving

I have two ideas that I build most of my thinking from. In no particular order:

Humans are social animals.

All behavior is fundamentally selfish.

Because humans are social, we seek status within the group. Status confers an evolutionary advantage on us, so most people compete for status. We typically think that status is signified by an accumulation of physical resources. However I believe that respect is an equally (if not greater) measure of status. One can gain a huge amount of respect by serving others.

I say that all behavior is selfish because, in the end, it is all done to either provide you with the resources necessary to live or to enhance your status. I think some people believe that service to others which does not result in any material benefit to you is altruistic behavior. We see it as being done “from the goodness of your own heart.” I see altruism as part and parcel of the effort to gain higher status. The more people you serve, and the greater the service you provide, the more they respect you and the higher their esteem for you.

Thus, we serve others not because it’s “good,” but because we know other people will think better of us for providing the service. In fact, providing service to others is one of the most efficient ways of achieving higher status.

As far as I can tell, there is no contradiction between objectivism and serving others.

@drdoombot well, that;s a fair assessment, but you’re coming at things a little sideways, at least to the way it’s intended, so let’s see if I can change anything. First, Toohey seems to be the main issue here, and it seems that your main problem is that he did ‘good’ things yet was a bad man. I think you’re seeing this the wrong way around. In my (and Rand’s, as far as i can tell) opinion, Toohey is an evil man who happens to be good at disguising his purposes. Yes, he does good things, but almost all are designed for the purpose of destruction. Not to raise those that are lower, but lower those that are higher. He also is explicitly working for a collectivist society, one were no one is an individual: “A world where the thought of each man will not be his own, but an attempt to guess the thought of his neighbor (...) Men will not work for money, but for prestige, the approval of their fellows – not judgment, but public polls”. He wants a world where everyone only works for other people, never thinks of themselves, and never is individualistic or allow their own needs or mind to forward themselves.

So, yes, does he do good things? A few, but he is not attempting to help anyone, his reasons are to destroy greatness and individuality. I suggest you read it again with the eye for what he’s attempting to do, not what he does. To Rand, both the action and the mind are important.

As to her philosophy not working in ‘Real Life’, well, that’s fair to an extent, but realize this is an idealist philosophy. A society could be made on those principles, I garuntee it, but it would have to be an exclusive one.

“Civilization is built upon the idea of people coming together for the good of all.” Didn’t feel like re-writing it. This is perfectly true, but the reasons for the ‘good of all’ depends on your viewpoint. Individualism does not destroy the ability to live together. It simply means we must respect the minds and rights of others. Radical, I know.

“Why do we have a government? It’s a structure designed to allow us some degree of security in the pursuit of what we want.” Again, entirely true. Why do you seem to have the idea that Rand hates society? Individualism is not the rejection of society as a whole. She rejects most current forms of it, sure, but not the idea of coming together to allow more to be accomplished from it. She believed, for instance, that the founding fathers were amazing men with great ideals who’s acts help create a great nation. She also thought it was corrupted by religion and politicos, but that doesn’t mean she didn’t think it was a good idea in the beginning. There’s a difference between a society of mutual benefit, and a society that forces it’s members to conform, essentially.

She doesn’t believe that helping others is bad. She believes that self-sacrifice is bad. That is, destroying oneself for an ideal you do not want. If you benefit from an action, how is it sacrifice? I give of myself to my significant other. That’s not self-sacrifice, i get a return, so to speak. We give to each other. To sacrifice would be to say “i cannot allow myself to be happy, that would be evil. Therefore, I shall love this horrible person, so that they can be better, because sacrifice is good, and anything that helps me is bad.” There’s also the fact that many actions are disguised under ‘self-sacrifice”, like much of Toohey’s work is done to destroy people like Roark, and their accomplishments, which in the end is what Toohey wants, so it;s not sacrifice, it’s scheming.

As to developing countries, I put this to you: If someone goes in, and drops a crate of money on Somalia, and then kills themselves, so that it can not have any conceivable benefit to them, they are great, regaurdless of what happens to the money. But, if an industialist goes in, and offers jobs and creates work and pays people for what they do, and helps them build up an economy, he is an evil man, and is running sweatshops, and destroying their culture. And this is assumed, and an investigation would be done into working conditions, etc, before anyone would think to say “hey, maybe just because he’s getting something out of it, doesn’t mean what he’s doing is somehow wrong”.

Annnnd.. now I’m late for work. Good day! Be back later.

@daloon I never thought serving others was not also self-serving…that’s my whole point…finding meaning in serving others is self serving but when I serve others I serve MORe for them and LESS for me…some people are in such need and helping them is against what the majority believes (when I work with the homeless, drug users, HIV + people, transgender people…these are people other people don’t think deserve help and DO NOT respect me for it) so I don’t agree with you that we do it for the respect of others

@BhacSsylan no he’s an evil man IF he is running sweatshops and destroying the culture…if he isn’t doing any of those things, I will assume that sure he’s providing the goods for that country and jobs but certainly, it is a certainty, that he is gaining a lot more money from it than he’s putting in…that’s just how it always goes…corporations are thought to evil for a reason, because of the injustice that surrounds their practices…and because they don’t do it really to help others but to help themselves…but in your mind that’d be okay as long as the little people get jobs in the meantime..

@Simone_De_Beauvoir No? In Philadelphia, Sister Mary Scullion has gained a lot of respect for her work with the homeless and other disadvantaged folk. And of course, there’s Mother Theresa who became a saint for her work.

And you talk about your work all the time. You are proud of it, and with good reason. But talking about it is also bragging so people will know how good you are and respect you for it. I’m sure there are a group of people who despise you for that work, but I’m also sure there are many who applaud you, especially here on fluther. I think you underestimate the status that any kind of volunteer “do-good” work can bring you.

I, for one, really appreciate that you are on the front lines advocating for such people. Especially since I can easily imagine becoming one. And especially because so many homeless are mentally ill. When I think of people who make a difference, you are high on the list. I only wish I could be like you.

@daloon I am not Sister Mary scullion and there is a big difference between the religious folks helping out the homeless and what we as health professionals in NY actually deal with…it might sound nice to ‘help the homeless’ just like people say ‘feed the children’...but we know realities…and Mother Theresa…I could not disagree more that she was holier than thou…reading about her history and reading about how she really was made me lose all respect for her…and again even if some people on fluther applaud me for some things that I do mention (a very small percentage of all that goes on, anyway) that is NOT the primary reason for why I do what I do…I suppose you can say there are small groups of people that appreciate my work, but again their praise is not what drives me…you only hear what I choose to divulge…there is plenty I don’t divulge…therefore there is a lot more out there that no one applauds me for and it makes little difference because I do what I do because it’s right…because I believe it’s right…I am not a super emotional person, I’m a pretty rational person and only very few people’s opinions matter to me in terms of applause or criticism…I have done underground illegal work to help and that didn’t serve me in any way…but it was the right thing to do

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I don’t think we have to be aware of a motivation in order for it to be a motivation. I’m looking for a motive that would explain a lot of people’s behavior. We engage in many activities for reasons we may explain in one way or another. However, an evolutionary biologist might use another motivational explanation, and we’re pretty much unconscious of those motives. They are at work whether we know it or not.

You say you do things because they are “right.” That is your conscious motivation. You may have unconscious motivations as well. There are reasons why altruistic behavior feels good to us. It must help us survive in some way. That’s a selfish motive, no matter how much we might believe we are motivated by doing the right thing.

@BhacSsylan Oh, it’s very clear from the text that Toohey is an evil man manipulating the system to make himself look good. Toohey is how Rand sees the leaders of self-sacrificing causes, such as the Pope, the founder of GreenPeace, etc. It’s a rather cynical view of the world and unrealistic.

It seems that Rand believes altruistic people come in two forms: the moronic, sleazy masses who can be controlled and swayed, and the intelligent leaders who manipulates those masses to gain power. I think this, in part, is why so many people find Rand’s ideas immature; it’s almost like she sees the world in binary. Think about the way she divided the sections of The Fountainhead: Part I was Peter Keating, member of the dumb masses; Part II was Ellsworth Toohey, the leader of the dumb masses; Part III was Gail Wynand, an ideal man who misused his abilities; Part IV was Howard Roark, an ideal man who was perfect. So people are either ideal or self-sacrificing, and each type comes into two flavors. The world doesn’t actually conform to these archetypes.

Under Rand’s objectivism, where do soldiers fit in? They sacrifice themselves for their country, to allow others to live a life of freedom. You said Rand believed the Founding Fathers were great men, but they’re the ones who lived. What about the guys who gave up their lives to help establish the USA as an independent country? More importantly, if those men had not sacrificed themselves to create this country, where would Rand have escaped to in order to develop her ideas of rational self-interest? It’s a pretty idea, to live for your own happiness and all, but it must be built upon the sacrifice of those before you, who created a world in which it was possible for you to even have these ideas.

As for your industrialist scenario, I see nothing wrong with someone going into a country and creating jobs and whatnot (though I disagree that a suicidal charity-giver would be lauded as a hero). However, show me an industrialist who ensures safe working conditions, fair wages and environmental responsibility. You’ll be hard pressed to find them; the reason they go to third world countries is because they can get away with doing less at a bigger profit.

There are some parts of Rand’s philosophy that just rub me the wrong way because of my personal life experiences. Several years ago, I was a working a well-paying, full-time job and attending school at night full-time. I could have easily moved into my own place and lived a carefree, single life, but I instead chose to give all my money to the household, so that I could help out my mother and help my brothers continue their education. Their education brings me no benefit; they’re the ones who enjoy the fruits of their labor.

A few years later, I quit my well-paying job to take care of my mother while she was going through chemotherapy. It was my pleasure to be able to help someone who gave most of her life to raise me. My younger brother (whom I happen to have a very bad relationship with), however, sees her and his entire family as a burden. He imagines that his whole life has been a sacrifice because he had to have part-time jobs to contribute to the household. He believes he could have been an amazing pianist or artist or writer, if only his family had not made him sacrifice his spare time for work, when he could have been practicing. His attitude, in my opinion, is the dangerous side of rational self-interest, where a person is so egotistical that the most important relationships in his life are just hindrances. He’s the most bitter and cynical young person I’ve ever known, and I hope to God that he does not encounter Rand’s work, which will just feed the fire and allow him to justify his feelings. Sadly, I’ve known several people who were like my brother, and it seems that these people are the ones that are most attracted to the writings of Ayn Rand.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I’m saying that society in general automatically brands him evil before they determine whether or not he’s actually doing anything wrong. As you said: “corporations are thought to evil”. They are considered evil because they make money. Don’t get me wrong, there are certainty evil companies (just pick a handful of all the crazy embezzlement cases, for sure, or any number that do run sweatshops), but that has gone from “a company can be evil” to “a company is evil”. a company, for the very fact that it makes any money, is considered bad. But, in many cases, the company is creating something new! It’s founders created something good, and so are reaping the benifits. Because they made something well, they are ‘rewarded’, in a way, with value, in the form of money. But now, we say that if they’re rewarded, they’re evil. “it is a certainty, that he is gaining a lot more money from it than he’s putting in” Yes, if he does a good job, he’ll make money, because he had the vision to start it, and the ideas to put it into motion. But, for the very fact that he’s getting a benefit from that vision, because he now has more money then before because he had that vision, he’s a bastard.

Also, keep in mind, I’m not saying sweatshops are good. Quite the opposite. What i’m saying is that he’d be condemned as having them, before anyone took the time to see whether or not it’s true. And even if it isn’t people will assume something else is evil about it.

“and because they don’t do it really to help others but to help themselves” yes, they help others, because it does in the end help themselves. I’m saying i believe it is possible to help yourself while not destroying others. Most people’s view of objectivism is that it’s helping oneself while destroying others, and they believe this is the only possibility. I’m saying that that is entirely, and fundamentally, wrong.

“but in your mind that’d be okay as long as the little people get jobs in the meantime..” Also, this has nothing to do with it, really. He’s doing it to help himself, and in the process helps others. One big idea of objectivism is that by helping oneself, we do help others. It’s not a goal as much as a happy result, because Rand did realize we are better as a society. We can live alone, but we are better together.

@drdoombot Give me a bit to read, but I’ll respond.

@drdoombot One thing you absolutely must keep in mind was that The fountainhead, like all her dramatic works, are meant to prove a point. They are written to show the philosophy, but not as non-fiction. They characters are stereotypes, to a degree, but that’s so its easier to understand the implications. They are perfectly good and perfectly bad. You can disagree with that writing style, sure, but she is doing it off of Aristotle’s idea for drama, so it’s for the sake of that, not her philosophy. I assure you the philosophy is considerably more fleshed out, and I have read books that go into it further from her. It is not just a philosophy for caricatures. She has said that people like that do exist, but she in no way believed that many are that way.

Annnd, now we get to the point of ‘self-sacrifice’ in the term of soldiers. Okay, I have to go more into that term then, forgive me. He’s the main issue most have: Rand defines sacrifice in a slightly different manner then most are used to. Sacrifice is giving of yourself for something that you do not want. Be it in any fashion. Soldiers, at least noble ones, act because they believe their country should be defended. They give of themselves for the benefit of the countries security, because they believe, in a way similar to my view of my boss, that the country can take thier contributions and make them greater. Objectivity doesn’t say everything you do must immediately and obviously benefit yourself. If you desire something, and act to see it come about, then you are helping your own self interests, are you not? A noble soldier wants to keep his country safe, for any number of reasons, and does what he can to see his desire through.

It may also help to know that Rand’s perfect goverment would have only three parts: Judiciary, to determine the rights in cases of dispute and fraud. Police, to defend the citizens from civil attempts at force, and the army, to protect from international attempts at force. The founding fathers had the vision, the soldiers carried it out. In her mind, the founding fathers are more great, as the soldiers simply took the vision and executed it. But the soldiers were a necessary and noble part of bringing it about.

And your problem with my scenario is not with the scenario, but with the current social situation. Again, I don’t in any way believe there are no evil companies, but I’m saying they get a bad rap for doing anything that in any way benefits themselves. And I’d also say the proliferation of bad companies has to do with several factors, including corrupt goverment. But that’s a whole ‘nother argument.

And for the last part, one thing that I sincerely hope you understand is that serving others is not contrary to objectivism! There seem to be a whole host of reasons, and perfectly good ones, for you to stay at home and care for your loved ones. I hope that your mother never assumed it was your duty to care for her, and that she gave you even more love and happiness for what you were doing. What you’re talking about is the relationship between friends and love ones. We do things for those we care about because we believe they deserve our help! Because they have earned it. Your mother gave of herself to raise you, and you give of yourself to help her in return. Your brother seems to want them to give everything to him, while he gives nothing back, and that is evil. If we are to live on the idea that my will is my own, and that the work i do is good and deserving of value in return, then I must do the same for everyone around me. I cannot take strength and then give a “screw you” in return.

That sounds like the sort of person that, if they find Rand, I agree with twist it. But just because a philosophy can be misused does not mean it’s wrong. Any enlightened catholic would agree, i think, in terms of the crusades. Just for a parallel.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I’m a little confused, what was the point of this question again? Were you asking what a person’s reason for living is or were you asking for a debate on objectivism?

I’m beginning to think I didn’t provide an answer to the actual question.

@daloon yes I agree there may be motivations that we are not aware of because they’re subconsious

Not every human act of kindness or service is quid pro quo, or calculated on the basis of reciprocity, that is absurd, unless you take it to a karmic level, even so Rand seems to suggest one behaves selectively toward others depending upon some arbitary judgement with regards to their worthiness or otherwise. This chills my bones. But then i confess to not having read her work to any depth, so perhaps i’ll bow out. On the basis of what i have discovered i’ll place her work a long way down the list of things to read perhaps one place above mein kampf or the malleus malefacarum.

We should, in every action we consciously take, have some idea of the outcome of the decision, even if it’s feeble, and usually have some purpose. I mean, if we don’t have some idea of the consequence, or some purpose, why are we doing the action? At the very least we may do something we don’t know the outcome of just to determine the outcome.

And yes, Rand does believe that we should act wards others on the basis of what they could do for us. I’d rather run away from a mugger, and hug my girlfriend, and so on. You seem to think that any judgement about anyone is horrible, but we have to make some descision about how to act towards someone, or we’d never know how to act. Or, worse, we’d act the exact same for every person, in which case you’re essentially an automoton who can’t tell say, their loved ones from every else.

And, now, I have attempted to respectfully answer every comment you’ve made, despite the fact that you started this with a direct and unfounded insult. And now, you’ve made a false apology, and followed it up with another direct attack on Rand, while simultaniously claiming you have never read her to any depth! So, I’m sorry, but I’ll be forced to ignore any further comments. Good day.

Oh, and by the way, you happen to be, right now, not behaving toward Rand’s work on a judgement of her ‘worthiness’, but doing it without proper information.

@drdoombot “Under Rand’s objectivism, where do soldiers fit in?”

She talked a lot about soldiers. What they do is a noble thing if they are fighting for their own freedom and the freedom of their loved ones. In that case, there is no sacrifice involved. The soldier is not willing to live without freedom and so is willing to die for it if need be. Now if the soldier were doing it purely out of a sense of duty then it would be a sacrifice and would also be immoral.

One can find meaning in life through themselves, through life itself, and through many different things that don’t have to do with other people and helping others. It’s silly to think that you can only live because of others. It’s possible to live on your own, for your own passions, interests, and values.

@cbloom8 I agree but I think that one should have all the things above and help others in whatever way they can

@daloon
dude, you gotta read this
http://www.scientificblogging.com/rogue_neuron/addicted_being_good_psychopathology_heroism

Servitude can be the most wicked thing enforced, but also the most selfless act of kindness, being a parent I only subscribe to the latter of course.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I suppose it depends on how far back you trace motive. The do-gooders are driven by genes to do good. Then, it seems to me, it is still selfish to give in to that need. It is about making them feel they did the right thing. Notice that they break rules to do the right thing. That again is selfish, because they are the one who is deciding what the right thing to do is. They are the one giving themselves permission to break the rules in their selfish need to help others.

Doing good can only happen in a social context. Society’s consensus is what creates “good.” So the compulsive do-gooder has to take into account the desires of society, or else they may well do bad. They are implicitly doing it for the approval they receive—or, I would argue, the approval they need.

Have you ever read my story about what work I have done throughout my life? I’ve told it at least once here. In case you hadn’t noticed, I’m not all that big on rules, myself.

I merely serve others if, ultimately, it benefits me in the end.
Like having a job.