A
abelville
Guest
Is this another type of atheism? Could someone give me a little info on how the Church views it?
Thanks Much!!
Al
Thanks Much!!
Al
- Status
M
Mirdath
Guest
Objectivism is an ethical system centered on one absolute rule: look out for #1. ‘Good’ is ‘what’s good for you’ and ‘evil’ anything else – including such things as charity, selflessness, and so on. Other people only matter insofar as they benefit you. It is not ‘another type of atheism’, although Ayn Rand’s philosophy as a whole denies the existence of a deity (you won’t find a theist Objectivist, but you will find plenty of non-Objectivist atheists).
I don’t know of anything official from the Vatican on the subject, but looking at the tenets it’s a very reasonable guess to say the Church would consider it utterly despicable. I’m of that mind, although remember that arguing against it is like arguing against solipsism: just can’t be done.
I don’t know of anything official from the Vatican on the subject, but looking at the tenets it’s a very reasonable guess to say the Church would consider it utterly despicable. I’m of that mind, although remember that arguing against it is like arguing against solipsism: just can’t be done.
Z
Zero_the_Hero
Guest
The reason Objectivists are athiests is because they believe conscienceness cannot minipulate reality. Thus God cannot create matter because a mind cannot change what is real, since the function of the mind is only idetification of what already exists. Consciousness must be consciousness of something because a mind that is blank is then conscious of nothing and thus a contradiction. So reality exists independent of consciousness, and thus a divine mind cannot control and cannot create existence.
B
BennyBoy89
Guest
Before starting the process of converting to Catholicism I was heavily interested in Objectivism, trying to somehow reconcile it with a Christian worldview. Needless to say I was one of those “emerging church” types. :ehh: Her theories on personal liberty and economics are very intriguing when put in the proper perspective. Not everything Ayn Rand had to say was absolute garbage, such as man’s nobility (he is after all the image of God), but her philosophy needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
She’s worth checking out. Try The Fountainhead, but don’t take the proposed morality to heart.
She’s worth checking out. Try The Fountainhead, but don’t take the proposed morality to heart.
B
BlaineTog
Guest
Objectivism as a whole is despicable, but at least it’s coherent, and parts of it work just fine outside the system. And objectivists aren’t necessarily evil or harmful people, as they can believe that they must help others in order to prop up their own self-image and assuage feelings of guilt.
J
jules208
Guest
I agree that some parts of Objectivism are sound arguments, but when I read articles out there such as the following below, I can’t help but think that Ayn Rand disciples are blinded by some selfish pursuit of glory.
fireflysun.com/AltruismandMentalIllness.htm
Can anyone shed some light on whether this article is representative of Rand’s theories? I see a grave problem with the oversimplification of ethical values and their mandates as well as exaggerated overgeneralizations about selflessness and love of others.
On a similar but sort of different track:
How is self-focused-ness different from being selfish? Are they both inherently egotistical?
Can anyone recommend any books on maturing in Christ away from selfishness toward greater selflessness and self-mortification?
How do you accomplish this growth toward selflessness, practically speaking, without (further, as the case may be for the abused and neglected) damage to one’s self-esteem and sense of self-worth when you try to practice turning the other cheek and forgiving offenses, self-abnegating your will to that of others for their benefit? Christ must increase as we must decrease…
The great stumbling block …
fireflysun.com/AltruismandMentalIllness.htm
Can anyone shed some light on whether this article is representative of Rand’s theories? I see a grave problem with the oversimplification of ethical values and their mandates as well as exaggerated overgeneralizations about selflessness and love of others.
On a similar but sort of different track:
How is self-focused-ness different from being selfish? Are they both inherently egotistical?
Can anyone recommend any books on maturing in Christ away from selfishness toward greater selflessness and self-mortification?
How do you accomplish this growth toward selflessness, practically speaking, without (further, as the case may be for the abused and neglected) damage to one’s self-esteem and sense of self-worth when you try to practice turning the other cheek and forgiving offenses, self-abnegating your will to that of others for their benefit? Christ must increase as we must decrease…
The great stumbling block …
I
ireland381
Guest
That’s really not it… objectivists don’t seek to promote a self image; they don’t seek glory or admiration. A true objectivist would not help others to assuage feelings of guilt… only to serve one’s self–as the title of her book suggests, selfishness is a virtue and the cornerstone of morality.
Human beings are dependent on each other as traders; people need things of value and produce things of value and they must trade them as such. The theory is that altruism and selflessness bankrupts–that giving without receiving, in some form or another, eventually depletes all things of value; without these things, no one can survive. Therefore the best (to objectivists, the only) way to achieve any kind of “collective” good is to provide for your own self interest. This sounds evil to people because people associate selfishness with desiring things you do not deserve–and it has nothing to do with not caring for other people. It’s about doing an honest day’s work. You have the right to get out what you put in–no more, no less. Whenever a system gives out more than it puts in, it crumbles. If everyone who has something starts giving it to others because of their “need”, without receiving something of equal value in return, they will eventually run out. Then the people who have need will have no one to give them things.
It’s not cruel or immoral–it’s a basic property of physics: energy cannot be created from nothing; you can never get out more than you put in. An equal exchange must be maintained or the system runs dry. To not act accordingly disrespects nature… it is wishing something to be other than what it is.
It is only those who reject that reality that do real harm to others. By giving, they hasten the bankruptcy… they empty the tank faster, rather than producing things of value that can fill it up again.
Because someone has needs, does not make it immoral to ask them to contribute value to society in the form of work, money, or anything else that may be traded.
J
jules208
Guest
I don’t think the objectivist perspective is the full truth. Christ was not wrong when he taught us to give selflessly. Objectivists are right only in the context of an immoral, selfish and self-centered world. If you have one stingy, selfish person, you breed and infect others with the same narrowmindedness.
If a person gives from what he has, and the next person gives to another who has need, the contributions occur and everyone’s needs are met if you follow the idea to its logical conclusion. Contributions and reciprocity occur more effectively in the context of selflessness. Giving is the supreme act of survival. If I think only of myself and act only for myself, then my ability to survive and succeed is limited. When I give, and another gives, and so on, everyone achieves success.
This brings to mind the analogy of hell and heaven:
In both places, you will find a banquet table with a bounty of food and people with arms too long for each person to be able to reach his mouth to feed himself. In hell, because they are selfish and self-centered, they starve and are miserable.
In heaven, because the saints have always practiced giving and selflessness, they reach across the table and feed each other. That is the full truth. It could be achieved on earth if everyone gave of themselves and asked nothing in return save to love God and serve his neighbor.
Giving is contagious when it is fueled by love. Christ calls us each to give unselfishly and show others what sacrificial love looks like. If we all practiced it, hunger and war would be irradicated. Christians understand that we will always have the poor and we will always have war in this life. That is why love MUST be sacrificial in order that LOVE may triumph.
I’m not preaching to, or condemning, anyone in particular; just making an important point.
A
ateista
Guest
No, the logical conclusion is that if everyone just asks for food, then no one produces food… and all will starve.
The basic point of “selfishness” in this context is responsibility. It is not selfishness at someone else’s expense. It is “selfishness” in the sense, that I am responsible for my own well-being, not you - and of course vice-versa. To paraphrase Cain: “I am not my brother’s keeper, and my brother is not my keeper”. We all are responsible for ourselves.
Of course, there is a place for sharing one’s “bounty” with others, and that is why Rand’s dogmatic approach is incorrect. Because we all might fall on hard times, and temporary help may prove necessary for survival, it is a good idea to help out those who need it - but not without constraint. A loan might be appropriate to help - but never a handout.
A loan is uplifting, it shows that the person getting a loan is worthy of help, is considered a productive member of society - who temporarily might have run into bad luck. A handout is demeaning, it shows that person getting a handout is just a loser.
Many examples show that people who get a loan will get on their own feet and will repay that loan. Even more examples show that people who get a handout, will stay on the welfare system, and never even try to get out of it. Indiscriminate hadout will propagate the system of losers.
A very bad analogy. In reality food does not fall as “manna” from heaven, we must work for it. The idea that “need” creates “right” inevitably ends in common poverty.
As Churchill said: “The problem with capitalism is that it does not share wealth equally. The problem with communism is that it shares poverty equally”. (And make no mistakes about it: Jesus was a quintessential communist - in the true sense of the word, not as it has been distorted by the so-called communist societies.)
I
ireland381
Guest
I agree completely with the above.
I struggled with objectivism at first like most might because the connotations of ideas like “selfish” “egoism” etc. are so negative. We’re taught it’s wrong to be selfish or egotistical, but as the above poster identified, serving oneself does not imply that it is at the expense of others, and that is exactly the point.
Altruism is dependent on sacrifice–that it is “good” to sacrifice and suffer so that another may benefit. Think about what this means–it means to believe that humans should suffer at the expense of others; that is slavery.
Again the common misconception is that objectivism is about only looking out for yourself in the sense that you are the only person that matters; to the contrary, it relies on the idea that you need other people in order to survive. Few people can provide for themselves everything that they need, so they must seek out others to provide it for them–at a fair price. Because we MUST be dependent on other people, and others dependent on us (or rather, on the goods that we produce), we must demand payment for it. Remember that “goods” and “payment” are not necessarily material or monetary. By receiving payment, you are able to produce more, and therefore provide more. It’s really the “put your own oxygen mask on first” concept–if you don’t help yourself first, you can’t help anyone.
That is why helping yourself and providing for yourself first is the most moral act of all; it perpetuates the survival of all.
Read the story of the Twentieth Century Motor Company from Atlas Shrugged. The company decided to produce and distribute wealth “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Therefore the more need you could demonstrate, the more you would receive. It encouraged neediness, poverty, and handouts.
People think that objectivism isolates people and ignores “the common good” but that is exactly what it serves.
I struggled with objectivism at first like most might because the connotations of ideas like “selfish” “egoism” etc. are so negative. We’re taught it’s wrong to be selfish or egotistical, but as the above poster identified, serving oneself does not imply that it is at the expense of others, and that is exactly the point.
Altruism is dependent on sacrifice–that it is “good” to sacrifice and suffer so that another may benefit. Think about what this means–it means to believe that humans should suffer at the expense of others; that is slavery.
Again the common misconception is that objectivism is about only looking out for yourself in the sense that you are the only person that matters; to the contrary, it relies on the idea that you need other people in order to survive. Few people can provide for themselves everything that they need, so they must seek out others to provide it for them–at a fair price. Because we MUST be dependent on other people, and others dependent on us (or rather, on the goods that we produce), we must demand payment for it. Remember that “goods” and “payment” are not necessarily material or monetary. By receiving payment, you are able to produce more, and therefore provide more. It’s really the “put your own oxygen mask on first” concept–if you don’t help yourself first, you can’t help anyone.
That is why helping yourself and providing for yourself first is the most moral act of all; it perpetuates the survival of all.
Read the story of the Twentieth Century Motor Company from Atlas Shrugged. The company decided to produce and distribute wealth “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Therefore the more need you could demonstrate, the more you would receive. It encouraged neediness, poverty, and handouts.
People think that objectivism isolates people and ignores “the common good” but that is exactly what it serves.
A
ateista
Guest
This is the best way to put it I have even seen.
J
joeybaggz
Guest
Prior to its abolition, The Index of Forbidden Books which was published by the Magesterium listed Ayn Rand and her works on it. The Index was done away with after Vatican II.
Reading Atlas Shrugged a number of times, I can’t help believe that much of what is said in the dialogue between the protagonists is based on very sound Theistic/Christian belief, if one accepts that man is created in the image and likeness of God. I have always wondered if it is that Rand didn’t necessarily believe that there is no God, but rather she didn’t believe in the God that organized religion at the time presented to her. Her major works were written in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s. Atlas Shrugged has a 1957 copyright if I’m correct.
My two cents.
J
joeybaggz
Guest
To edit my own quote, … I can’t help but believe that much of what is said in the dialogue between the protagonists reflects a very sound Theistic/Christian position, if one accepts that man is created in the image and likeness of God.
Better
J
jules208
Guest
Your response appears to have been written with prejudice.
“If a person gives from what he has, and the next person gives to another who has need, the contributions occur and everyone’s needs are met if you follow the idea to its logical conclusion.”
When you think it through, I AM talking about Communism - the Communism that Jesus advocated. Not the one produced from despotic totalitarian atheists, but the philosophical one that many of the 70’s generation sought to implement. In the ideal communist society, everyone produces and gives as he is able and all contribute to the common good and glorify God by their love.
My analogy of heaven and hell IS correct. In order for us all to survive, there must be a spirit of giving and receiving. If you read my statement correctly, you see that I use the term contributions. I did not say that if we all take, all our needs will be met. Contributions do not refer only to giving, or giving only from one’s surplus, but when we CREATE and PRODUCE, that is also contribution. Why do you assume that because the banquet table is full in heaven or hell, God must have put the food there? Humans have hands and the ability to produce too, don’t they? If we all produced and brought our productions to the central market place and gave to each other from what we produced, all our needs would be met. I produce bananas and you produce bicycles and we barter. That system runs more efficiently than capitalism. Have you not studied the sociology of money?
I do not advocate giving indiscriminately, and no wise Christian does. We are all born with the ability to judge and discriminate. Some of us do so wisely while others enable neediness and dependence. That is the role our modern government typically plays today - enabling a culture of poverty, which is completely against Christ’s teachings. As Saint Paul so wisely stated, “…when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:10 NAB)
We must be careful that in our pessimism or cynicism we do not isolate others and demonize the truly poor, the weak, and the vulnerable in society. For every welfare abuser, there are many more who are abused, destitute and impoverished and who have not received aid from anyone - government or citizen. The fastest growing population of poor in America are children who cannot work. We must think of THEM when we consider the morality of giving and receiving.
B
BlaineTog
Guest
Assuaging feelings of guilt does serve yourself.
This implies that God does not exist (he can give infinitely without going bankrupt), and is also untrue for two profoundly different reasons: it implies that you can “take care of yourself” without the altruism of others (which is probably impossible for most people, if not all), and it also misses out on the aspect of altruism that it’s a giving in which you receive. To give is to receive. Oh sure, not in a monetary sense, but is that really all we care about?
You have no rights except those which you are given, and you certainly have no right to happiness, much less eternal happiness. Happiness is an unqualified gift. In any case, nothing you could ever do could possible merit eternal happiness.
Not necessarily. I seriously doubt it is reasonably possible for Bill Gates to give so much that he would run out. In any case, altruism doesn’t demand that you give everything, only that you give what you can; anything over that is good (to a point; becoming a beggar is a little silly).
Additionally, for an altruist, giving is better than receiving (not that they would prefer to give than to receive or that one is bad and one is good, but that while it’s nice to get something, it’s great to give something). What that means is that if I give you a penny, I’ve converted the act of giving into happiness for me and happiness for you over and beyond the penny itself. Now, collectively, we both have the same amount of money but more happiness. That’s a net gain.
Hardly. If I buy my friend a book, I’m getting as much enjoyment out of the exchange as he would have gotten from buying and reading the book himself, but in addition to this, he gets the enjoyment of receiving a gift. If you want, it’s converting thoughtfulness into happiness for both sides. At the very least, an equal exchange is maintained (though I’m not good at math, but it sure looks to me like we’ve ended up with more than we started with).
Why does your idea of the altruist demand that the altruist give everything he has away? The Golden Rule, if you’ll remember, is to love others as you love yourself. You should love yourself, and you are required to take as much responsibility over yourself as you can, but you are also required to take as much responsibility over others as you can as well. If you can’t even take care of yourself, then obviously you can’t take care of others, but once you’re in a good place, you don’t just stay there, but you move onward and outward to help others.
It does imply, however, that you are all you should care about, and you only bother with other people insofar as they effect you.
It’s by your own will, so it’s not slavery. It’s impossible to be altruistic by force.
Why? I don’t want payment from my friends when I help them through hard times; that they help me through hard times is entirely incidental. If I cover their bus fare, I have no interest in reimbursement. Why should I?
The oxygen mask analogy is a good one, but at the same time, once you have yours on, do you write up a bill for the passenger next to you after you help him get his on? If he can’t pay, do you let him die?
Sorry about this post, I know it’s rambling.
A
ateista
Guest
Prejudice against what? Or for what?
And I did, and said so at the end of my post you quoted.
I don’t know about glorifying God, but I do know that all those communes spread poverty equally. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, as long as everyone agrees. What about those, who don’t agree? Who want more?
As a matter of fact, I have. I had a double major in mathematics and economics and graduated with a Summa cum Laude doctorate of both. And that is why I can say that bartering is inefficient and only works in small communes. It is no wonder that the need for a common means of exchange (money) has developed and is now in general use.
Mutually beneficial trade is precisely what objectivism is all about.
How does that mesh with your next paragraph?
Why are children more valuable than adults? Because of their unfulfilled potentials?
But here is the question. I said that one can help the ones who ran into a raodblock, in the form of a loan. If the person uses it wisely, and lifts himself out of his predicament, everything is good. What about those who squander the help? Do we go back and help them out again? And again? And again? How many times do we do that until the "well runs dry’?
I
ireland381
Guest
What you’ve described IS captilism. Producing something that others need, and trade voluntarily for something that you need. Trade with money, trade with other goods–as long as you keep the system going.
The point is… if someone needs bananas and they can’t pay me something for them, and I give them away for nothing simply because the other person needs them, I may not be able to produce enough bananas the next time. I have sacrificed and filled a need, but now I can’t produce anything… I have nothing to trade, and I have nothing to give away, and everyone suffers. It’s just a very simple system, you have to put in what you take out or you will run out of everything.
Altruism seems to serve a great purpose in isolated situations–but it does NOT serve a greater good. If you want to put it in the terminology typically used, consider it a greater sacrifice not to give to the one person who has an immediate need–it’s warm and fuzzy and gratifying to give to others, is it not? Sacrifice for that feeling for one of selfishness, and you will benefit far more people than the one who was in need at the moment.
This might help: aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html
Again, it’s not about every man for himself. Capitalism can’t survive that way. The idea is to not give at the expense of yourself or anyone else; what is too often preached is that giving is not “good” or “moral” unless it’s a sacrifice; unless you harm yourself in some way. It is also that no act of non-sacrificial charity should ever reward vice, but only virtue. The man who squanders his money away on drugs and gambling and becomes homeless, for example, should not be rewarded for it–to so encourages purposeful depravity.
I
ireland381
Guest
I’m sorry what I meant was that there really shouldn’t be feelings of guilt in the first place. Objectivism isn’t simply a way to get yourself to sleep at night–remember that this system is considered the best moral system, so there shouldn’t be anything to feel guilty about.
I hate to have to say this, but God’s not filling my gas tank… I’m dealing with the practical here. I believe they say that God’s people are responsible for helping each other do his will? Okay, so we’re back to people. And I don’t believe people have come up with an infinite system of wealth.
You’ve mentioned the concept that altruism is also receiving; I don’t deny that. In the objectivist system, “value” is not defined as monetary or even material. But it still has to have value and be tradable. Of course money is not all we care about. That’s another common misconception, that capitalism is about wealth, money and greed.
Yes, you can take care of yourself without the altruism of others. I would never expect someone to give me something without something in return from me. Mutual, voluntary exchange. I cannot take care of myself; I need others, but I don’t need them to sacrifice themselves.
That’s oversimplifying the situation. Bill Gates could certainly give some of his profits; if he has a surplus, and he wants to, he can give. But he should not feel compelled to or required to, that’s the key. I’m not claiming all businesspeople are moral; like anything capitalism is a concept that has an ideal and that ideal is not always achieved by everyone. The kind of altruism that Rand argues against is one in which you sacrifice; granted, Bill Gates would have to give a LOT to make a sacrifice that would cripple him. But it does add up when everyone does it; any net loss, even a small one, will slowly erode the economy.
That’s wonderful, really… but when you need to buy food for your family, will the store accept happiness? What can you trade your happiness for? No I don’t think you’d give away all your worldly possessions and be ridiculously happy. But again the reality is that it IS a net loss of value.
No, you’re not. Required giving is a contradiction. Nobody should be required (by the government, out of our paychecks, for example) to give to others. The dangerous attitude is that people are compelled to donate. Giving that is not voluntary is looting.
That’s a choice. Nobody should be required, encouraged, or compelled to do so.
The best example is from Rand herself in Atlas Shrugged. The country’s economy was suffering, and the government sought to seize Hank Rearden’s extremely successful metal plant so that his profits could be redistributed. The government forced him to be altruistic. It was not his choice. Even by my own will, if I am sacrificing myself, I am saying that human beings ought to be sacrificed to other human beings. Any human sacrifice is slavery or cannibalism.
If it doesn’t hurt you, that’s fine. It’s your choice. Nobody compelled you to do it, so that’s fine.
Of course not. That’s taking my example very literally.
Again, all of these issues are very isolated examples. You just have to see the bigger picture; I don’t think I did, until I read Atlas Shrugged. You start to see that gradually those attitudes and actions WILL eventually lead to destruction. And worse, I think, is the attack against those who seek to make a profit. Again, if you choose to donate your time or money without sacrificing your ability to produce more, that’s your choice, and it’s certainly a fine one. But those who produce and trade and seek to improve their ability to produce and trade are not evil; they are serving the greater good, if you will. Do not require or compell them to give. What they have produced is theirs and it is their right to do with it as they wish. And they must trade, in order to survive. Trading stimulates the economy; giving depletes it, if it’s done too much… at best, it slows progress.
I
ireland381
Guest
Here’s a quote from Galt:
libertarian.to/NewsDta/templates/news1.php?art=art432
Here’s the full speech (it’s a couple pages)
libertarian.to/NewsDta/templates/news1.php?art=art432
J
jules208
Guest
On your first paragraph, you’re correct; what I described is capitalism. Now let’s take it a step further and say that as in the book of Acts in Scripture, the people produced and brought what they had to the table and each took only as he had need. Nevermind the bartering; there is only community stewardship, if you will. This is the ideal situation that Christ calls us to. We are supposed to concern ourselves with the needs of others as well as ourselves and admonish those who do not contribute to do so.
Now, to your final paragraph, I don’t know where Ayn Rand or any current supporters of her theory got the mistaken and distorted idea that giving is only “good” or “moral” if you give to the point that you put yourself in harm’s way. When we raise our children and care for our elder parents, we are giving out of our singular production for the benefit and survival of two, three, four or more other human souls. Since when have you sacrificed the good of society for the sake of raising your children or caring for your elderly parents?
It’s nonsense to talk about giving as a liability against humanity. If I have two coats and you need one, and I give you my extra coat, I have sacrificed already because I did not profit from giving away my extra coat. Do you see the difference between this example and what the objectivist theory proposes about giving and charity? It is simply a justification for self-centeredness because what people eventually hear is, “I don’t need to do a thing for another person because I’ll harm myself in the process.” That’s cowardly.
I suppose that the self-centered perspective abides well in the hearts of those who profess not to believe in God. Those who do not believe in God and Christ, who came that we may have life and have it abundantly, would likely believe that if they help others, there will be no one to help them when they need it. And furthermore, a professed atheist would certainly seek to preserve him or herself from death if this life is all there is, to their way of thinking.
God created the universe and he created each one of us for His pleasure and his glory. He loves you and he loves me. Trust in Him is the missing equation in the selfish or self-centered person’s heart. If we operate without faith in God, we will be more inclined to believe that Christ’s commandments about love and sacrifice are harmful, which is the lie of the devil.
From the discourse here, it seems that the greatest mistake that presumed objectivists in general are making is the grossly incorrect understanding that giving is a path to (self-)destruction and death. This could not be further from the truth. Giving is more than the reliquishing of material resources. If your neighbor’s driveway is full of snow and you help him shovel it away, where is there harm done? When your child is sick and feeling miserable and you stay up all night to comfort him or her, how do you bring harm to yourself or injure the greater good?
And what if you lose your life out of love and sacrifice for another? It seems that the heart of the matter is fear. Fear drives the self-centered person to protect his interests above everyone else. With God in the equation, we need not fear death or fear extinction or harm. What appears on the surface is loss to the fallen human mind, but every act performed to the glory of God will result in triumph and eternal life.
As Jesus Christ preached, “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:25 NAB)
Peace to you all and I pray that God will continue to bless you with spiritual growth toward Christ.
- Status