Criticisms of Objectivist philosophy

From Wikinfo

Jump to: navigation, search

See also Objectivist philosophy

Ayn Rand writes "Man - every man - is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life."

Many forms of humanist philosophy, and most of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, hold this belief to be immoral. Both humanists and most members of the Abrahamic faiths hold that people must not live for their own sakes, and that morality calls for people to sometimes sacrifice themselves for others.

Ayn Rand's objectivism also holds that all forms of religious ethics are literally immoral. According to Rand "morality is by definition a system of values designed to answer all ethical questions. Some sort of a hierarchy of values must exist so that a person can rationally decide between conflicting values. A hierarchy implies that no two values are equal and that ultimately one value must be supreme. Without a hierarchy and a supreme value, any attempt at constructing a morality would result in an unsystematic hodgepodge of values. There would be no way to make rational moral decisions. There must ultimately be one supreme value; otherwise, morality is impossible. There can only be one absolute value. If there were two, then neither would be absolute. The only true absolute value is an individual's life. Objectivism is the only system derived from this value and is therefore the only correct morality. All other moralities are false."

The great majority of philosophers, as well as most humanists, hold that this line of reasoning is an assault on all non-Rand forms of ethics. They hold that the reasoning is specious and flawed, and that Rand has not proven that her philosophy is the only moral philosophy one can have. Most Jews, Christians and Muslims who are aware of Rand's work similarly reject this claim.

Nathaniel Branden, Ayn Rand's most prominent disciple, having admired her philosophy from the age of 14, broke with her in 1968. In his 1984 essay, The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal Statement he sets forth his experience and reasoning.

In his highly critical 1999 book The Ayn Rand Cult Jeff Walker notes the folowing similarities between Ayn Rand's Objectivism and L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics:

  • both claim to be science and logic based
  • both treat the brain as a machine
  • both present a higher mind reprogramming the rest of humanity
  • both recommended the uprooting of irrational premises (engrams)
  • both assume that rationality permit people to enjoy healthy emotional lives
  • both relate immorality to decreased potential for survival
  • both perceive stivign for goals as the important motivator in life
  • both oppose coercion, even by government
  • both assume that rational people have no real conflicts of interest
  • both attach mail-in cards in their books to connect readers to the apparatus of movement recruitment

Walker notes however that only Ayn Rand's followers claim that hers was the greatest novel ever written.


External Links

References

  • Jeff Walker. 1999. The Ayn Rand Cult. Chicago: Open Court. ISBN 0812693906. Pp. 274-275.
Retrieved from "http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Criticisms_of_Objectivist_philosophy"