True Objectivism
Objectivism has so much potential. It is so close to being a truly inspiring and practical individualistic philosophy. But somehow it has degraded into neo-conservative dogma.
The benefits of Objectivism are clear: personal responsibility, the value of productive achievement, reason and rationality (read, ardently atheistic, which is a prerequisite for any practical philosophy).
But somehow these ideals have been taken (been used by Rand herself) to support wanton destruction: environmental degradation, and aggressive military policy being at the forefront.
Environmentalism, in it's truest form, is not anti-industrialist nor anti-progress but rather anti-destruction. Environmentalism is simply an attempt to stop one person from hurting another. It is no more complicated than preventing one man from enslaving or attacking another. This is a basic tenant which is supported by objectivism, but somehow overlooked.
The foreign policy of invading and laying waste to threatening countries is similarly destructive, and similarly contrary to objective thought. But somehow "objectivists" continually call for the US to preemptively invade Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc., etc..
The people killed in these invasions would be, by and large, civilians. The people killed would not be the ones threatening to us, and we could not justifiably claim to be acting in self defense. We would be, without a doubt, killing other human beings that have done us no harm, simply because their governments, not they, have threatened us.
To these "objectivists" the right to be considered an individual somehow ends at the US border. They ignore the fact that an individual in a country is not the same thing as the government of that country. They ignore the fact that the individuals they are killing may be just as opposed to the government, if not more so, than we are.
Furthermore the goal of making the world safer for the objective individual would not be accomplished. War causes more unrest and threat, not less. These governments must be defeated by progress, not destruction.
These are things that any rational objectivists should realize and know without doubt. But somehow the prevalent voices of objectivism have become blind and deaf to reason. I am at a loss as to why such an inspiring and hopeful philosophy has sunken into such dogma and irrationality.
The benefits of Objectivism are clear: personal responsibility, the value of productive achievement, reason and rationality (read, ardently atheistic, which is a prerequisite for any practical philosophy).
But somehow these ideals have been taken (been used by Rand herself) to support wanton destruction: environmental degradation, and aggressive military policy being at the forefront.
Environmentalism, in it's truest form, is not anti-industrialist nor anti-progress but rather anti-destruction. Environmentalism is simply an attempt to stop one person from hurting another. It is no more complicated than preventing one man from enslaving or attacking another. This is a basic tenant which is supported by objectivism, but somehow overlooked.
The foreign policy of invading and laying waste to threatening countries is similarly destructive, and similarly contrary to objective thought. But somehow "objectivists" continually call for the US to preemptively invade Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc., etc..
The people killed in these invasions would be, by and large, civilians. The people killed would not be the ones threatening to us, and we could not justifiably claim to be acting in self defense. We would be, without a doubt, killing other human beings that have done us no harm, simply because their governments, not they, have threatened us.
To these "objectivists" the right to be considered an individual somehow ends at the US border. They ignore the fact that an individual in a country is not the same thing as the government of that country. They ignore the fact that the individuals they are killing may be just as opposed to the government, if not more so, than we are.
Furthermore the goal of making the world safer for the objective individual would not be accomplished. War causes more unrest and threat, not less. These governments must be defeated by progress, not destruction.
These are things that any rational objectivists should realize and know without doubt. But somehow the prevalent voices of objectivism have become blind and deaf to reason. I am at a loss as to why such an inspiring and hopeful philosophy has sunken into such dogma and irrationality.
posted by -E at 1:55 PM
4 Comments:
I tend to agree with you in your criticisms of objectivism and recently had a conversation about this with Ted. When listening to objectivists, it often appears that they abide the "party line" in situations they don't understand.
Probably the most glaring example of objectivist irrationality is confronted when discussing the origins of this planet. Obviously, objectivists cannot rationally accept that god exists; if some other intelligent being created us, than we aren't really living life as man qua man. In an effort to avoid the higher power argument, objectivists staunchly refuse to believe that the Big Bang occurred. Despite scientific evidence that tends more strongly to favor the theory than to disprove it (though it is merely a theory), Objectivists instead deride the theory and choose to acknowledge no beginning to the planet.
Why is this such a contentious issue to the rational-minded atheist philospher? Because to do so would be to admit that the laws of physics were actually invented at some point. Or, if we accept that the laws of physics actually were constant before this event, then it would mean that something (like an intelligent being) set that process in motion. In either case, to believe in the Big Bang would then put the modern objectivist on his heels with questions he cannot rationally answer. So rather than take this issue head on, objectivist smartly try to defeat the problem at its premise: by claiming that the Big Bang is a flawed, irrational theory. In this way, they avoid having to argue the true issue.
As is evident from this example, the modern objectivists adherence to the dogma that has been touted for so long actually breeds irrationality, a world viewed through blinders.
In light of this problem, the environmental issues have come storming onto the national scene over the last 30 years. Based on the premise that mean need only be concerned with himself, objectivist refuse to admit that the interest in one's self coudl include saving the beasts and plants of the world. They are mere tools of our own existence, there to be used by the intelligent and amazing man. Yet, I see in this reasoning the same flaw as you do: if the world is truly deteriorating and we are at fault, we are destroying ourselves and those around us. To do so would be irrational to our own continued existence and unjust to the existence of others.
If the issue ended there, I might agree with you. But the problem runs deeper than that. Just as the objectivists are a terrible force against rationality on the environmental front, so to are the proponents of the environmental movement.
Think back to your youth, your elemenatary school years. From the time we were children, we have always been told that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are ruining the planet. We have heard this theory so often, in fact, that it has ceased to be a theory and is treated like a fact. But it is not a fact.
Yes, I agree that it is a FACT that humans can have a devastating impact on the environment in which we live. But the fact that this is possible does not mean that it is happening. There has to be more proof than that. Possibility is not a fact. Potential is not reality. Fact is fact, rhetoric is not.
If you douubt whether the world things Global Warming is a fact, simply look at the reaction of people to what some of G.W.'s recent comments regarding environmentalism. He merely said that he would not act to limit carbon emissions until there was more certainty that we could have an impact. We are talking about a "problem" that requires a huge outlay of capital by every person in this country to fix...this government at least owes us an effort to seek the truth. Is there really a "problem" at all? People should have embraced this rational approach for the mere fact that, at least in some spheres, the government is not just throwing money at a problem it doesn't understand. Yet, when one examines the reactions of American citizens, they were enraged the Bush could be so obstinate to ignore the "fact" that global warming is destroying the world.
Environmentalism has been painted as a party issue, an issue of the good versus the bad, the responsible versus the uncaring. But the fact of the matter is that environmentalism, in particular as it pertains to Global Warming, is an informational issue. Information that we don't have. We just don't know enough. There is no evidence that the temperature changes are not the usual fluxtuations of the world. Hell, if it is truly "global" warming, why hasn't the temperature raised EVERYWHERE. Look at the numbers: there are many cities throughout the world where the average temperature has actual decreased. So clearly what we have is a horrible Global Cooling problem, a return of the ice age. Wait, which one is it? Warming? Cooling? Who care, lets just throw money at it. In the 1970's, Global Cooling was the hot environmental issue with no proof or evidence, (see http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm) and now we have switched to Global Warming. Where do the numbers actually point: apparently in no definite direction whatsoever.
I am not a proponent of destroying the earth, but I also don't like trying to remedy a problem that 1) we don't know if it exists and 2) we don't know how to fix it if it does.
Sorry if this isn't very well organized and if there are typos, but I don't have time to go back over it.
I don't have time to write more than a few sentences, and because of that I will not say anything regarding environmentalism other than the fact that throughout time, the ingenuity of mankind has led to incredible developments that have allowed people to live healthier and stronger. This trend will undoubtedly continue. Because of that, the environmentalism question comes down to, whose lives are you trying to make better? The ones for the people that live now, or 100 years down the road. If drilling oil in alaska can make gasoline 10 cents cheaper for a whole year, that may not matter to me or you, but it for someone who is scrapping for every penny. This is what I hate about environmentalism, they are so future oriented, that they have no concern for the benefits of what may come through the action they are trying to prevent.
Anyway, that turned out longer than I thought it would. I really wanted to talk about war. You said one thing that bothered me, and that was in regards to the 'innocents' in a country we may attack. The only truly innocent person that exists in a country, is the one that morally opposes the government that is oppressing them. And when I use 'opression' I use it as an absolute definition that is not relative to a society. Ask me what I mean if you dont understand. Back on topic, there may be people that do not have the ability to speak out against their country out of fear and self-preservation. But when the time comes that a country like the U.S. is willing to help, than the only people that can claim 'innocence' are the ones that welcome the US with open arms, no matter what the risk for their lives or their loved ones. Even if it is ONE person who is being held under irrational law or immoral pretenses (i.e. Iraq), the US is fully justified in going in to that country and doing whatever the hell it pleases to oust the government that allowed that to happen.
Anyone in that country who is willing to sacrifice that person's life in fear of becoming collateral damage in a war, has just as little right to live as the government that is running his country. Do not ask me what allows the US to decide what is moral and what is not. These are absolutes of humanity, read the constitution, the founding fathers knew what human life was and time does not change that.
Thanks for the comments gents.
I'm traveling right now but rebuttals are on the way. I'm glad to see there are people willing to debate these issues.
Just to foreshadow what is to come; my obejection to some of what I've heard, especially from Manny, comes down to one question: What is the meaning of life? I have an answer that satisfies me, and from that perspective I have responses to these comments.
But that's too much to get into now, so I'll just have to leave you on the edge of your seats.
Something else we can consider before then: Should one only support a war he is willing to fight in himself? I think if people did this they would be a bit less caviler about the deaths of the other people who are actually involved in the war they support.
Sidenote re: formatting --> is there anyway to make it so the comments actually appear on the main page and/or to have something at the top of the page that says when new comments are posted? It is a pain in the ass to look trhough all the posts to see if the number of comments has changed.
Post a Comment
<< Home