Saturday, January 23, 2010

Why Ayn Rand?

In an excellent essay, Michael Huemer, one of the most rigorous critics of the Objectivist ethics, offers some alternative answers for the ongoing interest in Rand, and suggests why her purported "science" of ethics is likely to have perverse consequences:

"There are two major reasons why the best hope for political freedom is not to connect it ideologically with Rand’s ethical and metaethical theories. The first is that those theories are utterly unconvincing to almost everyone—even less convincing than libertarianism. Connecting the two together serves only to discredit the cause of freedom and individual rights. It plays into the hands of those who say that the only opposition to socialism derives from greed and selfishness."


Hat tip: Neil Parille

11 comments:

  1. Huemer makes the point I've made that it doesn't appear that support for Atlas Shrugged or Rand's politics as such is translating into support for Objectivism.

    I think Greg mentioned that, according to Yaron Brook, attendance at ARI conferences is up 25% in the last couple of years. A big improvement, but hardly a revolution.

    -Neil Parille

    ReplyDelete
  2. If the pop. of the planet Earth was to remain static and converts to Objectvism numbered 10 000 a week (not a very realistic figure) then the planet was be completey objectivist in around the year 10 000.


    Steven Johnston

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rand is a two bit huckster, no more no less.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Rand is a two bit huckster, no more no less."

    Agreed, but at least she meant it! That is the difference between her and El Ron is that she at least believe her philosophy whilst El Ron just scammed people with his psuedo-scienfitic gobbledegook. But at least his pre-dianetic fiction is jolly good fun. His book 'Fear' is head and shoulders above any of AR's fiction. She can only be considered a novelist in the same way the Steven Segal can be thought of an an actor.

    P.S. At least the last 300 pages of Battlefield Earth are semi-fun!

    Steven Johnston
    Stockport, England

    ReplyDelete
  5. Given that the great unwashed aren't interested, nor have they ever been in AR ideas you have to wonder why Huemer bothers. I hope he does his rigerous rebutalls of AR in his own time I mean he can't be paying his mortgage this way?

    Steven Johnston

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steven,

    I don't think Huemer was addressing the great unwashed, only those unwashed whose cult-like mentalities got caught up in the philosophy.
    http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand.htm

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steven,

    I should have added that Michael Huemer is a philosophy professor at the University of Colorado Boulder.
    http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/fac_huemer.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cavewight,

    thanks, the great unwashed in the AR movement are, as Chesterton put it "...your defence of capitalism is so robust you can only be a poor man". sadder than that is they think they are members of natures aristocrats by virtue of being objectivists. It's almost as if that by agreeing with AR they are absolved of trying to make anything of their lives.

    Steven Johnston

    ReplyDelete
  9. This commentary is beneath plain stupidity. If her ethical theory is so unconvincing to everyone how
    come the tens of millions of readers ? And why do you devote
    such space to the subject ?
    How could the increasing sales of
    Atlas alone not translate into increased support for Objectivism.
    Of course if the sales were falling then you'd say it proves
    Objectivism has no support. Trying
    to have it both ways, as usual ?

    ReplyDelete
  10. To anon, her increasing sales count for nothing, that has been dealt with her on another post.
    Why do objectivists waste time rubbishing other philosophers if they are so unconvincing?
    Nobody here is trying to have it both ways as the people behind this site are not running a scam or trying to hide anything, nor are we or indeed anybody trying to change anybodies mind. All they are trying to do is set the record straight on why they think Rand was wrong on numerous issues, whilst accepting she got it right on others, that is all. I dbout Greg et al think that those that visit his site are that easy going that they will accept what they have to say at face value. Objectivists do come here from time to time to debate with Greg and Co. but I doubt they have managed to convince a single one to stop following the teaching of Ayn Rand.
    So why get so hot under the collar?
    As for having it both ways, surely that is a feature of objectivism?
    Don't be so hositle, I am a socialist and I know that puts me at odds with a lot of the regulars that come here but I still get a lot of enjoyment out of this site, debating and reading the articles. Intelligence is cleary at work here so stick around, you might, as they say, learn something.


    Steven Johnston

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well said, Steven.

    Anon asked:
    >How could the increasing sales of
    Atlas alone not translate into increased support for Objectivism?

    Well, like this.

    ReplyDelete