That only matters if you're some kind of consequentialist ethics. An act can still be wrong regardless of the outcome.
I think most people would find the idea contained in the last sentence abhorrent. I think we ought to help the less fortunate, in-fact, i can probably prove that ethically too.
Our entire society is built around that principal. Taking it to its logical extension of selfishness (and Rand did, she was a laissez faire capitalist) we would dismantle Medicare, Public Schools, Social Welfare and innumerable other things. Usually, it's taboo in philosophy to attack the person you're arguing against but i think it's important if the person is pretty much the originator of an ethical system. She was vehemently against any public institution and yet in the end, she needed ending up their help:
To have a truly equal opportunity, we need the social welfare systems Rand would have us dismantle. I know it's your interpretation (isn't everything though) but she either had a really weird definition of equal opportunity or her philosophy is contradictory. It's only through centrelink payments that many students and families wouldn't otherwise go bankrupt. It's through the government paying the large majority of our fees and us paying a small contribution (which we can put on an interest free loan anyway) that we have a truly (debatable) equal opportunity of rich and poor kids to be able to get into uni if they work hard enough without crippling debt like the USA. I could bash on and on but i think most people will get my point.
It's good you were moderate about it and acknowledged it has some flaws but i believe it's a totally inadequate and flawed system, which explains my response. I think i have a good grasp of the ideas from second-hand sources and it basically boils down to ethical egoism but i will chuck it on ye-olde reading list..again.
That only matters if you're some kind of consequentialist ethics. An act can still be wrong regardless of the outcome.
I think most people would find the idea contained in the last sentence abhorrent. I think we ought to help the less fortunate, in-fact, i can probably prove that ethically too.
Our entire society is built around that principal. Taking it to its logical extension of selfishness (and Rand did, she was a laissez faire capitalist) we would dismantle Medicare, Public Schools, Social Welfare and innumerable other things. Usually, it's taboo in philosophy to attack the person you're arguing against but i think it's important if the person is pretty much the originator of an ethical system. She was vehemently against any public institution and yet in the end, she needed ending up their help:
To have a truly equal opportunity, we need the social welfare systems Rand would have us dismantle. I know it's your interpretation (isn't everything though) but she either had a really weird definition of equal opportunity or her philosophy is contradictory. It's only through centrelink payments that many students and families wouldn't otherwise go bankrupt. It's through the government paying the large majority of our fees and us paying a small contribution (which we can put on an interest free loan anyway) that we have a truly (debatable) equal opportunity of rich and poor kids to be able to get into uni if they work hard enough without crippling debt like the USA. I could bash on and on but i think most people will get my point.
It's good you were moderate about it and acknowledged it has some flaws but i believe it's a totally inadequate and flawed system, which explains my response. I think i have a good grasp of the ideas from second-hand sources and it basically boils down to ethical egoism but i will chuck it on ye-olde reading list..again.
My take on Rand is that some of the things she said were entirely genius, and others not so.
We didn't get here as a species by being kind to other species (as a matter of fact, even our own). Australia was land taken away from natives, much like America. Humans have advanced when they have acted in their self-interest. Whatever, drop the idea of abolishing social welfare for one second. Eradicating it is first of all, taking Rand too literally, and secondly highlighting one of the biggest flaws in her ideology, which she may have preached but clearly didn't believe in (as she herself took on welfare benefits).
Actual selflessness does not exist in the way most people imagine. People have no self, they live second-hand, within others.
You see people aspiring to be great. Greatness - in the eyes of other's. Fame, admiration, envy, this all comes from the eyes of others. People don't want to be great, they want to be THOUGHT great. "I want to be the best xxx the world has ever seen". We borrow from others to make an impression on others.
What %age of people undertake tertiary studies because they want to learn more about a field that interests them, as opposed to just taking it on because society tells you to? Isn't this what causes depression? Some guy has a fine family, great big house but at 40 years old he stops, thinks to himself: "What the hell am I doing with my life" and faces an identity crisis. Heck people get these thoughts all the time, "Who am I really?". We can shun it out and seek substitutes for competence, with charity, love, charm, kindness, being 'busy' with work. But in reality, there is no real substitute.
There's an insane amount of people here on vcenotes that want to be doctors or lawyers, because their parents have dictated so. Their parents do it to impress OTHER people. That's selflessness. Doing things for others.
Now you'd say, aren't these people acting out of selfishness? To be admired, noticed, liked?
But it's by others, at the cost of their own self-respect.
It’s easier to donate a few thousand to charity and think oneself noble than to base self-respect on personal standards of personal achievement.
The fountainhead's greatest message was to retain a self-sufficient ego.
Roark smiled. "Gail, if this boat were sinking, I’d give my life to save you.
Not because it’s any kind of duty. Only because I like you, for reasons and
standards of my own. I could die for you. But I couldn’t and wouldn’t live for
you."
That is selfishness.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: The Good Books Thread/ATARnotes Book Club! (Read 173877 times)