Commentary

Suicide

Objectivism does not hold that happiness is the ultimate goal. It holds that happiness is the ultimate purpose in life.This is an important

Sep 30, 2010

Reason vs. Authority

Question: According to Objectivism , am I being rational by putting nothing above the judgment of my own mind? Or (according to Objectivism), am I being irrational by rejecting the authority of an MD? Answer: Objectivism holds that one key element of the virtue of independence is thinking for yourself. Ultimately, no matter what anyone tells you, you have to decide what is true based on your own context of knowledge. Only you can judge for yourself the objectivity of your reasoning. Only when you think something through do you know fully that the conclusion is logically derived from the facts. However, it is a fact that on any given topic there are usually others who know a heck of a lot more than most of us do. If we have very good reasons to think that they are not lying and have been objective in their reasoning, then we have good reason to incorporate their information into our knowledge (provided, of course, that we can integrate it with what we already know and with our own experience). You can get news of the world from a newspaper. You can learn science by testing the theories in a textbook. You can take medicines based on the advice of doctors, pharmacists, and medical researchers. And those are just a few examples of rational ways in which we use the information of reliable experts.

Quasi-Objectivist?

Question: I've read most of Ayn Rand's work, and aside from her views on theism [which in my view, can be a rational belief] and abortion, I am in total agreement with her philosophy (I am still a Christian). Would the Objectivist movement be welcoming of people like me? And, would it be acceptable for me to refer to myself as an Objectivist or, at the very least, a quasi-Objectivist? Answer: The extent to which you agree or do not agree with the ideas of Objectivism is ultimately a fact you must evaluate for yourself. There are a variety of levels on which one might consider oneself an Objectivist, from the brief description of Objectivism (from the appendix to Atlas Shrugged) that appears on our "About Objectivism" page, to the sketch of distinctive positions in Objectivism that David Kelley describes in The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand. At an extreme, one might be in lockstep with all and only what Ayn Rand said and wrote, but this would probably reflect such a lack of independent thought—because it would at least fail to integrate one's own context and current events with Rand's ideas—that one would not deserve the appellation "Objectivist" in that case.

Public Health and Government Policy

Question: How does Objectivism view the concept of "public health services"? I'm aware that, largely, the concept of a "right to health care" is rejected, however there are health issues that are larger than individuals; with epidemics, for example, an individual who chooses to not seek treatment can threaten a population (a "typhoid Mary"). Public health departments have been highly successful in protecting populations in the past century through monitoring and managing health risks. The departments are more cost-effective than individual physicians, preventing illness before it occurs and treating large numbers of people with each policy. This service has historically been governmental, and required a coercive component, such as forcing restaurants to be clean, individuals to vaccinate, etc. I was curious, given that Objectivism values life and detests coercive government, what would be an Objectivist opinon on the necessity (or lack of) governmental public health? To what degree does an individual have a right to be a risk to themselves and others? Answer: We can answer your question by working backwards from the purpose of government, rights, and morality, and where physical safety threats such as disease work into this equation.? Ayn Rand said that morality stems from the need to make decisions in order to live. One's life is the standard of value.?Since the free use of one's mind and body is essential to the life of a thinking being, one needs rights to pursue life, free from the initiation of force.? Knowingly exposing others to one's disease is initiating force against them, and hence in violation of their rights.?Such a person could be punished by the state or in a civil suit.The state would also be justified in preventing the introduction of the disease in the first place, if it had reasonable cause that the person had the disease.?

Public Defense in the Criminal Justice System

Question: How can a trial be conducted fairly if one party can afford a much better lawyer than the other? In many countries, the state provides lawyers to the poor; in partially socialized Britain where I am from, the state will provide a lawyer if the defendant can prove he cannot afford one himself. I am aware that these lawyers are paid through taxation, which is initiation of force. I am fairly new to Objectivism and was caught out recently in an argument about whether or not out of court settlements were just if the one side won or lost depending on the amount of money they were able to pay to lawyers. This of course applies to the entire criminal justice system if the quality of defense one gets is dependant on ability to pay. Do you have an answer to this? Answer: There is no settled Objectivist view on whether there should be public defense funds or not. This is a matter for a developed Objectivist legal philosophy, which does not exist yet. Moreover, it is also a matter of determining the practical consequences of a state institution in the context of a free society. This might require more evidence and experience with a free society before it could be definitively settled. At our 2002 Advanced Seminar, we discussed a paper by Christopher Robinson arguing that state-funded legal defense was as justifiable as state-funded prosecution.

Reproduction as the Ultimate Value?

Question: Since all living things die after one lifespan (humans included), why doesn't Objectivism recognize reproduction as the primary virtue? Answer: Since all humans live as individual beings fundamentally, and do not continue their own existence when they reproduce, reproduction is simply not a straightforward means of prolonging one's life. I have children and let me tell you, love them as I might, they are not me. Indeed, my own father is dead, and I am not him living on.

Pyramid of Ability and Individual Moral Worth

Objectivism holds that in a society in which people deal with each other by trade, there will exist a "pyramid of ability." It is a pyramid

Prohibitionism

To engage in rational philosophical discourse, one must understand and bear in mind the differences between the subjects of ethics and

Andrew Bissell

Progressivism and Objectivism

If only Progressivism could be a genus of Objectivism! But, alas, no.The Progressive movement was originally an intellectual and political

William Thomas

4 Mins

Rand and Anna Karenina

Ayn Rand indeed regarded Anna Karenina as her least favorite novel. She presented her negative analysis of Anna Karenina in the article...

Reparations for Native Americans and Descendants of Slaves

Michelle Fram-Cohen

2 Mins

Morally there is a kind of symmetry between the two types of reparations cases: In general, there is no justice in blaming a group for the

Rationalism and Objectivism

On the general level, Objectivism and Rationalism differ because the former is a philosophical system encompassing metaphysics, epistemology

Reparations for Slavery and Social Discrimination

Shawn E. Klein

2 Mins

Objectivism is totally opposed to racism. It is an individualist philosophy, and it holds that all people, first and foremost, should be....

Property Rights and Native Americans

Every initial property rights claim involves seizure of property, in a sense. As no property rights exist before property rights are founded

William Thomas

Relationships and Fidelity

Objectivism holds that honesty is one of the major virtues. In the end, one gains nothing by dishonesty; it leaves one trapped in a web of f

Pollution and Environmental Regulation

2 Mins

Question: Would an Objectivist be in favor of uniform environmental regulations enforced by law as a compromise between profitability and environmental protections, at least for those resources which nobody owns? Is there any coherent alternative? Answer: The only laws and regulations that are justifiable under a system of laissez-faire capitalism are those that protect individual rights. The goal is to maximize the freedom of each individual to act as he wants, without harming anyone else. Environmental laws as they exist today usually do not protect individual rights, but there can still be reason behind the existence of some of them. If the pollution caused by an individual or corporation physically harms the health of others, then it comprises a violation of the victims' rights. In such a case, if there is evidence to show that pollution above a certain level leads to an established danger level, then the government could legitimately impose restrictions. These laws are only justified when aimed at protecting individual rights. Their motivation should not be reaching a compromise between profitability and the environment. The specifics would be tricky to work out, and would probably lead to some amount of litigation in areas (or cases) in which laws cannot be applied.

Outsourcing

Question: What has " Objectivism " got to opine on the outsourcing of American jobs to third world countries? Answer: Objectivism advocates the separation of the state from the economy, for the same basic reason that there should be separation of the state from religion: Both the economic choices of individuals as they trade the goods and services they need, and their choice of groups or belief systems to associate with, are exercises of the individual conscience that only have meaning if undertaken freely.

Objectivism

Question: Having studied Objectivism for several years, I see tremendous potential in the ideas contained within the philosophy. It seems to be a system of ideas far more correct and plausible than today's major philosophies/religions/ideologies. Furthermore, it's an optimistic philosophy with a genuinely positive view of life, man, and the world.Is it a problem with the philosophy itself? Is the problem how it is presented and "marketed"? Answer: Objectivism is true, and it does make sense. Because of this, it is easy to understand and to live by. But it also stands against many of the received traditions in philosophy and religion. And because of this, most people find it counter-intuitive and hard to integrate into their existing values and emotional commitments. All people have what Ayn Rand called a "sense of life." A sense of life is an emotional sum, a feeling of how the world is and how it ought to be, that serves as the equivalent of a kind of basic philosophy. If you thrill at the idea of taking responsibility for your life's major problems, or you shrink at it, or you feel wry resignation, or you feel something else, whatever you feel in facing such a big question reflects your sense of life. Like the values that drive all our emotions, we hold our sense of life subconsciously, and it is not always easy to identify its content or judge whether that content really makes sense.

Objectivism

Question: Is Objectivism bound to what Ayn Rand said, or can certain parts of it be further developed by other philosophers? Answer: This is an issue that has divided the Objectivist movement. The Atlas Society is founded on the principle that Objectivism is an open system of ideas, founded by Ayn Rand but open to further development, revision, and extension by rational thinkers with a solid understanding of her ideas. In The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand (available to students for free), TAS founder and executive director David Kelley outlines the key ideas that make Objectivism distinctive as a system, and discusses the reasons for regarding Objectivism as an open system. Those remarks were composed in response to an attack on Kelley by Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's heir, in which Peikoff attempted to defend the principle that Objectivism is simply the brand name for whatever philosophical thought of Ayn Rand's that has been recorded.