[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
"Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give.
[/quote]
This is why I can’t read Rand, let alone respect her. She makes up a conflict or creates an argument that does not exist like some cult leader to create an us vs them environment.
Who exactly was taught this? The Renaissance humanists already dealt with the subject of human potential. Pico’s Oration on the Dignity of Man outlines our capacity for achievement. Giving is seen as a virtue, in those who have achieved. Also, giving can be seen as an achievement or the reason for achievement. A person goes to medical school and becomes a doctor, an achievement, because they want to help (a form of giving) people. Rand states the obvious when she says that someone needs to have achieved something in order to give something.
The man who donates his paycheck to charity with the result that his kids go hungry is not considered a giving, generous, virtuous person, but an irresponsible idiot, a villain even. [/quote]
That is a strawman.
There is a direct quote from Ayn Rand where she say that if you want to give, give.
If you are forced to give at gunpoint, like in, I dont know, social security, universal healthcare, welfare programs, food stamps… that is not really you being free to give that is you being treated as a beast of burden by other people.
[/quote]
How is it a strawman? It is a quote from her novel. [/quote]
My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.
�??�??�?�¢??Playboy�??�??�?�¢??s Interview with Ayn Rand,�??�??�?�¢?? March 1964
[/quote]
What does that have to do with the quote? It sets up a conflict between achieving and giving and goes so far as to claim that we are taught the latter at the expense of the former. Who was taught that? I remember growing up and being asked what I wanted to be when I grew up or being told that I needed to make something of myself.
Also, you bring up a quote about charity when the original quote it is about giving. There is a difference. The fact is that Rand would not have been in a nation that allowed her to do what she did and have what she had, if it were not for other people who gave. Giving is a fundamental part of a society. Who is expected to give their lives for their country? It isn’t everyone. Women can vote because men gave them that right. Why do some give their lives for their country, putting the greater good ahead of their own existence? Why did men give women the right to vote? Was it out of a sense of moral duty? I know the response will be that giving someone the right to vote is not the same as giving money to charity but it is in fact very similar. By giving women the right to vote, men gave up a lot of their power. They ended up sharing power, sounds somewhat like socialism to me, with another group of people. There is not much difference between giving someone money vs giving them power. [/quote]
I will be generous and assume that you made an argument.
No I wont, because I am not going to wade through muddy waters just so that you can muddy them some more to slip away.
“Giving ought to be a moral obligation for otherwise a society cannot work”.
Is that the point you want to make. [/quote]
No. It’s that Rand has it backwards, at best. We don’t admire those who demonstrate “moral virtues” as we have come to define them because we have been taught to admire those who show those virtues. We called certain actions and behaviors virtuous because we admired them.
Also, people demonstrated what would go on to become part of a moral code before there was a moral code because of their innate sense of right and wrong and strength of character.
When Rand says that generous behavior and actions should not be forced on people, it’s one thing, but when she tries to convince us that we should view those people as being no different than those who do demonstrate what we consider a moral virtue, she is simply whining. Sorry, but we do view those who are giving and generous as virtuous, as possessing character, as better than those who choose to not give (obviously when they are both in the same position to give). And we view those individuals as better people not because we have been taught to but because we can relate to them and understand just what it takes to give, as well as to not give. It’s the same with all virtues. We admire those who are honest because we know what it takes to be honest, not because we have been taught that honesty is a virtue. That’s why the virtues are virtues: we know the strength of character it takes to be virtuous.
So if Rand wants to say that the person who doesn’t give is a good person too, that may be true, but the person who gives will always be seen as better. We chose what we put into a moral code, the code didn’t choose what we called moral. [/quote]
My take is that Rand isn’t really opposed to giving so much, she is opposed to stealing, especially when its done under the guise of a “noble sounding” law. Rand also has good insight into what drives the creative process and illustrates the difference between an artist or professional who has integrity with regard to his work/art and one who doesn’t. Her books also illustrate the importance of intellectual-property rights.
I’d agree with her critics that she doesn’t meet the standards of intellectual rigorousness to be labeled a “professional philosopher”, but that doesn’t mean that her books lack value. Many say Nietzsche didn’t meet the standards of rigorousness either, but few would argue that his books aren’t worth reading. IMO, the Fountainhead was an important book, even if Rand’s overall philosophy has some intellectual holes in it and even if she had personal flaws that make her an unattractive or unhappy person.
And, of course, a lot of people disregard/discredit/dismiss Rand precisely because either she’s an atheist or her view of capitalism radically conflicts with their world view or both.
[/quote]
I am pretty sure Rand is anti altruism . She probably would have some cast system that would work for her like a chamber maid or slave