Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Githens09

Objectivist position

Recommended Posts

There is no agreement on the principles when it comes to Rand and Friedman. Rather, there is approximate agreement on the desirability of capitalism and reverence for individual liberty. I think we both agree on that point though, so really this is just sematics.

Okay, there is agreement on the policies (in this area), not the principles. My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
is that the objectivism for debaters from ben beyer?
I have no idea who the author is. It was on the Ayn Rand Institute website years ago. I really wish I knew. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no idea who the author is. It was on the Ayn Rand Institute website years ago. I really wish I knew. :(

 

it is. he debated at my high school years ago. helped me prep for nats nearly a decade ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The aff, at some point, WILL say "turn - helping Africa is in our own self-interest." The neg will have to prepare for this, but it isn't difficult to answer. The aff gave eight minutes of utilitarian "the poor souls are sick" advantages. Even international stability advantages are suspect if they don't explicitly state that it matters to the USA rather than to the rest of the world. Besides, claiming that you want to give away tax dollars because it makes you feel good is not a good way to claim you aren't being altruistic. Rand would just accuse you of being an altruist of the supremely irrational type." - Tomak

 

But it doesn't matter what the conditions are of those that the aff are "saving". Maybe the fact that "the poor souls are sick" just makes the aff feel like that much more of a do-gooder in the first place. I don't see how giving away tax dollars automatically makes me altruistic, because again, maybe I am only giving them away because it makes me feel better which would mean that I am not being altruistic. I agree this behavior would be "supremely irrational", but I do not believe that this automatically makes me an altruist. Ultimately the question of altruism comes down to personal motives for doing something; if I do it only because I believe in helping people, I am an altruist, but if any part of why I chose to help is rooted in the fact that it makes me feel better, I am not. Wikipedia defines altruism as "selfless concern for the welfare of others". Thus, any concern for what may happen to me, or how I may benefit means my action is not altruistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ultimately the question of altruism comes down to personal motives for doing something; if I do it only because I believe in helping people, I am an altruist, but if any part of why I chose to help is rooted in the fact that it makes me feel better, I am not.

 

Regardless of whether you are altruistic or not the k still links. Ayn Rand argues that you should only help someone in an emergency if it does not entail harm to yourself. However, she goes on to define an emergency as something that is sudden and not prolonged. For example, if someone is on fire right next to you, and will die from it, its okay to douse them in water and put the fire out, as long as you don't NEED the water. But if your neighbor is sick and poor, its not okay to go everyday to his house bringing him money, food, and medicine.

 

So even if by your standards or motives you are not altruistic, by Rand's you are. For two reasons. Number one you take money/resources that the US could use and arguably needs. Number two you help people who are in prolonged destitution and illness. So you don't need to know the motives of America, either way Rand would say you link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You misunderstand my argument. Just because you are giving something away does not mean you are altruistic. The definition of altruism is that you do something selflessly. For the Kritik to link there must be proof that the US action is not motivated by any reason other than a desire to help. Yes, Rand would say that to commit such action would be stupid and morally unjustifiable, but you give no reason why any instance of giving aid must be considered to be altruistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You misunderstand my argument. Just because you are giving something away does not mean you are altruistic. The definition of altruism is that you do something selflessly. For the Kritik to link there must be proof that the US action is not motivated by any reason other than a desire to help. Yes, Rand would say that to commit such action would be stupid and morally unjustifiable, but you give no reason why any instance of giving aid must be considered to be altruistic.

 

you are analyzing this at the level of ethics, not politics, where it should be. Randian political philosophy would be against the use of taxes, especially taxes going to other sovereign entities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Objectivism and similar positions should be huge this year, but I may be biased by my anti-statist ideology.

 

However I don't think running it as a K is the way to go, and the ARI seems to agree with me (at least they don't favor running it as a typical K):

 

An Objectivist critique, if properly used, is a special kind of turbo-charged, philosophical off-case disadvantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ARI sends me a copy of The Virtue of Selfishness every spring. I have like seven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ARI sends me a copy of The Virtue of Selfishness every spring. I have like seven.

 

ive thrown out everything but her early short stories.

 

her writing didn't fit anywhere on my bookshelf, and i didn't want to plague my philosophy rows with it. so, i put it where it really belongs: the trash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Her play was "interesting." The film verion of the Foutainhead had serious pacing problems. But, the ARI gives free money to anyone that can write to an audience. I never submitted for the college contest, but the free moeny in high school was nice. But mostly, ethical egoism is sort of a dead end. An ethical egoist doesn't ever seem to have a reason to convince anyone else to be an ethical egoist. I've always found that sort of odd, in a fascinating way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you are analyzing this at the level of ethics, not politics, where it should be. Randian political philosophy would be against the use of taxes, especially taxes going to other sovereign entities.

 

I understand that Rand would oppose taxes going to other entities, but this opposition does not support the link argument that the US is being altruistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The K links because the US gives some of ITS aid to help someone not in an emergency. Motives don't matter. In the fountainhead, the bad guy seems altruistic, but his motives are to gain power. Noone knows them however, so he seems altruistic. Anyways, Rand sort of argues that there is no such thing as altruism because people always have a superior motive. Regardless, the action would still be perceived as altruistic, and that would link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand that Rand would oppose taxes going to other entities, but this opposition does not support the link argument that the US is being altruistic.

 

altruism simply functions as an IL, link story would still be statism.

 

Anyways, Rand sort of argues that there is no such thing as altruism because people always have a superior motive. Regardless, the action would still be perceived as altruistic, and that would link.

 

perception is not a link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
perception is not a link.

 

I disagree. It depends on the argument and how you run it. If you say for example that the plan will cause racial backlash, the backlash would still occur because it is perceived as racist.

 

If the plan is percieved as altruistic it makes other countries in the world look at the US as altruistic which creates them as all the bad colonialist etc. representations, and on top of that Rand argues that we would be seen as weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone ought to, because he clearly hasn't read them. Although, I can't blame anyone for that.

 

Kid, states can't be altruistic in the way you are suggesting. You're oversimplifying the argument to the point of parody. Listen to people when they give you information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a sample card from the Objectivist Standard:

 

"Africa is poor because it is rife with bloody tribalism and superstition—ideas that in the Dark Ages kept the Western world as poor, if not poorer, than today's Africa. If aid advocates were genuinely concerned with helping Africans, they would campaign for political and economic freedom, for individualism, reason and capitalism, for the ideas necessary to achieve prosperity.

"Instead, advocates barrage wealthy nations with reproaches and accusations of stinginess. Such abuse is necessary to induce the unearned guilt which impels Western leaders to do penance by sacrificing billions more in aid. While posturing as humanitarians, aid advocates are unmoved by the financial burdens imposed on productive individuals in donor countries who are bled dry to pay for foreign aid.

"It is past time that we repudiated the perverse bandwagon for aid to Africa. We should reject the corrupt moral principle that demands self-sacrifice—and proudly assert our unconditional right to our lives and to our wealth."

Wow. Those damn stupid Africans need to get their act together and learn them some capitalism and science. :rolleyes:

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. milton friedman capitalism. anything chicago school.

 

2. t is great, y'know, cuz a is a. spending d/a's (as long as its spending bad)

 

3. objectivist solvency turns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objectivism is only good against certain affs. You could argue the whole PH=altruism link but i don't think that's entirely persuasive when they could just characterize the aff as "we're doing this for X advantage for the U.S." (Like heg or something that would be beneficial to the U.S. instead of beneficial for Africa) Just because you call them altruistic doesn't mean they won't argue the link debate.

 

Also, if you think Objectivism is good, I recommend you go play Bioshock. It really shows the pragmatic outcome of a separate objectivist society free of morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, if you think Objectivism is good, I recommend you go play Bioshock. It really shows the pragmatic outcome of a separate objectivist society free of morality.

 

I would like to point out that no one has ever tried to build an Objectivist society underwater nor experimented on the human genome to make it better for the sake of "winning" in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to point out that no one yet has ever tried to build an Objectivist society underwater nor experimented on the human genome to make it better for the sake of "winning" in real life.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...