Ayn Rand was a poor philosopher

For readers who might not be familiar with her, Ayn Rand emigrated from Russia in 1926 and founded the philosophy of Objectivism while living and writing in the United States. She was a novelist, self-proclaimed philosopher, and firmly an individualist and capitalist. Ayn Rand defines Objectivism as "the concept of man as a heroic being" with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. " This quote comes from the Ayn Rand lexicon, a free online source that anthologizes various excerpts from Ayn Rand"s writings. I have read several of her novels and non-fiction works and would recommend them to anyone who wants to deal more thoroughly with Objectivism. The rest of my quotes will come from the nonfiction philosophical addendum at the back of her Signet edition novels, which nicely summarizes much of her philosophy. You can find part of this addition at . http://www.atheistnexus.org.... In this debate, I intend to deconstruct Ayn Rand"s philosophy, revealing the fallacies in her thinking and demonstrating that she was, in fact, a derivative and very poor philosopher. I will examine three primary conceptual pillars of Objectivism - Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics " and will develop arguments around several key points: 1) The triteness and unoriginality of her work 2) Tautologies in her philosophical foundations 2) Improper Inferences 3) Confusion of philosophical categories. I will spend much of my time in the first round compiling evidence, and in the later rounds, explain how the evidence should be interpreted. Metaphysics: The branch of philosophy that deals with the ultimate nature of being and the world, including its properties, principles, morals, and relationships. Ayn Rand summarizes her metaphysics as, "Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are--and that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it. " First, if we measure a philosopher"s salt by how much progress or understanding she brings to the discipline, then Ayn Rand certainly doesn"t measure up. Ayn Rand"s "metaphysics," if it can even be called that, basically states the assumption held by most philosophers in the Western tradition; most philosophers went on to build their metaphysics on this assumption, whereas Rand used this assumption as her metaphysics. Certainly, also, going so far as to say that "A is A" and "facts are facts" shows this underdevelopment, as these statements are tautologous, meaning that they are true under any circumstance, non-falsifiable. Tautologies might be true, but they do not reveal anything about the nature of being or the world and certainly aren"t "metaphysics. " Verbalizing a commonly held assumption is not philosophical progress. Yet, Rand routinely touted her "metaphysics" as this kind of progress, blasting philosophers centuries old, especially Kant, for an overreliance on faith in their metaphysics. This reveals her arrogance and impoverished understanding of the Western tradition, as even early philosophers like Descartes and Kant, saw Reason as a tool apart from faith, capable of validating that faith and understanding much of reality without faith. This is where you get the ontological argument for God"s existence. Epistemology: The branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of knowledge and methods of knowledge acquisition. Ayn Rand defines her epistemology as "Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's" means of acquiring knowledge. " It is clear that in her first statement Rand overreaches. We don"t know if man if fully competent to know the [all? ] facts of reality. You only need to look as far as the troubles in modern physics to doubt the absolutism in this assertion. As for the idea that Reason "identifies and integrates "material" in "acquiring knowledge" this statement yet again reveals a key assumption of the Western philosophical tradition and ignorance of what really consists of an "epistemology. " Rand avoids wrestling with the nuances that really define an epistemology and what makes this branch of philosophy so important. What are the pitfalls and limits of Reason? What co-opts or enhances it? What is the extent of the objectivity and subjectivity of Reason? What is the difference between Reason and Intuition? These are the questions that define epistemology. Rand ignores them and then blankly asserts that Reason is king. Ethics: The branch of philosophy that deals with man"s personal conduct and how he conducts himself in relation to others. Ayn Rand justified her ethics by saying, "Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man--i. e. , that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute)" Man--every man--is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others" his own happiness [is] the highest moral purpose of his life. " Ayn Rand rejected altruism as a "theory" that says, "man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value" The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: "No. " Altruism says: "Yes. " Ayn Rand regarded laissez-faire capitalism as the only moral economic system. According to Ayn Rand, this means "that the only proper purpose of a government is to protect man"s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man"s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. " "The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve "the common good. " It is true that capitalism does"if that catch-phrase has any meaning"but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man"s rational nature, that it protects man"s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice. " There are so many problems with Rand"s ethics, it"s hard to know where to begin. I should say, however, that I don"t find the first quote particularly problematic, and even agree with the idea that "man is an end in himself. " Immanuel Kant, a target of Rand"s disdain, once uttered a premise much like this this in discussing the foundation for his ethics. The problems with Rand"s ethics result from her fallacious inferences concerning individualism, altruism, and capitalism; her assertions grossly overstate the power of her premises. First, let"s examine altruism. I have found it difficult to ever find anyone who believed that the practice amounted to the belief that "the only justification for existence" is service to others. More importantly, altruism in itself is not a moral "theory," as she calls it. Rather, altruism can be a sub-component of a larger theory about conduct and relationships. For example, altruism as a "theory" has no ideas about self-governance in the absence of others, nor can it calculate the rightness of an action when the aims and desires of two beings conflict, nor does it have anything to say about the wellbeing of human beings, i. e. , what they need beyond basic necessities. Ostensibly, self-esteem/individualism and altruism are not necessarily oppositional concepts. This is hard to see when Rand"s individualistic protagonists show a disturbing contempt for poverty and the poor. Second, when Rand says that the Objectivist standard for ethics is "man"s survival qua man" she essentially asserts the core individualistic claims of her ethics, that "the standard by which one judges what is good or evil is man"s life. " Besides the obvious banality of this statement, from this idea, the premise that "existence exists," she fallaciously infers the moral superiority of laissez-faire capitalism. Nothing about her most basic ethical principles would justify this assertion, if only because she arbitrarily excludes how we should treat others, only barring physical violence (quotation above). She says that capitalism is the only "moral system that lies consonant with man"s rational nature," but what about her premises makes this conclusion true? Why couldn"t the measure of a man"s worth depend upon how he conducts himself in relation to others, couldn"t seeing man as an end to himself demand that he be helped when in need, whether this be medical or financial? Rand does not have an answer for this problem. Third, the idea of a laissez-faire system of capitalism as a moral system is laughable. The reason why laissez-faire capitalism failed during the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was the moral outrage society felt at how factory owners treated and endangered workers, resulting in tragedies like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. Also, Rand"s system includes no environmental regulation, no financial regulation, no regulation of any kind - are we to presume that if an owner of a corporation destroys the environment to make a quick buck that he is fact living a moral life? If man"s is the measure of a moral, what if environmental contamination hurts his ability to succeed? I need more space to flesh these contradictions out, so I will yield to Con now and continue in my next speech.