Objectivism

{{Silver}}
[[File:Objectivist1.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Atlas, struggling with the weight of his leaden conscience.]]
{{philosophy}}
{{hatnote|Were you looking for [[objective morality]], sometimes known as ethical objectivism?}}
{{cquote|Ayn Rand's "philosophy" is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society… To justify and extol human [[greed]] and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but [[evil]].|||[[Gore Vidal]], ''Esquire Magazine'', 1961}}
{{cquote|Conspicuous by their absence from Rand's list of virtues are the "virtues of benevolence," such as kindness, charity, generosity, and forgiveness.|||''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''<ref>Neera K. Badhwar and Roderick T. Long. (2012) [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/ Ayn Rand.] Entry in the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''</ref>}}
'''Objectivism''' is a [[Bullshit#Bullshit and philosophy|peculiar philosophy]] formulated by novelist [[Ayn Rand]]. It sports a range of convoluted tenets, but is most infamous for redefining [[greed]] as the prime [[moral]] virtue &mdash; and, to take things even further, [[Poe's Law|literally]] redefining [[altruism]] as [[evil]]. It's so terrible that [[stopped clock|even]] [[Conservapedia]] opposes it (though the page mostly focuses on Rand being an atheist).<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20180727165247/http://www.conservapedia.com/Objectivism Objectivism] ''Conservapedia'' (archived from July 27, 2018).</ref> The name "Objectivism" was chosen because, as Rand was the ''single smartest person in the history of the world'', anything she said had to be "objective".{{efn|Though to be fair, she ''wanted'' to call her philosophy "existentialism," but that was [[existentialism|already taken]].}}

As one might imagine, Objectivism is very popular amongst [[asshole|those who already hold a rather egocentric view of the world]]. It lets them say, "Hey, ''I'm'' not being a [[Asshole|selfish jerk]], ''I'm following a philosophy!''". Of course, this incredibly short-sighted and narrow outlook &mdash; only seeking short-term gains no matter the cost to everyone else &mdash; will not even maximize ''long-term individual'' gains (let alone short- ''or'' long-term societal gain).

For obvious reasons, Objectivism has been met with a hilariously lackluster reception from [[academic|academia]]. When they bother to comment on it at all, academic philosophers usually dismiss it as a rather juvenile imitation of a real [[philosophy]]. It is nevertheless very popular (a given with any theory that lends credibility to overtly cultivating the worst of self-congratulating egoism) and often informs the beliefs of a great many [[libertarian]]s and other assorted whackjobs.{{efn|An [[Irony|ironic]] fact, considering what Rand and most modern Objectivists think about libertarians}} Although Objectivism shares some beliefs with [[Conservatism]], it has not had much influence on that branch of politics due to its [[radical]], anti-[[traditional values|traditional]], [[atheist]] nature.{{efn|See for example, Whittaker Chambers' criticisms of ''Atlas Shrugged''.<ref>[https://www.nationalreview.com/2005/01/big-sister-watching-you-whittaker-chambers/ Big Sister Is Watching You] by Whittaker Chambers (January 5, 2005 12:15 PM; originally published on December 28, 1957) ''National Review''.</ref><ref>[http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-11-05/whittaker-chambers-versus-ayn-rand Whittaker Chambers Versus Ayn Rand] by Cass R. Sunstein (November 5, 2013, 6:00 AM PST)''Bloomberg''.</ref>}}

Objectivism has gone on to have some life outside Rand's shadow. While its largest faction is represented by the Ayn Rand Institute, led by Rand's <strike>pet chihuahua</strike> intellectual heir Leonard Peikoff, an "open" faction exists outside of Rand's circle, led by David Kelley and his group, The Atlas Society.

The debate over how much of Objectivism is [[cult of personality|dependent on Rand's writings, and how far it ''can'' go beyond that]], is a fierce one that has engendered [[groupthink|numerous purges]] and bitter catfights over the years. Although it may not be striking, there ''is'' a difference between what people consider to be the philosophy of Objectivism today, and Ayn Rand's personal take on it dating back to about half a century ago. No greater example of this mutually excommunicating divergence of thought can be seen than in the bitch-fighting between the Ayn Rand Institute and the Atlas Society.<ref>[http://www.atlassociety.org/ayn_rand_institute_vs_atlas_society The Atlas Society versus Ayn Rand Institute]</ref>

==Philosophy==
{{cquote|How do you read fiction and come up with a political philosophy? ''It's fiction!''|||{{wpl|Lewis Black}}<ref>''The Green Room with Paul Provenza'' – Season 2, Episode 4</ref>}}
Rand's philosophy claims to cover "[[Dunning-Kruger effect|all areas of philosophical importance]], including: [[ethics]], [[morality]], [[logic]], [[language]], [[culture]], [[science]], [[mathematics]], [[physics]], [[psychology]], [[religion]], [[history]], [[politics]], [[law]], [[economics]], [[business]], [[sex]], rights, [[government]], [[art]], [[literature]], sculpture, [[metaphysics]], [[epistemology]], mind and body, measurement, [[free will]], [[truth]], and many more."<ref>[http://www.aynrandmyths.com/#15 The Myth — Ayn Rand was not a philosopher.] ''Ayn Rand Myths''.</ref> In other words, there are a lot of chances for the Objectivists to get things backwards.

Rand summed up her philosophy with the following principles;<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20170226123400/https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1962/01/01/introducing-objectivism/page1 Introducing Objectivism] by Ayn Rand. From ''The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought''. ''Ayn Rand Institute Campus'' (archived from February 26, 2017).</ref>
{{quotebox|
*[[Metaphysics]]: [[Metaphysical naturalism|Objective reality]]
*[[Epistemology]]: [[Methodological naturalism|Reason]]
*[[Ethics]]: [[Ethical egoism|Self-interest]]
*[[Politics]]: [[Capitalism]]}}

===Metaphysics===
{{cquote|To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence.|||Galt Speech, ''[[Atlas Shrugged]]''}}

As a philosophy, Objectivism addresses the nature of [[reality]], although not in a terribly original way.

Objectivism holds that reality is separate from [[human]] [[consciousness]]; no matter what a person might want to believe, a thing in reality will always be what it is with no room for subjectivity regarding its nature. The idea is supposedly based on the {{wpl|law of identity||,}} ''A is A'', which Rand ripped off from [[Aristotle]] — the only one of her many rip-offs that she acknowledged.

Unfortunately, its epistemological assertions (yes, this belongs in [[metaphysics]]) that anything can be known to arbitrary precision, contradicts modern [[physics]] (see [[Heisenberg's uncertainty principle]]), which some Objectivists have decried as being based on "[[Kant]]ian assumptions".

The Objectivist conception of [[causality]] rules out the possibility of "chance" events, meaning that everything has a cause, having ignored [[David Hume]]'s destruction of causality as an analytic statement or Aristotle's prime mover (logical inconsistency is kept beautifully consistent by Rand).<ref>[http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/causality.html Causality], Ayn Rand Lexicon</ref> This leads Objectivism into problematic territory when it comes to [[quantum mechanics]] ([[Objectivism#Conflicts with science|see below]]). Objectivism views free will as a cause, and so is not [[determinism|deterministic]] on that issue.

===Ethics===
{{cquote|There is one word that is forbidden in this valley: the word 'give.'|||''Atlas Shrugged''}}

Objectivism holds, basically, that everyone should live by their own effort, neither accepting gifts from others nor [[charity|giving]] them, as both actions are considered [[Social Darwinism|moral weaknesses]]. Rand does make an exception for cases where there is "rational self-interest" involved:
{{cquote|The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one's own rational self-interest and one's own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one's own happiness.<ref>Ayn Rand. (1963) "The Ethics of Emergencies," in [http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html ''The Virtue of Selfishness''], p. 45</ref>}}

It attempts to apply the principles of ''[[laissez-faire]]'' to right and wrong. For Rand, the individual's life has supreme value and self-interest determines ethics. Therefore, Objectivism holds that ''all'' forms of [[altruism]] are [[irrational]] and immoral, even if they are done voluntarily, as long as they have no material benefit to the altruistic individual. This can get to truly bizarre extremes, such as refusing to believe in the right to trial by jury because there's nothing in it for the jury (perhaps this would change if they were paid more).

Objectivism's system of morals shares many similarities with an older moral philosophy, [[ethical egoism]], and with a formalized mental disorder, [[psychopath]]y.

This could almost be called "toxic individuality." Humans are a great ape, and anyone who studies great apes (such as chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas) or even other related species quickly discovers that we are a <i>communal species</i>. We <u>do</u> rely on each other, and this is required for survival from the earliest of ages. Some animals have no help or support from their birth (such as some venomous snakes fresh out of their eggs) but humans are not built that way. This is why [[Galt's Gulch]] was such a failure; it <u>is</u> in our interest to support and rely on others.

===Politics===
{{cquote|The source of property rights is the law of causality.|||Galt Speech, ''Atlas Shrugged''}}

Objectivism holds that [[free-market]] [[capitalism]] is superior to any other [[economic]] system, partially because it holds property rights to be grounded in "reason" [[argument by assertion|just because Ayn Rand says so]], and partially because capitalism is held to be the only system in which it is possible for laws to be objective (because there is only one law allowed, aka "Don't Touch My Stuff"). Objectivist politics either disregard or are unaware of the [[iron law of institutions]]. In the case of the economy, this law states that when not constrained by regulation, people or [[corporation]]s will gain money and influence at the expense of the economy as a whole (e.g., [[Goldman Sachs]], Bear Stearns, American International Group, [[Fannie Mae]]… the list goes on).

Objectivist [[Alan Greenspan]], confronted with the 2008 [[Great Recession]], did say "whoops sorry lol."<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/10/23/greenspan.html Greenspan tells Congress he's shocked by credit crunch], CBC</ref>

==Anti-science crankery==
===Quantum physics and relativity===
Some Objectivists like David Harriman and Leonard Peikoff actually seem to have a problem with modern physics, especially [[quantum mechanics]] due to its [[probability|probabilistic]] nature. The breakdown of classical mechanics-style causality at the quantum level doesn't square with Rand's vision of causality. This has led to declarations by Objectivists that modern physics is "corrupted" or "tainted" by a "Kantian influence" and "bad philosophy" in general, in addition to various [[crank]] "refutations" of quantum physics and [[denial]] of some theories like [[relativity]] (which was [[Petr Beckmann]]'s [[anti-relativity|specialty]]).{{efn|See David Harriman's lecture.<ref>[http://archive.is/rp9ZA The Crisis in Physics and Its Cause] by David Harriman (Recorded October 14, 2003) ''Ayn Rand Center Speaker Series'' (archived from 7 Jul 2013 13:51:39 UTC).</ref> as well as Daniel Barnes' critique.<ref>[http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2007/05/hoisted-from-comments-peikoffs-weird.html Hoisted from Comments: Peikoff's Weird Science] by Daniel Barnes (Tuesday, May 22, 2007) ''Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature''.</ref>}}

===Realism in psychology===
[[File:Yaron Brook at Tea Party Patriots.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Objectivist Yaron Brook showing that he needs vision correction to view "reality".]]
Rand's notion that we can observe reality directly (known in philosophy as direct or naïve realism) is refuted by the current dominant opinion in [[neuroscience]], [[psychology]], and the [[cognitive science]]s which accepts various forms of indirect or representative realism.{{efn|There are heterodox approaches such as the embodied cognition supported by {{wpl|George Lakoff}} and {{wpl|Mark Johnson (philosopher)|Mark Johnson}} that make a partial return to direct realism, though they do not claim the infallibility of the senses as Rand did.}} In the cognitive sciences, raw input is called "bottom-up perception" and the way the brain interprets this input is called "top-down perception."

The visual, auditory, etc. cortices essentially "reconstruct" the input from their respective sense organs, meaning there is always some element of top-down interpretation of raw stimuli. Thus, we do not experience reality in some unmediated sense. A simple example of this is the fact that the image formed on your [[eye]]'s retina is upside-down, but the visual cortex flips it right-side up. There are numerous other examples as well, including [[hallucination]]s and optical illusions.{{efn|There is, of course, debate in these fields as to the exact implications of these phenomena on the [[philosophy of mind]]; however, they tend to flatly reject the naïve form of realism. ''Perception and Hallucination'' by Charles McCreery provides further explanation and counterexamples.<ref>[http://www.celiagreen.com/charlesmccreery/perception.pdf ''Perception and Hallucination: The Case for Continuity''] by Charles McCreery (2006) ''Oxford Forum''. ISBN 9780953677276.</ref> See also Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature's series "The Cognitive Revolution and Objectivism" for more criticisms relating to psychology.<ref>[http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2007/10/cognitive-revolution-objectivism-part-1.html The Cognitive Revolution & Objectivism, Part 1] by Greg Nyquist (October 31, 2007) ''Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature''.</ref>}}

The Objectivist may reply that the optical illusion is not an error of vision or perception itself, but an error of conceptualization. However, given what we know about how much perception and conceptualization are intertwined, it is unclear how the two can be disentangled. We cannot "unsee" many optical illusions. For example, the lines in the {{wpl|Müller-Lyer illusion}} still appear to be of different lengths even when the illusion is pointed out.

===Evolution===
Ayn Rand expressed doubts about the validity of the [[theory of evolution]]. What she found objectionable about it was that, according to evolutionary theory, there is no real difference between human beings and [[animal]]s, or that it might dilute or downplay personal responsibility (reminiscent of other criticisms of evolution). However, Rand refused to issue a final judgment on it, basing this on an admitted lack of education on the topic, saying:<ref>[http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Parille/Ayn_Rand_and_Evolution.shtml Ayn Rand and Evolution]</ref>
{{cquote|I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent.}}

While Rand herself was ambivalent about evolution, Objectivists at the Ayn Rand Institute have produced material critical of [[creationism]] and supportive of evolution.<ref>[http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_topic_evolution Ayn Rand Institute on evolution]</ref>

===Environmental science===
Objectivist politics and economics has the same problem with dealing with [[externality|externalities]] that other free market ideologies have; thus, Objectivists must deny or downplay environmental externalities. In the world of the Objectivists, [[pollution]] is not a major problem, and if it does become a problem, we can simply [[privatize]] [[privatization of wildlife|everything]] and let the market work its magic. As a result, [[anti-environmentalism]] is a common position among [[Randroid]]s, who typically promote the [[crank magnetism|usual associated]] [[pseudoscience]] and denialism on scientifically proven environmental issues such as [[DDT]], [[acid rain]], and [[global warming]].<ref>[http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13355&news_iv_ctrl=1084 "Reject Environmentalism, Not DDT!"]</ref><ref>[http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_environmentalism Against environmentalism, bitches.]</ref>

==Notably wacky positions==
===Smoking===
{{main|Tobacco smoking}}
Many Objectivists, at least during Ayn Rand's lifetime (more than three decades ago) held that cigarette smoking is a ''moral'' obligation (there's even a scene in ''Atlas Shrugged'' where a tobacconist sings the praises of cigarettes as a way for man to wield power over fire). Objectivists don't see a problem in violating the rights of others by forcing others to breathe in hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, and other toxic waste in cigarette smoke. The rational self-interest of [[second-hand smoke]]rs is apparently of no concern to Objectivists.<ref>[https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/understanding-ayn-randianism/ The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult], [[Murray Rothbard]]</ref>

Rand herself was also known for denying the link between [[smoking]] and [[cancer]]. Later, she got a serving of [[karma]] after being forced to receive treatment for lung cancer in 1974. Despite this, she vehemently refused to recant her position publicly despite urging from her followers, even though she herself had quit smoking by then &mdash; certainly for some mysterious reason that had nothing whatsoever to do with her declining health.

===Art and music===
Objectivism's views on [[art]] and [[music]] tend to reflect Rand's own personal tastes, seriously constructing a philosophical basis in which the art and music Rand liked is moral, while anything else is not, which, taken at face value, boils down to representational visual art (except rather bizarrely any photography at all) and literature and non-avant-garde music and dance,<ref>[https://www.aristos.org/editors/chapsumm.htm/ What Art Is]</ref> which is what the avant-garde disdained for the masses liking it. One wonders what some of them think of Rush (the band),<ref>[http://objectivistanswers.com/questions/445/why-dont-more-objectivists-love-the-rock-band-rush Why don't more Objectivists love the rock band Rush?]</ref> whose drummer Neil Peart wrote lyrics inspired by Rand but whose music was clearly not of the type approved by the ever-so-rational Miss Rand, even if only for it being the drummer who was writing the lyrics and even though she was alive when Rush were making their best, most heroic, and most individualism-celebrating music.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEW2-k0EoyE Rush - 2112 (Live 1976), Part 1 of 2]</ref> In fact, on the other hand, one can argue very cogently that she disliked and therefore considered immoral any traditional-seeming art or music (because it is designed for ready comprehension by the masses), which includes Rush (the band), even for all their lyrics and her own personal tastes.

===Hatred of libertarians===
{{cquote|I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party.|||Ayn Rand<ref>[http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians Ayn Rand's Q & A on Libertarianism], The Ayn Rand Institute</ref>}}
Rand is often lumped in with libertarians due to their similar political views. However, Rand had a well-known hatred of [[libertarians]] and the [[Libertarian Party]]. She declared that they [[plagiarism|plagiarized]] her ideas when it [[Irony Meter|suited them]] and besmirched her name when it didn't. She resented the fact that while many libertarians endorsed her politics, they refused to swallow whole the rest of her philosophy &mdash; epistemology, ethics, and all. She also dissociated herself from libertarianism because of the presence of [[anarcho-capitalism|anarcho-capitalists]] and religious libertarians within the movement.<ref>[http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/libertarians.html Libertarians], Ayn Rand Lexicon</ref>

We can all rest easy knowing that Rand is likely spinning in her grave over the fact that [[Wikipedia]] considers Objectivism "[[Irony|Part of a series on Libertarianism]]".<ref>{{wpl|Objectivism (Ayn Rand)}}</ref>

===Homophobia===
{{main|Homophobia}}
Rand's views on [[gay rights]] are conflicted, and at times contradictory. While she opposed [[sodomy]] laws as statist interference, she also considered [[homosexuality]] "disgusting" and "immoral",<ref name="Homoral">[http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/3791-is-homosexuality-moral Is Homosexuality Moral?] by D. Moskovitz (June 29, 2001) 'The Atlas Society''.</ref> and believed that laws against [[discrimination]] in the private sector (goals for both gays and [[feminist]]s at the time) were tantamount to asking the [[government]] for "special privileges."<ref>{{wpa|Objectivism and homosexuality}}</ref> This rather stinks of [[rhetoric]] still used by [[homophobe]]s today,<ref>[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/02/19/national-review-is-to-the-right-of-the-kansas-gop/ National Review Is To The Right Of The Kansas GOP], [[Andrew Sullivan]]</ref> and is one of the few positions she held with which most current followers of her ideology disagree.<ref>[http://www.salon.com/2014/04/25/jamaican_gay_and_ayn_rand_made_it_ok_my_amazing_atlas_shrugged_love_story/ Is "Cafeteria Objectivist" a thing?]</ref><ref name="Homoral"/>

===Endorsement of imperialism===
{{main|Imperialism}}
Although Rand denounced [[racism]] as the "most crudely primitive form of collectivism"<ref>Ayn Rand. (1963) [http://alexpeak.com/twr/racism/ "Racism"], in [http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-works/the-virtue-of-selfishness.html ''The Virtue of Selfishness''], ch. 17, p. 126</ref> and supported property rights, none of it mattered if you just weren't capitalist or "civilized" enough for her. Her pronouncements on this topic echo 18<sup>th</sup> and 19<sup>th</sup> century arguments for imperialism, i.e. that forcible conquest of native peoples was justified because of their alleged "savagery." It is a reiteration of the doctrine of {{wpl|terra nullius||.}}

====Native Americans====
{{main|Native American}}
Rand caused a pinch of controversy when she said this about Native Americans:
{{cquote|They didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the [[earth]] untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.<ref>Q and A session following her address to the graduating class of The United States Military Academy at West Point in New York, March 6, 1974 (really) &mdash; found in ''Endgame: Resistance'', by Derrick Jensen, Seven Stories Press, 2006, pg 220, can be found on [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand Wikiquote]</ref>}}

We wonder how "civilized" Rand thought it was to [[American Indian Holocaust|wipe out those populations]] for the sake of industrialization.{{efn|It reminds one of a [[Stalin|certain person she disliked]]…}}
Apparently, Rand's understanding of Native American [[culture]]s was derived from [[Hollywood|Westerns]]:
{{cquote|I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. [[Dunning-Kruger effect|The white man did not conquer this country]]. [[Reverse racism|And you're a racist if you object]], because it means you believe that [[Irony meter|certain men are entitled to something because of their race]].<ref>Ibid. Full transcript can be found in Robert Mayhew (ed.), [http://books.google.com/books?id=-2D6VqMXfFIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false ''Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A''.] New York, NY: Penguin, 2005.</ref>}}

====Israel-Palestine conflict====
Taking into account her nuanced opinions on Native Americans, her analysis of the [[Israel]]-[[Palestine]] conflict may be just as concerning:
{{cquote|If you mean whose side one should be on, Israel or the Arabs, I would certainly say Israel because it's the advanced, technological, civilized country amidst a group of almost [[racism|totally primitive savages]] who have not changed for years [[irony meter|and who are racist]] and who resent Israel because it's bringing industry, intelligence, and modern technology into their stagnation."<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU&feature=colike From a 1979 interview on the Phil Donahue Show.]</ref>}}

Some Objectivists have followed in Rand's footsteps in relentlessly backing Israel, even if they don't share her [[Jewish]] heritage. While Rand was actually opposed to US intervention in [[isolationism|every major conflict]] during her lifetime (including [[World War II]]!), her fans have not been so dovish, particularly when it comes to the [[Middle East]]. Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook have advocated for the use of military force against Israel's enemies, rather than just material support for Israel as Rand supported. Brook was a booster of the [[Iraq War]] and, along with Peikoff, voiced support for military intervention in [[Iran]]. Peikoff has also voiced opposition to the so-called "[[Ground Zero mosque]]."<ref>[http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/objectivists-for-empire/ Objectivists for Empire], ''The American Conservative''</ref> The state cannot touch your damn property, [[Hypocrisy|unless of course you're]] [[Islamophobia|Muslim]]. (Or Native American, as we saw above.)

==Strange definitions==
{{cquote|'When ''I'' use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'}}
 
Objectivists commonly take a word, [[Newspeak|change its meaning to fit their needs]], and then complain that no one else is using their definitions. This has often led to confusion in debates, as neither side knew that they were both speaking two different [[language]]s.

Some commonly warped words include:

{{quotebox|
*'''Altruism:''' The Objectivist definition is "…that 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."<ref>[http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html Altruism], Ayn Rand Lexicon</ref> It's based mainly upon [[Auguste Comte]]'s (who coined the term "altruisms") definition of altruism: "Self-sacrifice for the benefit of others."<ref>[http://www.altruists.org/about/altruism/ Definitions of altruism] from the philosopher who coined the term.</ref> Translated from the [[jargon]], Rand is trying to say that "altruism" is acting like a doormat and ''only'' working for others without consideration of one's own needs. Naturally, few people have such a view on life; even fewer actually practice it, and at that point only to get [[reciprocity|something in return]]. In normal-speak, altruism is simply acting to benefit humanity, without regarding it as the whole reason for one's existence. Like most [[Straw man|straw men]], the "Altruist" movement feared by Randroids cannot defend itself because ''it doesn't exist''. While Comte ''did'' advocate something like this ("live for others"), people declined to obey his dictum.

*'''Mercy:''' Leonard Peikoff defined mercy as "unearned forgiveness." This basically means that if your enemy is on the battlefield, unarmed, and begging for mercy, it would be [[war crimes|immoral to let him live]]. In this sense Objectivism is diametrically opposed to the [[Christian]] concept of [[salvation]] by unmerited grace.

*'''Reason:''' This one has actually at least ''two'' different meanings in Objectivist writings. One is pretty close to the usual meaning of the term. But Objectivism also argues that you must use your reason in order to be happy, which is kinda like trying to open your garage door with your driver's license. In this second, shifted ethical/political sense, it then ''roughly'' means "absence of ethical concerns regarding one's decisions." Outside the Objectivist funhouse, people who have no concern for the ethics of their decisions are called "sociopaths."

*'''[[Mind]]:''' The mind is an essential part of Rand's justification of property rights. Alas, her argumentation is weird (it's basically bad [[John Locke|Locke]]) and ends up bearing almost no relationship with the usual concept of mind. Also, [[tax]]ation and redistribution are "mind enslavement", apparently. To avoid such peculiar, [[loaded language|loaded]] rhetoric, many other libertarians such as Nozick argue in terms of "self-property" rather than "mind," the idea being the same but less hypocritical.

*'''[[Evil]]:''' Because of the Objectivist ethical system, this word is given a meaning that is at least slightly different from everyday use. But Rand also used it to disparage thinkers she disagreed with, solely on the basis of their philosophical ideas. And then Randians ''complain'' that she isn't taken seriously by academia.}}

==The ultimate problem with Objectivist ethical egoism==
A criticism of Ayn Rand so obvious it's really kind of impressive that anyone follows her is based around a quote we already mentioned above:

{{cquote|There is one word that is forbidden in this valley: the word 'give.'|||''Atlas Shrugged''}}

Again, Ayn Rand holds the position that it is immoral to give or receive aid of any kind that is not in one's own self-interest. She explains this in an interview in 1959,<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ooKsv_SX4Y Apologies.]</ref> where she specifically says that man must not live for others, and that [[altruism]] is immoral.

This can be criticized on several grounds. Firstly, this arguably means that it is immoral to be a [[child]], or to raise a child, or to prevent a [[child labour|child from working]], since a child requires constant attention and aid from the parents. This probably explains why Rand never had children, and also means that if the human species adopted this, [[VHEMT|we would be gone after one generation]]. One counterargument would be that passing on one's [[gene]]s would certainly be in a person's best interest from an evolutionary standpoint, and justifies the effort put into raising children, although this would fall apart in the case of a child who will be unable or extremely unlikely to reproduce for any number of reasons. Furthermore, cloning is more selfish than sexual reproduction, but is disadvantageous in the long run.<ref>{{wpa|Evolution of sexual reproduction}}</ref>

Secondly, society depends on altruism to a degree. Saving a person from drowning would be an altruistic act, since you can't exactly stop to dicker over payment for your services. Letting them die, aside from being morally reprehensible, is potentially detrimental to society, since they can no longer contribute to it, and you yourself may suffer indirectly. And there is a principle of reciprocation; you expect, if you were drowning, that any decent person who heard your cries for help would intervene.

Thirdly, to continue the drowning example, if you let someone die for no good reason, other people will consider you an [[asshole]] of the highest order. If you own a shop, they may [[boycott]] it. They may refuse to sell things to you. They may let ''you'' drown. The family of the dead man may seek vengeance. It ''is'' in your own best interests to not be an asshole.

Even more important is that civilization cannot exist without altruism. See, cities are formed by people working together to make a place they can all live away from the elements and ravages of nature, keeping themselves safe. From cities grow a civilization. Ergo, Objectivism calls for the complete collapse of civilization.

A stunning example of this problem, especially if you're [[Finnish]], is the case of {{wpl|Simo Häyhä||.}} Häyhä was a sniper in the Finnish White Army during the [[WWII#Beginning of the War|Winter War]] against the [[Soviet]] Red Army who killed at least 505 enemy soldiers (including counter-snipers), survived temperatures as low as -40°C and numerous attempts to kill him both by carpet bombing and by assaults of infantry and mechanized units. The actions of Häyhä were instrumental in preventing the Finnish from losing the Winter War, which prevented them from being taken over by the Soviets. When asked to explain actions like these (partly since actions like these happened in ''Atlas Shrugged'') Randroids respond with a rather dehumanizing, and frankly insulting, response that the person is not acting out of group interest, but is instead expecting to survive and is trying to gain self-respect or popularity.{{efn|This tactic is generally applied to ''any'' act of kindness. For example, saving your children from being hit by a car by throwing yourself in front of it is only moral because of your selfish desire to have your children live on, rather than concern for their own lives. Or what about about the doctors who gave up their lives to quarantine SARS<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23710697 Sars: The people who risked their lives to stop the virus] by Kevin Fong (16 August 2013) ''BBC''.</ref> or any other outbreak? They're not worldwide heroes, they just did what they were expected of them to do. This is the problem with psychological egoism<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/#1 Egoism: 1. Psychological Egoism] (First published Mon Nov 4, 2002; substantive revision Tue Jan 15, 2019) ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''.</ref> — it simply defines altruism away.}}

Other egoists point out a much more glaring issue with Rand's idea of egoism: ''she'' is the one who is deciding what is and is not in any person's self-interest, when the individual is the only one who can define what their interests are.

==See also==
*[[Neo-Tech]], one of Objectivism's loony-fringe offshoots.
*The [[video game]] ''{{wpl|BioShock||,}}'' whose setting is an Objectivist "[[utopia]]" gone [[Animal Farm|horribly wrong]]. It contains so many Ayn Rand references that it may as well be considered a re-write of ''Atlas Shrugged'' (the founder of said utopia being named Andy Ryan is one the many not so subtly nods), but as some would hold, far more realistic. Discounting the [[drugs|Splicers]], [[magic|Plasmids]], and [[Dick Cheney|giant men in diving suits]] [[child abuse|protecting little girls]], that is. At the very least, it is far more fun.
*LaVeyan [[Satanism]], which is essentially Ayn Rand in a [[goat]] mask.<ref>{{wpa|LaVeyan Satanism}}</ref>
*[[Neoliberalism]], essentially Objectivism in politics.
*Bertolt Brecht, whose opera [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_and_Fall_of_the_City_of_Mahagonny The Rise and Fall of the City Mahagonny] is a healthy reality check of Objectivism in practise.

==External links==
*{{wpa|Objectivism}}
*[http://ariwatch.com/ ARI Watch]
*[http://theundercurrent.org/ The Undercurrent] Says it's "a campus magazine distributed at college campuses and communities across the country."
*[http://www.theatlasphere.com/ The Atlasphere] (Find the Randroid of your dreams!)
*[http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/index.html Criticisms of Objectivism]
*[http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/ Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature] - A blog dedicated to refuting Objectivism
*[http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml The Unlikeliest Cult in History], ''Skeptic'' article by [[Michael Shermer]] that appears as a chapter in his book ''Why People Believe Weird Things''
*[[Massimo Pigliucci]]: [http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/10/about-objectivism-part-i-metaphysics.html About Objectivism Part I: Metaphysics], [http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/11/about-objectivism-part-ii-epistemology.html Part II: Epistemology], [http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/11/about-objectivism-part-iii-ethics.html Part III: Ethics], [http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/12/about-objectivism-part-iv-politics.html Part IV: Politics]
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20030815180532/http://home.att.net/~sandgryan/ocr/text.pdf ''Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality''], e-book by John Scott Ryan
*[http://aynrandlexicon.com/ The Ayn Rand Lexicon], for all an Objectivist's word-redefining needs.
*[https://objectivismindepth.com/ Objectivism In Depth]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note|2}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Consequentialism]]
[[Category:Crank magnetism]]
[[Category:Economic philosophies]]
[[Category:Libertarianism]]
[[Category:Misnomers]]
[[Category:Objectivism|*]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Categories: Consequentialism, Crank magnetism, Economic philosophies, Libertarianism, Misnomers, Objectivism, Philosophy, Pseudoscience