In my previous article I began the process of clearing up the misconceptions about Objectivism. However, one thing I did not do was give a detailed explanation of what Objectivism actually is. I mentioned some of the most often said criticism without saying what it actually was. I did this in part because Objectivism is easy to find out about with a simple Google search. Or you can go to your nearest book store and pick up one of Ayn Rands non-fiction books.
Yet, in order to provide actual sources of what Objectivism is I have decided to do an article actually explaining what Objectivism is. Giving out examples as well as just the words used when describing the philosophy I subscribe to. I want to do this because it is easy to find misconceptions that take mundane, but, important things and twist them out of shape to sound like it makes you into a sociopath. The truth is it does not and in this article I am going to give more information on what this Objectivism thing is.
First of all let us start with the very nature of reality. Reality is what reality is as the old saying goes. Existence well it exists is another way to put this. A=A is another way of putting this as well. There is an objective reality that does exist. It exists outside of what we would like to believe and even outside of our experiences at times. (Fake memories are easy to implant and humans can see patterns where there is none. We could be seeing things or hearing things.) There is an external reality it exists outside of us and outside of our brain/mind.
This is the beginning of the philosophy. Our mind is to be used to understand what reality is and to use its higher cognitive abilities to be able to learn about the world. To investigate and find what reality is and how it works. In other words we need in order to understand what this objective reality is to use our reason. We need to use our reason and our ability as higher primates to our benefit in all aspects of life. In fact, only facts can help guide our life successfully and thus reason really is one of the most important aspects in our ability to live in the world and not live in our own self-delusions.
As we continue down this path of philosophy we get to what is logically obvious, As existence is primary and not what we "believe." Since existence comes first and our mind/brain needs to be used to find the truth. That means our mind is of the utmost importance in our lives. What are the primary characteristics of the mind? Well, the most important one is that you are you. Your brain is you and you are your brain. Thus no one else has your mind which is in fact housed in your brain. The mind is the brain and thus we have no collective mind outside of the mind in our own heads. For this reason the mind is an attribute of our individual brains and thus the individual person.
From here it becomes apparent that reason is an individual attribute as it is in the brain. For this reason the individual becomes the single most important unit in all of society. Due to this individualistic need for our species and for man as a being we need a world in which individuals are in fact the core of the society. Their own reasonable and individually thought out pursuits must come first. As one mind that is squashed by its opposite the ultimate one evil coercion, the ultimate unreason is too many. For this reason any moral codes that go against man's nature qua nature is evil and needs to be shunned.
For this reason the only ethical code that has a moral and human nature based foundation is ethical egoism or rational self-interest. For this reason selfishness is indeed a virtue; which simply means pursuing ones own rational and well thought out non-self destructive values. However, as the mind/the brain requires for its full capacity to be able to pursue these values in order to live a fulfilled and complete life as a human anything than preaches against pursuing values is evil. In fact, it is the anti-human, the anti-life. Which means altruism aka sacrifice of your own need and desires to all others is evil, is the anti-human and ultimately the anti-life.
This is not to be confused with benevolence which is a non-sacrificial win/win arrangement between two or more people. Helping for example a loved or even a complete stranger homeless on the street. These can easily be fit into benevolence once the proper context of the act is known. If the person is giving to others because it is one of their values as a person to help others. Providing they think, think, think and consider how best to pursue said value it is selfish. It is not altruistic because the person finds a rational value in others and wishes in pursuit of their whole range of values to help other people.
It is in fact a form of justice. Justice and benevolence are two side of the same coin. To be benevolent to all of those whom deserve it. To your fellow humans whom have not shown any reason for your reason to find them wanting. To then from there think through and decide gosh darn it I want to help said person or people or cause. Whether it is a bum on a street or a friend you are close to. If you use reason and come to the conclusion using your proper reasoning that it is in your best interest and it is of value to help others you are simply enacting justice.
There is a divide within Objectivism between two schools of thought one called "open,' and the other "closed." The open one proclaims that benevolence is a separate virtue unto itself. The closed system proponent does not add it to the virtue list, but, still sees how important it is. However, the open school also proclaims that Objectivism is an open philosophy and needs to be able to ebb and flow as new facts come in. The closed system proponent argument says of course we need to modify our views according to reality, but, that one does not get to add new discoveries to somehow being part of the philosophy of Objectivism. That it is only and nothing, but, the philosophy as described by Any Rand nothing can be added and nothing removed either.
Basically, the Closed view says "Objectivism is the Philosophy for living life on Earth as discovered by Ayn Rand and only what was discovered by Ayn Rand in her works prior to her death." That yes, of course as A=A and existence is primary we all need to change our thinking when we are presented with new evidence that counters old ideas. However, that it is not Objectivism it is not the philosophy discovered by Ayn Rand and written about in her books prior to her death. It is new facts and we thus need to change our thinking on the topic, but, it does not change "Objectivism." It does not change what Ayn Rand actually discovered and proposes. That Objectivism and the contents of it was Closed upon the death of the philosopher herself.
On the Open side David Kelley and The Atlas Society as well as several other groups say it is Open. That Objectivism itself needs to change with the times. That Objectivism was not closed when Ayn Rand died that it remains open for modification and for correction where it got things wrong. That any of those new discoveries than needed to be added to the philosophy itself. Not just to our base of knowledge and added to the rest of our thoughts integrated as a whole. However, that the very philosophy itself changes with new information and Objectivism remains Open to be more than what Ayn Rand wrote. In fact, David Kelley added benevolence as a separate virtue as a demonstration to this very notion.
The point of this detour into Objectivist history has been done to show that not only is benevolence part of and discussed within Objectivist circles. It is in fact, so, discussed it spawns internal fractures between the people whom agree with the philosophy and is the undercurrent of various shunning, debates and general activities. So, far from people that claim taking selfishness as a virtue turning you into a sociopath. Taking it as a virtue and trying to use reason to come to a conclusion on the topic of benevolence as selfish leads some to even calling for the very philosophy to be Open passed the death of its discoverer and main proponent. Objectivists just like people of good character whom are non-Objctivists do not feel like other people are scum to be stepped on and hated quite the opposite in fact.
Ayn Rand often talked about having a benevolent sense of life. Objectivists love other people and love cooperating with the people around us. Hell, we even live sometimes in communities that we adore. Being selfish and an individualist is not an isolationist nor an atomistic world view. In fact, this leads me perfectly into one of the core tenants of Objectivism. Which is the trader principle of living. In other words all exchanges, all relationships in life should be win/win mutually beneficial situations. No one should treat you as a sacrificial animal upon the alter of themselves and you better not do so to your fellow human either. This is the only logically consistent way of acting for an ethical egoist AKA a selfish person AKA a moral man qua man. So, the logical conclusion for Objectivism is the anti-sociopath and the pro-human person.
Finally, we come to the final leg of this table held up by virtue and values. We come to the cherry on top of the philosophy that also other groups such as the broader Libertarian movements tend to share. That is the rules of the road as it were. The role of laws, rules and government. The role of actually being able to limit certain things done by others. Those things being the real Sociopaths that anti-Objectivists worry Objectivism brings. Those whom would harm others or their property. Those whom would be criminals to others. Those whom would initiate coercion on others. The fraudsters, the criminals, the truly anti-social people. Objectivism as a philosophy stands against all of these things and these sorts of people.
We come to the non-initiation of coercion principle which is itself stemming from the other legs. If reason is an individual thing and force is the opposite of mind. Then coercion is evil and since coercion really is the ultimate evil there must be a means to stop it as well as other related activities that harm people and property. Specifically individual rights need to be enshrined and enforced and the easy bite-size way of saying that is the non-initiation principle. What can man qua man come up with to protect individual rights? Well, there needs to be Objective laws and a rule of law that is followed based on that objectivity. There is only one sort of institution that can create and then enforce through retaliatory force on a grand scale over whole swaths of land. That is a government and the only moral one.
Governments must exist in order to put "coercion" into the hands of an objective third party institution which will than make sure that no Initiation of coercion is tolerated. In order to remove from everyday life the chaos of not having a stable system of laws and rules which people know about. Which people can follow that makes sure that the true Sociopaths face obstacles to their harming others. As well as being the only way to remove force from everyday life and put it into its proper place in being used to stop "the bad guys."
Governments when they do what they are supposed to are a good thing. I am not Anti-Government I am anti-initiation of coercion. I am pro-individual rights and so is Objectivism as a philosophy. Objectivism holds that government is a necessary good and not an evil. Governments must exist as they have a purpose. A government that is acting properly is a proper and moral one. This means that Objectivism promotes Capitalism as it is the only moral social system in existence. It is what happens when the only coercion and aggression in society is in a retaliatory fashion and used only for self-defense. That system of people being free from authoritarian constraints from the state with the government as referee and law enforcers is called Capitalism.
Capitalism is a [the only actually] social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.
So, coming full circle to answer the question what is this Objectivism to which so many people fear so much fear and loathing? Well, I think the above is an extremely detailed and well done explanation of the philosophy I live by and apply as true to reality. However, I will finish off this article by quoting the woman herself not because I am a Randroid, but, because she put it so eloquently herself. Objectivism in the most shortest and simple explanation is as follows;
- Metaphysics: Objective Reality
- Epistemology: Reason
- Ethics: Self-interest
- Politics: Capitalism
- Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
- Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
- Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
- The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
