The Virtues are the core of it all and a refresher on what Objectivism actually means.

Previously I have posted up a copy of The Objectivist Virtues which are the core of Objectivism and its ethics. This is what an Objectivist should look out for in the character of other people and not whether they are an Objectivist themselves. While I definitely have a view which says that Objectivism whether you agree with the applications has a core of reality and reason. Thus that it is consistent in its virtues with the objective reality. It would be a mistake to judge others as having a good or evil nature based on not being an Objectivist.

What matters are the virtues such as rationality, honesty, integrity, independent thinking, justice, productiveness and pride. If someone has good character traits such as these he does not need to declare he is an Objectivist he is a good person of good character. He might fervently disagree with the other parts of Objectivism and be a perfectly good person. What matters is the person is living in reality, using reason and has a good character. Their status when it comes to being an Objectivist is not a primary even if Objectivism contains all the above virtues of a person of good character. In fact, not all Objectivists understand nor practice these same core virtues of their very own philosophy.

As Diana Brickell said on her now defunct, but, archived philosophy radio show "some of the best people you will ever meet are Objectivists and some of the worst people you will ever meet are Objectivists." She herself is an Objectivisr or Rational Egoist, but, she still made this declaration about the reliability of Objectivism being a test of anything with a person. I feel the same way and would put forth the same notion. People that are toxic can and do misuse philosophy to meet their own ends that are itself vile. This is what I feel has given Objectivism a bad name as people take on the label and espouse it without as much as knowing the very ethics they say they agree to live by.

It is not about doing whatever you like because it feels good or because you desire it. It is about long term overall during the course of a living human what is best for the self or individual. That is not saying hedonism is good. Whatever you want should be. It is about long term rational self-interest and flourishing on Earth. Rational, based in the facts of reality AKA using reason. What actions will give you the consequences of the best life possible given the facts of reality and of human nature. Ayn Rand was against hedonism and nihilism explicitly and implicitly as well as any kind of emotionalism or Whim Worshiping within her philosophically based work.

Anyone can rationalize what they want using whatever philosophy they want to believe supports their views. From the moment Ayn Rand first uttered the words "The Virtue Of Selfishness" people whom half the time act and think like they never even read The Objectivist Ethics have been calling themselves by the label Objectivism. However, that does not mean they are. Or that they are not totally misunderstanding what Objectivism defends and what it does not. For example; to follow the philosophy of Aristotle one needs to actually understand and then follow what his core ethical and virtue code said. Even if he himself at some point missed his own mark and forgot the essence of his own ethics at sometime in the future after developing it. That would not mean Aristotle was wrong with his virtues, but, that he failed to meet his own standards.

This is why I consider myself an Objectivist even when I disagree on personal matters of application or personal life decisions of Ayn's. The Philosophy is so rooted in reality, the philosophy is not the same as the end result persay of anyone's application of it. Reality as Objectivism and Ayn Rand herself said is the arbiter of what is true not what Ayn Rand believed on subject X or V. The bases of Objectivism is sound and does match facts of reality here are the bases Objectivism begins on.

Existence exists and reality is objective, it is real and it is measurable. Consciousness is not existence itself and does not make existence exist, but, is what views the objective reality. We then use what our Consciousness perceives and separate misunderstandings of perception through our reasoning facility. Through our big 5th Ape brains, through using our minds to look at the facts and bring them into the picture. In other words we use our ability we have evolved to try to be as rational as possible to find the truth. However, doing this is a choice one can choose to try to be rational and live in reality or to evade reality and to face the consequences. Humans also have free will even if just to think or not to think and then act accordingly. We also have an evolved human animal nature which can also be found through reason and science.

Due to the above the mind is our means of survival and what else could be? You are your mind you are your brain and when it dies you stop existing? So, that is all you can use to survive even if you use your hands or anything else your body has your mind in it there is no soul that makes the mind work. The supernatural is BS and it makes no sense because even the term is an oxymoron. Supernatural would indicate something other than that which can be proven to exist exists and that there is something other than existence and natural laws. Which as everything requires laws of nature to work at some level is from the ground up impossible to exist.

From this Ayn Rand also realized that minds are individual and so individuals need to be free to think and to act to gain/keep their values in life to survive. For this reason she coined the term Virtue of Selfishness to mean that long term long range well thought out best course of action within the light of reason to reach your goals. However, in order to gain and keep values as Aristotle before her stated one needs virtues. Rules of  Ethics to live by on Earth and to use to gain/keep those values. Those virtues are the ones I detailed above. No where does it say being unjust, being a douche, being abusive, or being heartless or not helping others is a virtue of Objectivism. Far from it in fact! In Objectivism it would be a sacrifice if you had a cause you supported and decided not to help that cause. For it would be sacrificing the higher value; for example getting a homeless person of good character help for a lesser value of spending your investment elsewhere.

This is what Ayn Rand means when she says she is against Altruism she does not mean she is against Benevolence, good will or human kindness. She means that she is against sacrificing a higher value for a lesser value. For example; in the John Galt Speech at the end of Atlas Shrugged she calls completely immoral any Mother that would forsake taking care of her own children for a materialistic value of a new fashion item. A Mothers higher value is taking care of her Family and not buying expensive materialistic possessions. Helping people you want to help because it is a cause worthy to you when you can afford it and when it will not leave you yourself homeless is a moral act. Objectivism is compatible with Benevolence and in fact it is mentioned in many of Ayn Rand's Essays.

The philosophy of Objectivism does not contain any of the toxic sludge that it's detractors blame on it and is compatible with a lot of things considered not be so. What makes most people dis Objectivism is its political and economical views of a total separation of economics and government. However, that is not where the philosophy has its roots metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics/virtues all come first one after the other in the hierarchy of ideas in the philosophy. Plenty of Objectivists do not even bother with the political portion of the philosophy as you cannot have such a government without a massive change in the culture first.

This brings us back to where we began the virtues are the thing, the rub and what matters here. However, those virtues also are tied with the metaphysical and epistemological which is why you need someone that lives in reality, which requires use of reason first. From that you get the virtues which are tied to that rational faculty of human experience. So, as long as you live in reality and have a good character this is what is of upmost important and whether you agree or disagree with the political implications of this can be debated fiercely.

However, first in doing so you are acknowledging that Ayn Rand at least got something right and was not all wrong. Even if you disagree with the rest of her views. Existence does exist, reason is man's means of survival and we do need a secular, reality based list of virtues which very well could include everything she believed even if it was not complete. My view on Objectivism is it is part of all good and true philosophy, but, it is of course not all of philosophy and not even all of morality persay. Also, of course Ayn Rand was not a Goddess she was a human flesh and blood woman with many faults. However, when she was right and reality has bared it out give the lady her due she was right on at least a certain amount of her philosophy even if you disagree with everything else she put forward.