Usually even the mere mention of Objectivism leads to scorn and a crazy hatred that is something so negative a believer in Woo Woo fluff would say would bring ruin. Most people whom hear the term think of some sort of secular Cult built around unquestionable ideas of one woman; that woman being Ayn Rand. They think to be an Objectivist; thus agreeing with her on philosophy and its proceeding politics means that you worship the ground she walked on. That you are a dogmatic and unthinking kool-aid drinker. That you are in fact a Randroid.
However, to say that is to not understand Objectivism VS Ayn Rand worship. It is to misunderstand the difference between agreeing with a philosophical world view and agreeing with the personal opinions of the philosopher. It is to misunderstand the difference between agreeing with the overall world view presented and to agree unquestioning that the outcome of that philosophy is X, Y or Z. One of the biggest misunderstandings about Objectivism is that it promotes a dog-eat-dog world of chaos.
At the core of Objectivism is indeed the virtue of selfishness in fact it is all about following your own personal and rational selt-interest. VS living a life based on otherism where others determine your life and journey over your own self. However, there is no reason for rational self-interest for selfishness to lead to chaos. Far from it chaos does not let us achieve our goals to keep and maintain our values in life. One needs some sense of stability to be able to know how to keep and maintain said values. The chaos of people crushing each other to get ahead is antithetical to being able to live a rational life.
Thus one of the biggest hard-ons against Objectivism is on its face dead wrong and not correct. Let us take charity for one. Charity itself is not persay a virtue, but, it can be virtuous to be charitable to causes you really do care about. If you have a cause you are rationally passionate about and it is not self-destructive to give to it that is selfish. Charity in order to be moral must be based on a context in which you are not destructive of your own wellbeing. Some people find it amazing to give to others because of the cause being something they love. In addition one can get great joy and happiness from helping others and being benevolent.
Just because a philosophy has selfishness at its core does not mean it preaches "me, me, me." Another example is people providing protection and provision to others. If someone has a loved one in their life; be that a lover, friends, family or even fellow community members of good character one is unrelated to. If someone is giving to them in the form of protecting them or providing for them it is not selfless unless it is self-destructive. Protection and provision spurned on by how important of a value someone or something is to you in a non-destructive way it is selfish to take up such a role.
The truth is most people would not want pure altruism to take hold in a society. It would lead to said societies complete and utter destruction. Even something such as national security is based on people selfishly protecting that which one cares deeply about. Ones ability to be free and thrive in a safe, stable and of course most importantly liberty based society. So, soldiers volunteering to be in an all volunteer army because they have thought, thought, thought and rationally want to protect the nation and its allies are being as selfish as can be they are not selfless altruists at all.
It is not selfish to let your child starve either. Or to look at the poor as scum beneath your feet. It is very selfish to help a poor person that genuinely wants to be on their own two feet. That genuinely wants to not be poor and to have their own job. Whom generally wants to have a good life and be a productive person in their own life. People that have thought about peoples characters and decided out of benevolence to help the downtrodden and the disabled/disordered are also being selfish provided they are not being self-destructive. Feeding your child is selfish because you are maintaining your genes in the pool of our species. Only a pure altruist would let their child starve.
Now let us return to the criticism of Objectivism as being some sort of Ayn Rand circle-jerk cult. To be deadly honest some people whom call themselves Objectvists can be jerks, can be Randroid like worshipers and can be cult-like dogmatists. However, that is not Objectivism that causes this these people would act like this with philosophy and the philosophers no matter which one they chose. These folks just have that sort of temperament and no matter what they were they would act like this. If they dropped Objectivism for say Christianity they would become the fundamentalists. This is an individual issue that should be taken up with those individuals and any groups which share their unthinking narrative view.
For example; Ayn Rand thought homosexuality was immoral. However, 99% of all people whom are Objectivists disagree with this stance vehemently. Ayn Rand denied evolution had a role to play in human psychology. This too a good deal of Objectivists disagree with. She thought that your sense of life determined whom you wanted to bang. This too most Objectivists would disagree with as well. She was herself anti-porn and this is not true of Objectivists everywhere. She had many personal opinions she came to on any number of matters. However, agreeing with her philosophically does not indicate you agree with any of her opinions she nor any other Objectivist "claims" comes from agreeing with the philosophy.
I am an Objectivist and I will not deny this nor have I ever denied this on this here blog. However, I also disagree not only as vehemently with Ayn Rand as many other Objectivists with thinking brains, but, often times I disagree even more with her than my fellow Objectivists do. Topic after topic that would take up paragraphs I disagree and find evidence based on our current knowledge is black and white against Ayn Rands personal "outcomes" of her philosophy. However, philosophically Ayn Rand was absolutely correct on the proper world view for a free and prosperous life. I agree with her philosophy completely. I not only know it, I understand it concretely and put it to use in my life all the time.
