Alright, quick story.
So before class one day, a guy sits next to me and pulls out his laptop. There, on the top of the laptop is a sticker that says, "Who is John Galt?" I decided to ask him about objectivism and his opinion on it. He preceded to tell me about why he's an objectivist.
I told him that I had a problem with objectivism as an ideology because I find it to be impossible to achieve. To me, it's something very, very similar to Communism. Because of people's imperfections in their personalities and their treatment of other people, the ideology cannot be possibly implemented because it would lead to incredible societal problems.
I do appreciate where objectivism attempts to go moreso than Communism (which I find to be more flawed as an ideology), but to me the problem with Rand is that the ideology cannot be valid because it's impossible for it to exist and be a perfect utopia at the same time.
He informed me that it's true it cannot exist on a macro level, but that he attributes objectivism to his own personal life. As if it was some sort of tai-chi spiritual idea. That he attempts to make decisions in his life based on profit motive. He gave me an example. He said, "I have two options: 1. I can donate to charity or 2. I can use my money to buy something to eat. The problem is that I'm not very hungry at the moment. So, I attempt to figure out what's best for me. Donating to charity benefits me because I feel better about myself. I like to help people. But, eating food is something I absolutely have to do in order to survive. The problem is I'm not hungry, but I can be hungry later. Regardless of the decision, I choose to do whichever gives me the best profit. Buy food for future use or donate money and feel good for what I've done."
I told him I have a problem with that ideology. Not necessarily because of the idea itself, but because it sounds like a complete rip off of utilitarianism. I actually hold personal utilitarianism in high regard so hearing it come out of his mouth sounded quite odd to me. If you don't know what utilitarianism is it's the philosophy that the moral worth of an action is determined by its utility in creating pleasure or happiness. Personal utilitarianism is just the idea that you do something for the fact that it makes you happy or you gain pleasure of it. If you were a personal utilitarian, you would make decisions based on how happy it would make you feel.
So, here's the problem: What do you think of objectivism? I want real, thought out answers not stuff with no rational thought behind it.
So before class one day, a guy sits next to me and pulls out his laptop. There, on the top of the laptop is a sticker that says, "Who is John Galt?" I decided to ask him about objectivism and his opinion on it. He preceded to tell me about why he's an objectivist.
I told him that I had a problem with objectivism as an ideology because I find it to be impossible to achieve. To me, it's something very, very similar to Communism. Because of people's imperfections in their personalities and their treatment of other people, the ideology cannot be possibly implemented because it would lead to incredible societal problems.
I do appreciate where objectivism attempts to go moreso than Communism (which I find to be more flawed as an ideology), but to me the problem with Rand is that the ideology cannot be valid because it's impossible for it to exist and be a perfect utopia at the same time.
He informed me that it's true it cannot exist on a macro level, but that he attributes objectivism to his own personal life. As if it was some sort of tai-chi spiritual idea. That he attempts to make decisions in his life based on profit motive. He gave me an example. He said, "I have two options: 1. I can donate to charity or 2. I can use my money to buy something to eat. The problem is that I'm not very hungry at the moment. So, I attempt to figure out what's best for me. Donating to charity benefits me because I feel better about myself. I like to help people. But, eating food is something I absolutely have to do in order to survive. The problem is I'm not hungry, but I can be hungry later. Regardless of the decision, I choose to do whichever gives me the best profit. Buy food for future use or donate money and feel good for what I've done."
I told him I have a problem with that ideology. Not necessarily because of the idea itself, but because it sounds like a complete rip off of utilitarianism. I actually hold personal utilitarianism in high regard so hearing it come out of his mouth sounded quite odd to me. If you don't know what utilitarianism is it's the philosophy that the moral worth of an action is determined by its utility in creating pleasure or happiness. Personal utilitarianism is just the idea that you do something for the fact that it makes you happy or you gain pleasure of it. If you were a personal utilitarian, you would make decisions based on how happy it would make you feel.
So, here's the problem: What do you think of objectivism? I want real, thought out answers not stuff with no rational thought behind it.
