Student Testimonials: Objectivist Academic Center

The Objectivist Academic Center is the premier distance-learning program offering courses, seminars and career training to future Objectivist intellectuals. The deadline to apply for our 2012-2013 session is July 29, 2012.

[Amaroq]

Invalid definition of sacrifice. Sacrifice is "Giving up something of value in exchange for lesser value or no value". That's how Rand herself defined it.

There are many facets to well-being. There's physical health, spiritual happiness, etc. Someone willing to trade their well-being for someone else's isn't necessarily altruism. It means that the person they're helping is so important to them that they have something to gain when they trade their well-being for that person's well-being.

[Amaroq]

Ayn Rand stated once that due to the potential of humans to be rational, every stranger you meet can be a potential value to you unless they prove otherwise.

You can self-interestedly value human life. If it isn't too much of a risk to your life, you can selfishly rescue a stranger from an emergency situation. You just have to weigh how much you value the life of a stranger vs the risk to your own life. If there is little risk to you, like she's drowning in a swimming pool, why not save her?

[box]

Sacrifice: 2. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.

The egoist's happiness (philosophical definition) is their most prized possession. To trade your well being for the benefit of another's is textbook altruism. To exist only for your own happiness is not an effective method for large groups. There is a reason why wolf packs are small, and ant colonies large.

All things must be in balance.

[Amaroq]

Ayn Rand wasn't a psychological egoist. She was a rational egoist.

[box]

"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." (“The Question of Scholarships, ”
The Objectivist, June 1966, 6)

Ergo, if you don't love her, and she's no longer a value to society, let her drown. Your turn...

[garettspencley]

The only small issue I take with your comment is "fits them best." All ideas are produced by human beings and humans have the capacity to err. The free exchange of ideas is how we discover truth. An active mind is thirsty for knowledge and for challenge, and therefore seeks as much as possible. A rational mind does so in the pursuit of discovering the truth, as opposed to putting on ideas as interchangeable clothing in order to find the fashion in which they *feel* most comfortable.

[box]

Actually, I incorrectly referenced my source. That quote is from "The Ethics of Emergencies".

Rand argues ad nauseum that altruism is inappropriate because it is considered more virtuous to spare an enemy than to save your own child. I challenge you to provide one instance in which someone made this statement in seriousness.

Psychological egoism is unacceptable as a model for a society, and so is psychological altruism. Even the ethical variants are tough to justify.

[tiddleywink]

Hah... for the record, I'm the first girl in the video (the one wearing the Lindy Focus shirt); hats off to you for designing it, Nick3d1 - it's my favorite shirt from a swing event ever!! :)

[Amaroq]

Actually, let's put it this way. If she's drowning in a raging rapids and there's a waterfall about twenty seconds away from where she's at, would you jump in, knowing that you'll probably just go over the edge with her because the current is too strong to fight your way back out?

If a man was standing on the side watching, and he didn't jump in because he didn't want to die, would you condemn him? Would you require him to go kill himself in that river in order to be a good person?

[Nickd]

The first girl is wearing the shirt I designed for Lindy Focus :)

[Jimothy]

Read virtue of selfishness ethic of emergencies .

[bakkendorff]

This makes a bit sad.... It isn't a sacrifice to help your children or keep their well-being. Why do you call it sacrifice to help those you love?

[groam]

I still treat them well as people, worthy of respect and dignity, so long as they view me the same. Although I may completely disagree with them lol. Most of the time though, it's always the religious who break off relations with non-believers... so to each his own I say.

[groam]

Nothing wrong with objectivism, but I'd rather instead of people hearing about it and saying, "wow this is totally for me, " I'd have them read all philosophy and go with what fits them best. In a way, if you have to take a course on something and it changes your way of thinking, then I really hope you've taken other courses and not just simply devoted yourself to the first.

Still, lots of respect to those who've studied objectivism and other philosophies, but decided to stick with objectivism.

[Amaroq]

I could. But I was expecting you to make some sort of logical argument backing up YOUR statement. Some Ayn Rand quote at all that proves that Ayn Rand would tell you to let an old lady drown and take her money instead.

[groam]

Well sure, I mean no philosophical viewpoint could ever address all questions about morality, etc. I'm just saying, that I'd hope everyone becomes a moral relativist, taking philosophies from everywhere. When I did that, I decided I was a secular libertarian. If others feel differently, no problem, and respect for them taking the time to see all views before making a choice.

That's all I really meant.

[Amaroq]

That's the underlying flaw in your understanding of Ayn Rand. You think we're incapable of caring for others.

Do you honestly think our philosophy is so shallow and shortsighted that we would sacrifice a human life for a one hundred dollar bill? If that's what you believe individualism is, then I'd rather you keep sacrificing your well being like you believe you should.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will go on caring for others for the happiness we derive from our relationships with them.

[box]

"Psychological egoism, the most famous descriptive position, claims that each person has but one ultimate aim: her own welfare." (S.E.P. 2002)

Swing and a miss.

[box]

You are creating new points in the debate; adding complexity does not answer the orignal question. You've also completely missed what I'm trying to convey. People are more than numbers, and more than just a source of personal happiness. Objectivists constantly look out only for their interests (even you have stated that their happiness exists only for your gain). I'd hate to be your child, cast coldly and unloved into the world by objectivist parents.

[box]

part 2:
Society as we know it would cease to function is only self interest was involved. Rand denied the value of empathy. But, it is this empathy that nature has evolved in the majority of social creatures that is the lynch pin of societal interactions. We wish for other's happiness because it improves their world, not ours. Objective analysis has a place in society, but to place it atop all other reasoning is wasteful and hateful.

"Treat people as an end, never merely as a means to an end, "