In reply to this comment from hynkle:
I was also quite taken by The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged when I first read them. They quite literally changed my life. My worldview underwent a significant change. But as I’ve been living since then, I’ve come to realize that it seems that her philosophy misses something crucial. The individual is as sacred a thing as we can have in this natural world. If we take the individual as something of such great importance, how much more important then must the collective be?
Part of the difference, I am thinking, may be that I look at the collective as a group of precious individuals, while most simply look at the collective as a lumpy mishmash of humankind.
What do you think of my view of collectivism? Is this what it is that Rand so disliked, or am I talking about something different?
Since the question is interesting, but offtopic for that thread, I’ll reply to it here:
Her philosophy is indeed missing some important things; for instance, nature is something wonderful, and she (and her characters) had no use for it, except as resources. But, about collectivism, I think she was completely right.
And why is that? Because, unless you’re talking about the Borg, there’s no such thing as “the collective”.
“The collective”, or “the group”, is just a term which a number of less ethical individuals use when they want you to sacrifice yourself for them. There’s no such thing as “society as a whole” (whose needs, of course, are more important than individual ones); the best contribution you can give to society is to be a great, heroic, creative being - but you should be doing it for yourself, not for society. The fact that others also gain by it is just a bonus.
But if you sacrifice your own needs, hopes, dreams and happiness because of the needs of “the group”, nobody is really gaining. You’re just destroying yourself, and they will need to move on after their latest victim (you) is drained.
You may say: “but if, say, 10 individuals agree in something, shouldn’t their opinion ‘count’ 10 times as much as mine?”. No. It doesn’t work that way. They’re still individuals, and each one doesn’t “count” more than you do. And if they are so low as to use their number to convince you that their needs are more important than yours, then they should “count” even less.
I have no problem with a group whose goal is to produce, to create. But a group whose purpose is to demand from individuals only deserves contempt.
This is my opinion. If I misunderstood your meaning, please let me know. 
(I know you didn’t even mention “sacrifice”, but, again, without sacrifice of the individual, “the collective” is meaningless. There’s no such thing, and nobody ever talks about “the greater needs of the group / society / humanity” without talking about individual sacrifice.)
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
I think we are fundamentally in agreement (though I tend to define some terms slightly differently). I too think that the people around me have no right to make demands of me (indeed, such demands are much more likely to make me ornery than to make me actually do anything for them).
Further examining in which ways I care about society, I’ve discovered that there aren’t so many.
My primary thing at the moment is environmental issues. I don’t feel that I have the right to leave the world in worse condition than I found it. I think that every individual has a right to a world capable of supporting that individual, and I certainly don’t want to do anything to lessen the world’s already weakened support.
My other thing is that I feel that people should be given the same opportunities as I have, namely education. Actually, I think that this desire is somewhat selfish of me. It’s not really that I feel sorry for them. It’s more that I’m tired of being surrounded by complete and total idiots that somehow seem less than human, and that I would really enjoy having more intelligent people (which in turn means more competition, and I know that I personally do better when the competition is right behind me rather than slowly limping around behind me).
What’s really interesting is that what I hope to do with my life is something that I think will be of incomparable benefit to the world and all its people—and I’m doing it almost entirely for me. (I’ll be working with artificial intelligence, something which, as a singularitarian and a transhumanist, I deem of supreme importance). As you said, the fact that the world will benefit by this is merely a bonus. I’m doing it for the simple gratification—I simply love cognition.
As to your comment about majority opinion, I am in -complete- agreement. I -do- want to be able to legally marry my boyfriend someday (I’m a guy), and I naturally think that all those people saying it wouldn’t be marriage, that I’ll burn in hell, that I must have AIDS, et cetera are completely and totally flat-out wrong. In fact, I tend to be outspoken at least ten to one on almost every issue—but am still vehement about my rectitude.
I think what’s particularly interesting is that when the collective tries to get you to sacrifice yourself for them, they’re really being counterproductive. Though they may not recognize it, they will benefit much more from your continued individuality than they will from molding you to their will. The collective tends not to know what’s good for it (for example, they’ll hate the fact that a machine is smarter than they are—even though it’s for the better).
Thanks for the prompt reply! I’ve enjoyed reading here the past month or so.
Ok, many of the things you say I agree with. But what about the situation where an individual chooses to sacrifice themselves for a larger group. No force is being applied, but they recognize that for the group (society, collective, pick your own word) they must give up something of themselves to help others.
I am all for taking care of oneself, but I believe there are times when we sometimes choose to do for others when it would be better to choose only for ourselves. The problem, and I’m sure you will argue this, is that how do we know (a) that it is really unforced and chosen by the individual, and (b) that it really will lead to a positive effect for the group that “outweighs” the negative the individual must endure.
I think that dismissing the “whole” as you do can be easily construed as every man (or woman) for him or herself. I hope that is not the road you are traveling on.
Just my two cents…
Damn democracy.
If only people wernt so stupid.
It also helps to know of the philosophical/doctrinal history of Marxism/Leninism, which the fundamental purpose of all of Rand’s writings was to rail against. ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need’, and all the collectivist ideas that Rand attempts to demolish are straight out of Soviet Communist doctrine. The Communists used these ideas to enslave and oppress their populace, and Rand was a Russian immigrant who witnessed this, came to America, and spent her life fighting it. The idea that an individual should ever sacrifice for the collective is dangerous because it conveniently leaves out who defines the collective? It’s certainly not the collective. I’ll leave it to you to figure out who it might be, and what ulterior motives they may have.
A group that makes demands on individuals - that’s a description of all society and government throughout the ages. Only anarchism provides an alternative to the tyrrany of the mass over the people. Interesting paradox - the second most primal dichotomy facing humanity, after the war between women and men.
Jim,
I think the point you are trying to understand is when is it acceptable according to Rand to “sacrifice” for the greater good. The thing you must realize is that as long as your goals and your society’s goals are similar, then you are not truly sacrificing yourself. I believe in freedom of speech, religion and such as do most Americans. If there was a black-and-white war scenario in which a totalitarian enemy was looking to take over America and get rid of these freedoms, then I would quickly volunteer for the armed forces. At this point you need to separate motivation from result. I am motivated by purely selfish reasons as the fact that I wish to live in a free country and am willing to trade my life for this right. The result may be for the common good, but once again the motivation for my actions are selfish. The word sacrifice is a bad word in Rand’s literature but you probably have a different definition of it. According to Rand, you aren’t sacrificing anything as long as you get something in return. If you give a beggar a dollar for no reason, that is sacrificing. If instead you do it with the belief that he will then try to do something with his life which will in the long run help society and therefore you as an individual… then you are not sacrificing.
I read Atlas over the summer and am just starting to try to grasp all the philosophical questions that it entails (it’s kind of mind blowing). Hope that post made some sort of sense. Pedro- I love the site and read through a few of the topics everyday. I was wondering if you were going to talk about AI and consciousness at all.
Another thing that I’m interested in, but have no class experience in, is figuring out the economics of long term individualistic choices. My friend is an objectivist and believes the return for something he does must be immediate. I feel that a longer term approach might work as well though. If I give a bum a dollar…it might never be returned but there’s a chance that he might make something of himself and one day as a member of the productive human community develop something that I need. What’s your opinion on how immediate a return of one’s actions should be that it is still selfish?
It’s a falsehood that whatever an individual does for their own benefit will also benefit society. What about stealing? It benefits the thief.
If you really, really felt like it, and you knew you wouldn’t get caught, and it would be to your financial gain and your social gain and your political gain, would you murder me?
Your answer to this question will tell you whether you really believe that you should do whatever will be to your individual gain.
If you wouldn’t murder me, even though it would be such a good thing for you, why not? Wouldn’t you be sacrificing your own good (all the gain from killing me) for my good (staying alive)?
Matt,
The individual benefits must fit into a moral code… none of that stuff would be allowed under the moral code.
Pedro,
You have my congratulations for a nicely written and well maintained blog. Unlike many ‘philosophical’ blogs out there, yours is well written and I see you are quite eager to take advantage of the blogosphere by bouncing topics back and forth. Though your topics are too religious in nature for my liking (as a mathematician, I’m more of a scientific philosopher and I don’t enjoy discussing such topics as Christianity), you’ve got a good thing going here.
Your template and site design is butt ugly, but functional and it’s clear that you’re words are more powerful than the few visual splendours your site offers.
Phil
Matt:
It only seems it does, if the potential thief is very short-sighted. Because it’s actually better, in one’s self-interest, to live as a rational being, instead as a “I take what I want” brute. By stealing, killing, and so on, you are admitting that you don’t have what it takes to thrive honestly in the world. That will surely do wonders for one’s self-esteem…
Hey, I could already have murdered many people. I have the means - everyone has. Why don’t I do so?
Because of what I wrote above. And, simply, because it’s wrong - rational beings don’t murder others (unless in self-defence, but then it’s not “murder” anymore) - I have a sense of ethics, of morality.
I want to live as a rational human being, not as some predator. So I don’t turn into the latter.
Good. I’m glad to hear that you follow a code of conduct which forbids certain acts. But do you have a good reason behind your morality? Your morality forbids murder - Somebody else’s morality (which they think is very rational) doesn’t. Can you prove that your morality is the right one? (It seems to me that many arguments made against religion can also be made against your morality.) You should consider putting your decision not to murder for personal gain through the same tests that you put religion through.
Matt: I know what you’re trying to say: that without God, religion, or any other kind of “absolute” standard for morality, there’s no objective morality whatsoever, and we’d all be murdering our neighbors in their sleep to get their goods.
“Rational”, however, doesn’t mean “what I call rational”, just like “white” doesn’t mean “what I call white”. They’re accepted terms, with standard definitions. It isn’t rational to murder people, even though some madman may think it is - much like someone may call the color of oranges “white”, but they don’t become white, nor does the word “white” get redefined.
When you say “your morality forbids murder”, it sounds (maybe you didn’t mean it, though) as if I am tempted to do so, that I actually believe it would be to my advantage, and so on… and only “my morality” stops me from doing it. I guess religion / God / the threat of Hell works that way for many theists… but, believe me, it is not the case here at all. Killing others is wrong, not because of some threat of punishment, not because of some abstract “morality” that tells me it’s wrong… it’s wrong because that’s not the way I want to live, that’s not a world I want to live in. I am not a predator, or a brute who lives by physical force. I am a rational human being.
It’s not a case of “I would kill my neighbor and steal all his goods, if only my code of morality didn’t forbid it.” Much the opposite. I don’t feel “tempted” at all - among other reasons, because I like to look in a mirror from time to time.
The idea that morality can come from personal integrity and rational principles, instead of from some command (divine or legal) is, sadly, completely alien to many people…
Pedro get back to work and write some more interesting things to talk about. I agree with phil for the fact that religion is my least favourite topic because its just like a spiral round and round and round it goes when does it stop WHEN YOUR DEAD.
Jennsen: I’ll take your request as a compliment.
Interestingly enough, this post isn’t about religion at all… though I’m writing a new one about it soon.
I too was impressed by Ayan Rand when I first read her. She is a powerful writer. However on consideration I disagrre with her philosophy completely. It is just utter ruthless selfishness couched in glorified language. One simply has to do things for others if one wants others to do things for oneself. Life is about helping one another whenever one can and not just about being on one’s own trip
[quote comment="2787"]I too was impressed by Ayan Rand when I first read her. She is a powerful writer. However on consideration I disagrre with her philosophy completely. It is just utter ruthless selfishness couched in glorified language. One simply has to do things for others if one wants others to do things for oneself. Life is about helping one another whenever one can and not just about being on one’s own trip[/quote]
Amal: sorry to hear that. I disagree with you - even though I help others whenever I can, I simply don’t think it’s “our moral duty”. Being against “selfishness”, in the real sense of the word, is being against the self.
You say life is about helping others… well, to me, it’s about being alive, and free. Altruism - the forced version of it, even if forced just through guilt - is anti-life.