Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Regarding Fountainhead and its theories

Rate this topic


yangw66

Recommended Posts

After reading The Fountainhead and looking over Ayn Rand theories, I have quite a few arguments to make. So hopefully someone or someones can help enlighten me. I'll start small.

Isn't Howard Roark the ultimate ignorant person? And so is Toohey. That's why both of them are happy in the end, in my view. The only thing I can agree with Rand is that ignorance is bliss, and that the constant changing of values denotes anguish. As far as I can tell, Howard Roark is nothing but a "second-hander" as well, although less in the extent of others.

The phrase "Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit" by Ayn Rand is evidently derived from altruism. The perfectly independent being does what he wishes, with no "must" in any part of his value.

Edited by yangw66
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't Howard Roark the ultimate ignorant person? And so is Toohey. That's why both of them are happy in the end, in my view. The only thing I can agree with Rand is that ignorance is bliss, and that the constant changing of values denotes anguish. As far as I can tell, Howard Roark is nothing but a "second-hander" as well, although less in the extent of others.

You'll need to elaborate this claim for it to be meaningful in any way. Giving an example of Roark or Toohey being ignorant would give us some context. Right now, you've just got a claim as a blanket accusation, without providing reasons or examples.

The phrase "Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit" by Ayn Rand is evidently derived from altruism. The perfectly independent being does what he wishes, with no "must" in any part of his value.

You're putting emphasis on the term "must" where the emphasis is clearly on the word "traders."

That quoted statement means this: "If men are to deal with one another, then they must deal only as traders...." That is, no one must be sacrificed to another for any reason whatsoever.

A man can choose to live a moral life without dealing with others at all, living in isolation and harvesting his own food. There is no "must deal with others." You would be correct that if one were forced to trade, then that would indeed be immoral.

Edited by Chops
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The perfectly independent being does what he wishes, with no "must" in any part of his value.

italic mine. You obviously have some idea of what independent means that is not what Rand meant. You'd help us all if you would elaborate on this statement.

The perfectly "independent" man who chooses not to go out and find something to eat will end up very dead. The perfectly "independent" man who chooses to deal with out men by force will end up very dead as well (at least if he tries to take my lunch). Your sort of independence does not seen very advantageous. A man cannot do anything he desires and contradict reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously have some idea of what independent means that is not what Rand meant. You'd help us all if you would elaborate on this statement.

My idea of the most independent being does whatever that is in his best interest (whatever that is needed to survive), without regard to any so called moral values.

Humans are "better" than all other organisms on Earth because we have developed morals such as no killing, no stealing, and "free trade". These morals guarantee the better survival of the whole species, and the cost to the individual is neglected. This is exactly why we are trying to come up with environmental laws, because global warming can threaten our survival as a species. The notion of "free trade" stems from the idea of both parties gaining the same benefits.

However, the word "benefits" in that sentence is completely subjective. Look at this hypothetical situation- A man buys a gallon of fuel a million years ago, it costs 1 cent. A hundred years ago, it costs 1 dollar. Now, 10 dollars. A thousand years in the future, 1000 dollars. This system of free trade will always be set up to protect the survival of the majority, to benefit the majority, and neglect freedom of the individual. In my view, the perfectly independent man would refuse to pay anything and take the gallon of fuel for free, neglecting the society but satisfying oneself.

That quoted statement means this: "If men are to deal with one another, then they must deal only as traders...." That is, no one must be sacrificed to another for any reason whatsoever.

A bullfrog eats it own kind for immediate benefit, and does know the detrimental effects on its society. The bowerbird steals from its neighbors for immediate benefit, and does not realize this entails its neighbors stealing from it. Does any of these two species demonstrate "second-hand" behavior? No, they have no human morals, and cannot be condemned for their actions. However, they are doing what is in their best interest. Most humans, on the other hand, have human morals. We developed these because they give us the best chance of survival for each individual. But still, whenever the situation presents itself we will forgo these morals for self-interest. A man picking up money of the ground will likely keep it, despite going against his morals. It is these constant shifts that cause humans unhappiness. Roark on the other hand, does not suffer from these shifts; Roark will always buy gas for 10 dollars, not for 1 penny more or 1 penny less. Ayn Rand's concept of "first-hand second-hand" is an attack on her own rational human interest. Humans are always first-hand, all living things are always first-hand. This is because all of our actions always reflect what we think is in our best interest. The concept of second-hand overlaps the former- when men develop morals, they become second-hand; when men refuse to kill or steal, they become second-hand; when men become collectivists, they become second-hand. The important point here is that species become more second-hand only when their interests depend on it. When the greenhouse effect is proven to provide global warming, we will become even more second-hand as we develop a new moral- using carbon based fuel is a crime. In conclusion, living things have gradually become more second-handed as the millions of years passed, yet at the same time, we have always been first-handed. There is no dilemma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my view, the perfectly independent man would refuse to pay anything and take the gallon of fuel for free, neglecting the society but satisfying oneself.

How is that independence? Someone had to produce that fuel for you to take. You are now at the mercy of those who produce so you can loot. This is not dependence, but the exact definition of a parasite.

But still, whenever the situation presents itself we will forgo these morals for self-interest.

That's the essence of the failure of current morality: That one must forgo morality to seek self-interest.

There is no dichotomy between morality and self-interest. Proper morality promotes long-term self-interest. Stealing is immoral (because it is a rights violation), and may be in one's short-term self-interest, but it is not in one's long-term self-interest.

At this point, I'm going to pre-empt your argument of "what if it doesn't get caught his whole life" by referring to to search the forums for "prudent predator."

Roark on the other hand, does not suffer from these shifts; Roark will always buy gas for 10 dollars, not for 1 penny more or 1 penny less.

Roark will pay what it is worth to him, or he won't buy. If the most he's willing to spend is 10 dollars, then he won't buy if it costs more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My position is that no man, no organism, is truly independent- we all have to take from our environment, we are all bound by our pursuits of happiness.

You are now at the mercy of those who produce so you can loot. This is not dependence, but the exact definition of a parasite.

Roark, then, also fits into your description of a parasite. He needs to kill trees to build, kills animals for meat. Unless you say of course, that parasite only extends to those who deal with men, and stop at the brink of humanity. We cannot treat fellow men as we treat fellow animals.

If this is your reasoning- that only among men can we not loot and steal, and from every other living thing we can- then this is simply a moral that men collectively have developed to ensure their happiness. At this point, we have to agree that morals is simply a component of practicality, and that morals are followed only so long that an individual benefits from following it.

That's the essence of the failure of current morality: That one must forgo morality to seek self-interest.

There is no dichotomy between morality and self-interest. Proper morality promotes long-term self-interest. Stealing is immoral (because it is a rights violation), and may be in one's short-term self-interest, but it is not in one's long-term self-interest.

Long term happiness and short term happiness are usually used to contradict each other, whereas actually one must look at it like this- Long term happiness + short term happiness + everything else= Total practicality in the pursuit of happiness. A robber robs because he thinks that it is in his best self-interest, whether we agree with it or not.

There is no "proper morality", there is no universal morality for humans. It was moral to invent sailing to benefit humankind. But was it moral for the third of Europeans who died of the bubonic plague? Instead of sailing, those third of Europeans would have chosen to improve their caravans, becoming "second-handers" as Rand would call them.

What we need to realize is that, since we are bound by our pursuits of happiness, every single action we take is a step towards that. There is no action that comes from a living organism that can be condemned, not a single one. Human morality is seen as important only because we want it to be; it give humans a greater chance of being happy. But when morality is impractical for our happiness, such as dropped money on the ground, we will always act against it. Current thought is that there is an absolute morality we must adhere to, but does not realize that all of our actions are moral, and that we act on our values of the moment only.

Again, men's anguish comes when his value is proven wrong, when it is proven to be not the best for happiness. At this point he must change his value. A man picking up money on the ground knows that he should not do so, because he may lose money someday as well. However, what if it was a million dollars, a billion dollars, is it still immoral? There is only one way to avoid the anguish men face everyday, to be set on ones' value. This way a man never needs to change, if Roark realized that his modern buildings have a serious flaw, that it is easy to collide in face of earthquakes, he will still keep on building them for those who want them.

Roark will pay what it is worth to him, or he won't buy. If the most he's willing to spend is 10 dollars, then he won't buy if it costs more.

This applies to everyone, a robber robs because it is worth it to him. Peter Keating is the way he is because it is worth it to him. A living being is only the way it is because it believes that being what it is gains him to the best chance of happiness. We are all first-handers in terms of pursuing happiness- we all do what we want to be happy. We are all second-handers in terms of pursuing happiness- we have conformed, when conformation is necessary; we have separated, when separation is necessary.

Edited by yangw66
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roark, then, also fits into your description of a parasite. He needs to kill trees to build, kills animals for meat. Unless you say of course, that parasite only extends to those who deal with men, and stop at the brink of humanity. We cannot treat fellow men as we treat fellow animals.

Yes, we rely on harvesting and utilizing our environment for our own productivity. We also rely on gravity. Is it parasitic to rely on gravity?

If this is your reasoning- that only among men can we not loot and steal, and from every other living thing we can

Animals have no rational faculty. They are incapable of understanding and respecting rights, property, etc. Animals act in regards to a single thing: their instinct. Humans, on the other hand, have a rational faculty. We are capable of understanding and more importantly, conceptualizing them into abstract concepts. Animals have no such capability. An animal will eat you if he needs, or attack you for no reason without regard for law or morality. This is the primary reason that man have rights and animals don't. Thus, it is not "looting" when we chop down a tree, or take a stick off a beaver's dam.

Long term happiness and short term happiness are usually used to contradict each other, whereas actually one must look at it like this- Long term happiness + short term happiness + everything else= Total practicality in the pursuit of happiness.

They are not necessarily opposed, but they CAN be in opposition to each other. The short term obviously comes into consideration, but the long term is what's important. The achievement of goals comes from a struggle. It's not an achievement to walk to the bathroom. It IS an achievement to scale Mt Everest.

There is no "proper morality", there is no universal morality for humans.

There is a proper morality, and to prevent turning this into a thesis I suggest reading "Objectivist Ethics", the first essay in "The Virtual of Selfishness." This will do a much more concise job of describing the nature of morality, and why we need one.

What we need to realize is that, since we are bound by our pursuits of happiness, every single action we take is a step towards that. There is no action that comes from a living organism that can be condemned, not a single one.

The crux of your statement is the premise that every creature, including humans, act for their own happiness. Animals don't seek happiness, they seek pleasure, and they act in the moment, without concern for the long-term.

Humans, on the other hand, CAN consciously act for their own destruction.

But when morality is impractical for our happiness...we will always act against it.

Correct.

if Roark realized that his modern buildings have a serious flaw, that it is easy to collide in face of earthquakes, he will still keep on building them for those who want them.

You honestly believe that if he knew his buildings were unsafe that he would continue building them without regard to safety?

This applies to everyone, a robber robs because it is worth it to him. Peter Keating is the way he is because it is worth it to him.

The difference is that a thief is violating rights...taking from another without compensation and with force. Roark initiates no such force.

At this point, I have to step out. I gave you the courtesy of someone interested in understanding Objectvism, but frankly, I'm not going to spend a lot of time debating with a nihilist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we rely on harvesting and utilizing our environment for our own productivity. We also rely on gravity. Is it parasitic to rely on gravity?

I would say, no. Just like I would say power over humans is not parasitic either.

My argument is- why can't other humans be part of the environment we use for our own productivity? The answer is- we are obligated by our own morality to give something in return. The second-hand/ first-hand/ respecting one's rights etc. are all parts of the same package, we have this morality (of respecting one another) because it gives us chance for a better survival. It's as simple as this.

My final point-

The difference is that a thief is violating rights...taking from another without compensation and with force. Roark initiates no such force.

You agreed with my assertion that when morality is unnecessary, we will act against it. Then why not when rights are unnecessary, we will act against them too? Are you saying that rights are fundamental and unchanging? That they are not derived from our morality?

I had no illusions that one person or another will win a debate like this, it's impossible to change one's philosophy this simply. But I do come out with the satisfaction that someone has wrongly accused me of being a nihilist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My argument is- why can't other humans be part of the environment we use for our own productivity?

That is an interesting question, but you've answered it (innaccurately) without acknowledging the full context of the situation.

Your answer forgets that unlike a tree or an animal, a person has the volitional capability to stop producing for you, when you come to loot (or any random looter). This is actually the primary plot of Rand's other opus "Atlas Shrugged".

You say

we are obligated by our own morality to give something in return.

And this not exactly right. We give something in return because we recognize that NOT doing so, eventually the producer will 1) fight back, or 2) not produce anymore, both of which effectively shut you off from the looting. Proper morality is in place, not as a convenient convention, but as an extension of the nature of man. That is not to say that man is incapable of violating his nature. Just as an animal who chooses to try to live as a plant will die, so will a man who tries to live as an animal will die. Self-preservation means acting in that man's nature.

You agreed with my assertion that when morality is unnecessary, we will act against it. Then why not when rights are unnecessary, we will act against them too? Are you saying that rights are fundamental and unchanging? That they are not derived from our morality?

I'm gonna give you the Objectivist definition of rights, according to Ayn Rand, from the Virtue of Selfishness (also available in the Ayn Rand Lexicon freely on the web), since she pretty much always says it better

A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all others are consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action: the right to life means the right to engage in self-generated action - which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational beingg for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and enjoyment of his own life (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

The concept of a "right" pertains only to action - specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

This for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive - of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights - and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

I'm sorry for not putting it into my own words, but I find my words inferior to hers.

But I do come out with the satisfaction that someone has wrongly accused me of being a nihilist.

I apologize if I misidentified you. My conclusion was based on your claim that every action by any creature or human is moral. In that case, morality is useless, and therefore nonexistent; thus, moral nihilism.

Edit: Typo

Edited by Chops
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...