Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Questions on Objectivism

Rate this topic


Guest Jerry

Recommended Posts

I have been studying objectivism now for about a year and I have a few questions that need to be cleared up.

Rand stated that the war in Vietnam was because of altruism.

Could it not be argued that it was for capitalistic expansion?

I read where she said this in A Voice of Reason. But she never gave any clear explanations as to why it was in fact because of altruism.

I have come across the supposed is/ought fallacy by some anti-objectivist when discussing morality. My response to this usually is that science uses is/ought all the time when studying reality. I point out that black holes where discovered by this very process. Are there any better arguments against humes so called fallacy?

Also can any of you guys recommend any good Objectivist audio lectures to buy?

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capitalistic expansion through war (as opposed to persuasion) is an initiation of force.

War (as opposed to persuasion) for capitalistic expansion requires self-sacrifice to free the other country.

Proving the existence of something re physics (application of math on the universe) vs philosophy/morality may require different methods at times. Philosophy uses the rule of derivation. Physics derives an equation with a prediction (ought) of a phenomenon which requires verification as the final step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also can any of you guys recommend any good Objectivist audio lectures to buy?

There is a FREE one hour video and a 5 hour lecture on the ARI website. That would be a good start. The tape series I recommend you buy is OTI, Objectivism Through Induction. I've only listened to the first three tapes, but it's been very good so far. However I suggest reading OPAR and ITOE first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could it not be argued that it was for capitalistic expansion?

The whole notion of "capitalistic expansion" is a contradiction. Businessmen certainly want to reach new markets, but they want to do it through voluntary and mutually beneficial trade, not by military occupation. Colonialism (what is usually meant by "capitalistic expansion") has always found its supporters in bureaucrats who were interested in expanding the State rather than further the cause of free trade. Even the leftists who criticize blame colonialism on capitalism admit that it is far more profitable to engage in voluntary trade than military occupation.

How this term could possibly apply to Vietnam, I have no idea. Sounds like something only a twisted leftist mind could dream up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jerry,

Skipping the Vietnam issue, because I haven't read Rand's article in a while.

Regarding the is/ought issue: you'll have to read up on Objectivist meta-ethics in order to counter that one. From your black hole analogy, it sounds like you're confused on this issue. I assume you mean that physics predicted black holes -- said that they *ought* to exist -- and then discovered that they do. That's a different issue, though. What they mean by ought there isn't the same as the meaning in ethics. They don't mean that there would be something morally wrong with black holes if they don't exist.

The answer to the is-ought dichotomy, basically, is that the Objectivist ethics are goal-directed: they aim at the preservation and enhancement of human life. They proceed from what IS true about human nature -- it's identity and requirements -- to what one OUGHT to do. The Humean will ask, why one's life a good end? The answer, in essence, is that if you're alive, you've already accepted it as a proper end. But to fill the argument out satisfactorily (and you won't fully understand the Objectivist ethics until you manage this), you'll have to understand at least what it means to think of life as a process rather than a state, why life is the only proper ultimate end, and why the choice to live holds a different status than other choices. Tara Smith's book "Viable Values" is great on this, but it's intended for an academic audience. I don't know how well-versed you are in academic jargon... it's not nearly as bad as most academic publications, but it'll probably be a bit tough to pick through without some background. Worth looking into, though.

As for lectures, that depends entirely on your interests and purposes. How new are you to Objectivism? I'd read all the books you can get your hands on first. If nothing else, they're more cost-effective. But more than that, the tapes tend to be less precise for obvious reasons, and many of them presuppose a *lot* of background.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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