In ‘Atlas Shrugged’ - the protagonists were men of nobility and integrity. They would never think of taking something that they had not earned.
In light of the nature of Capitalism, where surplus value is necessary, how is this ideal possible?
(especially in the wake of lobbying and corporate cheating)
How do the CEO’s today resemble this?
How does an inheritance not present itself as a necessary hypocrisy? Would not a true objectivist find it honorable to reject an inheritance?
Have you read Atlas Shrugged? (your criticism sounds second handed, because this is addressed quite a lot in Atlas Shrugged: an inheritance can be earned or unearned, and depending on that it is kept and grown, or lost very quickly - there are quite a few examples of both, in the novel).
Sadly, many CEO’s do not resemble this, which is why the average CEO life-span is something like 3 years. And AS deals a lot with inheritance (i.e. THE MAIN CHARACTER).
How do the CEO’s today resemble this?
I’d say that – in terms of their roles as businessmen – the CEOs in Atlas are a pretty good representation of actual real-life CEOs. Since Atlas is a novel, the characters are more clearly delineated than real life. One is shown the CEOs who are extremely occupied with using government influence, and one is shown others who do only the minimal to keep government off their backs. In real life, people who run businesses have a large focus on how to deliver value to their customers as a means to earn profit for themselves. On balance, their approach to their business is more rational than not. Most do not try to change the world. They take most of the politics they find as a given – almost as a metaphysical fact of life – and they try to do what they can to deal with it. In non-business related morality, I would guess that they mostly share views of non-businessmen, not having spent much time delving into morality and philosophy.
I have read Atlas Shrugged - twice.
Yet, in objectivism - what determines value? An inheritance presupposes inestimable value. Who determines what amount is deserved for what work? If an inheritor inherits a business, after working in that business and retains an appriopriate salary - anything above that earned income would be undeserved.
A pure objectivist could not sleep soundly knowing that a billion dollars was overnight - added to their bank account.
If objectivism is about justice for the individual - i.e., liberty; it should follow that it is possible that one could overestimate their value or work thus, creating an injustice.
I cannot see how an inheritance could ever be deserved, justly - as the inheritor - if he/she is a true objectivist - is already earning exactly what they deserve.
In addition, this could translate to charity. It is noble for someone to DESIRE to give to someone who is in need - however, under an objectivist ideal - it is nonetheless DISHONORABLE for anyone to receive it.
It seems to me that in an objectivist socioeconomic system, Social Darwinism would be the inevitable outcome.
ps - software nerd…
Thank you for your thoughtful response - I was wondering, however - if you could give me one example of one CEO or corporation who could be compared to any of the noble characters in AS.
Thank you for your thoughtful response - I was wondering, however - if you could give me one example of one CEO or corporation who could be compared to any of the noble characters in AS.
You can pretty much take the Fortune 400 list (replacing heirs with the original wealthy person) and you will get people who were extremely rational and driven as far as their business goes. There’s much to dislike in many of them, because this is not a book. So, the guy who left the biggest computer company in the world and ended up competing with them and becoming one of the richest, may also have some crazy ideas about reincarnation etc. But, if you look at their approach to business, you’ll see the same attitudes – though less stark as a book character – as display by most of the “strikers” in AS. (You have to think about how these folk would be “pre-Galt”.)
Over and above the various strikers, in AS you have the few – Galt and his two buddies, and Dagny – who have a great moral philosophy as applied to life outside business. This gives one a portrayal of ideal, integrated people. I’ll grant you won’t find too many of those, but this is real life. In real life, people make all sorts of mistakes. So, we need to ask about their essence, without holding every little mistake against them.
… …undeserved.
Okay, as a counter-question, here’s a made-up example that highlights the concept of “deserving” vs. luck.
Suppose there are three spots which look equally-likely for a gold mine. Three Objectivist miners randomly choose this one or that. They each realize that the spot they choose is not a sure shot, but more like a 1-in-3 chance. Imagine that they do not know about each other, or even about the other spots. One hits gold, the other two do not. They all worked equally hard up to that point. In fact, the other two probably worked harder after that, and still came out empty. How would they fell if they fit your idea of true Objectivists?
Who determines what amount is deserved for what work?
The creator of the wealth that’s being inherited.
It seems to me that in an objectivist socioeconomic system, Social Darwinism would be the inevitable outcome.
What’s Social Darwinism?
What’s Social Darwinism?
It’s the idea of Darwinian evolution analogously applied to socioeconomics. The strongest in terms of economics (i.e. the richest people/families) will survive, much like how the strongest members of a species will likely live the longest. Presumably, economic fitness is transferred through inheritance, not necessarily ability, thus enabling the richest people to have the best quality life due to their fortune of being born into a rich family, hardly any different than being born with certain genetic traits, regardless of “deserving” negative traits. It sounds like Hellboy is saying that inheritance is an unfair way to enable people to get money.
The problem I find in Hellboy’s reasoning is that we have to think about how inheritance is decided. Merely because of being born to the right family? Or because the heir earned and demonstrated ability? Atlas Shrugged gets into this point quite a bit! Francisco had to earn the d’Anconia name through hard work and demonstrated ability. He earned his inheritance rightly through taking education and virtue seriously. Jim Taggart on the other hand expected money and reward only because he was a Taggart, which is totally unjust.
I suspect there is no disagreement up to here. But then I will expect Hellboy to ask “It’s well and good that Francisco earned his inheritance. But wouldn’t the Jim Taggart’s of the world be reason enough to ban inheritance, or at best make inheritance useless for a just society?” Sure, it may be true that the original creator of the wealth of a business may determine who deserves what amounts of money, but that doesn’t equal a just transfer of wealth. People can and do fail to make just decisions. Inheritance seems to propagate undeserved wealth as well as deserved wealth, with the former creating extreme problems of justice.
In any case, I think the issue here is how one can determine what is a just transfer of wealth in any context, whether it be grocery shopping or passing on an inheritance. Objectivism rejects intrinsic value and would thus reject an intrinsic monetary value for labor or goods, so how can an objective decision be made? My idea is that it entirely depends upon what an individual is aspiring towards.
It’s the idea of Darwinian evolution analogously applied to socioeconomics. The strongest in terms of economics (i.e. the richest people/families) will survive
As opposed to what: die? So “Social Darwinism” is the theory according to which in Capitalism those who don’t inherit wealth would die before being able to breed?
P.S. I am aware of an ideology called “Social Darwinism” which holds it moral to exterminate (or allow the dying of) various categories of people considered “inferior”, by extrapolating from the Theory of Evolution. But that’s an ideology, not a state of society.
That concept most definitely has nothing to do with Capitalism. Capitalism is the only system in which that ideology would in fact be impossible to put into practice, because of two reasons:
The main one, that killing or depriving people of their property is illegal, so the vast majority of people Social Darwinism would target are safe off the bat.
Even the very few who truly couldn’t survive on their own would be safe from being “left to die”, because anyone is free to help them. Even if 99% of the population of a country is social darwinists who think the retarded and the disabled should be left to die, all it would take is the other 1% stepping in and helping them.
In a statist society, on the other hand, all it would take for the weak to be either exterminated or left to die is for 51% of the population to be social darwinists.
In conclusion, Hellboy, if what you are really claiming is that Objectivism is a philosophy that condones Social Darwinism (the ideology), then you’re clearly wrong.
Social Darwinism is altruism and collectivism at its worst. Its goal is to engineer a better society, by sacrificing individuals for the sake of society. Objectivist Ethics and Politics is the exact opposite: its purpose is the liberation of the individual from collectivist notions of subservience to the group.
Softwarenerd -
I appreciate your analogy, however - it bears little resemblance to the way business is run today. Luck is always subsumed by shrewdness.
In addition, the context of my stament about undeservedness was within the context of inheritance. A pure objectivist understands the variables of risk and luck.
Concerning your mention of the fortune 500, you apologize for character flaws in the various members, however - if one is an objectivist, he is one in principle, first. He cannot transgress those objectivist principles without damaging the whole. This is the moral imperative of objectivism.
If such a member were to use an inheritance to gain the upper-hand in a market - knowing that his competition would be wiped out in the exchange, it should stand as a fundamental transgression of the moral value of objectivism - making it something ‘other’ than objectivism.
If a Fortune 500 member succumbed to one character flaw and used his position only once, to quell favor from a congressmember or two to give him an unjust advantage over his competition - he too would be a failure - as every profit from that point would be based on the illegitimacy of that action.
This is why I call myself an Objectivist Idealist. I know that it is an ideal and as such, can only work in a morally ideal environment.
I would love to see a living example of pure objectivism.
Eiuol,
You appear to be someone with the gravitas necessary to make an informed decision about Objectivism. Social Darwinism has always been problematic in socioeconomics. As long as you have a hierarchy - there will always be exaggerations as to who deserves what (Royals v Commoners ~ Brahman v Outcastes, etc.) You know, money corrupts - absolute money corrupts, absolutely!
I don’t think Objectivism, as a socioeconomic philosophy, should be concerned with the honor of ones’ family name - as in Francisco. Instead, that honor should be recognized in ones integrity with regards to respect for individualism. If I inherited a large sum of money “I” - as the relevant individual would have to decide where the honor was in receiving it.
If I am an objectivist and inherited billions, in addition to a corporation - I would find it necessary and desirous to put that ‘unearned’ sum directly into the business. I would retain whatever salary I had before the inheritance and continue on as I HAD BEEN.
OR (and this is a big ‘or’)
I would raise the salaries of my workers, as it would be evident under the great evidence of my companys profitability - that the value of my product/service exceeded the payoff of my workers/laborers.
The value of labor is a complicated area, as in the case of American corporations - the market has become increasingly monopolistic (which is just a fact) - and as such - the market will “bear” lower and lower wages, as the few heads of corporations are increasingly empowered to fix wages without regard to appeal.
In Atlas Shrugged - the protagonists were intensely proud of their product. It was the best - and their moral imperative was to make the best product possible. Compare a sewing machine from the 1900’s to one today - there is evidence of a loss of craftsmanship, design, durability and pride. I believe this is so for every imaginable product.
Something is lost when the desire for quality is replaced by the desire for profit. Of course you can have both, but can any individual maintain the moral framework that true objectivism demands?
You know, money corrupts - absolute money corrupts, absolutely!
Are you sure you read Atlas Shrugged?
…and Nicky
I do beleive that a misapplication of Objectivism (and this goes for Libertarianism, Capitalism, et. al.) does indeed point straight to Social Darwinism. Objectivism, as an ideal - however, is a necessary element in the application of Capitalism. That is, the moral application of individualism redounds to the general good - necessarily.
Social Darwinism says that if you cannot keep up, you die. Socialistic Capitalism (historically, America’s brand of Capitalism) says, “we take care of those who cannot take care of themselves”.
Of course, the Devil is in the details, isn’t it? Privatizing prisons seems like a good idea on the surface, however, when there is an incentive for incarceration - and profit is ilnked to morality and value - you have an automatic and immediate contradiction. Unless this prison operated under a moral ideal - that is to say, a perfect moral population, the burden of corruptibility becomes such that the potential abuses for such a system outweigh the value of individualism and an individuals’ inherent right to express his individuality by purchasing a prison.
In other words - some abuses cannot be allowed to happen - under any circumstances - EVEN in a experiment in objectivist economics. We wouldn’t allow - for example, someone to purchase the ingredients for a nuclear missle and the manpower to assemble and launch it.
This is a fundamental as to why regulations and therefore government are necessary.
… LOL Nicky - Yes! I have read it… And the Fountainhead (I also have the movie) - AND The VIrtue of Selfishness… I also have all of Rand’s TV appearances recorded and several of her speeches.
I find her to be brilliant - especially with regards to her atheism.
Social Darwinism says that if you cannot keep up, you die.
No, Social Darwinism says that the weak should die. But maybe you mean something else by the term. You should explain what.
Either way, the notion that Capitalism facilitates the death of people who “can’t keep up” is false.
Privatizing prisons seems like a good idea on the surface
No, it doesn’t. Privatising prisons goes against one of the most basic tenets of Objectivist Politics: placing the power to use retaliatory force in the hands of an objective government.
In other words - some abuses cannot be allowed to happen - under any circumstances - EVEN in a experiment in objectivist economics. We wouldn’t allow - for example, someone to purchase the ingredients for a nuclear missle and the manpower to assemble and launch it.
This is a fundamental as to why regulations and therefore government are necessary.
I hate to keep harping on this, but none of what you think is Objectivism is actual Objectivism. Objectivism is not against the existence of government, government prisons, government control over nuclear weapons, etc. None of these things you are describing would be “and experiment in Objectivist Economics”.
You are building a straw man.
… LOL Nicky - Yes! I have read it.
So you do know that the notion that money is the root of evil has been addressed in some detail, right? Do you agree or disagree with the Money Speech, and why?