Anyone here disagree with Ayn Rand's view of greed and charity ?

[Athena]

Does anyone here believe that greed is really not a virtue and that charity actually is?

I guess I should make this a poll...

[Sola_Fide]

Ron Paul argues against Ayn Rand's view of this in End The Fed (I'm pretty sure it is End The Fed, not The Revolution).

But in Ayn's defense, she would probably say that giving to charity gives one selfish pleasure so it is therefore virtuous.

[doodle]

On greed, she seems ok.

It's her views about semites (arabs and jews) that I find troubling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldyVDbpxpmg

[hugolp]

Ive voted the last one but in reality I should have voted for none. Greed and charity are both human characteristics. They are not good or bad, they just are, and we should use those characteristics for building a better society.

[Athena]

Greed and charity are both human characteristics. They are not good or bad, they just are, and we should use those characteristics for building a better society.

But how do you use them? What do/will you teach your children about those things?

I'm an atheist, and I cringe at the thought of teaching my kids to embrace greed and scorn charity.

[Andrew-Austin]

I don't really believe in selflessness, meaning it either does not exist or in what forms it does exist its unhealthy psychologically.

I do favor selfishness, self interest, which can manifest itself to justify many things from a subjective perspective. Like what Aquabuddha said, if you want to give to charity you do so for some personal interest, it may make you feel better, it may make you feel less guilty, w/e.

But looking at the dictionary definition of "greed": -
excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.

Greed is not in my self interest, by that definition it seems foolish. I desire a certain amount of material wealth, but the more wealth you get the less you get out of it, due to the law of diminishing returns. So say if I won millions of dollars through the lottery, I certainly wouldn't spend it all on material things, because I'd get more out of using a good chunk of that for philanthropic purposes. I probably wouldn't give money to those help feed the poor type charities, but I would donate to causes like for example the Mises Institute. But again, that would be for unabashedly selfish reasons.

But if someone else were to spend their millions in lottery winnings on material things I consider to be base or extravagant? I would not consider that immoral, I just couldn't relate to it personally, nor could I relate to someone who donated the majority of their winnings to the poor or to help animals or something like that.

That is not some attempted refutation of charity or the Ayn Rand greed perspective, just my two cents.



But how do you use them? What do/will you teach your children about those things?

I'm an atheist, and I cringe at the thought of teaching my kids to embrace greed and scorn charity.

I wouldn't want to teach them to embrace or scorn either? It just seems some weird dichotomy to me. There is just self interest. You cultivate enlightened, reflective, self interest.

What liberals decry as "greed" in the upper income bracket private sector types, isn't really anything bad. Most of them don't even do what they do as a career (CEOs or whatever) for the money, they do it because they enjoy it or find it fulfilling. Even if their motivation is money, as long as they work in the private sector they are serving other people anyways.

There is a type of greed in the lower classes, which is kind of a material grubbing ignorance, but this should be easy to avoid in your children so long as you put in some effort and they don't turn out to be morons? An example of this would be some not so financially well off dude strutting around with expensive shoes, expensive rims for his car, and diamond ear rings. That can be called self interest, but stupidity and lack of self-awareness is more to blame.

And then there is statist greed, immorally leaching off the power and pelf of the state, but Rand is opposed to that so if you wanted to use her views as a model they would exclude this.

[Sola_Fide]

But how do you use them? What do/will you teach your children about those things?

I'm an atheist, and I cringe at the thought of teaching my kids to embrace greed and scorn charity.

What basis, from an atheistic viewpoint, do you have to say charity is morally superior to greed?

Let's say you personally feel that charity is better than greed...why would it not be just as valid for a person to argue that greed is morally better than charity...if there is no God and no absolute moral standards?

[Athena]

What basis, from an atheistic viewpoint, do you have to say charity is morally superior to greed?

Let's say you personally feel that charity is better than greed...why would it not be just as valid for a person to argue that greed is morally better than charity...if there is no God and no absolute moral standards?

Yes, it is arbitrary. And yes, that is scary.
I can't believe in a god just because the alternative reality is too scary, though.

[hugolp]

But how do you use them? What do/will you teach your children about those things?

I'm an atheist, and I cringe at the thought of teaching my kids to embrace greed and scorn charity.

I am an atheist too (and why is this important in this context?).

For me greed is important in the sense that greed represents ambition, self-realization. In reality all those three words are just the same human emotion but judged in a different way. For some people the same action can be considered ambition, for others greed... But its all judjamental. But the capacity of self-realization and facing tough times in life its a value I want to teach my kids.

I think humans would have disappear from earth if "greed" (or ambition/self-realization call it how you want) would not be part of our personality. Life can get hard sometimes.

Also, charity is an important value, and I dont think humanity would be here either if we did not have it. Though I tend to think that internally (brain level) is very probable that charity has some "egoistical" motivations.

EDIT: Lets not turn this thread into a religion one.

[ClayTrainor]

I like the way Milton Friedman put it...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

[Sola_Fide]

Yes, it is arbitrary. And yes, that is scary.
I can't believe in a god just because the alternative reality is too scary, though.


So you admit that any judgement you have is irrational and arbitrary. And that is not scary to you?

And what is scary about the alternative? That there is a God who created you and loves you and wants you to love Him just like a father wants his children to love him? That's scary to you?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think this issue is a non-sequitor. There is nothing wrong with greed, or charity, or anything else like sloth or gluttony as long as these things are done in accordance with the NAP. The NAP is the cornerstone. As for the above, it is all subjective and wrapped in what is called self-interest. Some people interest helping only themselves, which in turn help others, and some people choose to be more 'seen' in their help. It is again, a classic case of the seen and unseen. It seems counter-intuitive to view greed or self-interest as helping others, but it would be a silly thing to say that all the researchers who are getting paid to come up with cures against diseases for their own personal betterment are not actually helping or is somehow harmful, as if people were to do these things without receiving any benefit.

I also agree with Andrew. There is no such thing as altruism or selflessness. Everything we do we do because it benefits ourselves in some form or fashion whether emotionally, physically, or in whatever other manifestation of happiness we get from an act. Do you honestly believe people would help others if it made themselves poorer, less happy, and constituted any other non-personal gain?

[Andrew-Austin]

So you admit that any judgement you have is irrational and arbitrary. And that is not scary to you?

And what is scary about the alternative? That there is a God who created you and loves you and wants you to love Him just like a father wants his children to love him? That's scary to you?

She said it was arbitrary, not irrational, the two are not the same. It can be perfectly rational from a subjective perspective.

She didn't say the alternative was scary, just not true.

Personally atheism was only initially scary for me, I found it true so I bore the temporary fear/alienation that came with it, but now its just liberating if anything.

But lets not derail, or we can always ask a mod to split the thread.

[doodle]

I don't really believe in selflessness, meaning it either does not exist or in what forms it does exist its unhealthy psychologically.



Ever heard of ultimate act of selflessness that is described in narration about Jesus Christ's last days? Or you don't believe in that kind of stuff?

[Sola_Fide]

She said it was arbitrary, not irrational, the two are not the same. It can be perfectly rational from a subjective perspective.

She didn't say the alternative was scary, just not true.

Personally atheism was only initially scary for me, I found it true so I bore the temporary fear/alienation that came with it, but now its just liberating if anything.

But lets not derail, or we can always ask a mod to split the thread.

I don't care what she said hahaha...if one says "charity is good", but then has no non-arbitrary basis for making the claim, that IS not rational. Charity, or for that matter anything, cannot be claimed to be good if it is arbitrary.


I could ask you right now: From an atheistic viewpoint, why is rationality good? Why be rational? There isn't even a non-arbitrary basis for rationality from an atheistic viewpoint. Rationality CANNOT be subjective (like you tried to say about charity).

We live in a moral universe and it is impossible to escape the demands of universals on our thinking:)

[Athena]

So you admit that any judgement you have is irrational and arbitrary. And that is not scary to you?

And what is scary about the alternative? That there is a God who created you and loves you and wants you to love Him just like a father wants his children to love him? That's scary to you?

The idea that it's all subjective and man-made is totally terrifying. It's totally scary.

The idea that there is a god that loves me who created me and cares for me like a father is not scary. It's comforting.

Sadly, it's just not true. And no amount of wishing or hoping or faith or praying on my or your part can make it true. If I could make it be true, I would. But I just can't be so big a coward to believe in the obviously untrue because the real truth is so terrible. And terrible the real truth is. It's scary as shit.

Life does not use KY and there is no justice.

[Imperial]

Ron Paul argues against Ayn Rand's view of this in End The Fed (I'm pretty sure it is End The Fed, not The Revolution).

But in Ayn's defense, she would probably say that giving to charity gives one selfish pleasure so it is therefore virtuous.

In The Fountainhead Howard Roark only makes one mistake from her view- he helps Peter Keating with his work.

[amy31416]

But how do you use them? What do/will you teach your children about those things?

I'm an atheist, and I cringe at the thought of teaching my kids to embrace greed and scorn charity.

I'm with ya...not a big fan of Ayn Rand.

[Athena]

She said it was arbitrary, not irrational, the two are not the same. It can be perfectly rational from a subjective perspective.

She didn't say the alternative was scary, just not true.

Personally atheism was only initially scary for me, I found it true so I bore the temporary fear/alienation that came with it, but now its just liberating if anything.

But lets not derail, or we can always ask a mod to split the thread.

I'd rather the thread not be split. Atheism and morality and Ayn Rand are all kind of one subject in the context of this forum.

Thanks for pointing out that I wasn't saying that morality is irrational. It is arbitrary by subjective standards, and I don't think that will ever stop giving me the creeps. Unfortunately, reality does not bend to my will, and become something less creepy just because I find it creepy.
I wish it did.

[Sola_Fide]

The idea that it's all subjective and man-made is totally terrifying. It's totally scary.

No, it's not rational. Scary or not scary doesn't really matter.

Let me prove to you that it is irrational. Later in your post you say this about Christianity:


Sadly, it's just not true.


If everything is subjective and arbitrary, then there can be no truth in the final sense. So you have a frank admission of the irrationality of atheism right in front of your eyes.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No, it's not rational. Scary or not scary doesn't really matter.

Let me prove to you that it is irrational. Later in your post you say this about Christianity:




If everything is subjective and arbitrary, then there can be no truth in the final sense. So you have a frank admission of the irrationality of atheism right in front of your eyes.

Woah wait a second. Why exactly if something is subjective can't it be true? You do not think the STV is true?

[Sentient Void]

I'm part of the 'Yes, Greed is a virtue, Charity is whatever' camp.

I don't share Rand's disdain for charity or thinking it's 'evil' or 'oppressive'. I think in many, not all cases, it may be counterproductive, but it is certainly not evil. A free society would rely on charity for certain things such as those who are in the most extreme poverty or disability with no family or friends to help them.

[Andrew-Austin]

I don't care what she said hahaha...if one says "charity is good", but then has no non-arbitrary basis for making the claim, that IS not rational. Charity, or for that matter anything, cannot be claimed to be good if it is arbitrary.

You were just looking to go on some snide atheist bashing rant the second she mentioned she was an atheist, that much is obvious.

Yes, she can say "I think charity is good" and have that be completely rational.

Just like a fisherman can say he thinks "one gallon of milk is better than a salmon". The fisherman's statement is not objective, a fish is not objectively better than a gallon of milk, it is a subjective statement of value. Its a statement of value that is rational from his perspective. The fisherman does not pretend to talk to God and ask him which has more value, he does not need to. The Austrian theory of value, remember? I can't remember seeing a chapter in the Bible on Austrian economics.



I could ask you right now: From an atheistic viewpoint, why is rationality good? Why be rational? There isn't even a non-arbitrary basis for rationality from an atheistic viewpoint. Rationality CANNOT be subjective (like you tried to say about charity).

Rationality helps me to live, to live better. This is where you come in and say "well how is the will to live and live well an objective value/stance"? Asking this question is to imply that you can not even justify your very existence and will to live without baselessly imagining a mythological man in the clouds. This is the epitome of cowardice.

And are you saying that not only is there no reason to value rationality without God, that rationality does not even exist without God? So this God you have no evidence of, this is what we use to decide for example that something can't be both a chicken and a light bulb? If so you are utterly bat fuck insane, completely lost. I can't fathom how you can suggest such a thing without your head exploding.

We're not impressed with such cowardice. Think about it for a second. You have absolutely no proof that God exists, no reason to believe the dogma in the bible. Yet you continue to use God and the bible as a bludgeon. Why? Its the same damn thing, if we don't have objective morality, you certainly don't. Saying "because the Bible" is no better than saying "because Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire". You criticize our position, without having any evidence that your stance is any different from ours. I could easily invent something imaginary that serves the same purpose as God does to your own moral view. Because the Flying Spaghetti monster, and how can you wake up in the morning without the Holy Spaghetti monster not telling you do so? That is the language you a speaking to me, and I would insert a little "hahahaha" like you did to me if it weren't so utterly pathetic.

[Sola_Fide]

Woah wait a second. Why exactly if something is subjective can't it be true? You do not think the STV is true?

No, a subjective value isn't "true." How could it be? What syllogism could you devise that would make a subjective value finally true?

This is not to discount the theory of subjective value in economics...not at all...it is just to point out that like all sciences, the STV are inductive approximations. They can't be "true", since truth statements depend on axiomatic deductions.

[Bman]

The idea that it's all subjective and man-made is totally terrifying. It's totally scary.

I think there is a step past that. It's realizing that it's not that things cannot be objective, it's that our language and understand as humans is subjective. It's knowing that every decision you make as a human could actually turn out to be wrong.

Religious people have an easy time with subjective vs objective, in their own minds, because it's a very old human tradition, well taught, well conceived that has a higher unquestionable figure who tells them what the good rights are and what the bad rights are. Unfortunately they fall short of actually understanding the good vs bad to properly punish people in the afterlife. Historically, not knowing that they also fall short of understanding the good vs bad to properly punish people in life as we know it.

So what are the good ones and what are the bad ones? I'd say to Christians on this website when it pertains to myself "The Philosophy of Liberty" video works quite well explaining where I come from. I think it's far more satisfying and far less confusing than the book you want me to know to understand who I am dealing with when it pertains to Christians.

Yes things are objective, how we deal with each other is completely subjective. The only person you'll really ever know is yourself. Let's just be honest with ourselves and understand that sometimes we will agree and at other times we will disagree. It doesn't matter what so ever what our creed is so long as our involvement with each other is voluntary.

[Sola_Fide]

Andrew,

I said:


I could ask you right now: From an atheistic viewpoint, why is rationality good? Why be rational? There isn't even a non-arbitrary basis for rationality from an atheistic viewpoint. Rationality CANNOT be subjective (like you tried to say about charity).

You then said:


Rationality helps me to live, to live better.

Uh, that is just your arbitrary feeling. I asked you to give me a *non-arbitrary* basis to be rational from an atheistic perspective. You won't be able to do it (but please keep trying:)).

What if someone else comes along and says that irrationality is what helps them live better? How can you argue against that from atheistic presuppositions? You can't.

So you can keep making your emotional "sky man" arguments against Christianity while I stand on my firm foundation of rationality:)

[Sentient Void]

No, a subjective value isn't "true." How could it be? What syllogism could you devise that would make a subjective value finally true?

This is not to discount the theory of subjective value in economics...not at all...it is just to point out that like all sciences, the STV are inductive approximations. They can't be "true", since truth statements depend on axiomatic deductions.

Isn't it true that I value my girlfriend more than you value my girlfriend????

[ibaghdadi]

Not really interested in the greed vs. charity discussion (although I voted that both are important).

Interesting subject/object discussion going on. though. I used to argue subjective/objective as well. Then I read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". Now these argument seem completely inane. Pirsig is a genius.

[Athena]

Andrew,

I said:



You then said:



Uh, that is just your arbitrary feeling. I asked you to give me a *non-arbitrary* basis to be rational from an atheistic perspective. You won't be able to do it (but please keep trying:)).

What if someone else comes along and says that irrationality is what helps them live better? How can you argue against that from atheistic presuppositions? You can't.

So you can keep making your emotional "sky man" arguments against Christianity while I stand on my firm foundation of rationality:)

If someone (like you, actually) came to me and said irrationality made them happy, I'd believe them and wish them well. I very honestly think that works for a lot of folks. Faith, at one time, worked for me, too.

I can't really argue against the presuppositional "But what if we're maybe just a blob of mass, drifting through space, dreaming this whole thing" argument. That won't get a man on the moon, or an HIV cure, but ok, if this is all just a dream. Not likely, but could be. What a tiny, pitiful corner you've painted yourself into, tho. I might feel safe there, but I wouldn't be free.

Go on with your bad, esoteric self, tho.

[NiceGoing]

Does anyone here believe that greed is really not a virtue and that charity actually is?

I guess I should make this a poll...

You have misstated Ms. Rand's view, as she never endorsed "greed ...as a virtue" - never.

However, it's true that charity was not the highest of virtues in her view.

Interesting topic...