Srinath writes:
"I would not agree with that -- completely. I remember to have liked the
books "The Fountainhead", "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Objectivist
Epistemology". However, if we probe deeper, we see that the notion of
objectivism itself cannot be defined in an "objective" manner. Objectivism
seems to be valid within a framework, whose boundaries are themselves
subjective. For instance, objectivism relies heavily on information being
transferred and inferred in the same manner by all the participants. Take
this particular message for instance. There will no doubt be different
intrepretations by different people about the ideas expressed here."
First of all, because I find some of Rand's works helpful doesn't mean I
am an objectivist. If you ever meet a person seriously devoted to
Objectivist Philosophy you will more than likely meet an extremely
intolerant person.
Second, I find most of Rand's characters to be emotionally suppressive.
According to her philosophy (as I understand it) emotion is the product of
thought. I'm not sure I buy into that theory, as there seem to be
biological and physiological issues, such as "I'm tired therefore I'm
iiritable." Furthremore I think emotions and thoughts operate in a
feedback loop, more than in a sequential manner.
"Ayn Rand proceeds to develop a model based on "selfishness" and money.
(The resultant model is that of capitalism, if I have understood "Atlas
Shrugged" correctly)."
You have understood correctly. I am a fervent believer in capitalism. I
would die defending it.
"A company knows that there is a lot of damage to the environment from its
functioning which might have long term impacts on the lives of the people
living in its vicinity (which includes some of the employees of the
company itself). However, by evaluating the costs of addressing this
issue, it finds that it can stand to lose its leadership in its business,
or may have to even go out of business if it ventures into addressing the
problems of the environment. Should it still venture? "
These is a classic economic issue. The competition between the rational,
self-interested person (or organization), versus the collective good.
Let's say there were three companies competing with each other, and all of
them were polluting the environment. If any one of them were to spend the
money to clean up their production methods such that they were no longer
polluting, they'd risk losing their marketshare. So none of them will make
the change. But, in the long run, their destruction of the environment
might destroy their business. The rational thing, in this instance, if for
the three companies to decide to clean up the environment together. This
is the best choice possible. That is both the best thing for their own
self-interest and the public good.
This example clearly shows why unreasonable selfishness is not a virtue at
all. I would define selfishness as the pursuit of one's own self-interest
to the extent that you encroach on other's ability to pursue their own
self-interest. In that sense, the example you've given would be a sign of
selfishness and therefore would be destructive.
"Here is a very competent university professor who is passionately
attached to his work. He has a lot of insight into his subject area and is
very competent in solving problems. However, he is not interested in
converting his resources into money; he would rather teach students, or
continue on his research alone. But this attitude of his has led him to be
regarded as a failure by his peers. People around him, who do not have as
much insight, who are not as much competent have -- by means of their
money * control on the resources that the professor gets. Should the
professor continue his research or should he plunge into converting his
competence into money? "
The professor should continue to do that which makes him happy. His own
happiness, according to Rand, is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Why should other people have the right to tell him how to live? He
possesses the three main virtues I extol, intelligence, competence, and
productivity. That does not always have to translate into wealth.
"The above have little to do with capitalism, communism or socialism per
se."
I disagree. It does have a lot to do with capitalism and socialism.
In the first instance, if the answer to preserving the environment is
government interference with the business then it is, close to socialism.
If the solution is left to those who are in business, then it is
capitalism. The question, raised by the first example, is, who do we trust
to solve our problems in the most efficient and productive manner? Private
business or government? The answer to that question is indicative of the
differences between socialism and capitalism.
The second example you give is concerned with capitalism because while the
professor may not want to profit from his ideas, his/her students will
more than likely go on to translate those ideas into money.
-- Benjamin Compton DWS Computer Consultants "The GroupWise Integration Experts" E-Mail: bcompton@emailsolutions.com http://www.emailsolutions.comLearning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>