|
Ayn Rand and humanism
|
John Perkins
|
Oct 29, 2003 19:08 PST
|
At 18:47 29/10/03 +1100, Erni Glauser wrote:
| | You say - "they should be obliged to desist. . ." well, that can only
|
happen in a religious or state controlled society, yet we as individual
Humanists and as a movement, can make our voice heard,
| | by challenging their infantile proclamations - engaging these issues out
|
in society, rather than by
| | talking to ourselves.
The framework of such a universal ethic as you refer to, has been put
|
forward some time ago by
| | a most remarkable lady - Ayn Rand. (1905 - 1982) in her many fiction and
|
non-fiction books.
| | Why are people frightenend of it ? Because it advocates Reason - Purpose
|
and self-Respect of the individual without the use of force ( exept in
self-defence) instead of - Belief. Her philosophy
| | empowers the individual rather than indoctrinates them with servitude,
|
dependence, belief and guilt.
---------------------------------------------------
Yes I do think that religionists should somehow be "obliged to desist" from
their unfounded "chosen people" presumptions and the associated supremacist
assumptions in their beliefs, because this seems to be the major source of
the anti-social characteristics of religion. This is a task for humanists.
How should religionists be so obliged?
Obviously it cannot be through and coersive suppression of religious
belief, but perhaps through modified anti-vilification laws, and general
social pressures that now make racism and sexism etc unacceptable.
I think humanists have something in common with the Ayn Rand adherrents -
their rejection of religion. But that is possibly about as far as it goes.
As I understand it, all their philosophy of ethics is based on one
principle - self interest. As we know from the Enlightenment economics of
Adam Smith, the pursuit of self interest does indeed have some benefits for
society.
But this is not the only thing that matters. Cooperation between people is
also important. I believe that the Randists do not have any method of
determining appropriate cooperation except to say that other individuals
should not be physically harmed. The flaw in Randism is that it is simply
not possible to derive all rules of behaviour axiomatically from one
principle. As Erni says, the Rand ethic is universal, but it is not
comprehensive.
As I have suggested before. I think that the diligent application of a
range of principles is the way to go. A list of these has been suggested
as: non-malevolence, benevolence, autonomy, utility, honesty, justice,
fidelity and privacy. In terms of this list, Randists put all their
emphasis on autonomy and neglect the rest. Randism is really just an
ethical philosphy that is reverse engineered to try to justify the right
wing fanatacism, that appears to be their real agenda.
There is a balance between autonomy and utility, that has particular
application in economics and politics, and the other principles have
application in personal and public spheres. The narrow focus of the Rand
ethic I think makes it unsuitable as a model for humanists, and also as a
general replacement for religious ethics. However, the diligent application
of an adequate range of principles is really all that is required to
provide a universal ethic, and could be used by humanists to counter the
mailgn implications of the religious "chosen ones" motivation.
If I am uniformed about Rand, I hope I will be corrected.
John
|
|
 |
|
