Interesting. How?
Difference between what? Sociopathy and individualism? Let’s start with this. Sociopaths often need others to complete them. Their grandiose sense of self worth needs an audience. A true individualist needs nobody for anything.
extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior
I agree.
I say that she lays down the moral framework for being a sociopath as kind of a joke… but when one does take her philosophy anywhere past the surface, her version of the world is a horroific place.
What makes altruism moral?
It didn’t seem like a joke at all.
Rand understands, though, that the popular usage of the word “selfish” is different from the meaning she ascribes to it. Many people use the adjective “selfish” to describe regard for one’s own welfare to the disregard of the well-being of others .
Rand on sefishness. Seems to address the lack of empathy as well.
How is using the government altruistic?
Every major religion and moral philosopher has argued for thousands of years that altruism is moral. There are whole passages in the Christian Bible about doing good works but the left hand should not know what the right hand is doing. Ancient social codes are rooted in the idea of hospitality and kindness to stnagers.
Do unto others and all that.
The Onus of the argument is really on Objectivism to show that selfishness is the real moral path.
Do those passages mention using the government to force?
If you read anything about Objectivism… Rand isn’t only talking about government force.
What does “society” have to do with altruism?
Without altruism there would be no society.
I am. Rand doesn’t decide for me.
Then you want to restrict the discussion of Ayn Rand’s philosphy to the parts that support what you want to argue.
Seems cool.
1 Like
Well that’s not true at all. Why does “society” take by force then?
Of course. Why would I do anything else? Altruism?
Is this going to end like a stoner conversation in college? We ARE society man!!! Woah.
So we’re done?
When you are prepared to have a good faith discussion about this without imposing ever shifting new rules on the fly then I will be around.
Trying to limit the discussion of Objectivism to stack the deck to justify the immorality of a deficient philosphy is something I am not terribly interested in participating in.
Then have a nice day.
I reject your characterization of “immorality” and your morality. There is nothing moral about taking by force and threat then calling it altruism and moral.
Altruism requires self sacrifice, not you and society sacrificing me on the alter of Liberalanity.
You need to conjure up a new buzzword to denote your belief that liberalism is a religion. That has no flow.
