On objectivism
Spurred on by a Facebook post about objectivist Christians, I read through the Wikipedia article on objectivism. I sorta like how it starts out, but the further it gets, the more tenuous the arguments become.
First serious problem: "perception, being physiologically determined, is incapable of error" - physiological perception is full of error, numerous visual tricks and tests show that the eyes don't actually register what we see, but pits and pieces that are put together to a larger picture (see foveal vision). Also, what about people with physiological defects, such as being colorblind or deaf? Finally, if perception is so perfect, why can't I perceive infrared? Ultraviolent? Radio waves? X-rays? Ultrasound? There's a large amount of reality that perception doesn't even begin to touch. It's not just capable of error, it's almost nothing but error.
Next serious problem: "The survival of the organism is the ultimate value to which all of the organism's activities are aimed" - this idea makes objectivism an evolutionary dead end. If this was the case, we'd see few children, if any. Who would risk childbirth and spend energy raising children if it's all about surviving? I think this is where Rand went really wrong: If anything, the ultimate value should be the survival of ones genes. Which means that children make sense, and that sacrificing some of yourself for your family or clan or country makes sense.
Third problem, which can be seen as a spin-off of problem #2: "There is a difference between rational self-interest as pursuit of one's own life and happiness in reality, and whim-worship or 'hedonism.'" Huh? Seems like Rand is saying "You should pursue your happiness, but only if it's a good happiness". How is this good happiness defined? As that which makes us survive the longest? Is it better to survive longer and be unhappy or to die early having been fully happy? Or is "good happiness" that which benefits society? Makes you richer? Suddenly the supposedly perfect perception doesn't hold when applied to one's own happiness.
In the same context: The main problem I have with laissez-faire capitalism is that pure capitalism, in order to work, requires complete knowledge. Capitalism is supposed to optimize everything because the consumers can just go elsewhere if they don't like some aspect of a good or service. However, this requires that the consumers can actually tell whether a given good or service has that aspect. This is difficult enough for inherent things like nutritional value or health risks. Things like pollution, worker abuse, and abuse of natural resources are pretty much invisible unless all companies lay open all their operations and dealings - and who wants to do that? Even the act of doing it would be expensive, not to mention a massive competitive disadvantage.
Ironically, the best example of laissez-faire capitalism today happens to be the main Communist country. Go figure.
First serious problem: "perception, being physiologically determined, is incapable of error" - physiological perception is full of error, numerous visual tricks and tests show that the eyes don't actually register what we see, but pits and pieces that are put together to a larger picture (see foveal vision). Also, what about people with physiological defects, such as being colorblind or deaf? Finally, if perception is so perfect, why can't I perceive infrared? Ultraviolent? Radio waves? X-rays? Ultrasound? There's a large amount of reality that perception doesn't even begin to touch. It's not just capable of error, it's almost nothing but error.
Next serious problem: "The survival of the organism is the ultimate value to which all of the organism's activities are aimed" - this idea makes objectivism an evolutionary dead end. If this was the case, we'd see few children, if any. Who would risk childbirth and spend energy raising children if it's all about surviving? I think this is where Rand went really wrong: If anything, the ultimate value should be the survival of ones genes. Which means that children make sense, and that sacrificing some of yourself for your family or clan or country makes sense.
Third problem, which can be seen as a spin-off of problem #2: "There is a difference between rational self-interest as pursuit of one's own life and happiness in reality, and whim-worship or 'hedonism.'" Huh? Seems like Rand is saying "You should pursue your happiness, but only if it's a good happiness". How is this good happiness defined? As that which makes us survive the longest? Is it better to survive longer and be unhappy or to die early having been fully happy? Or is "good happiness" that which benefits society? Makes you richer? Suddenly the supposedly perfect perception doesn't hold when applied to one's own happiness.
In the same context: The main problem I have with laissez-faire capitalism is that pure capitalism, in order to work, requires complete knowledge. Capitalism is supposed to optimize everything because the consumers can just go elsewhere if they don't like some aspect of a good or service. However, this requires that the consumers can actually tell whether a given good or service has that aspect. This is difficult enough for inherent things like nutritional value or health risks. Things like pollution, worker abuse, and abuse of natural resources are pretty much invisible unless all companies lay open all their operations and dealings - and who wants to do that? Even the act of doing it would be expensive, not to mention a massive competitive disadvantage.
Ironically, the best example of laissez-faire capitalism today happens to be the main Communist country. Go figure.