Could Ayn Rand's objectivism actually work in society?
My issue is that if man has to look out only for himself, and oppose altruism, then society could not function in that people's goals and such would constantly be trampled on by other people's goals. Also, Rand seems to think that sacrifice is ok so long as it benifits you. Now tell me if I'm wrong, but soceity in general usually doesn't ask that you sacrifice yourself for things that you don't believe in anyway right?
Answer:
Suppose that man does decide to oppose altruism. Is that a bad thing, a good thing, or none of the above?
The answer lies in whether we think there are market failures -- whether the pursuit of individual goals and profits leads to an allocation of goods and wealth that benefit society as a whole.
Classical economists -- like Adam Smith and certainly Ayn Rand -- beleive that they do.
However, at the other end of the spectrum are Keynesians. They believe that market failures are everywhere. Take the environment for example. If I toss my factory waste in the river, it doesn't have much of an effect on me. But, it has a massive effect on all those people that live downstream.
There is no good answer here. It all depends on your views -- do you believe in market failures or not. For myself, I think there are lots of market failures, but that we can design laws and government agencies to overcome them. That's why we created the Environment Protection Agency, social security, and lots of other programs.
First, I must complement you on your allusion to Brett Easton Ellis with your name, American Psycho. I am friends with his sister, Amy Ellis who is portrayed in Less Than Zero and Rules of Attraction...
But to the question at hand. I think that there are lines in altruism and self centered egotism. Most people enjoy altruism on face value, but they tend to be egotistic even in the way they show altruism.
It is sort of the tree falling in the woods question.
Considering there is no such thing as Karma, would someone do something altruistic if it had no benefit to him, and no one would know?
If everyone only looked out for themselves:
Who would ever drop out of high school?
Who would ever shoot heroin?
Who would ever produce children they cannot afford to care for?
Don't mistake 'only looking out for yourself' with theft ot fraud. Those things are still illegal and would be prosecuted.
Who would take actions that lead to jail time? That is not someone looking out for himself.
Bill Gates sacrificed a whole lot and greatly benefited from it. Everybody on the planet that has any degree of freedom are better off for it. Even people living in Communism China are better off for it.
.
More Questions and Answers:
More Questions and Answers:
what is the relation between corruption in a country and economic growth?
Does crime really not pay?
Where is "In God We Trust" on the new George Washington Dollar?
what is made in the USA that is sold to other countries?
what is economics?
Will globalization continue?
How can we lower the "cost of living"?
in what kind of society do you want to live in?is it a capitalist, communist, or a socialist society? why?
why do property prices rise when a country switches to the euro.?
Answer:
Suppose that man does decide to oppose altruism. Is that a bad thing, a good thing, or none of the above?
The answer lies in whether we think there are market failures -- whether the pursuit of individual goals and profits leads to an allocation of goods and wealth that benefit society as a whole.
Classical economists -- like Adam Smith and certainly Ayn Rand -- beleive that they do.
However, at the other end of the spectrum are Keynesians. They believe that market failures are everywhere. Take the environment for example. If I toss my factory waste in the river, it doesn't have much of an effect on me. But, it has a massive effect on all those people that live downstream.
There is no good answer here. It all depends on your views -- do you believe in market failures or not. For myself, I think there are lots of market failures, but that we can design laws and government agencies to overcome them. That's why we created the Environment Protection Agency, social security, and lots of other programs.
First, I must complement you on your allusion to Brett Easton Ellis with your name, American Psycho. I am friends with his sister, Amy Ellis who is portrayed in Less Than Zero and Rules of Attraction...
But to the question at hand. I think that there are lines in altruism and self centered egotism. Most people enjoy altruism on face value, but they tend to be egotistic even in the way they show altruism.
It is sort of the tree falling in the woods question.
Considering there is no such thing as Karma, would someone do something altruistic if it had no benefit to him, and no one would know?
If everyone only looked out for themselves:
Who would ever drop out of high school?
Who would ever shoot heroin?
Who would ever produce children they cannot afford to care for?
Don't mistake 'only looking out for yourself' with theft ot fraud. Those things are still illegal and would be prosecuted.
Who would take actions that lead to jail time? That is not someone looking out for himself.
Bill Gates sacrificed a whole lot and greatly benefited from it. Everybody on the planet that has any degree of freedom are better off for it. Even people living in Communism China are better off for it.
.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers:
More Questions and Answers: