Metaphilosophical and Ontological Critiques of Objectvisim (Hume and Nozick win)

Alternate Title: Why is Objectivism even a thing?

Disclaimer: Hume and Nozick win, if the title did not make it clear. Though, I do criticise the irony of the objectivism in that it inherently claims to be 'objective' but its criticisms and controversy evidently show that it is far more subjective. So, let's keep the statement of 'Hume wins' for effect and say that it is not 'objectively' true.

Ayn Rand was an American-Russian philosopher of the 20th century who was quite controversial. This essay (which is quite casually written) seeks to understand her philosophy and point out some of its criticisms because it just doesn't sit right with me.

This is the second time Reddit will be featured in some way on this blog. I found out about Ayn Rand and her philosophy called objectivism through subreddits on philosophy. Most of the posts about her seemed to be making fun of her and I was curious as to why, especially when her treatment was different compared to other philosophers. I was unaware of this philosophy and its big, profound name made it seem like I should, as if it was some key pillar in understanding life. Indeed, that is what objectivism purports itself to be.

In Rand's words, Objectivism is:

'...the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.'

Now, this is quite strange. Objectivism doesn't seem to have a home, which is likely why it is categorised as being an entire philosophical system in and of itself. Firstly, it is a philosophy of life like stoicism or even, and I really do not want to say it, but existentialism and absurdism. Objectivism seems to be existentialism except it does not have a massive treatise that phenomenologically proves it. Instead, Rand used a massive piece of philosophical fiction which seems to be about capitalists boycotting the government which is the capitalist dream. Still, objectivism seems to be the rugged and indifferent existentialist who wore a suit and tie and became quite conservative. Objectivism seems to have the same driving force and seriousness of stoicism but capitalist. Rand's version of objective reality has capitalism as a part of it and she supports laissez-faire capitalism, which makes sense since she believes that productive activity is man's 'noblest activity' and that altruism is bad. However, capitalism grants individual rights only in theory, in practice, capitalism leads to inequality and chains. Do note that I won't be getting into the metaphysics of objectivism. Rand's metaphysics is honestly fine. It can definitely be argued that reality is objective and noumenal (unless we are to say that reality is perceived which I am not necessarily saying), the way Democritus wished for it to be thousands of years ago in Ancient Greece. What I seek to question is the ethics of objectivism and why it should even be a philosophy - a metaphilsophical inquiry.

So, why should one have to be a heroic being with happiness as the moral purpose of life with produce achievement as his noblest activity and reason as his only absolute? If these terms are 'objective' then it would have to be true for everybody. But it isn't. Robert Nozick, one of the greatest philosophers moral and political of the 20th century, criticised Rand by saying why can't an individual rationally prefer death and not having any values in the pursuit of some value like being punkish and 'against the system' and having none of the straight morals of objectivism? Objectivism seems to simply force its principles and not prove how it is objectively true for all our human conditions whether we like it or not, the way absurdism and existentialism say that our life is inherently meaningless.

This leads to another critique of objectivism which is that it does not solve the 'is-ought' problem proposed by Hume. The problem is essentially that just because something is factual does not mean that we ought to and should be doing something in accordance with the factual statement. Rand attempts to solve that by saying morality is 'a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life'. 'Does man need values at all—and why?'. 'It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible' and thus, 'the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do.' This solution isn't exactly clear. In fact the solution is also a victim of the 'is-ought' problem. Life afford values so we should live by them. Life also affords vices so should we only live by those?

This essay has been quite short and was mostly one-sided, though that is the way I feel about objectivism. There may be some merits to it like reality being objective - but then again, Protagoras isn't exactly wrong when he famously says that 'man is the measure of all things' - and Rand herself may not have been a bad person. Her rejecting faith is respectable. But objectivism just doesn't feel right. Sure, it is a philosophy of life, but philosophies of life should be neutral but by fundamentally attaching politics to it and making it a rightist, capitalist philosophy, it cannot be neutral and thus it cannot really be a universal philosophy. Though, there is no doubt that economic and political systems are a part of our individual realities to a huge extent and though most economies are mixed, free the presence of the free market outweighs the presence of a communist government, objectivism once again has a flaw by attaching a value judgement to capitalism rather than capitalism being a part of life be a neutral observation. Rand is saying that it should this way, we should embrace capitalism. That, and along with Nozick's criticisms discussed above are why I think objectivism - despite its imposing name - is a bit silly, superficial, and at best has potential to be a motto.