|
2.0 von 5 Sternen
'Mr. A' is in error, 6. Juni 2000
... nothing wrong with benefiting oneself. There is also nothing wrong with benefiting others. But Rand says that morally, each person 'must be' the beneficiary of his own actions. This is ludicrous if, as she elsewhere writes, our true interests are not at odds with one another. We benefit ourselves *by* benefiting others. Indeed this is how the free market works, is it not?As for my allegedly 'devout belief in altruism's equation of self and evil', my critic is exercising more imagination than sense. I do not think the self is evil. On the contrary, I think the self - each and every human self - is made in the very image of G-d and should be treated with the utmost respect. It is 'Objectivism' which provides no foundation for this high view of the self. According to 'Objectivism', the self - that is, consciousness - is merely a natural fact, a by-product of the material universe. Rand maintained that each person is 'metaphysically' an end in himself, but she was not logically entitled to this view: at most she could hold that each person is an end-in-himself *to* himself, but not to others. 'Objectivist' has ever given a remotely plausible reason why a businessman should not cut corners even when there is little risk of getting caught," this is just ignorance. For example, see _Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand_ by Dr. Leonard Peikoff, pp. 270-274 and _passim_.' I have already seen _Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand_ by Dr. Leonard Peikoff, pp. 270-274 and _passim_ , as well as the rest of his very poor book. Perhaps 'Mr. A' did not read my review of that book. Or perhaps he failed to grasp the meaning of the words 'remotely plausible' in my statement. As for the passage to which 'Mr. A' refers me, it does not at all provide a 'remotely plausible reason why a businessman should not cut corners even when there is little risk of getting caught'. Much of Peikoff's explanation has to do with the *high* risk of getting caught. Beyond this, all that Peikoff 'explains' is that a self-respecting person will behave honestly for his *own* sake, for the sake of his *own* integrity. What he does not explain - and what he must explain if he is to meet my criticism - is why honesty should contribute to one's self-respect and integrity in the first place. (This view makes perhaps some sense as regards 'honesty with oneself'. It is absurd as applied to honesty with *other* people, unless we assume - as Rand and Peikoff both illicitly do - that the way we treat other people is part of the basis for our self-respect.) Nor does Rand explain this, nor has any 'Objectivist' ever explained it - in this book or anywhere else. Rand merely *asserted* it, in the hope that she would be able to retain traditional other-regarding virtues on a foundation of 'egoism'. I am afraid this aim has not become any less nonsensical in the half-century or so since she first made the attempt. Also: if religion is all so terrible and unnecessary, why is it that in the very passage to which 'Mr. A' has referred me, Peikoff favorably quotes Jesus? He remarks on p. 273 that Jesus' question, 'What shall it profit a m
Helfen Sie anderen Kunden bei der Suche nach den hilfreichsten Rezensionen
War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?
 
|
|
|
|
