Objections
to Objectivism
Epilogue
Copyright
© 2001 by John
Ku
Suggested
Readings for (Ex)Objectivists
I
can't help feeling a tinge of guilt for having endeavored to tear
down an entire system of philosophy without having offered much in
return. As for the ethics portion,
I'd suggest that you look for my book in twenty years, but in the
meantime, the best I can offer is this list I have compiled of books
and essays that have been particularly useful in shaping my
philosophy.
For those still not completely convinced of the
inadequacy of Objectivist ethics:
Read first, "Life and the Theory of Value: The Randian Argument Reconsidered," by J. Charles King, published in The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, for a full refutation of Rand's argument from theory of value as well as several other important objections such as the suspiciously broad role that her notion of reason plays in her ethics and a challenge to the notion that man's life qua man requires productivity.
Next, "The Fundamental Moral Elements of Rand's Theory of Rights," by Eric Mack, published in the same book, points out the ambiguity between life qua survival and life qua man as the ultimate value and the extent to which Rand relies on Kantian standards of universalizability in her derivation of rights. He also gives an account of what is plausible in Rand's theory of value though judging from his publication record, I suspect that he is not aware that this is compatible with there being agent-neutral values.
Optionally, there are other essays in this volume that may be worth looking at but from what I remember, none of the others match these two in terms of quality and relevance.
Finally, of those that directly address Rand's arguments, I would recommend Robert Nozick's "On the Randian Argument," published in his book, Socratic Puzzles, which brings up a variety of criticisms of her theory of value. Even without this essay, I would highly recommend the book to anyone with an interest in philosophy and a tolerance for some dense philosophical language. In my opinion, Nozick is quite possibly the most brilliant man alive and this remarkable collection of essays reveals the breadth of his knowledge and creativity ranging from the more lighthearted and clever refutation of Goodman's aesthetic theory to my favorite, his theory of simplicity – a perfect combination of wit and philosophical seriousness.
Ethics:
Christine Korsgaard offers a promising answer to the question, "Why should I be moral?" in The Sources of Normativity. Starting with a concise history of ethics, she presents her own moral theory borrowing heavily from Kant's ethics. The book is based off a series of lectures so the majority of it is, of course, Korsgaard explicating her theory but then it is followed by criticisms by four prominent moral philosophers. Reading her compelling account of morality, I thought to myself how difficult and in a way, rather unfortunate it would be for me were I to be appointed and expected to criticize a work like this. As I continued on, however, to one devastating criticism after another, I was instead overcome by a deep sympathy for Korsgaard – to think that after so many years devoted to working out a moral theory, it can be completely undermined in one fell swoop! But this reaction as well was short-lived for Korsgaard in her reply addresses the most troublesome objections with amazing resourcefulness and perseverance, in the end resulting in a fuller, more robust understanding of her theory. Ayn Rand once said, "It is philosophy that has brought men to this state – it is only philosophy that can lead them out." In that spirit, I'd say the best "cure" for Objectivism is exposure to "real" philosophy and whether or not in the final analysis, the arguments in this book succeed, I think that is exactly what this book provides: a portrait of philosophy not as one guru espousing wisdom to loyal listeners who are granted the privilege of filling in minor details and rehashing the core philosophy while condemning any who dare to disagree but rather as an engaging if somewhat intimidating discourse on notoriously difficult topics rife with sharp yet for the most part, mutually respectful disagreements between even sharper minds. My only worry, which is common to my comments on many of these books, is that I have generated unrealistic expectations of them by my excessive praise and the unusually high level of delight I take in philosophy.
I would also highly recommend her other book, Creating the Kingdom of Ends, for a fairly comprehensive presentation and interpretation of Kant's ethics. This may be especially suited for (Ex)Objectivists since, quoting from the back of the book, Korsgaard rejects the "picture of Kant's ethics as a cold vision of the moral life which emphasises duty at the expense of love and value." As noted before, particularly of interest to those who wish to preserve Rand's insight on values should be chapter 10, "The reasons we can share: An attack on the distinction between agent-relative and agent-neutral values," though it is certainly at least implicit in her other writings as well and fairly clearly stated in Lecture 4 of Sources of Normativity.
Depending on how colored one's opinion of Kant is by Ayn Rand, a stronger dose might be required. This should be able to be found in Marcia Baron's book, Kantian Ethics Almost Without Apology, though I must admit that unlike the other books, I am familiar with this work only from her lectures, office hours and her previously published articles on this topic. While Korsgaard's book seems focused more on the actual arguments Kant gives to justify his account of morality, at best, only arguing indirectly against certain misinterpretations of Kant, Baron's is entirely devoted to addressing the worry that Kant places too much emphasis on duty. Given Rand's egoism and the extent of her misunderstanding of Kant, it is unlikely that Baron directly addresses her objections. Nevertheless, I'd be willing to bet that in answering related objections about the alleged coldness or moral repugnance of acting from duty, Baron provides more than adequate means for debunking Rand's objections and misinterpretations.
While I'm on the subject of Kantian ethics, I may as well mention Thomas Hill's book, Autonomy and Self-Respect, which focuses on the practical, everyday implications of accepting a Kantian morality as opposed to a more Utilitarian approach. I especially enjoyed his essay in support of some forms of affirmative action and on environmentalism, sketching a justification for it that does not rely on any appeals to the interests or intrinsic value of trees. Even if they don't convince you, they will at least provide a more charitable interpretation of its supporters' motives than "the destruction of man."
Finally, for an excellent work from a consequentialist point of view, see Reasons and Persons by Derek Parfit. I'm a bit at a loss as to how exactly to describe this book given its treatment of such diverse issues related to ethics. It is as much about personal identity as it is about moral theories. In the first two parts of the book, he examines various theories of rationality in light of intriguing problems like the prisoners' dilemma coming up with objections against the self-interest theory as well as some of common sense morality. The third part and what he is most renowned for is his work on personal identity with, in the words of one reviewer that I must emphatically agree with, "fascinating hypothetical examples more entertaining than most science fiction." Finally, in the last part, he brings up complex issues dealing with future generations with chapters ominously titled "the repugnant conclusion." I'm afraid this small paragraph does not do justice to this great book, but the least I can say is that this is easily the most suspenseful book I have ever read.
Epistemology:
I hope that by now, I've thrown sufficient doubt on egoism in ethics, but the criticism can be extended further to egoism and individualism in epistemology. For a collection of essays dealing with this topic, I'd recommend Socializing Epistemology: The Social Dimensions of Knowledge edited by another one of the best philosophy professors I've had, Frederick F. Schmitt (among the others whose work I've mentioned being his wife, Marcia Baron). Hard-pressed for a paper topic while in his course and skeptical of the supposed socialization of epistemology, I thought I could surely arrive at one by criticizing one of the essays he had written for this book even though we hadn't covered it in class. Needless to say, and unfortunately for me at the time, I was mistaken. My only regret is that I don't have as much interest in epistemology as I do in ethics so that I could enjoy this book even more!
Politics:
As Rand's ethics is criticized, doubt will inevitably be cast on her political views and her dubious egoist derivation of rights. Although Nozick does not concern himself with deriving rights (interestingly, I believe he finds Korsgaard's practical contradiction reading of Kant's universalizability to be a promising way of establishing them), his book Anarchy, State and Utopia stands out as the most influential work in justifying libertarianism in political philosophy and so, laissez-faire capitalism may be salvaged even while Rand's ethics fails. In the first half, he takes the objection from anarchy seriously and shows how a minimalist government can arise from a state of nature without the violation of anyone's rights. In the second half, he argues that this is the only government that is consistent with rights. Since much of this half is concentrated on criticizing another major book in political philosophy, A Theory of Justice by John Rawls, I (and in fact, Nozick himself) would suggest reading this book as well (though I must shamefully admit that I have not gotten around to it yet).
Given my lack of primary interest in politics, I haven't read much of the arguments against libertarianism, but for a taste of the objections, one might want to see an essay by Hugh LaFollette aptly titled Why Libertarianism is Mistaken. There may be better, more comprehensive objections but since this one is immediately accessible online, it's the only one I've read so far. Besides, he's got a number of other interesting articles available on his site.
Since I'm always reading more philosophy, you can expect this list to continue to grow, and maybe shrink a little too!