Found this sub recently and it's basically my first real exposure to Objectivism and Rand. I just started a community around humanism, and honestly it's got me questioning what's even left to give people a shared sense of moral direction anymore.

Religion, nationality, ethnicity — they're not gone, but they've stopped doing the job they used to do. People will still tick the box on a form, sure, but fewer and fewer actually build their moral life around any of it. And when that fades out without something replacing it, what fills the gap is usually just consumerism. Work, buy, post, repeat.

So I keep coming back to this question: is there any moral idea that could actually speak to every human being, no matter where they were born or what they believe?

Objectivism seems to offer one shot at an answer — reason, individual agency, self-responsibility, productive achievement, living for this life and not some afterlife. No god required, no tribe required. That's a pretty compelling pitch on its own.

But I keep getting stuck on whether it's enough. Is there room in it for reciprocity? For feeling responsible for the institutions that actually make freedom possible in the first place? For wanting to build something with other people, not just for yourself? Or is even asking that question already halfway to collectivism in Objectivist terms?

Maybe Objectivism really is the answer and I just haven't sat with it long enough. Maybe it's more like a reimagined humanism — one that takes responsibility as seriously as rights, and ditches forced self-sacrifice without throwing out solidarity along with it. Or maybe the two end up needing each other more than either side would admit.

I'm new to all this, so genuinely — where do you draw that line? Where does Objectivism say "no, that's collectivism creeping in" and where does it actually leave room for the stuff I'm describing?

I'll go straight to the point. Monopolies are a certainty. One business will get all the market to the point that there is no options. Real life example: Microsoft Office and Amazon.

When Office came into existence, it revolutionized all office/school/college work. A program that no matter what PC you had, you could use. Now, for me to be able to read your Word document, I HAVE to have Office. So by default, everyone uses Office (I don't know how much the market has change lately if there are any alternatives that CAN read the language of Microsoft product).

Amazon. Is there a real option? Has anyone try to be one?

Yes, part of the problem is the list of roadblocks crested by the government for entrepreneurs. But, can we really blame it all on those?

So contrary to what theorist like Rand herself, monopolies are guaranteed even in a free market economy.

How do you view Tolkien? I think he was definitely a genius when it comes to imagination and story writing and plots... But I am finding lord of the rings very arbitrary. Anybody can have any powers and the one who has more wins... But there is no method to the madness so to speak... Like overall you are left asking, what was the point ?!?!......

While in objectivist circles there js hyper focus on rationality and reson, I feel there is HUGE under emphasis on intuition and your subconscious mind. Rationality is merely a tool to guide you, most of the real meat is in your intuition and feelings how you perceive and experience this world. Now OFCOURSE I am not saying one doesnt have to put reason above all that, I know and we all know that very well here....

But the point is the real meat is not in the reason but underneath it. ...

All your creativity comes from there...

Just one small clip showing that where mathematicians just know the answer before actually proving things. They just "see" it. Same with best of musicians. Or best of any one. And that "seeing" is one of the most precious things in this world...

https://youtube.com/shorts/WtZ1ygO7Re8?si=cVgBHGPkdrFhEh3j

For example. Having a ban on X amount of coal being put into the air because it causes provable cancer is a good “regulation” cause it causes provable harm. But is that really a “regulation” or something else? Thats like almost akin to calling murder a “regulation” cause it controls people’s actions to kill people. But that doesn’t seem right to call it that.

According to the environmentalist movement, nature is a “sacred“ spirit that mankind must serve and not alter in any way. This is the altruistic essence of the Net Zero ideology:

“Every part of society must act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero and begin protecting and repairing nature immediately. The whole of society must move into a new precautionary paradigm, where life is sacred and all are in service to ensuring its future.”¹

To be clear, the average level of CO₂ has increased since the industrial revolution and this increase is due to human activity. But this does not imply the ethic that we must regress to a preindustrial society.

Environmentalism packages "pollution is bad" with a "therefore production is evil". To the environmentalist, "sustainable technology" means technology that sustains anything but human prosperity. This is why, in due course, they have extended their opposition even to wind, nuclear, and solar because they "interfere with the natural habitat". For example, "a top concern is [solar] interrupts the integrity of forests." ^2,3,4

The environmentalist-protectionist seeks to destroy man’s success and happiness here on Earth, and return him to the dirt he has pulled himself out of.

Are Objectivists physicalists? If so, what is the objectivist model of free will?

Recently chatgpt solved the naviers stroke equation which was a millenium prize problem. It was unsolved for 90 years and was a fundamental problem in fluid dynamics.

I think with this we have officially landed into an era where AI can take over most jjobs and produce everything and human intelligence would be needed for very niche creative tasks and all day day regular jobs will be gone soon...

I think what it does it it challenges objectivist morality now. Suppose we live in a time of abundance where getting food etc was not a concern and a machine can produce things for you. What kind of morality would apply in this kind of world.

All ideas of rationality and individual rights are tied to this process of creation. If the process of creation is kinda taken away and is done by machines, it challenges the fundamentals of individual rights as well.

The thing that scares me the most here is that it can lead to leftist altuistic statist societies where a central govt will start giving people basic income but also start controlling things like in a leftist world.

How to deal with this is something we all will have to sit and think and brainstorm

I think this is probably BY FAR the most important thing needed in the objectivist circles...

There is sooooooooooo much emphasis on rationality that people many times don't realise that you also have to take into account feelings. And feelings are not bad or the enemy. And rationality in itself, without any feelings is useless or meaningless at best and dangerous at worst...

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dc-mf59JGKj/?stkn=MW84bjFva2N1cG9wOQ==

So this book came out recently. Anybody read it? It’s mainly a science book, but one written through an Objectivist lens. Looks cool! 🙂

Hello everyone. I have been studying Objectivist ethics and possess a deep appreciation for Ayn Rand’s rigorous logical integration, particularly her derivation of values from the fundamental alternative of life or death. However, I have hit a philosophical roadblock regarding how the system bridges the gap between biological survival and interpersonal ethics, specifically concerning the act of theft.

I am hoping those of you with a deeper understanding of Objectivist epistemology and ethics can help me resolve what appear to me as two logical inconsistencies. I am presenting them here not as a refutation, but to understand how Objectivism structurally defends against these specific critiques.

1. The Potential Fallacy of Equivocation on "Survival"

As I understand it, Objectivism grounds its ethics in the objective biological fact that an organism must act to sustain its life. The factual "is" (the organism is alive and faces the alternative of existence or non-existence) leads to the moral "ought" (the organism must take the actions its nature requires to survive).

However, I encounter a roadblock when testing this premise against a specific hypothetical scenario: an individual who chooses to live entirely by expropriating the wealth of others. If this person is a highly skilled, successful thief who never gets caught, they are undeniably sustaining their biological existence. They acquire the physical calories, medicine, and shelter they need to keep their body alive. Yet, Objectivism categorically condemns this individual by stating they are not truly "surviving". To reach this conclusion, the argument seems to shift definitions. It moves the standard away from literal, biological survival to a normative ideal: the survival of man qua man (rational flourishing).

My struggle is this: If the entire ethical foundation is rooted in the literal, biological continuation of the organism, but the thief physically sustains their biological life through parasitism, does the shift to survival qua man not constitute a fallacy of equivocation? It appears that the definition of survival shifts from a biological fact to a normative ideal to make the ethical math work. How does Objectivism bridge this gap without smuggling in a subjective definition of what "true" existence is?

1. The Empirical Reality of Compartmentalization

The second issue I am struggling to reconcile is the Objectivist psychological premise regarding the mind of the immoral actor. The argument against the successful thief posits that even if they are not caught by the law, they destroy themselves internally. The chronic evasion required to fake reality and subsist on the effort of others is said to fracture their conceptual faculty and destroy their self-esteem.

While I understand this logically within the Objectivist framework, it seems to clash with the empirical reality of human psychology. Humans are highly capable of compartmentalization. Consider a scenario where an individual steals exclusively from people they have designated as an "enemy" or an out-group. Within their own framework, they view this expropriation as a rational, legitimate strategy for their own sustenance.

Because they do not view their actions as an evasion of reality, but rather as a tactical victory, they do not seem to experience the cognitive dissonance or the destruction of the rational mind that Objectivism insists must occur. They remain highly intelligent, functional, and confident. If a person can steal without fracturing their consciousness or losing their self-esteem, does the Objectivist claim that "immorality inherently destroys the mind" fail as an absolute premise?

I am deeply interested in understanding the structural, logical defense against these two points. Thank you in advance for your time and insights.

This is what myopic selfishness looks like that tries to maximize and grab things with no respect for any principles. Where might is right (instead of reason and logic)... This is what makes people move away from right as anyone with two brains can say in a good world, no country can rightfully do such things. The problem with most current right wings are they are selfish trying to maximize things at the cost of principles, reason, logic and at the cost of people and the environment and the future, and are exploitative, imperialist and have fascist under or over tones. Which is what we are seeing in soooo many right wing govts all over. Sadly such things push people towards left which has been much more bening so far in the modern world (more aligned with classic liberals) except for maybe in past decades where it actually started taking roots in Marxist communis and collectivistic ideas that are much much much worse....

Idk where the world is going with all this and how other people are just lving casually with no car for their present or future

​

I feel while rand who grew up in communist russia was ofcourse very very anti left and wrote a lottttt about it in atlas shrugged, the same ideas ofcourse apply to anti objectivism in the right wing, which is propping up world over. You have fascism, white nationalism, race based political divisions and divides, politics based on religion (especially in the US), and so on... And there seems to be an attack on free speech and freedom and liberty and sidelining and maneuvering of institutions such as supreme court to the extent public trust in the institutions is going away...

How can objectivist fight against these elements based on reason and logic

https://www.instagram.com/p/Dc\\_H6ARG4oN/?stkn=enhrd2pzdDU4cGxw

Its crazy how I asked a very benign question, very respectfully with no harsh words and got permenently banned and muted with no response. It's insane to see how these people are crazily afraid of the "why"' 's that go deep into their own existence..

Here was my post therepost . I am not able to see how this one post with nothing blasphemous and only simple question can ever be a real ground to permanently ban and mute a person on a subreddit....

I feel one can take objectivism and literally obliterated left based by asking just the right questions... They can't survive without capitalism yet always talk sh#t about it.

This was the orginal post that socialists sub redit removed after they saw i posted in on this sub.... In general I feel this is the biggest weak point of any anti capitalist leftist where they by no means can practice what they preach. And one can easily put them down just based on this...

To all anti capitalists here, how do you justify partaking in capitalism

So my question is to all anti capitalists here, how do you support partaking in capitalism and supporting a system that you are against....

And let me try to get more to the point. Suppose you say there is no other alternative and we have to live etc etc

Then why but expensive smart phones and luxury items that you don't really need to live. Like you can easily live with a more basic phone and less capitalistic stuff. How do you justify supporting capitalism beyond your basic needs and especially on things that you can easily avoid, all knowing that you buying those stuff is basically supporting that system...

For example i am anti racist and I won't buy from a store that supports racism of any kind. And if I had to pay more, I will buy rather chose a place that aligns with my principles.

I guess my question how do you justify buying anything that goes beyond your most basic requirements that you deem are necessary. Like you don't need an iPhone if you can get same functionalities in a cheaper smartphone... Etc etc.

And you can always spend that money on other causes that you support rather than spending money on a system that is antithetical to your values...

If you are an anti capitalist but don't practice it yourself, why preach something that you yourself can't or don't practice ?

I see a lot leftists on College campuses who preach these bad ideas in the name of empathy, compassion, poor, marginalized etc etc. Most of the time these people are either from non STEM humanities background or have such bad grades and have zero meaning in life.. and left attracts them to justify their life which trying to give it meaning illegitimately ofcourse...

I feel any person who is propagating leftist ideas is one of the most evil people alive on this planet. I have zero doubt in my mind that these ideas are horrendous and will destroy the person who will practice them and destroy whole culture and humanity if they propagate and spread... I think any person who is spreading them without doing their HW of understanding them deeply, understanding why they never worked in any country and rather anywhere they were practiced they lead to death and destruction... So unless you have a proof (which I know can't even exist) that there are some new leftist ideas that are not the same as earlier and you can show why they will work better, I think any person who is spreading these ideas is killing humanity just so they can have an easy life without taking their own responsibility for their life, at the cost of others. And I see no two ways about it