objectivisms role in economics

  • Thread starter Thread starter morganist
  • Start date Start date
Quote from AlpineTrout:

Lets say that you have this strange hobby (imo only) of collecting 18th century dildos. You're just crazy about the things. And, I come along and say "Hey, isn't that selfish of you to spend all that money on those dildos when you could be giving that money to your local orphanage?"

Isn't rather silly to say whether or not someone is selfish or greedy? Aren't the words selfish and greedy, really just words of jealousy?
More...

first of all i would never be jealous of an eighteenth century dildo collection (although in know a few people that would).

secondly agreed i don't think that is necessarily selfish in fact you could argue it is good for society if people benefited from the trade namely staff of the shop eighteenth century dildo shop.

however the argument i am making is the extreme level of greed seen when it is impacts on others. for example people dumping chemicals in lakes that people drink from because it is cheaper.

or selling their children into prostitution or killing people to get land in third world.

why did people get that greedy in recent years. people were not as greedy before or at least they could not get away with it because society as a whole frowned on it more. so why the move away.

the people in influential positions encouraged the concept of possessions and materialism to get more sales, more money through advertising and playing on insecurities to meet their own personal selfishness. this created a need within people to have more as it was seen as socially acceptable and praised. in short people's need for importance and love shifted from the previous concepts of relationships and consideration and position to possessions and ownership. this in turn lead people who desire importance to go to extreme levels to get money they needed to meet that desire often in a way that impacted others.

is objectivism the thing that lead the people who had the power to push those concepts of possession and ownership to meet their own selfishness the reason why selfishness as a whole grew about. they exploited peoples insecurities through advertising and needing to feel important with no consideration to the long term affects on society. did the objective movement encourage these leaders to think this way?

notice there has been no other philosophy in the last thirty years conversely. it is still output, maximisation, growth, wealth etc. it should be efficiency, minimisation, sustain, conserve etc. why is has it not moved is it because the leaders are still following objectivism.
 
i would like to post an additional point. say there was a person who was suffering and another person tries easing that suffering by giving them money. they get no pleasure from it but they do not suffer themselves from not seeing that person suffer.

this may be a form of selfishness as the giver does not suffer from helping the person who needed. however it shows consideration and love. the giver could have had pleasure from that money but sacrificed that opportunity to help someone else. so either they had more pain from seeing that person suffer than the pleasure was worth or they cared more for the other person than them self.

now take the other extreme someone who is prepared to allow other people to suffer to get money to get the pleasure they want and has no consideration for the other person. this is when objectivism becomes dangerous when this form of selfishness is rampant and when there is no limit to a persons greed and the justification of it is required.

think about people who spend money on things they don't really want or buy more than they want. they will try to use objectivism as a justification. it could be used to help others. ok it may not be the extreme example above but if they don't really care about the thing they want or they will not care in six months time shouldn't we ask 1. why is what people want changing so much and 2. why do people hold what they want at a whim at such high esteem.
 
however the argument i am making is the extreme level of greed seen when it is impacts on others. for example people dumping chemicals in lakes that people drink from because it is cheaper.

or selling their children into prostitution or killing people to get land in third world.

why did people get that greedy in recent years. people were not as greedy before or at least they could not get away with it because society as a whole frowned on it more. so why the move away.
---------------------------------------

Imo, on some levels I think these actions are based on the need for power. Why more so now than before? I believe that people have less control over their lives currently than in the past.

Control over ones life can be real or imagined as long as people "feel" in control. Absent control they'll "take back" or "strike out" at whatever at the expense of others regardless of the consequences to regain some semblance of power.
 
Quote from AlpineTrout:

One could argue that selfishness and greed are at the very core of human progress throughout history.

If we conclude that invention & innovation have created better lives for humans, then we have to ask, what are the motivators for this? Is it not based on selfishness or greed, as far as wanting money or notoriety for one's accomplishments?
More...
Wrong.

Selfishness, greed, and other lower needs are put within our selves as a vehicle for our material life.

Within man are a higher than matter aspect which is what is lumped together as life after death. On death, the body of man returns to matter and the spirit lives on in the spiritual world. It is this spiritual aspect that prompts man to look beyond greed and profit. It creates, innovate our of "pure curiosity" put within the being of man.

Economics cannot ignore greed, otherwise it will be greed that will have complete rule. Greed must be directed and channeled by the highest standard of moral integrity possible.
 
Money=Energy. Even Love is a form of Energy.
And the great philosopher Paul McCartney once said "...and in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love you make."
 
Quote from Onlygold:

Wrong.

Selfishness, greed, and other lower needs are put within our selves as a vehicle for our material life.

Within man are a higher than matter aspect which is what is lumped together as life after death. On death, the body of man returns to matter and the spirit lives on in the spiritual world. It is this spiritual aspect that prompts man to look beyond greed and profit. It creates, innovate our of "pure curiosity" put within the being of man.

Economics cannot ignore greed, otherwise it will be greed that will have complete rule. Greed must be directed and channeled by the highest standard of moral integrity possible.
More...

good post. did you read my posts on the previous pages i think you might find them food for thought. i would like your opinion on my opinion raised in them.
 
Quote from morganist:

do you think objectivism is the cause of the economic situation. the concept of the ultimate virtue being your self desires is something which has created a society based on greed. do you agree.
More...
I don't know what objectivism is. I suppose the definition is in "the concept of the ultimate virtue being your self desires". If it is this, then it surely is the cause of the current greed culture that is likely to embroil the world in the next Great Depression.

Self preservation is the mark of the beast and, by Decree, man too has this mark of the beast. But man has something else, by Decree, that beasts don't have - the mark of man.

Adam Smith's "invisible hand" that guides economics is correct in that man will, in properly governed free markets, work towards their best self interest. But this "greed" is guided greed and is for the economic greater good.

The other self desires like attraction of the opposite sex is also, by Decree, for the survival of species - otherwise why would man toil the earth for a livelihood to feed his wife and children and why would a woman bear and bring forth a child in pain.
 
i think this thread has gone a bit off topic so i will try and get it going again.

so far we have looked at objectivism and then we went onto human nature and reasons for different views of society.

i would now like to look at another philosophy constructivism the opposite of objectivism and try to argue against objectivism and its role in economics from the constructivist economic stand point.

constructivism is the aim of attaining knowledge and utilising that knowledge in life to improve society. this has economic impact and i would like to discuss whether rather than objectivism itself being the reason for the situation it was a denial of constructivism which may have been brought about by objectivism.

if this is the case it would suggest rather than a new philosophy being adopted an old has been denied should we be looking at what we lost and how to regain it if it true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(learning_theory)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top