Ayn Rand's philosophy vs Christian perspective, a look - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15124821


Ayn Rand explained in an interview with Mike Wallace:

"First, my philosophy is based on the concept that reality exists as an objective absolute, that man's mind, reason, is his means of perceiving it.
...
I am primarily the creator of a new code of morality... namely, a morality not based on faith... but on reason, a morality which can be proved by means of logic, which can be demonstrated to be true and necessary.
...
by which I mean he has to hold reason as his only guide to action, and that he must live by the independent judgement of his own mind, that his highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness, and that he must not force other people nor accept their right to force him, that each man must live as an end in himself, and follow his own rational self-interest.
...
I'm challenging the moral cause of altruism, the precept that man's moral duty is to live for others, that man must sacrifice himself to others, which is the present day morality.
...
What is self sacrifice? ... I consider it evil, and self-sacrifice is the precept that men needs to serve others... that his moral duty is to serve others, that is what most people believe today.
...
I say that man is entitled to his own happiness, and that he must achieve it himself, but that he cannot demand others give up their lives to make him happy, nor should he wish to sacrifice himself for the happiness of others."

Christ, every important moral leader in man's history has taught us that we should love one another. Why is this then in your mind immoral?

"It is immoral if it is a love placed above oneself.
It is more than immoral, it's impossible."

"I agree... [love] should be treated like a business deal, but every business has to have its own terms and its own kind of currency, and in love, the currency is virtue. You love them... for the values, the virtues which they have achieved in their own character. You don't love everyone indiscriminately, you love only those who deserve it."

And then if a man is weak, or a woman is weak, then she is beyond, he is beyond love?

"He certainly does not deserve it. He certainly is beyond. He can always correct it, and has free will. If a man wants love, he should correct his witnesses, or his flaws, and he may deserve it, but he cannot expect the unearned, easily in love nor in money, neither in matter nor spirit."

You have lived in our world, you recognize the fallibility of human beings, there are very few of us then in this world, by your standards, who are worthy of love.

"Unfortunately yes, very few. But, it is open to everyone to make themselves worthy of it, and that is all that my morality offers them. A way to make them worthy of love, although that's not the primary motive."


Although Rand's philosophy was apparently shaped out of opposition to Communism, the philosophy is also diametrically opposed to Christianity on several points.

This philosophy tosses out faith in God, and relies instead entirely on the individual.
It tosses out the concept of unconditional love, and replaces it with love of the self, and conditional love for others only if they actually deserve it.
It tosses out Christ's saving, and instead goes back to a more rigid judgement one could say is analogous to that in the Jewish Law before Christ.

Ayn Rand goes on to say that undeserved love is impossible. That a human being must have cultivated the necessary virtue inside of themselves.

What Ayn Rand's view basically is, one could say, is a philosophy entirely logical, if there were no God.

The philosophy throws out Christian self-sacrifice. The Christian belief that Christ sacrificed himself because he loved mankind, to save sinners, and the clear teaching to be willing to sacrifice and serve others.

Ayn Rand's philosophy also seems to presuppose that reason cannot lead to faith, or does not consider that.
When she talks about reason, she is referring to that coming out of man's own mind, not coming from trust or reliance on the reason of another.

Her philosophy assumes that a personal morality must be provable, and seems to assume that man must be capable of determining what this objective morality is, and capable of following it.
It assumes that man has the wisdom, power, and spiritual strength to do all this on his own.
Christianity clearly teaches contrary to this.
Rethinking the Electoral College

Huh? Who draws a line? Who decides what this l[…]

Election 2020

@colliric I am holding a Coronation party, today[…]

Emotion is the thing that you get when you track c[…]

Biden breaks his foot

@Verv Seeing as there are numerous indictments l[…]