Who Is The More EVIL: Rand, or Kant?

[Mal12345]

Of course I'm referring to Ayn Rand and Immanuel Kant. It's relevant to put the two together in one post particularly since Rand considered Kant to be "the most evil man in mankind's history." Basically because he allegedly created the intellectual means by which widespread evil is created, not because he himself was some kind of mass murderer. But then neither was Ayn Rand, who is also thoroughly demonized, sometimes by people who do understand her and by some whose knowledge of her writings is fairly sketchy.

One answer is that neither philosopher is evil per se. They were not psychopaths or sociopaths, or truly anti-social. Rand may have been functionally narcissistic and OCPD, she had an affair with Nathaniel Branden, but she didn't commit any jailable offenses. And Kant, as far as we know, was pure as the wind-driven snow, who died a virgin and who always slept with his hands on top of the covers.

Another answer is that Rand is evil whereas Kant is not, because Rand created a philosophy that allegedly makes evil a possibility by giving it an excuse, and a selfish one at that.

 

[Lark]

Rand, obviously, easily.

It should be self evident but Kant believes no one should be a means to anothers end, Rand believes that John Gault shouldnt be a means to others ends but everyone is his means.

 

[Mal12345]

Rand, obviously, easily.

It should be self evident but Kant believes no one should be a means to anothers end, Rand believes that John Gault shouldnt be a means to others ends but everyone is his means.

In the OP I have edited in the Rand affair with Branden, because that goes opposite to Kant's image of being morally pure.

I don't buy your take on Kant's moral philosophy, and I'm not sure you've accurately characterized Rand's. So you are in the "fairly sketchy knowledge" camp of Rand detractors. But as a Kant and Rand scholar, I can clarify all those kinds of issues.

 

[Mal12345]

I forgot to add that I don't see how that makes Rand evil anyway, even if she held that kind of belief.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

This may be unsatisfactorily meta for the OP, but I'm going to approach this be analyzing it through my own stalwart moral philosophy, which is basically that of a pluralistic, positive utilitarian.

First of all, good and evil are too Boolean for me to generally use the word evil. Secondly, humans are too wide a variety and long a series of consequential events for me to just call a human being as a whole bad, except as some kind of average. What I can do assess the moral philosophies proposed by both individuals and determine which of the two is more conducive toward that which my moral philosophy considers wrong.

To that end I would say Rand is worse, though I rather dislike Kantian deontological ethics. Both philosophies often encourage a human being to do things that would run against the most happiness for the most people for the most time, but while Kant's prescriptions only even incidentally do this, Rand's philosophy sometimes explicitly encourages people to do things that are mutually exclusive with that outcome, thus leaving me to presume that a person acting on Kantian ethics in a way that is acceptable to my philosophy is more plausible than one doing so by acting on Randian ethics.

 

[Mal12345]

This may be unsatisfactorily meta for the OP, but I'm going to approach this be analyzing it through my own stalwart moral philosophy, which is basically that of a pluralistic, positive utilitarian.

First of all, good and evil are too Boolean for me to generally use the word evil.

That is a mathematical or scientific reply to almost any philosophy that creates absolute divisions. Sir James Jeans gave this subject a good treatment in his "Physics and Philosophy."

Secondly, humans are too wide a variety and long a series of consequential events for me to just call a human being as a whole bad, except as some kind of average. What I can do assess the moral philosophies proposed by both individuals and determine which of the two is more conducive toward that which my moral philosophy considers wrong.

To that end I would say Rand is worse, though I rather dislike Kantian deontological ethics. Both philosophies often encourage a human being to do things that would run against the most happiness for the most people for the most time, but while Kant's prescriptions only even incidentally do this,

IOW, his moral theory might prescribe it, but not as a rule against general happiness per se...

Rand's philosophy sometimes explicitly encourages people to do things that are mutually exclusive with that outcome, thus leaving me to presume that a person acting on Kantian ethics in a way that is acceptable to my philosophy is more plausible than one doing so by acting on Randian ethics.

IOW, anti-Utilitarianism is what Rand's moral philosophy actually prescribes.

You're pretty squarely reflecting Lark's sketchy knowledge of these issues.

Rand's theory is anti-Utilitarian, but only because she rejected such collectivist "nonsense" as a general happiness. She would prefer to start on an individual basis, and if most individuals (in her view) would just practice her philosophy in full then a general happiness would be reached, numerically speaking. But that's not her goal, individual happiness is her goal. Then some will comment that it is to be achieved at the expense of others, but she would deny this vehemently. She would retort that it is Utilitarianism that sacrifices the happiness of a few for the general happiness of the collective many. And that the solution to this problem is not to think in "general" collectivist terms. Indeed, 100% happiness, not just general happiness, is attainable, and the only way to attain, ideally, 100% happiness is by starting on the level of the individual philosophic attitude or "sense of life." And only by working on this level via her philosophic principles.

Kant's idea is a bit trickier to work with here as his views on Utilitarianism are buried within the depths of his ponderous tomes. But generally speaking, happiness was not a direct moral value. It is a feeling, and feelings as such will come and go, ebb and wane. He might say that Rand was trying to prove too much and may even state she was making some audacious claims about happiness regarding the efficacy of her philosophy, and moreover, that she obviously lacked a thorough education in psychological theory.

 

[KDude]

Kant was a wanker, at worst.

 

[Mal12345]

Kant was a wanker, at worst.

He kept his hands on top of the blankets at night.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Hitler > Kant > Rand in evilness!

 

[Mad Hatter]

/ godwin

// thread

 

[Mal12345]

/ godwin

// thread

Godwin's law doesn't end a thread. Where does it say that?

But I admire his prowess at keeping it below the debate level.

 

[Polaris]

I think that Utilitarianism is naive, psychologically ignorant, and completely impracticable, for which reasons I would never use its principles to evaluate someone else's principles. I find moralism in general to be unfortunate and even poisonous, in that it, ironically, leads people to ignore what they know is right in a pre-moral sense, and has contributed to more suffering, hatred, and inhumanity than any other human force in existence. Between Kant and Rand, Rand is clearly superior, in that she cuts out a whole vast dimension of moral imperatives (specifically, altruistic morals) and puts an emphasis on doing what feels right and comfortable (even if she tries to qualify this feeling with moral language). Kant, on the other hand, tells us that feelings, instincts, intuitions don't matter, in the least; we're to follow a "law," a blind, impersonal "law." People love the blind, rock-likeness of morality; they love having a set of ready-made directions on what to do, directions that don't need to be adapted or interpreted in the least, directions that often have very little to do with real, endlessly variable situations, because it frees them from having to decide anything for themselves; all the work is done for them. And it also frees them from having to take responsibility for their actions; it wasn't them doing any of it, and at any rate, all of it was the *right* thing to do; they were robots obligated to carry out the actions embedded in the flawless program called morality, and no criticisms can be leveled against them. And what actions they take in its name! Violence, dehumanization, intolerance, self-hatred, poisoned "kindness," and dishonesty through the roof.

Get rid of morality right now, and we'll have world peace tomorrow.

 

[Mal12345]

I think that Utilitarianism is naive, psychologically ignorant, and completely impracticable, for which reasons I would never use its principles to evaluate someone else's principles. I find moralism in general to be unfortunate and even poisonous, in that it, ironically, leads people to ignore what they know is right in a pre-moral sense, and has contributed to more suffering, hatred, and inhumanity than any other human force in existence. Between Kant and Rand, Rand is clearly superior, in that she cuts out a whole vast dimension of moral imperatives (specifically, altruistic morals) and puts an emphasis on doing what feels right and comfortable (even if she tries to qualify this feeling with moral language). Kant, on the other hand, tells us that feelings, instincts, intuitions don't matter, in the least; we're to follow a "law," a blind, impersonal "law." People love the blind, rock-likeness of morality; they love having a set of ready-made directions on what to do, directions that don't need to be adapted or interpreted in the least, directions that often have very little to do with real, endlessly variable situations, because it frees them from having to decide anything for themselves; all the work is done for them. And it also frees them from having to take responsibility for their actions; it wasn't them doing any of it, and at any rate, all of it was the *right* thing to do; they were robots obligated to carry out the actions embedded in the flawless program called morality, and no criticisms can be leveled against them. And what actions they take in its name! Violence, dehumanization, intolerance, self-hatred, poisoned "kindness," and dishonesty through the roof.

Get rid of morality right now, and we'll have world peace tomorrow.

Kant said he was only clarifying those precepts which people were following all along, only vaguely, without the guidance of clear moral thinking. On the other hand, it doesn't answer for everything. It doesn't tell you in any particular circumstance whether to state the honest truth or to state nothing (which at least isn't a lie unless it's a lie of omission). And he also wrote an essay called Perpetual Peace.

I don't think Rand would be very comfortable with your statement that hers is a morality of feeling, because she equated that with whim.

 

[Polaris]

Kant said he was only clarifying those precepts which people were following all along, only vaguely, without the guidance of clear moral thinking. On the other hand, it doesn't answer for everything. It doesn't tell you in any particular circumstance whether to state the honest truth or to state nothing (which at least isn't a lie unless it's a lie of omission). And he also wrote an essay called Perpetual Peace.

Kant's philosophy is very blatantly prescriptive. He says that people should not do certain things, because, in his view, these things are self-contradictory. In doing this, he assumes that people are bound to possess a particular kind of moral consciousness, when they're not bound to possess a moral consciousness at all; and, purely as a matter of taste, he attempts to stigmatize vagueness of thought.

I don't think Rand would be very comfortable with your statement that hers is a morality of feeling, because she equated that with whim.

Ayn Rand felt that a person should, within certain confines, pursue their own happiness, which makes her morality, in that sense, a morality of feeling. Kant believed that a person had to avoid making what he considered to be logical errors, and as far as he was concerned, feelings or instincts had little do with it; good action was "purely a matter of reason," whatever pure reason is (I think efforts toward "pure reason" are a form denial and self-punishment).

 

[ZPowers]

Every time I think I couldn't dislike Ayn Rand more, I find a way to dislike her more.

I think Kant's philosophy is flawed (even occasionally in the same way as Rand, which is to say over-idealizing people in slightly different ways), but I find it much preferable to Rand's.

 

[Mal12345]

Kant's philosophy is very blatantly prescriptive. He says that people should not do certain things, because, in his view, these things are self-contradictory. In doing this, he assumes that people are bound to possess a particular kind of moral consciousness, when they're not bound to possess a moral consciousness at all; and, purely as a matter of taste, he attempts to stigmatize vagueness of thought.

Ayn Rand felt that a person should, within certain confines, pursue their own happiness, which makes her morality, in that sense, a morality of feeling. Kant believed that a person had to avoid making what he considered to be logical errors, and as far as he was concerned, feelings or instincts had little do with it; good action was "purely a matter of reason," whatever pure reason is (I think efforts toward "pure reason" are a form denial and self-punishment).

Rand wasn't the "pure reason" philosopher. That would be Kant (Critique of Pure Reason). I searched for the "purely a matter of reason" quote on my Objectivist Research Cd-rom and came up with no hits. But does Objectivist morality prescribe a form of denial and self-punishment? I'm sure the Randroids would deny that. Yet they have very strict sexual mores, believe it or not. And the Randroid lifestyle would have to constitute a severe rigidity of behavior - work, sleep, eat, work, sleep, eat. Heavy emphasis on "work," as productivity is one of their primary virtues. I should also include "studying Objectivism." But anybody claiming that all this is a form of denial and self-punishment obviously has, in the Randroid view, bad philosophical premises. It is not a lifestyle of denial, but of acceptance of reality; not of self-punishment, but of purest psychological joy and happiness. Or so they force themselves to believe.

If anybody would seem to be a more explicit "denial and self-punishment" philosopher, it would be Kant the "pure reason" guy. Except I don't see that in his moral philosophy. Kant puts some (not a lot) of emphasis on happiness, whether for oneself or others. When I say "not a lot" I mean that happiness is more of an indirect value. After all, searching for happiness is not like searching for a job, because happiness is something of a more immaterial and ephemeral nature.

This is why Schopenhauer called Kant an Eastern philosopher, like a Zen Buddhist (partly because Schope was taken by Eastern mysticism, and partly because Kant gives this same appearance). The detached "pure reason" atmosphere of Kant's philosophy gives some people the impression of a denial system. But it is aimed toward personal enlightenment, not quite in the Buddhist sense but approximately along the same indirect lines: if you search for it, you'll never find it.

 

[Polaris]

Rand wasn't the "pure reason" philosopher. That would be Kant (Critique of Pure Reason). I searched for the "purely a matter of reason" quote on my Objectivist Research Cd-rom and came up with no hits. But does Objectivist morality prescribe a form of denial and self-punishment? I'm sure the Randroids would deny that. Yet they have very strict sexual mores, believe it or not. And the Randroid lifestyle would have to constitute a severe rigidity of behavior - work, sleep, eat, work, sleep, eat. Heavy emphasis on "work," as productivity is one of their primary virtues. I should also include "studying Objectivism." But anybody claiming that all this is a form of denial and self-punishment obviously has, in the Randroid view, bad philosophical premises. It is not a lifestyle of denial, but of acceptance of reality; not of self-punishment, but of purest psychological joy and happiness. Or so they force themselves to believe.

Right, I was referring to Kant's philosophy when I said "'purely a matter of reason.'" And the quote was meant to be a caricature, not a record of his literal words. And I was saying that I think rationalism in general is a form of denial and self-punishment, which was probably obscured by my putting quotation marks around "pure reason."

For the record, I'm not advocating hedonism; I'm advocating a clear, which is to say, pre-moral, conscience. And I think that Rand, who spent far more time criticizing morals than she did advocating them, came a lot closer to agreeing with me than Kant did.

 

[Mal12345]

Right, I was referring to Kant's philosophy when I said "'purely a matter of reason.'" And the quote was meant to be a caricature, not a record of his literal words. And I was saying that I think rationalism in general is a form of denial and self-punishment, which was probably obscured by my putting quotation marks around "pure reason."

For the record, I'm not advocating hedonism; I'm advocating a clear, which is to say, pre-moral, conscience. And I think that Rand, who spent far more time criticizing morals than she did advocating them, came a lot closer to agreeing with me than Kant did.

That makes more sense. I'd read the word "Kant" as "Rand" in your paragraph that started out with Rand, because I guess I need to buy new Dollar store glasses, but I still managed to talk about Kant. A few scholars will claim that Kant was a rationalist, but the more observant ones will find that he was advocating Critique over both rationalism and empiricism. He went through periods of rationalism and empiricism before finally developing his Critical method over a 10 year period.

 

[sprinkles]

They both try to quantize things that are continuous, non-discrete, and emergent. I feel that this is the mistake that both of them made.

Setting down rules in this manner changes the nature of the whole thing. By quantizing morality, they alter it - maybe even destroy it.

IMO the real beauty and impact of morality is when you do it without knowing 'the rules'.

 

[Lark]

In the OP I have edited in the Rand affair with Branden, because that goes opposite to Kant's image of being morally pure.

I don't buy your take on Kant's moral philosophy, and I'm not sure you've accurately characterized Rand's. So you are in the "fairly sketchy knowledge" camp of Rand detractors. But as a Kant and Rand scholar, I can clarify all those kinds of issues.

Please, are you the random Randian who keeps turning up from time to time to troll the forums with posts about your hero, I get Rand because Rand is easy, selfishness is a virtue, no sacrifice no way never, certainly not self-sacrifice, capitalism is the bomb and has not casualties or collateral damage. Its all balls though. Kant was seriously intellectually superior to a bad novelists from Russia.