Rand and Humanism

Is Libertarianism compatible with Humanism?
Originally published on the Bluegrass Skeptic's blog (now defunct) in 2015.

Modern Libertarianism is based largely on the works of Ayn Rand.  A glance at the philosophy section of the Ayn Rand institute and you'll see it nearly mirrors the philosophy of the Libertarian Party. Both espouse civil liberties for all, and both desire Laissez Faire Capitalism.  In the realm of skepticism and education, Rand's philosophies begin good enough, but once she gets to economics, politics and ethics, not so much.  But are these ideals compatible with Humanism?

A great philosopher, I forget which one, once mused that philosophy is the art of starting with premises no one rejects, and coming to conclusions no one accepts. This is (or should be) the case for Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy. Or as those past the age of 15 call it "being a selfish, spoiled brat." Perhaps that is a little harsh, but only if you do not look into Rand's philosophy. To do so is to see that at first, Rand's philosophy is seductive to Humanists, but on a closer look, her philosophy is quite incompatible with Humanistic thought.

Ayn Rand's ideas begins innocently enough, she asserts that reality is real (no brains in a vat), and that the observable universe is all that there is. For a Secular Humanist, we are good so far.  Though a Sectarian Humanist may depart ways here.  Rand's philosophy leaves no room for God or other superstitions. For Rand, since the only reality is the observable universe, we must all face facts, no matter how uncomfortable and think critically to make use of those facts.  For the skeptic, this is spot on. For those with a soft spot for children (like me) we know a few comforting words can soothe a distraught child. For instance, I would never tell a child that mittens had to be gassed to death, rather I would say they had to put her to sleep.  Though I draw the line at kitty heaven claims.

Either way, none of the above are incompatible with Humanist thought. However, things begin to break down once we get to the rest of Rand's philosophy. Rand's work in ethics begins nice enough by claiming that divine command theory, getting our morals from a godhead, is wrong. Her conclusion on morality is that what is good moral behavior is what is in our own self interest. Since humans have no natural code of conduct, we must act in accordance to our needs. Sounds sexy, right?

It almost sounds Humanistic.  However, even though Humanists hold that morals definitely do not come from God, that is were the similarities end.  The selfish principle, or Egoism, is where Humanists part ways with Rand and the Libertarians. A Humanist's base for morals is ending the needless suffering of fellow humans.  In Rand's philosophy, such an endeavour is only moral if it is in your own self interest. Rand would be all for MMR vaccines for all so her children wouldn't get sick (thus causing Rand to spend more money).  For a Humanist, vaccination is important to decrease the suffering of children for their own sake.  See the difference?

Another contention, is that Rand's ethics are highly relative.  She claims that humans have no natural ideas of morality or "automatic codes of survival".  While there are issues with this, it really has nothing to do with Humanism, so I will leave it for another day.  However, with Rand's philosophy it is perfectly moral to manipulate people into supporting you.  You would be using your talents to their fullest potential to meet your needs.  If someone is out a few bucks, then they should face the facts and learn to think more critically.  In Rand's philosophy, it is the often victim's fault.

When we examine Rand's economic philosophy, the part that Libertarians extol, we see a continuation of her selfish principle.  Rand believed in full Laissez-Faire Capitalism, a complete separation of Corporation and State. The only role the Government should have is to provide courts for law suits, and a police force to keep the rabble in line.  Laissez-Faire Capitalism not only doesn't work, but in incompatible with Humanistic thought.  The reason is not just the distribution of wealth, but that of power too.

In Rand's ideal State, and the ideal Libertarian State as well, the government is subservient to the corporation.  This is because the corporation has more power.  The EPA, USDA, FDA, SEC?  Forget them.  If human arms ground up in hamburger, useless drugs, flammable lakes, and insider trading are bad, then "the market" will correct the mistake.  Of course, the market means the myth of the free market.  I have already written about the "Free Market" here so for the sake of brevity I won't recap the myth of the free market.

In ancient Greece both Hedon and Epicurius based their philosophies partly on self interest. Rand was not claiming that we should be Hedonists. That is the eat-drink-and-be-merry style of freedom. Nor was she advancing Epicurian thought, which rests on the same basic principles as Hedonism, but valued long term happiness through education and understanding and not in the moment pleasures. However, both philosophers acknowledged and respected that other people have the same rights as anyone else.  What Rand proposed, what Objectivism amounts to is a form of Might Makes Right.

To Rand, if a person can leverage you into doing their will, then they have the right to do so.  If a corporation (which is an extension of the people running it) can exploit its employees then it is because the employees are weak and deserve it.  If an entrepreneur destroys the environment to obtain wealth, then those in the environment who are too weak to stop it can simply move, or they too deserve to get what they get.  One must wonder what then Rand would have thought about rape and institutional racism.

A refugee from Stalinist Russia, Rand rejected only the Communist limitations on the economy, but in reality she championed and tried to justify Stalinist authoritarianism.  Stalin leveraged his way to the head of the Communist Party, and used his power, his strength to run the USSR according to his whim.  This is precisely where Rand's philosophy takes you.  It is also why Social-Darwinists love her so much.  Ironically, Rand hated Stalin and his USSR, and yet a Stalinist style of government is where it ultimately leads.  The only difference is that Stalin would have began as a CEO and not as a lackey to Lenin.

The goal of Humanism is the exact opposite of this.  The primary principle of Humanism can be summed up as "alleviating unnecessary suffering of our fellow humans".  All endeavors should be towards this end.  This means we must protect the planet (our environment), feed the hungry, educate the youth, etc. etc. etc.  To ensure that everyone has access to opportunity, and necessities, they must be enfranchised equally within the government, which necessitates limits on personal power, and at times wealth.  While such a state may sound socialist, it is not necessarily so.  Humanism itself does not concern itself with economic ideals in so much that the economic system does not contribute to suffering.  This makes Humanism pragmatic, and not idealistic, like Objectivism.

About that J. Krishnamurti meme going around...

“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”

- Jiddu Krishnamurti

The above quote came across my Facebook feed recently.  At first glance it looks like wise words, Krishnamurti's sentiment is very humanistic, and what he's trying to say is worth listening to. However, if you spend more than a second thinking about it, the woo-woo slaps you in the face. Where Krishnamurti fails in reason is that he is redefining the word violence outside any intelligible meaning.  By saying that violence is when you separate yourself from the rest of humanity.  

The quote above begins with Krishnamurti giving a definition of tribalism, but the tail end of the quote implies that any separation is his version of violence.  Let's be clear on what violence is. Violence is doing tangible, physical harm to others. It is not calling some one a name, and it is definitely not joining or identifying with a group.

Are you a registered Democrat or Republican?  You're being violent!

Have you joined a church? You're being violent!

Do you root for your school's sports teams? You're being violent!

Consider yourself a Humanist?  You're being violent!

Are you a member of a labor union? You're being violent!

Do you consider yourself Canadian?  You're being violent!

What about considering yourself Irish, African-American or Polynesian? You're being violent!

Do you have a name? You're being violent!

To reiterate, This is violence:

Violence

And this is NOT violence:

Not violence

According to Krishnamurti, the black people in the "Not violence" photo above are being violent because they are identifying themselves as black, and thus not white like the police officer in the photo.  That same police officer is being violent by identifying himself as a cop, and thus not a civilian.  Ironically, that last photo not only exposes the absurdity of Krishnamurti's definition of violence, but refutes the very thing he was trying to say while simultaneously reiterating his sentiment.

How the photo refutes Krishnamurti is that the Black Lives Matter movement is in response to rampant and inexcusable police violence and institutionalized racism in many police departments in America and yet there is a white police officer holding up a #BlackLivesMatter protest sign.  Human identity is a necessary component of our psyche.  To end violence is not to get rid of our differences, but to embrace them when we can, dissect them and change when they cannot.  right now, American police departments are being dissected, we as a people cannot accept their treatment of certain members of our society.  Eventually, we will change the outlook of police officers towards black citizens.

Separating oneself from others does not necessarily breed violence. It can also breed corroboration and cooperation; in fact humanity is at its best when doing so.  But if we all have the same beliefs, the same ideas, belong to the same groups, then what is best in humanity dissipates.  It is not the act of differentiating oneself by idea or nation that breeds violence, the desire for violence is in some ideas themselves. Does your religion allow you to lie or harm non-followers?  Does your group necessitate hostility to other groups (like the KKK or NFL teams)? Then THAT is the cause of violence through groups: the design and desire within the group itself.  Often the purpose of the violence is more power for the group, or at least for the leaders of the group.  Until notions of personal power are eradicated from the human psyche, there will be violence.  Until then, redefining a component of identity as violence only asks the wrong questions, thus seeks the wrong answers.

On Humanism

“”It’s rare to walk anywhere in public and not see some religious advertisement every few moments. Imagine if the cause of non-belief were promoted to even one hundredth this degree? Theists would be totally outraged. Yet if an atheist decides to react to the overwhelming pro-religion propaganda that’s in his face on a daily basis, he’s labeled as “militant”, “intolerant” and “extremist.”
—Morgan Matthew, Why atheists care about religion

Part of the human psyche is tribalism: an unwavering loyalty to one’s in-group.  Tribes served to protect families from other tribes that wanted the same resources.  These tribes were formed from several extended families which would evolve over time.  From these loose tribal relations arose permanent settlements and cities.  As individual tribes arose to power they were able to subjugate other tribes creating kingdoms and even empires.  With the formation of nations, a tribe became self-sovereign with respect to other tribes.  Yet as the borders of these kingdoms, empires and nations grew, so did the tribes become split between ideologies, religion, even sports teams.  Our schools are infused with it, even the social construct of race is based on tribalism.

Another equally powerful aspect of the human psyche is the need to explain the world around them; a species-wide compulsion really.  This compulsion is met by two abilities that are also definitive of humanity: imagination and reason.  Reason is basically our ability do deconstruct the world around us to see how it works.  Imagination is our ability to construct things not found in nature.

Ancient man used myth to explain natural phenomenon.  The basis for these myths was a stout dose of imagination tempered only by the very human experiences of their creators.  Out of these myths, religion was born. Once reason was applied to imagination philosophy was born.  Once the collective ego was removed from philosophy, only the natural world remained and the study of it with awe and imagination tempered only by reason is science.

Science has dispelled nearly all of the myths of ancient man.  However, religion still remains.If not in the 21st century, then surely the 22nd century will see the end of religious tribalism in developed countries.  This trend has nearly happened in most of Europe and is beginning to take hold in the U.S. While the Mid-East is seeing a resurgence of fanatical, militant religiosity it looks more like the death throes of extremist theocrats.  Once more moderate Muslims temper the extremists in their midst, even Islam will wane.

Once religion has disappeared, or at least marginalized, then what?  The tribalistic nature would still remain. The what?  Statist tribalism?  Cults of personality?  It doesn’t work.  Be it Mohamed, Hitler, Reagan, Pol Pot, Mao, Moses, Stalin, Karesh, or Paul the application of religious-like (as in faith-based) obedience to a leader nearly always ends in bloodshed. The few exceptions are mainly Gandhi, Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) and Martin Luther King Jr. (who based his work of passive resistance on Gandhi).  What religion (or ideology) those listed above follows is mostly irrelevant rather it is the mechanism of religion that gives these people their power.  That mechanism in faith.

Faith is obedience without evidence. Faith in a person beans one follows that person without evidence that their ideals are just.  Faith in an idea is blind acceptance.  It is faith that is the destructive force behind religion, and the very thing that allows bronze age myths to be taken as true by modern man.

But to quell religion should it be outlawed?  Absolutely not!  Outlawing religion would only harden and embolden its fanatics, while increasing their number. But that is not the real reason.  In any society, secular or theistic, crime is stigmatized.  It would be very un-humanist to stigmatize someone who is harmlessly mistaken in a belief.  However, an organization is not a person. To stigmatize a church is no different than stigmatizing the Ku Klux Klan.  Both groups exist to spread tribalistic ideology aimed at controlling others.

Instead, the humanist approach is not to legislate away bad ideas like religion, racism, and chute-less skydiving, but to debate it away; to demonstrate the absurdity and immorality of it.  How is this done?  Through education, but never indoctrination.  What then is the difference?  In education the facts lead the conclusion and all conclusions have merit only as long as the facts support them.  In indoctrination the position is mandated by those in power.  To outlaw religion means to fine, jail, even execute the practitioners.  Thus to outlaw religion is the most violent form of indoctrination.

The need to be a part of something larger than oneself still remains after the gods die. So then what do we replace our petty tribes with?

US.

ALL OF US.

Hold to humanity itself.  That which fosters our species is good, and that which hinders it is bad.  But what actions should we take?  Our collective endeavors, be they political, economic, or social should be to relieve suffering (compassion), advance understanding (knowledge), minimize forced tribalism (liberty) and advance voluntary cohesive cooperation (community).

It is time for the human species to quit living on its knees and stand.  Stand up to the oppression of religion by battling the very idea of faith.  But the battle of the humanist is not fought with guns and bombs, and these must never be wielded in the name of humanism. Our weapons are knowledge, logic and love.  Our love for knowledge, logic and humanity are all we need to free our fellow humans from the bondage of religion.  To do so the very idea of faith must be exposed as villainous and destructive.  By opening minds, hearts will be opened.  Once educated, people will either reject superstition, or reject the notion of forcing it on other people.

To Humanity!