Scott Ryan’s Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality: A Critique of Ayn Rand’s Epistemology used to be available for free in an e-text version on his site; but his site has been shut down for a couple years now. Luckily, I found a version on the WayBack machine.
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/7041/objectivism-and-the-corruption-of-rationality/
Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality
Previous post: What We Need is More Economic Ignorance
Next post: The Pot-Pushing “Terrorists” Under Your Bed
{ 24 comments }
Out of curiosity, what do libertarian critics of Rand think of David Kelley’s work?
Scott Ryan, in his Appendix, writes, “…I do think it is possible to show that all rational thought depends on absolute presuppositions which, if true, are best explained by theism (and in particular by the theism of the Torah and all religions which incorporate or presuppose it).” It would seem that accepting the supernatural is a key to being consistently rational.
Many thanks for the light summer reading, Stephan.
Do I correctly understand that Dr. Reisman is an Objectivist?
TT
In the preface of “Capitalism: A Treatise”, Reisman says that his meeting with Ayn Rand was key turning point in his intellectual growth (in addition to reading von Mises’ books). In particular, Rand’s meeting was the first time he began doubting (eventually rejecting) the view that values are ultimately arbitrary and subjective, as von Mises claimed.
Regarding the contents of his treatise on Capitalism, Reisman had this to say:
“The influence of her philosophy extolling individual rights and the value of human life and reason appears repeatedly in this book and sets its intellectual tone…. I have found her treatment of the concepts of individual rights and freedom to be far superior to that of anyone else.”
There must be a reason why this had to be dugg up.
And it shouldnt be very flattering to the author.
Reisman is an Objectivist, but not one of the “officially approved” ones, so to speak. He had a fallout with the more cultist-like Objectivists.
…he began doubting (eventually rejecting) the view that values are ultimately arbitrary and subjective, as von Mises claimed.
1) Did Mises ever use the word “arbitrary” in connection to values? I find it hard to believe.
2) I find it impossible to believe that Reisman rejects the subjective nature of values.
I was researching Jeff Gannon the other day, the gay whitehouse reporter guy, and ended up on some forum from a few years ago where there was an argument between justin raimondo from antiwar.com and a couple CATO types and Ayn Rand weirdies. it was pretty funny. They kick him off then bad mouth him when he leaves. then assert that ayn rand would have supported the iraq war.
Here’s a mind-twister for you: I agree with both Mises’s value subjectivism and Rand’s value objectivism. How I pull this off is by making a distinction between ethics (objective) and asthetics and preferance or economic value (subjective). Rand’s doctrine becomes quite absurd when she starts to imply that there can be an objective aesthetics.
[quote]1) Did Mises ever use the word “arbitrary” in connection to values? I find it hard to believe.[/quote]
Not that I know of, but I can easily see how Mises could be interpreted (or misinterpreted?) as being an ethical subjectist. I think this was the basis by which Rand attacked praxeology, as she apparently thought that it implies ethical subjectivism. That is, of course, a straw man. On the other hand, I think that Mises could be legitimately critisized for his rejection of natural law theory and the quest for universal values.
RW,
I’m not sure why you find it *impossible* to believe that Reisman rejected the view that values are subjective. It is the most logical position consonant with the facts of reality. To me, it would be more surprising to believe that someone of the intellectual calibre of George Reisman did *not* believe that values are objective.
In any case, my comments earlier were taken from the Preface to his book “Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics.” In the preface, he explicitly uses the word “arbitrary” and “subjective” to describe von Mises’ value perspective, and explicitly says that he now rejects that view for the objective value theory of Ayn Rand, which, incidentally, informs much of the content of his Treatise.
Further, Ayn Rand showed that the is/ought gap can only be bridged by an objective value system, which she ended up proving consistently. Matters like aesthetics, which Brainpolice brings up and caricatures Rand’s position with, is actually objectively definable from a metaphysical and epistemological viewpoint (for example, what art is [metaphysics] and what is its relationship to human consciousness [epistemology]). Rand did not say that specific, particulars in aesthetics are objective, in the sense that there is only one good art or good play or good book or good painting and that everyone should love it because it is objectively good. That is Brainpolice’s personal interpretation of the theory, not Ayn Rand’s.
Anyway, Reisman’s book is available online for free browsing, so anyone can look it up and validate my comments.
P.S. In contrast to Brainpolice’s assertion that only ethical values are objective and that economic values are subjective, Reisman actually begins his treatise on economics by trying to drive home the point that economic values are indeed objective and *not* utilitarian, unlike what most contemporary, Keynesian, and post-Keynesian economists like to hold.
Reisman spends a considerable amount of time in the first few chapters going over the objectivity of values, drawing heavily on Rand’s moral theories.
For example, read his section titled “The Objective value of a Division-of-Labor Capitalist Society”. In it, he makes the argument that capitalism–i.e., an economic system of certain values–are objectively desirable, i.e., objectively valuable for man’s life (to desire is to value).
Or lauded.
Sorry, that was in response to “I think that Mises could be legitimately critisized for his rejection of natural law theory and the quest for universal values.” I didn’t realize these comments were so active.
To me, it would be more surprising to believe that someone of the intellectual calibre of George Reisman did *not* believe that values are objective.
If all values were objective, then no market would be possible. As such, I have grave misgivings about Reisman’s intellectual caliber if you are representing his views correctly.
RWW,
Please don’t merely take my word for it. I urge you to look up Reisman’s own views in his own words available to you online for free.
I hope you will subsequently reconsider your inclination to hold “grave misgivings” about the intellectual calibre of George Reisman, the author of a most significant book on Capitalism that, according to Nobel Laureate James Buchanana, deserves to take its place alongside that of Adam Smith’s. As advocates of capitalism, it would be a tragedy to impugn the intellectual abilities of one of its best defenders.
The confusion over Reisman’s position on objective vs. subjective value is a relatively easy one to clear up and it hinges upon two different senses of the term ‘subjective’. Praxeology and Austrian economics are based on values being descriptively subjective (or agent-relative). Praxeology does not imply normative value subjectivity, i.e., that ethics is subjective in the sense that Rand used the term.
Objective value as Austrians think of it implies to them that value is agent-neutral, but this is what Rand called intrinsic value. Objective value, for Rand, is still agent-relative (or subjective in the descriptive sense).
Thus, it is perfectly possible for Reisman to hold both that value is objective (in Rand’s sense) and agent-relative (or descriptively subjective), but not normatively subjective.
My problem with Reisman as an economist has nothing to do with his position on the nature of value, it is with his rejection of praxeology altogether simply because he has Rand’s mistaken conception of it as necessarily Kantian in nature. An Aristotelian conception of praxeology is very possible and Rothbard began but did not take very far himself just such a reconceptualization.
Geoffrey,
I’ve been stating pretty much the same thing you did. Reisman’s position–as of Rand’s–is that values are objective precisely because they are agent-relative; i.e., values could not be objective otherwise; it would be intrinsic, Kantian, relativist, or subjectivist.
Now, regarding praxeolgy, perhaps, I’m not understanding your comment properly or I have not understood Reisman’s position on the matter. In my understanding, Reisman rejects praxeology altogether because it commits the logical fallacy of infusing the science of economics of the primacy of choice, when in actuality, choice is only a derivative aspect of economic interaction within the domain of wealth or capital transaction.
Reisman offers the following example to make his point: one can choose to engage in a conversation with a friend; but that choice in itself does not make the activity (of conversation) an economic one. It is only with the introduction of some wealth or capital that the activity can be considered as of interest to economists, i.e., as an economic activity.
IF you can offer a clarification of my understanding or of your own view, I’d appreciate it. I’d like to know how your criticism applies to Reisman’s position.
Typographical error: This should read “In my understanding, Reisman rejects praxeology altogether because it commits the logical fallacy of infusing the science of economics *with* the primacy of choice”
My apologies.
Jerry “”In my understanding, Reisman rejects praxeology altogether because it commits the logical fallacy of infusing the science of economics *with* the primacy of choice”"
I dont think anybody claims praxeology is the same thing as economics. Economics is a subcategory of praxeology.
So the example you gave may be an area of praxeology but not economics and economics can get into it once wealth is involved.
Also Brainpolice is quite right on the differenca between objective ethics and subjective aesthetics.
Jerry: “For example, read his section titled “The Objective value of a Division-of-Labor Capitalist Society”. In it, he makes the argument that capitalism–i.e., an economic system of certain values–are objectively desirable, i.e., objectively valuable for man’s life (to desire is to value).
And Jerry I think what Reisman is saying is that “market economy” or “division of labor” which is based on objective ethical rules, is objectively “good” but agents in the “market economy” can value economic goods subjectively.
This also what Mises did, although not with the same lingo, when he proved impossibility of economic calculation in socialism. He just proved objectively that it is not possible. A cold fact based on reality that you can not ignore, for long that is.
But the point in here is really going from ethics (and law based on ethics) to aesthetics.
Higher up, rules are more important since following them leads to life or death. Like Thy shall not kill.
Lower you get also important but not life threatening rules. These are morals. Like Thy shall not lie.
And below, including economics, is aesthetics. If you make poor choices you might have a lower quality of life but it is really negligable, and outside manipulation may lead to poorer quality of life.
Jerry,
You’re right, or at least partly right. It had been a while since I looked at Capitalism. Reisman doesn’t use the phrase ‘primacy of choice’, however. His explicit criticism in chapter 2 of praxeological economics is that wealth is the distinguishing characteristic of economics within which human choice can be studied; economics is not a science of scarce means employed to achieve ends.
I think his criticism is weak though and mostly if not entirely misses its mark. For one thing, as ktibuk already pointed out, he fails to address the Austrian distinction between praxeology and its most developed branch, economics. Reisman thus sets up a fictitious straw man as his target. His entire discussion of Austrian economics’s logical fallacy is predicated on failing to make this distinction as well as on his preference for a narrower conception of economics. He wants to limit economics purely to wealth, but it is not clear that it ought to be so limited. Wealth is a big part of economics, and is the end of many choices and actions, but wealth is also often the means to other ends for people.
I still think Reisman has another implicit reason for rejecting praxeological economics though, and that is Rand’s mistaken view that praxeology is purely Kantian in nature with a neo-Kantian conception of synthetic a priori concepts and principles.
A major problem I have with Reisman’s economic theorizing stems from his rejection of praxeology. Much of his economics seems to be primarily a macroeconomics of free-floating accounting aggregates that have no direct connection to human action. See, for example, his discussions of profit and interest.
Don’t get me wrong. He has some interesting and novel arguments in that book. But I think his basic approach to economics is flawed.
It has been a couple years since I read Reisman’s “Capitalism”. So I don’t want to attribute ideas to George Reisman that might be incorrect.
My understanding of the relationship between Rand’s objective moral values, and the assumption of subjective means-ends used by Mises and Rothbard, is briefly as follows. The production and acquisition of material wealth that’s necessary to one’s material well-being is an objective moral value. Economics is a study of the social relationships and processes that yield the most efficient production of wealth consistent with the preferences of actors in the economy. So, economics is really a branch of the philosophy of ethics, which elaborates the conditions and processes necessary to achieving a particular objective moral value, prosperity.
For the purpose of economic understanding, the economist must disregard the moral character of individual value preferences and just trace through the implications of the fact that individuals use means to acquire ends. So, for example, in tracing through the consequences of the fact that free competition tends to equalize returns among various branches of enterprise, the economist is unconcerned with the moral character of a particular enteprise, such as cigarette production or prostitution or home building. The economist is only interested in the fact that the pursuit of monetary gain creates incentives that yield market patterns.
Reisman’s concept that economics is about achieving wealth, to the exclusion of means-ends sought for other purposes, such as friendship or love, seems consistent with viewing economics as a branch of ethics. I seem to recall that Rothbard also wrote that economics is a branch of philosophy–I think ethics.
Ahh, very nice. I’ll probably read it later this afternoon. Objectivism is, at the very least, a fun philosophy to read and study.
I just spent 3 hours reading the first chapter and his conclusion; I am not going to read anymore. Ayn Rand was wrong about many things, but there are more worthy and honest critics than Scott Ryan.
I want those two hours back.. heck, even watching a mindless movie would have been time better spent.
Dang it, I am the typo king! I meant I want those “three” hours back…
Comments on this entry are closed.