A successful life.
What objective universal rule in her ultimate worldview makes her morality superior to others?
Morality is a very vague term. I don't know if you are asking about the morality [I would prefer the term "philosophy", but I'm not sure if that's what you mean] she preached or the morality she lived.
Now, if you are asking about her philosophy, then what I find most compelling is the virtue of selfishness. That each human's only moral obligation is to himself and to those to whom he freely obligates himself [family, friends, etc.]. She believed that the modern concept of sacrifice was morally corrupt.
If, for example, you wish to give food to the family down the street that is hungry, that's fine; an example of man's humanity towards man. But if you take food that would make your own family hungry to give to someone else, she would scold you for ignoring your primary moral obligation.
Now, a lot of people have taken this virtue of selfishness [a term she chose intentionally to be a provocative one] as meaning she believed you shouldn't help others. That isn't true. She just railed against the modern, welfare-state, faux altruism that claims we are all responsible for each other.
We are individuals and should not be slaves to others; either by government decree or church dogma.
Now, all that said, whenever I defend Rand's philosophy, I always feel compelled to add that I am not a member of the cult of personality that surrounded her and, to an extent still does. She was, in my opinion, an extremely brilliant woman whose logic I admire but whose personal life was chaotic and often didn't live up to her lofty ideals.
There are some aspects of her philosophy I strongly disagree with. Abortion is one. She was an early and vociferous advocate for abortion rights and I find that completely counter to her general philosophy of the rights of the individual.
Now, it might have been the times -- science hadn't advanced to the point it has now. Then again, it might have just been her personal feelings impeding on her common sense.
But you don't have to agree with every word a philosopher puts forth to still admire her. It's her thinking that intrigues me. My favorite book of hers is Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology wherein she lays out her theory of concepts and how humans learn.
It's an area of particular interest to me and I can't help but think every teacher in America should memorize it. It's just brilliant.
And if that's not your philosophical cup of tea, I would heartily recommend The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution. Her writings on the corruption of American education by the left were prescient -- and her non-fiction is as enjoyable to read as her fiction isn't.
OK. I probably haven't answered your question, but it was thoughtful and I tried to provide a thoughtful -- if, perhaps, incomplete response. If religious people can get past a long-dead woman's opinions of religion, then I think there is much in Rand's writings for them [you?] to like and even to learn from. Cheers.
RE; A successful life.
OK, Genghis Khan and his followers and his descendants consider ruling over a vast territory a successful life regardless of how many people were slaughtered in the process. So did Tamerlane ( who the Boston terrorist was named for ).
What objective rule in Ayn Rand’s atheistic worldview tells us that they are morally inferior to Ayn Rand?
RE; Morality is a very vague term. I don’t know if you are asking about the morality [I would prefer the term “philosophy”, but I’m not sure if that’s what you mean] she preached or the morality she lived.
I am talking about Morality AS IT RELATES to her foundational Philosophy.
Ayn Rand’s idea of a “successful life” (your words, not mine ) is a “morality” based on her philosophy. I want to know ON WHAT FOUNDATION, ON WHAT BASIS, she makes this prescriptive for the rest of the world when her entire basis for our existence is built on our all being formed from the random and chance mutation of molecules.
What difference does being an Ayn Rand, a Mother Theresa or a Hitler make when we are all going to the same final destination anyway?
One man’s idea of what is successful is another man’s idea of what isn’t. THEN WHAT? WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT IS RIGHT WHEN THERE IS NO ULTIMATE MORAL JUDGE?
How do you know that double dribbling is a violation when no rule book of basketball tells you it is? One can simply decide that it isn’t a violation and play the same game.
RE: Now, if you are asking about her philosophy, then what I find most compelling is the virtue of selfishness. That each human’s only moral obligation is to himself and to those to whom he freely obligates himself [family, friends, etc.]. She believed that the modern concept of sacrifice was morally corrupt.
Yes, that’s what she believes, but her belief about what is right and wrong NOT my issue. She has her morality — which is HER concept of selfishness.
I want to know on what FOUNDATIONAL BASIS her concept of selfishness is better than other people’s concept that are opposed to hers.
For instance, who gets to ultimately decide ( based on her ultimate worldview) that her idea of what is virtuous is superior or better than that of the Taliban?
RE: There are some aspects of her philosophy I strongly disagree with. Abortion is one.
Let’s say you are a PURE Ayn Randian ( with her atheistic philosophy as foundation )... why is abortion evil and why is it good or neutral ( in her case )?
All Ayn Rand can say is that good and evil are simply “labels” one attaches to an act. There can’t be any REAL good or REAL evil in her foundational worldview and anyone who disagrees with her is not really right or wrong. He is simply expressing a PREFERENCE, much like I prefer vanilla and you prefer chocolate.
RE: OK. I probably haven’t answered your question, but it was thoughtful and I tried to provide a thoughtful
Up to this point, all you’ve done is fail to defend her worldview. All you’ve done is confirmed what I’ve believed in in looking at personal idea of what is right and what is wrong — which is this -— HER PHILOSOPHY IS INCOHERENT.
Don’t get me wrong, this is not to say that there is no value in her philosophy.
All I am saying is you cannot accept its foundation based on her atheism.
It has to be based on something more solid, otherwise her structure collapses.