Hayek and Rand on values — APEE 2011 conference

For this year’s conference of the Association of Private Enterprise Education, I am organizing and chairing a session on two giants of the twentieth century — Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand — with four scholars comparing their views on values and political economy.

Topic: Hayek and Rand on Values

Chair: Stephen Hicks, Ph.D., Rockford College, Illinois

Panelists:

Emily Chamlee-Wright, Ph.D. Elbert Neese Professor of Economics, Beloit College, Wisconsin
Title: “Cultivating the Economic Imagination with Atlas Shrugged”
Abstract: In this paper I describe my use of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged in an undergraduate comparative economic systems course. I argue that the novel is the ideal vehicle for cultivating what I call the “economic imagination,” by which I mean the ability to see the systematic outcomes that emerge under different political economic rules of the game. Further, I argue that the novel is particularly well-suited to animate discussions of essential comparative systems topics, including Marxism, the various phenomena associated with the soviet-type economy, and fascism. Finally, drawing upon student writing, I argue that though Rand’s view of reason and epistemology are often at odds with Austrian economics, these tensions are productive in conveying Austrian insights regarding the extended order.

Steve Horwitz, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, St. Lawrence University, New York
“Hayek, Rand, and the Ethics of the Micro- and Macro-worlds
Abstract: Hayek and Rand both supported capitalism, but their ethical systems were different. This paper explores the differences and how they apply to the institution of the family. It concludes that Rand’s ethical system matches very well with what Hayek sees as necessary in the “Great Society” of the macro-cosmos, but that our understanding of the institution of the family seems better suited to a more altruistic ethical code. The challenge for a Hayekian ethics that pays attention to institutional contexts is how to ensure that the complex process of making those distinctions is learned as children pass into adulthood.

Edward Hudgins, Ph.D., Director of Advocacy, The Atlas Society, Washington, D.C.
Title: “Is a Moral Foundation Necessary for Spontaneous Order?”
Abstract: F. A. Hayek argued that social order and institutions—markets, money, law—arise spontaneously out of the actions of individuals seeking their own interests but not through specific planning by individuals. Further, because it is impossible in markets for any individual to know what mix of goods and services will best satisfy consumer demands, attempts at central government planning will result in adverse unintended consequences.
But it can be argued that such a system will only operate to protect individual liberty and limit government if enough individuals, reinforced by the culture, accept and live by certain moral principles and the Objectivism provides such a foundation.

William Kline, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Department of Liberal and Integrative Studies, University of Illinois, Springfield
Title: “Individualism and Interdependence”
Abstract: When do we need other people? Both Hayek and Rand agree on the importance of the division of labor. People need other people to produce what they cannot or will not do themselves. Hayek and Rand also broadly agree on the importance of property rights that make the division of labor, and the market in general, possible. Yet, theses authors deeply disagree on the degree of interdependence necessary for establishing valid property claims. This paper explores Hayek’s use of a Humean conception of property that emphasizes tradition and cannot exist independently of others and contrasts it with Rand’s use of a Lockean/Cartesian approach that argues for the existence of objective, nonconventional property rights. This paper argues that the two authors can be reconciled by distinguishing between what Hume identifies as the need for property rights versus the actual rules that protect them.

The session is scheduled for Monday, April 10 at the bright and cheery 8:10 a.m. time slot.

Still learning from my students about the history of philosophy

Here are many … errr … insights from my students, collected from exams and essays over the years. Updated this semester. I offer you:

A Student History of Philosophy

(Being a compilation of student research, gently edited by Stephen Hicks, Rockford College)

Is philosophy a waist of time?

Ethical debates have been around for a long time, but nobody seems to have any answers. Ethnics are very important. Basically, what you do with your life comes down to your personal ethnics. For the world to be good means having strong Altruistic people to help the society survive in this doggy dog world.

Socrates started democracy in Greece so he is a democrat. When Socrates was in court he was blamed for piety and disturbing the youth. Melekus is the accuser in the case of Socrates. Another of the charges brought up against him was pity. Socrates argues that the son is not a god but simply a burning rock in the sky. So Socrates was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

To Socrates, having a good life meant dying. Socrates was completely opposed to the Sophists. Not only did the Sophists not have reasons, they also did not have reasons. Sophists felt that there were no real reasons.

For Aristotle, the virtuous person can be known as temperature, someone who is under complete control. Aristotle thinks the Principle of Noncontradiction is an axiom is because it is one.

In the Bible, God created the heavens and the universe in seven days, so there are seven planets. (Seven is a big thing in the Bible.)

The existence of God is questionable since evil does have some good points to make. The greatest gift is to be in God’s presents, but when we are in God’s presents we should not think about ourselves. John Hick rebukes the concept that God would not allow suffering if he existed in the third paragraph of his essay. Because of evil there is said to be another force in the universe—a dark force. His name is Satin.

Mysticism is the direct and immediate experience of the scared.

In feudal times, jobs were passed on from fathers to sons. For example, if your father was a priest, you would probably become a priest too.

Priests vow poverty and while money isn’t everything a priest should be able to have a little of life’s enjoyments just like every other human bean. Priests also take the vow of celibacy. On the conventional view, sex without the possibility of recreation is immoral. Priests want to sustain themselves from sex so they can have eternal childhood in the Lord’s eyes. One thing religions teach is that you should prey regularly.

Some people base their life solely on religion, which may be perceived as silly, but imagine how lost they would be if they didn’t have something so vital. That would be like me going without coffee.

In modern times Decarrt explains why reason is wrong. He shows that I am a real thing but what kinda of thing? Descartes proved that God exists in Medication III. The argument is sound, me being from the South and a firm believer in the Lord.

Galileo was on trial for his blasphemic saying the Earth is the center of the universe. Galileo had people follow his exact word, and those people were called the people of Galilee.

Justice is really a double bladed sword: at times it is a warm blanket keeping you safe and at other times an uncontrollable juggernaut ready to mow you over.

Basically, we need to decide what’s best for society as a hole. That is the purpose of laws. Some states have laws that if broken cause one to be a criminal. Power definitely corrupts; both power and corruption are all too often abused.

In our country, the Deceleration of Independence sets the basic rights and laws. Some people have the right to liberty, but are unable to exorcize it. Shall I go against the laws put forth by my four fathers, who wrote, “All men are entitled to certain unalienable rights”?

Capital punishment is the death penalty for a crime that dates back to the beginning of civilization. Some people believe in capital punishment because of the “eye for an eye” theory: for instance, if you kill me, I should be able to kill you. Capital punishment is mostly about whether persons who have been executed will commit further offenses if and when released. Cruel and unusual punishment is included in the Constitution. Though capital punishment violates the Eighth Amendment because it makes people feel like they are less of a person. But really, the death penalty is not necessary because it is not needed.

In modern times, Utilitarianism is the doctrine that we should all strive to pleasure our neighbors. John Stuart Mill said that even if what is being said is true, it is still wrong to censor it. Of course, we cannot take it for granite that all of Mill’s assumptions are true.

According to Freud, the USA became a frightened country after the terrible events of 9/11. Freud opposes the tabula razor theory of human nature. According to Freud, the child has lust during the breast-feeding stage. Eventually his mother stops, and his lust is suppressed until his adultery stage.

Marx says the broughers who employ the workers can and do enslave the proliterate workers. So Marx promoted socialism which operates the production of products produced by the society. Marx believed socialism was the best form of government for the world after World War II. Communist Russia failed because of Mises and Hayek’s lack of knowledge. Socialism is an ideal, but come on now! Let’s be realistic!

Against Marx, Rand advocates free enterprise and selfishness. The rich are able to create new jobs and hand them out to the poor, which takes many poor people out of poverty and also gives the rich something to do. She said that minimum wages increases raise the cost of labor, so workers may lose their fridge benefits. But her philosophy is sort of controversial, in a sense. She commits the fallacy of hoc poc der doc.

[Version 4. Updated December 2010.]

The most dangerous philosophy book (Fall 2010 edition)

For my Introduction to Philosophy course, an optional question on the final exam was:

In your judgment, what is the most dangerous book we read this semester? First give a clear and sympathetic presentation of the book’s most important themes, and then explain why you think the book is dangerous.

We read six major works in the course: Plato’s Apology and Crito, Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead, Galileo’s “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina,” Descartes’ Meditations, C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, and Sigmund Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents.

Nineteen students chose to address this question.

One chose Galileo’s work as the most dangerous, on the grounds that Galileo’s resulting conflict with the Church was disastrous to him personally and shows how dangerous it can be to question authority.

One student argued that Plato’s Apology was dangerous because Socrates was too uncompromising and that leads to social harm.

Three students voted Descartes’ Meditations as most dangerous, two on the grounds that it can lead one to lose all sense of reality and become psychotic and one on the grounds that his reasoning seems circular and leads nowhere leaving one with nothing.

Rand’s The Fountainhead was voted most dangerous by three students. As with the student who chose Socrates in Plato’s Apology, one argued that her view is too uncompromising and leads to social harm; additionally, it is too hard to apply and so sets one up for failure. One argued that her view of egoism challenges the whole tradition of religious ethics. And one argued that Peter Keating’s character materialistic and socially immoral character is too tempting a role model for most.

Four students voted for Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents as the most dangerous book. One argued that he undermines free will and moral responsibility. Two took issue with his insulting view of religion and argued that he misses the hope that religion offers. And one argued that his strong pessimism about life itself is dangerously demotivating.

Six students chose Lewis’s Mere Christianity. One objected to his attack on reason and defense of strong faith. One objected to his attempt to destroy our human sense of worth and self-esteem. One argued that his extreme view of human sinfulness was dangerous. Two argued that Lewis got Christianity wrong in presenting too extreme a version of it. And one argued that the danger of Mere Christianity is that it scares reasonable people away from Christianity.

Finally, one student voted The Fountainhead and Mere Christianity as jointly the most dangerous for the reason that American readers resonate with both given their cultural history and that that leads to paralyzing conundrums about what the right philosophy is.

So with 6.5 votes in total, I hereby declare Mere Christianity to be the Most Dangerous Book in Introduction to Philosophy, Rockford College, Fall Semester 2010.

Related:
The most dangerous philosophy book (Fall 2009 edition).
The most dangerous philosophy book (Spring 2010 edition).

Second test for Introduction to Philosophy

Test questions on Descartes and Lewis are here.

Kindle version of Explaining Postmodernism published

The Kindle version of my Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault is now available.

The book had a gratifying two hardcover printings and eight softcover printings from 2004-2009, and I am finalizing an expanded edition to be published in hardcover in the spring of 2011.

Here’s the book description:

“Tracing postmodernism from its roots in Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant to their development in thinkers such as Michel Foucault and Richard Rorty, philosopher Stephen Hicks provides a provocative account of why postmodernism has been the most vigorous intellectual movement of the late 20th century. Why do skeptical and relativistic arguments have such power in the contemporary intellectual world? Why do they have that power in the humanities but not in the sciences? Why has a significant portion of the political Left — the same Left that traditionally promoted reason, science, equality for all, and optimism — now switched to themes of anti-reason, anti-science, double standards, and cynicism? Explaining Postmodernism is intellectual history with a polemical twist, providing fresh insights into the debates underlying the furor over political correctness, multiculturalism, and the future of liberal democracy.”

Links to the six scholarly reviews of the book are listed toward the bottom of my site’s Explaining Postmodernism page, and the thirty-one all-over-the-map Amazon reviews can be found here.

A stolen Descartes manuscript

This week we are starting Descartes’s Meditations in my Introduction to Philosophy course.

One of the wonderful things about the Internet is its enabling us easily to see things like Descartes’s original handwriting. Here is a letter he wrote, dated 27 May 1641:

The letter is in French and was written to Marin Mersenne about the soon-to-be-published Meditations. The letter has had some mysterious travels, having been stolen in the 1840s and ending up across the Atlantic in the library collection of Haverford College. More information here.

A related post of mine: Who is the real father of modern philosophy?

Reading group on Socrates’ trial and death

At Rockford College this semester, my two colleagues in Philosophy, Shawn Klein and Matt Flamm, will be leading a discussion group on Plato’s four dialogues about the trial and execution of Socrates. I will be participating in the reading group just for fun, though coincidentally my students and I will be covering Apology and Crito in my Introduction to Philosophy course.

From the flyer for the reading group:

In 399 BCE, Athens executed Socrates for impiety and corrupting the youth. Plato immortalized the trial and death of Socrates in his dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo. These are not merely historical dialogues, but philosophical treatises that examine the nature of piety, philosophy, justice, and death. The Reading Group will discuss each of these dialogues and the philosophical issues they raise.

Each meeting will take place at the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship office on the second floor of Burpee, from 1-2 pm. There will be light refreshments. A free copy of the book will be provided to participants.

Dates:
September 10: Overview and Introduction
September 17: Euthyphro
October 1: Apology
November 5: Crito
November 19: Phaedo

Related: Two posts of mine about Socrates are here:
Socrates’ two bad arguments for not escaping
Quotations from Apology and Crito on reason and character

“Egoism in Nietzsche and Rand” now online

My journal article “Egoism in Nietzsche and Rand” [pdf] is now online here. The 43-page study was published this spring in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

The abstract: “Philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and Ayn Rand are often identified as strong critics of altruism and arch advocates of egoism. In this essay, Stephen Hicks argues that Nietzsche and Rand have much in common in their critiques of altruism but almost nothing in common in their views on egoism.”

My opening paragraph: “To what extent is Ayn Rand’s ethical theory Nietzschean? Three Friedrich Nietzsches are relevant to making that judgment. …”

The major sections of the article:

Part One: On Critiquing Altruism
Three Nietzsches and Ayn Rand
Some intellectuals on Nietzsche and Rand
Egoism, altruism, and “selfishness”
A Nietzschean sketch
God is dead
Nihilism’s symptoms
Two bio-psychological types
Psychology and morality
Genealogy
Comparing Nietzsche’s and Rand’s critiques of altruism
Rand’s break with Nietzsche’s critique

Part Two: On Egoism
Rand’s egoism
Nietzsche’s rhetoric and system
The major differences between Nietzsche and Rand
Are individuals real?
Do individuals have free will?
What is the source of moral values?
How does the self identify its nature and values?
Are individual selves ends in themselves?
Are fundamental values universal?
Are the relations of individuals win/win or win/lose?
Rights, liberty, equality before the law?
Slavery and freedom, war and peace
Conclusion