[Lecture Nine] The Philosophy of Objectivism
by Dr. Leonard Peikoff
Total Time: 2 hours, 38 minutes
Course summary: This twelve lecture course presents the entire theoretical structure and key ideas of Objectivism. It covers all the major branches of philosophy and how Objectivism answers the essential questions in those areas. Ayn Rand attended the lectures and participated in a majority of the question and answer sessions after the lectures. Peikoff later used this material as the basis of his definitive book on Objectivism. Read more »
In this lecture: Dr. Peikoff concludes his examination of the Objectivist virtues with a discussion of justice and pride. He examines how justice applies to one’s perspective on oneself and on others. From understanding the nature and requirements of ethical action in individuals, Peikoff turns to the question of moral action in a social context and the threshold of politics. Through understanding the nature of force and how it stops the mind, the lecture highlights the grounding of individual rights as the basis of a moral social system. The lecture concludes with a validation of individualism and a discussion of the nature and proper functions of government. Ayn Rand participates in this lecture’s question and answer session.
Study Guide
This material is designed to help you digest the lecture content. You can also download below a PDF study guide for the entire course.
| What are the three main elements of practicing the virtue of justice? |
| Describe two ways that one can violate the requirements of justice using real world examples. |
| Explain how the validation of justice answers the question, “why should man practice justice?” |
| What is the difference between judging and psychologizing? |
| How does justice embody what Objectivism calls the trader principle? |
| With regard to justice, what is the difference between mercy and forgiveness? |
| How does egalitarianism destroy the ability to practice justice? |
| Why is it a requirement of human life to have an objective self evaluation? |
| What does it mean to aim at moral perfection? |
| How is physical force antithetical to the mind? |
| Why is physical coercion the only means of shutting down the mind? |
| How is fraud a species of force? |
| Why do intrinsicism and subjectivism both require resorting to force? |
| Why do rights specifically pertain to actions not objects? |
| Why is the right to life the only fundamental right? What are the corollary rights? |
| Explain how a proper understanding of rights prevents there from being conflicts of rights. |
| What is the only means by which rights can be violated? How do you know objectively when this has happened? |
| Explain why the retaliatory use of force must be exclusive? |
| Why is the government even more necessary for non-criminal matters? |
| Why is consent not the source of the government’s power? |
Q&A Guide
Below is a list of questions from the audience taken from this lecture, along with (approximate) time stamps.
| 1:48:11 | The February 1966 issues of The Objectivist mentions a speech you were to give entitled “The Meta-ethics of Objectivism.” What does this refer to? |
| 1:49:04 | I seem to recall a period when the Objectivist metaphysics didn’t countenance instincts… across the board, for animals as well as humans. Is the concept of instinct now valid for animals? |
| 1:50:33 | I have heretofore only thought of goal-directedness as being possible to conscious entities. When you state that plants are “goal-directed,” albeit non-purposive, it raises the question of teleological or intrinsic attributes in plants, striving to fulfill themselves as living entities. |
| 1:52:47 | How do specific “musts” or duties or goals usually arise in the head of a Kantian? What is their usual source? |
| 1:54:05 | Can you give us a test or general guide as to when it is better to lie than to tell the truth? Is one’s self-interest and the morality or immorality of the context the main criteria? |
| 1:57:21 | In the “Psychology of Psychologizing” Ayn Rand wrote: “psychological problems as such are not a disgrace.” How can that be if “man is a being of self-made soul” means that every man is completely responsible for every detail of his psychology, which I think is what you said? If any psychological problem represents a volitional failure of the individual, the result of his own choice, then it would be a disgrace (how big a disgrace depending on the size of the problem). What is the principle by which one would distinguish psychological problems that are a disgrace from those that are not? |
| 2:01:04 | Most basic research in biology is now federally funded, leaving fewer than 10% of the available research positions supported by private and commercial funds. If one cannot obtain a job in the private sector and one does not desire to leave the field of biological research, is it ethical to apply for federal grants as long as there is no decrease in one’s scientific independence? |
| 2:03:06 | Does a scientist have the responsibility of studying only those subjects that have foreseeable technical applications? Or may one assume the basis of knowledge in any field will result in practical applications, i.e., the potential to result in practical application? |
| 2:04:10 | Is there always a collectivist component to altruism? |
| 2:05:23 | What is the status of the rights to privacy, reputation, and other intangibles? Are they violated by force? |
| 2:07:31 | Does Objectivism approve of the right to secede from an existing government in order to organize another one? |
| 2:09:45 | In discussing force, you said that the involuntary must take physical form, that the purely spiritual can’t be involuntary in this context. Is there a context in which the involuntary can be purely spiritual? |
| 2:10:55 | You gave two preconditions for the existence of values: 1) an entity capable of self-generated actions and 2) an entity faces an alternative. Does this imply that there could be one without the other? |
| 2:11:48 | Have you ever come across or can you think of a situation where American Indians are justly entitled to properties taken away from them by force? |
| 2:13:59 | Why should one’s career demand the fullest use of one’s mind? Why not just a “pretty full” use? |
| 2:15:34 | How would a government be financed? |
| 2:16:29 | “States don’t have rights, only people have rights.” Please discuss the concept apropos of the appropriateness of the legal personhood conferred on corporations after the Civil War. Would the benefits and immunities now accruing prevail in a fully laissez-faire, Objectivist society? |
| 2:18:54 | What is the nature of the atheism of the communists? Are communists atheists because they don’t want competition between church and state? |
| 2:20:20 | Miss Rand has Francisco say to Rearden at his anniversary party: “it was against the sin of forgiveness that I came to warn you about.” What is “the sin of forgiveness”? |
| 2:21:29 | In Atlas Shrugged, Judge Narragansett wrote a corrected version of the U.S. Constitution. Has Ayn Rand written such a document? |
| 2:23:09 | Did I understand correctly that retirement is not moral? By “retirement” I do not mean just lying around, but leaving a career to pursue other values and pleasures. |
| 2:25:01 | You state that the person who retaliates against the initiation of force gained nothing from it. But doesn’t he gain the value of preserving his own life? |
| 2:25:51 | What is the Objectivist position on capital punishment? |
| 2:27:14 | Do babies have rights before they are actually able to sustain themselves? If so, how are they derived? |
| 2:28:52 | During last week’s question period, did I correctly understand you to say that we should not try to convert our parents? If yes, please elaborate. Does this principle also apply to teachers? |
| 2:29:39 | In your answer to the questions of telling the whole truth last week, you said one didn’t have to always do so with one’s parents, especially if it made them unhappy. Why not? Could you please elaborate on this issue? |