The Most Villainous Philosophy

[Ankari]

I think the definition of evil can be boiled down to the denial of survival. Survival is intentionally broad because it encompasses everything by which one identifies itself at a certain point in time, including their life. With that being said, every philosophy can be considered evil if you are on the other side of the fence. Take any world organization, which includes governments, and you'll have someone proclaiming it to be evil.

That is why I never bought into the champion of good vanquishing the avatar of evil. The champion ends up slaying the avatar, which is a denial to the avatar's survival. If that avatar belonged to a group or a society of people, they may consider the champion's act a threat, a source of potential evil that must be crushed to survive.

What I try to do in my writings, is create people with opposing motives and goals. Look at the conflict through one lens, the other is considered evil. Look at it through the other lens, and the understanding is flipped.

 

[Mindfire]

Mindfire:

You don't understand Objectivism. There's probably not a single villain in fantasy literature that would be an Objectivist, because it would be extremely difficult to do. If you called your villain an Objectivist the educated reader would realize quickly that you failed to do your homework.

Utilitarianism, on the other hand, can be used to justify a great deal of evil because the justification comes down to how you frame the cost versus benefit. In the hypothetical I posted above, a Utilitarian might go either way and have a Utilitarian justification for it. For an Objectivist, there is only one answer - they can't execute the child.

Pretty much any philosophy can be used to back up evil actions if you twist it hard enough. Objectivism just so happens to be my "unfavorite" because a philosophy that praises selfishness and rejects the notion of honorable sacrifice, or that there can be anything greater than the self is abhorrent from my perspective. Mind you, I'm not on a soapbox for utilitarianism, collectivism, or whatever you might consider to be objectivism's opposite. I just have a deep-seated dislike for Rand's work.

 

[Mindfire]

This is nonsense. As I said above, I know someone personally who practices the philosophy, and since he doesn't approach it that way at all, your statement is demonstrably false. If you're taken in by comments on an internet message board, then I say again that you haven't done your homework and an educated reader would see that. If you are going to utilize a philosophy as a source of evil in your writing you ought to at least understand it first. I've seen comments by self-proclaimed Christians that are pretty hateful and/or "astounding," but I have enough knowledge not to confuse their sentiment with the actual teachings of Christianity.

Alright, this is a fair point I grant you. Discarding the internet forum comments, objectivism still doesn't look exactly saintly. Take Rand's flagship work: Atlas Shrugged. Now, I must say upfront I haven't read it. So tell me if I misunderstand the premise: some guy resents that a portion of the proceeds from his marvelous invention should go to charity, so he throws a petty tantrum, destroys his invention, and then convinces all the world's geniuses to go on strike so that society will collapse and realize how much it needs them. When said societal collapse happens, he puts out a radio broadcast to gloat to all the people whose lives he's wrecked and tell them how much they all deserve to die.

Yeah, that's not villainous at all. Or is there something REALLY big that I'm missing here?

Also, I read some of Rand's comments on C.S. Lewis's Abolition of Man. They weren't so much commentary as bitter, snarky remarks and I had to stop after a page or two because I couldn't take the unrelenting nastiness.

 

[Shockley]

I'm not a particular fan of Objectivism either, or of any of Rand's work (excepting Anthem, which is solid), but that's really not the plot line of Atlas Shrugged.

Spoiler City: Taggert Rail has the fastest train in the world, the Taggert Comet. Hank Rearden invents a new kind of metal that is cheaper and easier to produce, threatening steel and iron industries around the United States. Also, there's a pirate. At roughly this time, the government begins to organize along vaguely Marxist lines, so a number of companies begin to self-implode, their CEOs go missing, etc. Turns out they are living secretly in Colorado under the leadership of John Galt, who is basically Super-Capitalist.

That's it, really.

The issue with Objectivism is that it's fundamental principle is basically correct - society is more efficient if every man looks out for himself and has no violent inclinations to oppress others. That said, Rand is so out of sync with what society is that she could never really understand society versus government, what motivates humanity, the real solutions to the problems she witnessed, etc.

An interesting side-note is that Leonard Peikoff, the guy who did a lot of the work in formalizing and updating Objectivism, has been very involved in American politics. He has generally aligned with such hardcore laissez-faire capitalist forces (sarcasm) as John Kerry and Barack Obama.

 

[Mindfire]

I'm not a particular fan of Objectivism either, or of any of Rand's work (excepting Anthem, which is solid), but that's really not the plot line of Atlas Shrugged.

Spoiler City: Taggert Rail has the fastest train in the world, the Taggert Comet. Hank Rearden invents a new kind of metal that is cheaper and easier to produce, threatening steel and iron industries around the United States. Also, there's a pirate. At roughly this time, the government begins to organize along vaguely Marxist lines, so a number of companies begin to self-implode, their CEOs go missing, etc. Turns out they are living secretly in Colorado under the leadership of John Galt, who is basically Super-Capitalist.

That's it, really.

The issue with Objectivism is that it's fundamental principle is basically correct - society is more efficient if every man looks out for himself and has no violent inclinations to oppress others. That said, Rand is so out of sync with what society is that she could never really understand society versus government, what motivates humanity, the real solutions to the problems she witnessed, etc.

An interesting side-note is that Leonard Peikoff, the guy who did a lot of the work in formalizing and updating Objectivism, has been very involved in American politics. He has generally aligned with such hardcore laissez-faire capitalist forces (sarcasm) as John Kerry and Barack Obama.

Can John Galt's plan not be summarized as "abandon the world, laugh as they suffer?"

 

[Grimbold]

My villains evolve as much as my characters, so i try to never start a story before i have planned a villains whole backstory and life (at least the key points).
The villain is a driving force, so you must know him inside out, and in "creating" the villain, his motives might change. I find the best villains to just be someone who isnt the heros.

The whole "I want to rule everyone and kill who appose me" is outdone and old. I think the best villains are the ones where in another story or another life, then they could be the good guys.

Secondary thought: If not another life, then if the hero's didn't win. (without being the man to bring Hitler into an internet forum ...) If the Axis won WW2, the men who started wouldnt be abhored as they are. History favours the victor, and i think it should be the same for any villain

 

[Phietadix]

I am tring to stay away from Villians, There is no antaganist in my first book, just man against nature, most of the others will be proabably be the same or fighting Political Enemies

 

[Shockley]

Can John Galt's plan not be summarized as "abandon the world, laugh as they suffer?"

No? Ayn Rand as the narrator kind of gloats over some people's death, but that's never a sentiment expressed within the work itself by any character, Galt or otherwise.

I hate to suggest that anyone read Atlas Shrugged because it's only faux-philosophical and not that fun of a read, but if you're going to make sweeping statements about what it preaches and what objectivism means, you should at least familiarize yourself with the philosophy. As much as I stand opposed to objectivism on philosophical grounds (I am fundamentally a positivist), let me throw out a few Rand quotes that shed some light on the positive aspects of Objectivism:

"A crime is the violation of the right(s) of other men by force (or fraud). It is only the initiation of physical force against others- i.e., the recourse to violence- that can be classified as a crime in a free society (as distinguished from a civil wrong). Ideas, in a free society, are not a crime- and neither can they serve as the justification of a crime."

"What is greatness? I will answer: it is the capacity to live by the three fundamental values of John Galt: reason, purpose, self-esteem."

"Let no man posture as an advocate of peace if he proposes or supports any social system that initiates the use of force against individual men, in any form."

"The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles."

"Remember also that the smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."


Her general philosophy, while it definitely focuses on self-interest, is no less repugnant than many of the other philosophical systems (and religious systems) that have come into existence since the dawn of time. She's out there on economics, I grant you, but on the big questions - human dignity, peaceful interaction, reason, etc. she was mostly right.

 

[MadMadys]

I love two types of villain types.

The first is the one you can agree with. Their methods often are by the credo 'the ends justify the means' and see their actions as necessary for a greater good. While the reader's initial reaction is almost always one of disgust, if they take a moment to step back they might realize that the 'bad guy' is not too far off from being a 'good guy'. I think this makes the villain more appealing and engaging when compared to a Snidely Whiplash.

Second, is the villain within. No, I'm not talking about the burrito the protagonist had 5 hours ago, but the failings of a character that lead to their own downfall. A lot like Macbeth where the character has only themselves to blame and either comes to terms with that or suffers an ill fate. Again, I see this as more realistic and therefore more intriguing. So instead of the book being about overcoming a particular person looking to blow up an orphanage, it's about self-destruction or the prevention of that.

 

[Steerpike]

Alright, this is a fair point I grant you. Discarding the internet forum comments, objectivism still doesn't look exactly saintly. Take Rand's flagship work: Atlas Shrugged. Now, I must say upfront I haven't read it. So tell me if I misunderstand the premise: some guy resents that a portion of the proceeds from his marvelous invention should go to charity, so he throws a petty tantrum, destroys his invention, and then convinces all the world's geniuses to go on strike so that society will collapse and realize how much it needs them. When said societal collapse happens, he puts out a radio broadcast to gloat to all the people whose lives he's wrecked and tell them how much they all deserve to die.

LOL. This is a great example of why you should have read a work, or understand a philosophy, before commenting on it.

If you think you can write an Objectivist fantasy villain, I'd be interested in seeing the final product. If the villain initiates force against anyone, he's not an Objectivist, and so that rules out the fantasy villains I've seen. I'm not saying it can't be done - anything can be done. But making an Objectivist villain seems to me to be one of the more difficult ones.

 

[Mindfire]

LOL. This is a great example of why you should have read a work, or understand a philosophy, before commenting on it.

If you think you can write an Objectivist fantasy villain, I'd be interested in seeing the final product. If the villain initiates force against anyone, he's not an Objectivist, and so that rules out the fantasy villains I've seen. I'm not saying it can't be done - anything can be done. But making an Objectivist villain seems to me to be one of the more difficult ones.

Perhaps not objectivism as a whole, but its self-centered axioms can be reasonably vilified. You could even make the case for an objectivist villain who does use force by having him use the rationale that his enemies are violating his rights simply by existing, and thus the use of force is justifiable.

 

[Steerpike]

Perhaps not objectivism as a whole, but its self-centered axioms can be reasonably vilified. You could even make the case for an objectivist villain who does use force by having him use the rationale that his enemies are violating his rights simply by existing, and thus the use of force is justifiable.

No you can't, because that runs contrary to the very ideas of Objectivism. You can do that and call it an Objectivist villain, but anyone with knowledge of the subject will just think you haven't done your homework. Calling an apple and orange doesn't make it one.

 

[Mindfire]

No you can't, because that runs contrary to the very ideas of Objectivism. You can do that and call it an Objectivist villain, but anyone with knowledge of the subject will just think you haven't done your homework. Calling an apple and orange doesn't make it one.

There are villains out there whose philosophy and methods vaguely line up with objectivism, minus the nonviolence part, which is usually the first part of any philosophy to be abandoned for the sake of convenience. Prime example: Lex Luthor. There are even those who paint Syndrome from the Incredibles as vaguely objectivist while painting the Incredibles themselves as anti-objectivism (that part I don't really understand).

Here's what I'm thinking: objectivism is essentially anti-altruism right? So all one has to do to make an objectivist villain (he will be a huge hypocrite, but what villain isn't?) is make them anti-altruism and pro-selfishness.

 

[Mindfire]

Actually, scratch what I said about Luthor and Syndrome. Couldn't Ebeneezer Scrooge (pre-redemption) be considered to be living out essentially objectivist principles?

 

[Steerpike]

The non-violence part is a key part. Without it, it isn't Objectivism.

Objectivism is not anti-altruism, as I understand it from my friend. It is anti-force, and so it is against the "forced" altruism (which isn't really altruism). The one true Objectivist guy I know probably gives more to charity and needy people, both in time and money, than any of us in this forum.

You seem to have a lot of prejudices with respect to Objectivism, and like with most prejudices they don't hold up very well. I don't consider myself an Objectivist, and I think I have good reasons for it (which I've argued ad nauseum with my friend), but your view of the philosophy seems to be founded in a series of misunderstandings.

 

[Steerpike]

Actually, scratch what I said about Luthor and Syndrome. Couldn't Ebeneezer Scrooge (pre-redemption) be considered to be living out essentially objectivist principles?

I'm thinking about this. I don't think he is, but I'm going to ponder it a bit. I probably don't know Rand well enough to say. My understanding is that she wrote against this kind of person - the hoarder of loot. I don't know that he'd be a good example of an Objectivist villain. Of course, I don't know that he's a good example of a villain of any sort.

EDIT: Having thought on it some more, I don't see Scrooge as a "villain" at any point in the story.

 

[Mindfire]

I'm thinking about this. I don't think he is, but I'm going to ponder it a bit. I probably don't know Rand well enough to say. My understanding is that she wrote against this kind of person - the hoarder of loot. I don't know that he'd be a good example of an Objectivist villain. Of course, I don't know that he's a good example of a villain of any sort.

EDIT: Having thought on it some more, I don't see Scrooge as a "villain" at any point in the story.

What disqualifies him from villainy?

 

[Steerpike]

What disqualifies him from villainy?

What makes him a villain? He's the protagonist. He's a sad character who is living a miserable existence because he isn't able to appreciate the simple pleasures in life. He doesn't have a fulfilling love life or family life, no friends. He learns to appreciate these things as the story progresses, but he's no real villain at any point in my mind. Unless you have a real broad definition of villain to include anyone unlikeable.

 

[Shockley]

It's not anti-altruism so much as the promotion of self-interest, and not so much self-interest as reason. That's a rough variation on an actual Ayn Rand quote, for what it's worth.

Rand didn't value wealth for the sake of wealth, but wealth because it exemplified the spirit of productivity and creation. Much in the same way she didn't really appreciate competition, but saw it as th natural development of people being productive in the same field. Scrooge can't really be defined as Objectivist because the self-interest/capitalist aspect of Objectivism is just one aspect. It's very big on (what Ayn Rand-defined as) reason, pacifism, individual rights, etc.

Let me put it another way - the Libertarian movement in the US has a lot of overlap with the Objectivist ideology when it comes to economics. That said, Ayn Rand considered the Libertarians to be her enemy and refused to collaborate with them because the actual philosophy that motivated them was so different from hers (Rand was neither liberal nor conservative, and probably couldn't be mapped on the political spectrum).

Just for another example: The best example of an non-pacifist objectivist (which again is a contradiction in terms) in all of popular culture is Rorschach in Watchmen. Notice that when he does kill/harm someone, they've already committed some act of violence and he does very little exploitation.

As for Scrooge, Scrooge has two points that make him very non-Objectivist. One, his obsession with the woman that he used to love - one of the core ideals of Objectivism is to not live for anyone else. The second is his treatment of his employees - he can pursue wealth, yes, but he shouldn't be doing so at the expense of Cratchit.

I can't believe I'm actually defending Objectivism. >_>

 

[Steerpike]

There you go. Shockley has a much better grasp of this than I do. I read some of Rand's work years ago, but much of my current understanding of Objectivism comes from my friend who has tried to convert me to the cause numerous times.