"Behavior or thoughts that are anti-social and relishes harming society"

I disagree with this definition. Well, the first part. Relishes harming society, I can get behind, but that was not Rand. Rand just didn't give a damn about society.

"Behavior or thoughts that attack rules of morality or fairplay as nuisances that get in the way of the powerful and greedy getting what they want"

This definition is circular: you used "morality"

"Ideas or behavior that denigrates compassion, feelings for others, or other behavior or norms which prevent society from descending into might makes right cannibalism and barbarism."

This, I think, is your best definition. But I still disagree. Unfortunately, I have class.

I've decided I only disagree with the first half of that last definition. But I will accept it if you offer an argument as to why compassion and feelings for others are intrinsically good in every situation. I would argue that it is often best to let people suffer. If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. If you teach him to fish, he will eat until he moves away from the river and is unable to figure out for himself how to get food.

These emotions evolved to keep our species alive *in the wild*. These are not necessarily the best things in modern life. (This does not mean, however, that they are necessarily bad.) In general, one should be very, very skeptical of emotions. There is a common, especially, in my opinion, in philosophy, misconception that humans are highly rational. This is laughable. Our cognitive biases and capacity for self deception are incredible. But none of this is to say anything other than that I want a logical reason that these emotions are always good, not something based on our happy collectivist instincts.

If you're interested in more on cognitive bias, I'd recommend the following blogs:

http://lesswrong.com/
http://www.overcomingbias.com/
http://youarenotsosmart.com/

@fulhamish, I was referring more to her argument in favour of egoism, which is unsound imho. I am an atheist because I believe that there is no evidence in favour and the burden of proof is on the theist (her position also), but that is essentially Bertrand Russell, rather than Rand- it is not original to her.
I don’t think it’s particularly linked to her dismissal of altruism, and if it is, at least not necessarily linked to it.

"Putin: I base that on her (somewhat limited) ability to observe the world how it is and draw conclusions from that. Very few philosophers, in my limited experience, have based their philosophies in how the world is, instead of how they want it to be."

What was real worldy about her philosopher? Her novels were set in a caricaturized version of reality. She doesn't even explain how we got to her "reality" or anything about the setting of her books. Her philosophy as a practical guide for human society is unworkable, not least because as you say, she doesn't care about society. But her utopia can never be achieved, so how is she operating in the world as it is?

If you respect philosophers (or rather, people who wrote about philosophical issues) that operated in how the world is, then you should read Marx, Lenin and probably Mao's On Practice. Marx shared your critique of philosophers, that philosophers operate too much in idealized fantasy land, and that the point of the world is to change it. That's why he dedicated is life to actively promoting his beliefs in a practical way. Ditto Lenin.

"I have better things to do with my time, like learn about how the world (specifically the human body) actually works, so I can go be a doctor and save people's lives. I have no desire to sit in an ivory tower and contribute nothing to the world."

Do you tell your ivory tower residing instructors that they contribute nothing to the world? Evidently instructing you in how to become a doctor is "contributing nothing". Maybe you're right about that. You could have become a doctor by studying in a public library, I suppose.

I do enjoy it when people bait others into engaging in an esoteric logic-chopping fest only to declare that they have "better things to do" at the end of it. You're the one who claimed I didn't know what fascism was. One would think that if you were going to make such a claim that you actually knew what it was or read something about it besides a few Mussolini quotes. I suppose that's too much to ask. Better to make yourself feel superior by touting your resume, I guess.

"but that was not Rand. Rand just didn't give a damn about society."

The two are not mutually exclusive. She didn't give a damn and expressed glee at harming people (for example, the train wreck; the assassination of the regulator; also the part where the cities become dysfunctional because the so-called "talented" are no longer around).

"Rand would be the first to end corporate welfare, whereas Mussolini said "Fascism should be more appropriately called corporatism, because it involves the merging of state and corporate power." (That may not be exact, I don't have time to look it up.)"

What the hell does corporate welfare have to do with "corporatism"? Fascist governments did not have a consistent economic policy (- the Night of the Long Knives is a testament to this; also Spanish economists were openly hostile to corporatism). To say that 'corporatism' is fascism is to say that Sweden and Mexico were/are 'fascist'. It's absurd. Corporatism is the idea that interests conglomerate and negotiate as blocs, and that these blocs cooperate with each other so as to minimize discord. Corporatism has nothing to do with "corporate welfare" per se.

"This definition is circular: you used "morality""

Using 'morality' is not circular. Evil is the rejection/absence of moral values. How is that circular? That's like saying that defining black as the 'absence of color' is circular.

"But I will accept it if you offer an argument as to why compassion and feelings for others are intrinsically good in every situation. I would argue that it is often best to let people suffer."

I'll engage in this exercise if you explain why moral rules must be true in 100% of circumstances. I'm not a Kantian, I'm a utilitarian. What is good is what is good for the greatest number. Not caring about others is almost always bad because it fails to meet this requirement, instead elevating the individual above the many. But yes, there could be times when not helping eventually leads to greater good for the greatest number, although these circumstances are very infrequent if they do occur. And usually we can reconfigure or reform institutions to eliminate the perverse scenario in which letting others suffer leads to better outcomes.

"In general, one should be very, very skeptical of emotions."

I'd argue that one should be skeptical of arguments in favor of detaching oneself from emotion in favor of robotic rationality. Nor is rationality the opposite of emotiveness. In fact, psychological studies have shown that people who are detached from emotional states but nonetheless maintain their reasoning capability are handicapped when it comes to making decisions in which you'd think 'rational' people would perform well.

"In an influential series of studies, patients
with emotional deficits related to damages in the
ventromedial prefrontal cortex area (VMPC)
were found to perform more poorly than normal
and presumably emotionally functional participants
on a task known as the Iowa Gambling
Task (IGT; Bechara, Damasio, Damasio, &
Anderson, 1994; Bechara, Damasio, Tranel, &
Damasio, 1997; Damasio, 1994). The IGT involves
repeated drawings from four decks of
cards. Two decks have higher nominal card
value but lower expected value because of severe
occasional penalties, and two decks have
lower nominal card value but higher expected
value because of lesser penalties. Compared to
normal participants, VMPC patients were found
to draw more from the riskier and less advantageous
decks, resulting in lower monetary performance
(Bechara, Damasio, Damasio, &
Anderson, 1994). Over time, normal participants
also exhibited heightened levels of galvanic
skin response whenever they were about
to choose from the risky decks, and this apparently
even before they could consciously recognize
the structure of the desks"

@obiwan I’ve never seen so many words crammed into so few ideas. The “I won’t dignify her with a response” is the epitome of arrogance.

Wait, I thought 'arrogance' was a Randroid virtue?

@Putin33, maybe if you had read Rand you’d realise she wasn’t a nihilist either?

Rand’s literary style was one of heroes and villains. Again, perhaps you’d realise the difference between that and the philosophy had you cared to read some of her essays.

"Wait, I thought 'arrogance' was a Randroid virtue?"

Yes, because you are pretty much completely ignorant, bluntly

Yes, the 'heroes' were nihilists who rejected any standard of moral absolutes. The only moral absolute is self-interest, which has no meaning to anyone but the individual. In order to have a moral system you have to have a social system. Morality devoid of society is meaningless. Since Objectivism is anti-social to the core, it is emphatically nihilistic.

"because you are pretty much completely ignorant, bluntly "

You mean John Galt and Howard Roark are not arrogant?

No- there is property as a moral absolute, Putin.

Again, maybe you should start reading her philosophy before you criticise it, as it is you are just looking like an ass.

Property can't be a 'moral absolute'. What gibberish.

And nobody will have ever read Rand enough for Ghostmaker's liking, so why don't we all quit talking about this hack?

Why not? Again, actually making a criticism of her views rather than just saying "wrong, haha" might be more convincing.

Reading just one volume of essays would probably be enough for a start... though I would demand that you follow it, too...

Ahh... I remember now why I stopped getting involved in these arguments in the forums. Thanks for reminding me, Putin.

Good luck, Ghost. You'll need it.

And just to respond to one thing you said Putin, No, I would not tell my engineering professors that they are wasting their lives. They're doing brilliant research that will lead to new medicines and drugs and educating a new generation of producers. That's highly valuable to society.

My philosophy professors absolutely are wasting their lives. They sit in their offices and think.

But here's the difference between you and me: I absolutely think they're wasting their lives. But they're *their lives to waste*. They have every right to not contribute to society.

As to the rest of your post, it was mostly baseless drivel. You've obviously never seriously read Rand, just as I've never (at all) read Mussolini. But at least I can admit my ignorance. You wouldn't be saying half the things you are if you had a fraction of a clue of what she actually believed.

You want nihilistic Objectivism, read Anton LaVey. Of course, he drew heavily on Crowley, Neitzsche, and Rand.

If Ghostmaker's idea of reading comprehension is to sum up the debate so far as "wrong, haha", then this a pointless exercise. It seems like the Randroids decided from the get-go this would be their tactic and rather than explain how people are misinterpreting Rand they're just going to demand that we read every last page of her 12,000 page tomes before we comment. Reading her crappy novels is not enough.

"But at least I can admit my ignorance."

Which is why you said I had no clue what fascism was, yeah. You admit it, alright.

"But here's the difference between you and me: I absolutely think they're wasting their lives."

Because thinking is apparently a waste of time. No wonder you have such a high regard for Rand. No thought necessary.

"You want nihilistic Objectivism, read Anton LaVey. Of course, he drew heavily on Crowley, Neitzsche, and Rand. "

The Church of Satan is a fitting legacy for those three.

Her essays tend not to be very long... maybe essay length? You would know if you had read them.

There comes a point when you can't help but laugh.

There's no guarantee you're going to do anything but continually claim I haven't read this or that obscure work of pseudo-philosophy even after I read a collection of her essays. You're simply too lazy to debate. But sure, I'll read the Virtue of Selfishness, and then I'll be rewarded with you bitching that I haven't read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal or some other garbage.

@Ghost, I think that there is a logical progression from atheism to egoism via Social Darwinism and that Rand and some others have trod this logical path.

Please don't misunderstand me, I do not condemn atheists as necessarily being immoral, egotistical or lacking altruistic impulses, I just feel that the burden of proof lies on them, given their belief system, as to account for these positive social moral impulses.

You won't be met by criticism if you genuinely read it and openly consider what she's saying. But frankly I doubt that that will occur before the heat-death of the universe

What the hell does "openly consider what she's saying" mean? Is that code for only fawning, glowing reviews are permitted? Yeah you can forget me wasting my time if you're simply going to continue your lazy path of dismissing any criticism of Rand as either uneducated or not open-minded enough. Something tells me you don't hold yourself to this high of a standard when it comes to the left.

@fulhamish

I think you'd be making an is-ought fallacy in that argument.

That said, I am an egoist- I live for what I care for. In many cases, what I care is specific other people, my friends and family, but I do so because I care for them and them being happy makes me happy, if you understand my position.

I'd like to see an Objectivist wake up in the middle of the night and feed or change a screaming baby. I'm sure the summation afterwards will be "the baby being happy made me happy".

Are you suggesting that babies being happy doesn't make you exceedingly happy?

Anyway, egoists are freeloading parasites who live off the altruism of others but do not contribute to social wellbeing. They're like the nutters who refuse to get vaccinated and claim it's not a problem. It's not a problem until it meets a critical threshold and then diseases we had contained return to plague us again. Egoists are only able to exist without society falling apart because most people, thankfully, are not egoists.

"Are you suggesting that babies being happy doesn't make you exceedingly happy?"

Yes, sleep deprivation and constantly waking up to mollify a small child is a dream come true.