The Objectivist Ethics
My good buddy, Kaleb, is a pretty big fan of Ayn Rand. Me, on the other hand, I'm not so sure I'm a fan. However, I must admit I'm ignorant of the details of Rand's philosophical system called Objectivism, and I have never read any of her works. So, to change this, I bought a couple of books that contain her lexicon and her essays on Objectivism.
I read the essay titled "The Objective Ethics" today. I found it to be very interesting, but I'm kind of worried about her insistence on reason and rationality as kings of human existence and, ultimately, human ethics.. Her goal in this essay, it seems, is to provide man with a "rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values."
Here are the primary excerpts in which she lays out objectivist ethics:
"The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics--the standard by which one judges what is good or evil--is man's life, or; that which is require for man's survival qua man. Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil." (Man's survival qua man: the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan--in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice.)
"The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics--the three values which, together, are the means to and the realization of one's ultimate value, one's own life--are: Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride.
"The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others--and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose. " (Bold added)."The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness--which means: the values required for man's survival qua man--which means: the values required for human survival--not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the "aspirations," the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.
"The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash--that there is no conflict of interest among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."
And she isn't a fan of altruism at all:
These three schools differ only in their method of approach, not in their content. In content, they are merely variants of altruism, the ethical theory which regards man as a sacrificial animal, which holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest and moral duty, virtue and value. The differences occur only over the question of who is to be sacrificed to whom. Altruism holds death as its ultimate goal and standard of values--and it is logical that renunciation, resignation, self-denial, and every other form of suffering, including self-destruction, are the virtues it advocates. And logically, these are the only things that the practitioners of altruism have achieved and are achieving now.
What do you think? I find her views on altruism to be hyperbole. Altruism does not take one's right to exist away from him or her, nor does it hold death as its ultimate goal and standard of values. Perhaps self-sacrifice is the highest moral duty in altruism. But is this necessarily a bad thing? It can be, but doesn't have to be.
And, is self-sacrifice really irrational? Is self-sacrifice only rational when it is in the best interest of the sacrificing parties' life and happiness, when something of value is being "traded"--my happiness for your happiness?
My Groups
-
United for Peace Updated: 21 minutes ago
-
Social Justice Updated: 1 hour ago
-
Freethinkers Updated: 1 hour ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
I'm not totally against selfishness: sometimes you need to do what you want/need to do. But I'm concerned about the extent of selfishness that we are capable of and that can be justified. The problem for me is: when is it 'okay" to be selfish and when is it not?
Hmm, I don't know much about her or objectivism either. I find the objectivist views interesting. From what I can tell from your quote, it says as long as each individual does his own part and wants nothing that has been earned by anyone else there will be peace. It sounds nice on paper, but its practicality is subject.
The part that says that "man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself" is interesting. So according to this statement, we should not give anything we have earned to someone else nor accept anything someone else has earned to be given to us. This seems to not work to me, at least not if this philisophy is supposed to make the world better.
If I walk past a starving man according to this, if I am interpreting it right, I should not try to give him any money or food. And even if I tried, if the starving man holds true to these principles, he wouldn't even accept my help anyway. It doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense. It sounds great for those that are well off but those that draw the short straw in life get jipped.
So, say helping the poor/homeless is in your hierarchy of values. Also, say that a rational person would act in accordance with his or her hierarchy of values because he or she has already deem these values to be in his or her self-interest. If you give to the poor, whether it be money or time, you are doing it by choice because it is in accordance with your values. So there is no sacrifice involved. Since you value helping the homeless/poor, you aren't sacrificing anything.
Thus, if you value helping the poor/homeless, it is in your rational self-interest to do so; but, you aren't "sacrificing" anything. So, technically, I guess she isn't saying you can't help the homeless. What I do believe she is saying, though, is that if I don't value helping the poor/homeless, then it is in my best interest to not help them, to sacrifice-- this I find to be a pretty big problem.
About altruism: Rand's view of altruism is actually in accordance with the original meaning of the term used by philosopher Auguste Comte, the man whom coined the term. The modern definition, which is simply concern for the welfare of others, and a willingness to aid others, isn't distinctive enough to distinguish it from egoism (the policy of selfishness); such concern is something an egoist could logically adopt, as I think the Objectivist position does demonstrate.
For an essay on the shifting meanings of altruism, and the term's relationship to Rand and Comte, see Robert Campbell's "Altruism in Auguste Comte and Ayn Rand": http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~campber/altruismrandcomte.pdf
On the ethic as a whole: While the questions you and the commenters raised about selfishness and its applications are something to consider, I think you guys would benefit from reading Rand's argument for morality, since it sets the context for her usual usage of "selfishness" and "self-interest." The main essays to look for this argument are "The Objectivist Ethics," already mentioned by Koios, and "Causality versus Duty," in the book "Philosophy: Who Needs It." For a more detailed presentation of the argument, see chapter 6 of Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" and the whole of Tara Smith's book "Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Value."
Also, I think the questions you guys brought up concerning helping others are good indications of why we need specific virtues; even if we agree that a person should pursue his/her self-interest (and on the justification for this), that doesn't necessarily tell us how to go about doing that. Virtues could fill our need for guidance in pursuing one's self-interests.
Thanks for the post.
I figured she was using a pertinent definition of altruism for her time, but I don't think her definition of altruism accurately describes the altruism we hear about in the 21st century, hence my comments. Admittedly, I haven't really looked at altruism in depth in the 21st century.
Thanks for the link and the reading suggestions. I actually read The Objectivist Ethics and quoted from it in my blog post. I have "Philosophy:Who Needs It," so I'll look into that soon. Also, I know she has specific definitions for selfishness and self-interest. I have a book that details her lexicon. I'll look up these words and she where they lead me.
Perhaps my problem right now is that, one doesn't really need to care for society or other people's suffering if one does not find value in doing so. But, maybe it is in one's rational self-interest to care for society and other people's suffering, though I know Rand doesn't agree with this.
Virtues definitely can fill our need for guidance in pursuing one's self-interest. Unfortunately, though, as you can see from the excerpt above in which Rand lists the three primary virtues of objectivist ethics, love, sacrifice, caring, compassion, and sympathy, among other positive virtues, aren't included in the objectivist's ethics.Maybe it is our job to do so.
Thanks for your post!
From my understanding of Objectivism, particularly its stance on egoism, if one couldn't find any self-interested reason (or any value, as you say) in caring about society or the conditions of other people, then an egoist should not care about those things; an egoist who did so would be contradicting his own position.
But the philosophy does acknowledge that other people can be valuable to an egoist. This is primarily what the virtue of justice within Objectivism identifies: it basically says, "the actions and characters of other people can impact one's own life in various positive ways, so a person should judge them and act according to the judgment." Teachers and older, more experienced people can offer knowledge to a hypothetical egoist; within a division of labor society, people in other professions can offer items for trade that this egoist would never have been able to produce (and in many cases, even conceive of). In addition to instrumental values, which knowledge and economic goods often are, people can offer spiritual values such as appreciation, generosity, friendship, a sense of understanding, art, and romantic love (among other personal relationships). Rescuing Jews from the Nazis, for example, could be in an egoist's interests (that is, it could be valuable) insofar as he's making the world more suitable to live in and he's helping to free individuals whom may offer values of the sort I just mentioned.
I think what's important to retain here is that a person shouldn't decide too hastily what is or is not in one's interests; I think it's something that requires a lot of thought. Someone who just says "to hell with people who suffer and the rest of society," doesn't seem to appreciate relevant facts about others which could give reason to care about them.
"But, maybe it is in one's rational self-interest to care for society and other people's suffering, though I know Rand doesn't agree with this."
I think Rand states the relationship between rational self-interest and people's suffering in "The Ethics of Emergencies," and she does affirm that it can be in one's interests to help.
"Unfortunately, though, as you can see from the excerpt above in which Rand lists the three primary virtues of objectivist ethics, love, sacrifice, caring, compassion, and sympathy, among other positive virtues, aren't included in the objectivist's ethics."
As far as I know, Rand never said that the list of virtues she describes are exhaustive of the Objectivist ethics. Leonard Peikoff, in his interpretation of the philosophy, says that she wasn't concerned with covering every application of virtue, but she wanted to (in his words) "identify the essentials of rationality in the most important areas and aspects of human life." (L. Peikoff, Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 251) For instance, in a paragraph on integrity (a major virtue) she implies that courage is a specific form of that virtue, and thereby indicates that it may be a minor virtue. (See the online Ayn Rand Lexicon entry on "integrity.")
Regarding this, since you seem to be interested in Objectivism's view of helping others, caring for them, etc. you might want to look at Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics by Tara Smith, which studies the seven major virtues espoused by Rand in greater detail than any other scholar I know, and discusses the implications of egoism on the propriety of conventional virtues, namely charity, generosity, kindness, and temperance. It also has an appendix on egoistic friendship, which I thought was enlightening, since I had my own concerns about how egoists could be genuine friends.
I have two questions for you:
(1) Is there any situation where a rational egoist would not find value in caring for society and/or other people? If a rational egoist really thinks about it, won't he or she always find value in caring? Do you have a possible example where this would not be the case?
(2) I was reading the Wikipedia entry for Ayn Rand the other day, and it said that most academics have ignored her philosophy. Why do you think that is?
As you can probably guess, I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand's ideas. I admit I haven't studied them in depth, but I disagree with one of her basic principles. The fact that egoism leads to the best life possible. It runs completely counter to all of spirituality, in my opinion. It enforces the boundaries that separate you from others, and that separate you from the world. You start thinking in calculations, very mathematically and analytically. This sort of thinking has it's place, but not, I think, in human relationship and establishment of the best life possible.
Here's my answers:
(1) Possibly in a very hopeless situation, such as living as a political prisoner, or if he hasn't encountered anyone positive in his life, which might lead him to conclude that there's no reason to care about anyone. Obviously, this shouldn't be taken as an exhaustive list, but I personally can't think of many occasions where it would be a rational decision to be indifferent towards others.
(2) My answer here is simply speculation, since I don't go around universities asking professors why they ignore a given philosopher.
I think the biggest reason is that there isn't a lot of academic material discussing Rand or Objectivism (as compared with people like David Hume), so those in academia may conclude that the philosophy isn't worth investigating (or simply are unaware that it exists). A real-life example I know is Peter Railton, an ethics professor at the University of Michigan whose "Introduction to Ethics" course I attended; he became interested in Objectivism after listening to a lecture on the philosophy's ethics by professor Darryl Wright. (In fact, while I was in the course, he discussed the Objectivist ethics for one of the lectures on egoism, which was cool.)
And by "academic material," I meant both positive and negative perspectives on Objectivism. Rand never published in any academic journals, though she did some university lectures, and Objectivism hasn't been defended or criticized by many people, with exceptions like Robert Nozick's "On the Randian Argument." So I think when more is written about it in scholarly journals, more attention will be paid to it in academia, though this may already be already happening.
For a little background, I've studied Objectivism for two years now, discussing it on forums mostly. I'm also a second-year student at the Objectivist Academic Center.
I played Bioshock a little at a friend's house, but I never finished it (maybe I'll do so next time I head over.) I still remember my reluctance to keep playing after seeing what that first Big Daddy did to that guy...scary times.
"It enforces the boundaries that separate you from others, and that separate you from the world."
I disagree: Objectivism's version of egoism offers guidance in figuring out who we should deal with in our personal lives, rather than separating other people from us; it does not instruct people to shun emotional responses to other people or to live in solitude like a hermit.
Its social conclusion is that an egoist should interact with people, including befriending, trading, and otherwise experiencing life with them so long as one's values are being promoted thereby; its political conclusion is that people should be free to interact with those whom also respect freedom (by not violating the rights of individuals).
An example I can think of is a person who stays in an abusive relationship. The usual advice (among things like contacting the authorities) is to get out of the relationship and to get away from that person; I think if someone were to analyze why an abused person should do this, he would discover a roughly Objectivist view of what self-interest is and why the advice is thereby justified (by investigating the validity of self-interest as a justification for action).
I don't know what you mean by egoism separating a person from the world around him through boundaries. Egoism counsels pursuing one's self-interest, so it gives us knowledge of types of actions we should take in the world and why we should take them. As a result, it also offers ways to improve ourselves so as to achieve our self-interests (and consequently, achieve the good life). So rather than alienating oneself from the world, I think it can offer important steps in personal understanding, especially in how one should guide one's life (outside of psychological counseling, of course).
"You start thinking in calculations, very mathematically and analytically. This sort of thinking has it's place, but not, I think, in human relationship and establishment of the best life possible."
I agree that actual mathematics, in terms of precise numbers, doesn't have a role to play in human relationships, as if (for example) a person could say that they like John 80% or 60 degrees and thus will devote X amount of time with him today; I don't think there's any basis for such calculations.
But I think we do need some form of implicit measurement/grading scale to gauge how our actions and values are affecting the rest of our values, like how the demands of one's job may be affecting one's relationship with one's spouse, and how this may call for a change in priorities. I think people who look to self-help books realize this as well, that we need some way to organize our activities in life to flourish in those activities; my contention is simply that the Objectivist ethics offers essential guidance in fulfilling one's life, as opposed to leaving a person without any guidance or crippling him through alienation (basically your claim).
As far as separation goes, you misunderstand my claim. I'm not talking about actual isolation and separation. I'm talking about the theoretical, on a subtle psychological/imagination/world view level. It enforces the illusion of separateness. The idea that you are somehow separate and in some ways "against" the world/others. Obviously, egoism reinforces the strength of the ego. Something I and much of world spirituality views as the false self.
So many of the things we think are real are enforced by our social structures, our basic need for survival in a harsh world, and the binary way our mind translates experience. Much of our lives are actually built on a subtle underlying fear. Adopting a philosophy of egoism/Objectivism reinforces these fears and prevents people from moving beyond the self. It keeps us trapped.
I was pretty sure I had misunderstood it, but wanted to respond anyway. Thanks for the clarification.
I don't know if I'm really qualified to answer this besides generalities, since this is more about emotions and I'm not a psychologist.
I'll say this:
Our "self" (ego), our reasoning mind and its basic values, is a very important thing in our lives; it's through our minds, our faculties of reason, that we discover the facts about the world, about other people, and about ourselves, and this is one of the reasons why "rationality" is the primary virtue. So in that sense (and only in that sense, I would add), Objectivism "reinforces" the power of the "ego."
I simply don't understand why this advocacy and empowerment of reason and our minds must come at the detriment to a positive relationship with other people and/or the world at large. I think the exact opposite is true, in fact.
I've never understood the rationale for moving "beyond the self" and I regard the religions which preach those kind of ideas, like Christianity and Buddhism, as false. Objectivism's ethics has been called an "enlightened" kind of self-interest, and I think the term aptly applies; rather than moving "beyond the self," the philosophy asks for more of the self, it expands the range of what the self should be concerned with.
I'm unaware of fears that are inculcated by means of Objectivism, and I've already met about a hundred or so Objectivists in the two years that I've been studying it: none of them seemed to be experiencing fears about being "trapped" with their "selves." And besides a fear of heights, which I had way before the philosophy, I have no fears.
If you have any evidence of such phenomena, feel free to list it.
In response to what you said, however, let me try to illuminate what I mean by fear.
I do not mean any sort of phobia or conscious fear. I mean that there is an underlying and subtle motive for doing many of the things we do that is based in our need to suppress fear or anxiety. By the categorical need to avoid unpleasant situations, in other words, self interest. Now, in itself it is not a bad thing. It is logical and good to avoid things that will harm you. But the more you arrange your life in order to protect yourself, the more protection you feel like you need.
For instance, imagine people in two different neighborhoods. One very rich, gated community, and one in a relatively poor town. Ironically, in the gated community, because they have more security, they are more worried about security. They look for holes in it, imagine ways someone could still break in. They don't let their children play in the street. Perhaps they are hyper sensitive to other people's treatment of them and are more likely to sue someone over a frivolous claim. Their goal wasn't so much to increase their safety as to eliminate their worry about safety, but they have only increased it.
The people in the poorer neighborhood, on the other hand, live with much more danger, but much less fear. They don't constrict themselves as much, it's more free.
I know that not everyone in these situations conforms to my example, but the psychological outlook between someone in a protected position and someone in a vulnerable position is quite different.
The anxiety seems to be a fear of continuation, sustainability. So that the more you have, the more worried you are of losing it. The same goes for car owners. If you own a Ferrari, you're likely to be worried about the very least scratch. If you own a Honda Civic, you tend not to worry about it much.
Basically, the idea that I want to promote is that our drives for self-interest are often misguided. We want things to be better, and in trying to make that a reality, make them worse. My worry is that if we make a virtue out of self-interest, we will pursue it too strongly (not that we don't already).
To go "beyond the self" isn't really to be selfless. It is, rather, closer to what you talk about: enlarging the self, though I'm not sure we mean the same thing by that phrase. Religion (at least in its good applications), and even some of philosophy (existentialism, for example) and psychology, tries to show us that so much of how we behave is based in a denial (to varying degrees and on different levels) of the unpleasant, and we structure our lives in order to keep this illusion going.
Spirituality, I think, is the confrontation of reality without protection. And as we allow the illusions to break down, we come to realize that the boundaries between the feelings of interior vs. exterior, of good vs bad, etc. are both relative and artificial. The feeling of separate identities on one level fades away, and being able to act out of this unity changes your whole perspective and is a very light, joyous and freeing feeling. But yet on another level the separateness exists as a very real phenomenon. So that your goal, living in a tension of both, is to increase love and joy behind every separate pair of eyes by helping them to awaken to the unity of all things.
And, operating from this perspective, we are filled with the wisdom necessary to make a truly lasting change. Basically, by letting go of our need to eliminate pain, we conquer it.
My worry is that Objectivism isn't quite as "enlightened" as you claim and that it will merely reinforce the goal of denying and eliminating unpleasantness thereby trap us in that objective.
And as I observed earlier, this is more about the particular emotions of the hypothetical egoists than a matter that could be strictly resolved through philosophical discussion. My advice for those who sought their self-interests but had various anxieties about their possessions or situations would be to start focusing on the positives, and stop worrying about any potential negatives (unless the negatives are actual and require counter-measures). I would tell the person that focusing on such imagined negatives is a mistaken framework for considering how one's interests should be pursued.
In Objectivism, one's ultimate value is one's own life, and one's own happiness is one's highest purpose, correct? If this is so, then is it not rational to avoid pain and unpleasant circumstances at all costs?
By the way, thanks for answering my questions.
In Objectivism, one's ultimate value is one's own life, and one's own happiness is one's highest purpose, correct? If this is so, then is it not rational to avoid pain and unpleasant circumstances at all costs?
In Objectivism one's ultimate value is one's life, as in the whole life, not each moment of survival. Happiness is transitory, and momentary bliss obtained from things excessive use of drugs, meaningless sex, or other actions that deliver short-term gains but long-term losses in one's overall sense of fulfillment will detract from one's life as a whole, rather than add to it. Thus it actually becomes rational to endure minor short term inconveniences for long term gains (in the form of accomplishing one's goals, establishing healthy relationships, etc.). Anything less isn't living with your life in mind, merely your momentary desires.
In order for Objectivism to be a viable and widespread philosophical world view, common people need to wise up about what is really in their own interest, and what that even really means.
As for Koios's question:
No, it isn't always rational to avoid pain and unpleasant circumstances at all costs, because pain and unpleasantness as such do not always suggest the best path an egoist should take.
To know what is rational, we have to consider the facts (including one's pain) in light of how they'll affect the person's life from a long-range perspective. If a person's teeth are improperly placed and thus more susceptible to disease (such as periodontitis), for instance, then it would be rational see a dentist; even if that dental visit might include painful dental work. Avoiding the dentist on account of the likely pain one would feel is hardly a rational choice when the alternative is the possibility of losing one's teeth through gum disease. And to further solidify why one should see the dentist, we could point out why it's rational to want to keep one's teeth, especially the ability to sufficiently chew food.
To point to another example, it might be rational to confront a friend with an issue that's affecting the relationship negatively, even if that might be an unpleasant experience. On the long-term, it might be better for the friends to resolve their differences now or to go their separate ways; not doing so could lead to even bigger problems in the future.
Related to your question: Objectivists are not hedonists, so " attaining pleasure/avoiding pain" is not our standard for determining what is in our interests and consequently not the means for deciding how best to advance our interests. (I'm not specifying "pleasure" here so as to include the several types of hedonism in philosophy.)
Interesting. I'll see if I can find her thoughts on empathy.