5 ms·

The Vice of Selfishness - A critique of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism (1987)

18 points by vinutheraj 17y ago

grandalf 17y ago
This essay completely misses Ayn Rand's point. Consider your life and the basic problem of deciding how to live it. Being "selfish" means living your life according to what is most meaningful to you. For some that means heading to Wall Street, for others it means being a doctor, and for others it means working at Burger King. In modern terminology, Rand's term "selfish" should be substituted accurately with self-actualized. Her term "selfish" was actually chosen as a deliberate synonym for "self-actualized" that didn't sound like psychobabble. Now the question becomes, under what circumstances would anyone claim that a person should not be self-actualized? One might also wonder what would be the consequences of living one's entire life in a state of self-actualization vs non self-actualization. It is this sort of question that Rand addresses in the book. She makes the rather bold moral claim that each human should live a self-actualized life, and that to avoid doing so is to commit a moral failing. Now let's quickly examine the concept from a political perspective. What would it mean to not be selfish? Suppose you are a young man who is very talented at the Violin. You know in your gut that to create beautiful music with the instrument will bring you tremendous happiness and pride. You want nothing in life other than to experience this happiness every day, so you practice long and hard. That you please others is nice, but it's secondary to your own love of music. Rand would applaud such a person. Rand's critics would claim that the violinist should have been "selfless" and joined the clergy or perhaps become an orderly at a hospital, helping to clean up vomit and spilled fluids. By definition, selfishness is doing something you want to do, and selflessness is doing something you don't want to do. So what Rand's critics are advocating is akin to self-flagellation. This is not a new idea, as anyone who has read or watched the DaVinci Code knows -- the wacky priest uses a spiked strap to make sure that he is not enjoying whatever he is doing, since self-sacrifice is his highest value. So what about people who work for non profits, are they selfless? Not really. They simply enjoy making the world better more than they enjoy earning more money in each paycheck. Selflessness for someone who works at a non profit would be working in a job that was truly meaningless... such as perhaps working as a clerk in a huge corporation. Political systems like Socialism which attempt to embody the idea of shared self-sacrifice would view the clerical job as every bit as noble as a more meaningful job because someone must do the clerical work for it helps society as a whole. Rand's value of individual choice and self-actualization -- appreciating and glorifying the occasions when a person truly loves his life's work -- is fortunately not all that foreign to HN readers.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  Thanks for this rebuttal. I did not have time to read the article. It's interesting that these same concepts are found in existentialism -- another philosophy that has been given a bad rap by many.
- mquander 17y ago
  That's wonderful, if you can hack it. However, in the real world, we have billions of people on the planet who are not capable of living the life they imagine. What people take issue with is Rand's ideological claim that the best way for the people of Earth to achieve a future in which everyone has the capability to "self-actualize" is to focus primarily on their own "self-actualization." That's not obvious at all. Most people feel that our overall well-being is served when the most fortunate among us (those with the resources to pursue their own dreams, and excess resources beyond that) are taxed to some degree to try to give other people a better chance at a self-actualized life.
  - grandalf 17y ago
    If Rand is wrong and morality is to be found only in doing things one doesn't enjoy, doesn't that sort of take the wind out of the sails of anyone who might claim to enjoy something like working to help the homeless, etc? Do you view all of those people as noble souls who would quite rather be working on a trading floor somewhere but are gritting their teeth in self-suppression as they provide social services to others? Rand would argue that if someone derives meaning from solving a world problem such as homelessness, that his/her selfish (self-actualized) pursuit of that goal is the highest thing he/she can do. note: Rand's essay is not at all about taxation. The conceptual overlap comes from the tradition of the church to use the ethic of self-sacrifice to get members to do its bidding... a meme that has also been used by the state to justify unequal taxation regimes. I don't think the "ethic of self-sacrifice" argument is necessary to justify basic taxation -- simple social contract theory is enough -- but the meme works quite well b/c it allows the state to also be the arbiter of virtue.
    - mquander 17y ago
vinutheraj 17y ago
Here is the same post on the objectivism forum, and their counter-arguments on the critique ! http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=15999 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=15999
- grandalf 17y ago
  I think objectivists usually do a pretty poor job of articulating the philosophy... that thread seems to be no exception.
- lesbianmonad 17y ago
  This is a pretty good list of the value judgments typically made by objectivists, and more generally libertarian-capitalists: 'First, in our system "underprivileged" people essentially do not exist. The percentage of people genuinely unable to support themselves is infintesimal. We do have quite a collection of moochers and bums, but that is no one's responsibility but their own.' 'What would stop welfare recipients from becoming working, productive members of society when their taxpayer-looted dole is cut off? Nothing but sheer laziness and a continued desire to remain parasites, in defiance of reality' etc.
  - darkxanthos 17y ago
    And that was a great list of broad generalizations by you! Thanks for illustrating.
darkxanthos 17y ago
Here is a list of his counter-points to objectivism and my list of counters to them: 1) "If [social program] restrictions can make twenty million hungry, then destruction [of social programs] could quite possibly starve to death vast numbers of people." This does not prove that objectivism is flawed just that migration to a purely objectivist system would be difficult. The real issue in this case is the populace being accustomed to a certain way of life and then changing it on a dime and expecting them to change on a dime or starve. 2) "The first flaw results from Objectivism's overextension of the correct repudiation of rewarding people for need to the prohibition of even helping those in need." In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny is helped when she is injured after a plane crash by the industrialists that were abandoning society. Rather than view it as helping those in need, think of it as investing in those in need. If you're a leech on society and then you fall on hard times why should society work harder to find a way to save you? It's not pretty, and I'm fairly opposed to it, but it is logical. 3) "Further, by saying he will never live for the sake of another, John Galt and the Objectivists cannot live their lives for Ms. Genovese's sake even long enough to make a phone call." Making a phone call in this situation would be an investment in your community. It would do even an objectivist a disservice to have a murderer running around and perhaps targeting them next. Self-interest would dictate that the crime be reported. What those people went through is something much more to the core of human instinct which unfortunately may or may not follow philosophical knowledge to the tee, even within the objectivist. :) *Concession- I will give the writer this point: I'm not sure what reason an objectivist has to try to maintain the world past his/her lifetime (RE: the OP's environmentalism point). This is something I'm curious about. Is the ultimate idea that other objectivists should work to ensure that this objectivist doesn't screw up their future? [edited typo]
- teller 17y ago
  We are valuers; just because our lifetimes are finite does not mean that what we value vanishes when we die--there are children, friends, institutions, even a broader affection for the best of mankind in general, and love of justice and principle, that extend well beyond your own grave.
  - darkxanthos 17y ago
jibiki 17y ago
The writing style is very odd. It begins normally, but the second half or so is written in a high-school-student-esque manner. The last paragraph actually begins with the words "in conclusion"(!) It's as if the author had started to write this piece in an honest way, and then, halfway through, remembered that he was writing it for a class.
- fuzzmeister 17y ago
  "Philosophy 120a November 4, 1987 Professor Fischer" Apparently, he was writing it for a class: his class.
  - jibiki 17y ago
    I can only hope that the article was written by one of Professor Fischer's students, rather than the professor himself :)
- abi 17y ago
  After watching his video on YouTube where he says he wrote it "20 twenty years when I was in college", I think he wrote it when he was a student but now, he is a professor. I agree that the writing style seems odd.
fuzzmeister 17y ago
This essay appears to be pointing out a problem with many, if not the majority, of philosophies and ideologies: oversimplification. Objectivism states that if all humans were to pursue their own self-actualization at all times, the world would automatically become a better place. Socialism states that if every man contributed his best and received what he needed, again, the world would become a better place. Neither is possible in the real world. Economic hardship, social need, and lack of opportunity prevent many in the world from coming close to achieving objectivist self-actualization, and the greed and selfishness fundamental to human nature preclude many people from working for the benefit of others. Further, other elements of human nature, such as altruism and empathy, mean that there will always be many people working for the benefit of others rather than themselves. But, social and economic status often prevent these people from doing so, and require that they work for themselves, even if not achieving self-actualization in the process. Essentially, the reality is that these philosophies are interesting to think about, but should not be used to govern the real world. The real world will always need a mix of capitalism and socialism, selfishness and altruism, love for oneself and love for others. It's never as simple as people like Rand or Marx make it out to be.
dmfdmf 17y ago
This critique is pretty lame, especially for some guy who claims to have been follower or student of AR for a time. He either wasn't paying attention or not very bright. The objections he raised are all addressed in detail by Rand in her writings. For example, the idea that Objectivism is against charity and helping the poor is one of the standard canards and misrepresentations. Objectivism has nothing against charity as long as its voluntary. Taking money by force to support a welfare class is immoral. Him and all his socialist buddies are free to give all their money to the poor if that's what they value. As far as the actually needy, i.e. those who are disabled or unable to care for themselves, they are literally dependent on those who are not needy and their need is not a moral claim -- not a moral obligation to be enforced by the govt. In a free society the voluntary charity would be generous and sufficient for these cases because unlike the ever growing need of a parasite class the actual needy is a fairly small and finite group and thus a marginal, side issue in ethics. Now if these clowns really want to stop AR they should attack her theory of concepts. I'm waiting....
- viggity 17y ago
  I wish I could up vote your response more than once. Good Job!
vinutheraj 17y ago
The guy who wrote this has a channel on YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer?PHPSESSID=5a91ae4c09aca4c79dfe372b8ea76d44 http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer?PHPSESSID=5a91ae4c... and he talks about this critique on one of his broadcasts - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-tIY99QFFk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-tIY99QFFk

18 points by vinutheraj 17y ago

This essay completely misses Ayn Rand's point. Consider your life and the basic problem of deciding how to live it. Being "selfish" means living your life according to what is most meaningful to you. For some that means heading to Wall Street, for others it means being a doctor, and for others it means working at Burger King. In modern terminology, Rand's term "selfish" should be substituted accurately with self-actualized. Her term "selfish" was actually chosen as a deliberate synonym for "self-actualized" that didn't sound like psychobabble. Now the question becomes, under what circumstances would anyone claim that a person should not be self-actualized? One might also wonder what would be the consequences of living one's entire life in a state of self-actualization vs non self-actualization. It is this sort of question that Rand addresses in the book. She makes the rather bold moral claim that each human should live a self-actualized life, and that to avoid doing so is to commit a moral failing. Now let's quickly examine the concept from a political perspective. What would it mean to not be selfish? Suppose you are a young man who is very talented at the Violin. You know in your gut that to create beautiful music with the instrument will bring you tremendous happiness and pride. You want nothing in life other than to experience this happiness every day, so you practice long and hard. That you please others is nice, but it's secondary to your own love of music. Rand would applaud such a person. Rand's critics would claim that the violinist should have been "selfless" and joined the clergy or perhaps become an orderly at a hospital, helping to clean up vomit and spilled fluids. By definition, selfishness is doing something you want to do, and selflessness is doing something you don't want to do. So what Rand's critics are advocating is akin to self-flagellation. This is not a new idea, as anyone who has read or watched the DaVinci Code knows -- the wacky priest uses a spiked strap to make sure that he is not enjoying whatever he is doing, since self-sacrifice is his highest value. So what about people who work for non profits, are they selfless? Not really. They simply enjoy making the world better more than they enjoy earning more money in each paycheck. Selflessness for someone who works at a non profit would be working in a job that was truly meaningless... such as perhaps working as a clerk in a huge corporation. Political systems like Socialism which attempt to embody the idea of shared self-sacrifice would view the clerical job as every bit as noble as a more meaningful job because someone must do the clerical work for it helps society as a whole. Rand's value of individual choice and self-actualization -- appreciating and glorifying the occasions when a person truly loves his life's work -- is fortunately not all that foreign to HN readers.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Thanks for this rebuttal. I did not have time to read the article. It's interesting that these same concepts are found in existentialism -- another philosophy that has been given a bad rap by many.
mquander 17y ago
That's wonderful, if you can hack it. However, in the real world, we have billions of people on the planet who are not capable of living the life they imagine. What people take issue with is Rand's ideological claim that the best way for the people of Earth to achieve a future in which everyone has the capability to "self-actualize" is to focus primarily on their own "self-actualization." That's not obvious at all. Most people feel that our overall well-being is served when the most fortunate among us (those with the resources to pursue their own dreams, and excess resources beyond that) are taxed to some degree to try to give other people a better chance at a self-actualized life.
- grandalf 17y ago
  If Rand is wrong and morality is to be found only in doing things one doesn't enjoy, doesn't that sort of take the wind out of the sails of anyone who might claim to enjoy something like working to help the homeless, etc? Do you view all of those people as noble souls who would quite rather be working on a trading floor somewhere but are gritting their teeth in self-suppression as they provide social services to others? Rand would argue that if someone derives meaning from solving a world problem such as homelessness, that his/her selfish (self-actualized) pursuit of that goal is the highest thing he/she can do. note: Rand's essay is not at all about taxation. The conceptual overlap comes from the tradition of the church to use the ethic of self-sacrifice to get members to do its bidding... a meme that has also been used by the state to justify unequal taxation regimes. I don't think the "ethic of self-sacrifice" argument is necessary to justify basic taxation -- simple social contract theory is enough -- but the meme works quite well b/c it allows the state to also be the arbiter of virtue.
  - mquander 17y ago

vinutheraj 17y ago

Here is the same post on the objectivism forum, and their counter-arguments on the critique ! http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=15999 http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=15999

grandalf 17y ago
I think objectivists usually do a pretty poor job of articulating the philosophy... that thread seems to be no exception.
lesbianmonad 17y ago
This is a pretty good list of the value judgments typically made by objectivists, and more generally libertarian-capitalists: 'First, in our system "underprivileged" people essentially do not exist. The percentage of people genuinely unable to support themselves is infintesimal. We do have quite a collection of moochers and bums, but that is no one's responsibility but their own.' 'What would stop welfare recipients from becoming working, productive members of society when their taxpayer-looted dole is cut off? Nothing but sheer laziness and a continued desire to remain parasites, in defiance of reality' etc.
- darkxanthos 17y ago
  And that was a great list of broad generalizations by you! Thanks for illustrating.

darkxanthos 17y ago

Here is a list of his counter-points to objectivism and my list of counters to them: 1) "If [social program] restrictions can make twenty million hungry, then destruction [of social programs] could quite possibly starve to death vast numbers of people." This does not prove that objectivism is flawed just that migration to a purely objectivist system would be difficult. The real issue in this case is the populace being accustomed to a certain way of life and then changing it on a dime and expecting them to change on a dime or starve. 2) "The first flaw results from Objectivism's overextension of the correct repudiation of rewarding people for need to the prohibition of even helping those in need." In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny is helped when she is injured after a plane crash by the industrialists that were abandoning society. Rather than view it as helping those in need, think of it as investing in those in need. If you're a leech on society and then you fall on hard times why should society work harder to find a way to save you? It's not pretty, and I'm fairly opposed to it, but it is logical. 3) "Further, by saying he will never live for the sake of another, John Galt and the Objectivists cannot live their lives for Ms. Genovese's sake even long enough to make a phone call." Making a phone call in this situation would be an investment in your community. It would do even an objectivist a disservice to have a murderer running around and perhaps targeting them next. Self-interest would dictate that the crime be reported. What those people went through is something much more to the core of human instinct which unfortunately may or may not follow philosophical knowledge to the tee, even within the objectivist. :) *Concession- I will give the writer this point: I'm not sure what reason an objectivist has to try to maintain the world past his/her lifetime (RE: the OP's environmentalism point). This is something I'm curious about. Is the ultimate idea that other objectivists should work to ensure that this objectivist doesn't screw up their future? [edited typo]

teller 17y ago
We are valuers; just because our lifetimes are finite does not mean that what we value vanishes when we die--there are children, friends, institutions, even a broader affection for the best of mankind in general, and love of justice and principle, that extend well beyond your own grave.
- darkxanthos 17y ago

jibiki 17y ago

The writing style is very odd. It begins normally, but the second half or so is written in a high-school-student-esque manner. The last paragraph actually begins with the words "in conclusion"(!) It's as if the author had started to write this piece in an honest way, and then, halfway through, remembered that he was writing it for a class.

fuzzmeister 17y ago
"Philosophy 120a November 4, 1987 Professor Fischer" Apparently, he was writing it for a class: his class.
- jibiki 17y ago
  I can only hope that the article was written by one of Professor Fischer's students, rather than the professor himself :)
abi 17y ago
After watching his video on YouTube where he says he wrote it "20 twenty years when I was in college", I think he wrote it when he was a student but now, he is a professor. I agree that the writing style seems odd.

fuzzmeister 17y ago

This essay appears to be pointing out a problem with many, if not the majority, of philosophies and ideologies: oversimplification. Objectivism states that if all humans were to pursue their own self-actualization at all times, the world would automatically become a better place. Socialism states that if every man contributed his best and received what he needed, again, the world would become a better place. Neither is possible in the real world. Economic hardship, social need, and lack of opportunity prevent many in the world from coming close to achieving objectivist self-actualization, and the greed and selfishness fundamental to human nature preclude many people from working for the benefit of others. Further, other elements of human nature, such as altruism and empathy, mean that there will always be many people working for the benefit of others rather than themselves. But, social and economic status often prevent these people from doing so, and require that they work for themselves, even if not achieving self-actualization in the process. Essentially, the reality is that these philosophies are interesting to think about, but should not be used to govern the real world. The real world will always need a mix of capitalism and socialism, selfishness and altruism, love for oneself and love for others. It's never as simple as people like Rand or Marx make it out to be.

dmfdmf 17y ago

This critique is pretty lame, especially for some guy who claims to have been follower or student of AR for a time. He either wasn't paying attention or not very bright. The objections he raised are all addressed in detail by Rand in her writings. For example, the idea that Objectivism is against charity and helping the poor is one of the standard canards and misrepresentations. Objectivism has nothing against charity as long as its voluntary. Taking money by force to support a welfare class is immoral. Him and all his socialist buddies are free to give all their money to the poor if that's what they value. As far as the actually needy, i.e. those who are disabled or unable to care for themselves, they are literally dependent on those who are not needy and their need is not a moral claim -- not a moral obligation to be enforced by the govt. In a free society the voluntary charity would be generous and sufficient for these cases because unlike the ever growing need of a parasite class the actual needy is a fairly small and finite group and thus a marginal, side issue in ethics. Now if these clowns really want to stop AR they should attack her theory of concepts. I'm waiting....

viggity 17y ago
I wish I could up vote your response more than once. Good Job!

vinutheraj 17y ago

The guy who wrote this has a channel on YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer?PHPSESSID=5a91ae4c09aca4c79dfe372b8ea76d44 http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer?PHPSESSID=5a91ae4c... and he talks about this critique on one of his broadcasts - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-tIY99QFFk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-tIY99QFFk