I am going to be reading several excerpts from Tara Smith’s book, Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist, along with providing some of my own commentary and an example. This book has served as an enormous help to me in grappling with Ayn Rand’s views on forming a proper secular morality.
I’m excited to share this information with you, so let’s dive in.
In Professor Smith’s introduction to the book, she describes her subject as “[…] how to lead a selfish life” (4). To be self-interested is linked to the concept of egoism, which means that our “[…] standard of value is life” (6). “Our nature dictates that we need morality […]” (2) in order “[…] to guide individuals to the achievement of their happiness” (48). “It is only by leading a morally upright life that a person can be happy and it is for the sake of having a happy life that a person should be morally upright” (3). Since our aim in life is to be happy, then “[…] a determination of the proper way to lead our lives must begin with an analysis of the concept of value” (4).
Her next chapter on rational egoism further describes what Ayn Rand truly means by being egoistic (since it usually gets a bad name in this culture). To be egoistic, you must use your mind and take rational actions to achieve the values you set for yourself. According to Rand, “[a] value is ‘that which one acts to gain and/or keep’” (20). Therefore, “[m]orality, Rand writes, ‘is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions […]’” (19). And “[…] value is objective” (25) because “[t]he basis for regarding certain ends as objectively valuable to an organism, as the kinds of things that it should seek, Rand reasons, rests in the struggle for life.” (20) For example, if you want to live to an old age (life), then you choose not to do illegal drugs (death). “Ethical egoism is the thesis that a person should act to promote his own interest” (23). Unlike Satanists, this does not include hedonism, which Christians, in particular, always like to bring up. For “[p]leasure is not a reliable guide to the advancement of a human being’s life, as what is pleasurable and what is in a person’s interest do not always coincide” (27) because “[f]lourishing is the path to continued living” (31). You can often end up in quite the opposite conundrum when you simply act on emotions, which is why Rand “[…] defines happiness as ‘that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values.’ It is a ‘state of non-contradictory joy…a joy that does not clash with any of your values’” (31). “Rational egoism is not about besting others, but about making one’s own life as rewarding as possible” (38). It is a focus on your own happiness, which can be degraded by bad actions over time. Although “[…] a person can survive an occasional immoral action. But damage is damage, as Peikoff elaborates, and ‘damage, untended is progressive.’ It cannot be courted or passively tolerated if one’s goal is to flourish” (38). This is why Rand believed that you can have gray actions, but at the end of the day, you cannot have gray morality. Your moral actions accumulate on a daily basis to form a person who is either good or bad, not both. And “[t]he actions necessary to sustain a person’s life in atypical conditions cannot be used as the basis for moral principles that are to guide us in everyday living […]” (43). In other words, you must have a choice to act morally in order for there to be morality. You cannot serve up, as so many modern philosophers do, trolley problems to form a code of morality.
The book then begins to take on each of the seven chosen virtues that Ayn Rand discussed over her lifetime (though this list may not be exhaustive). The first and most important of those virtues is rationality, which is “[…] the acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge and fundamental guide to action” (7). For example: “I cannot ascend to the fourth floor of Waggener Hall by levitating. I can reach the fourth floor by climbing the stairs or taking the elevator, as long as those were built in ways that respect relevant materials, the weight of human beings, and the like” (58). “‘It means one’s total commitment to a state of full, conscious awareness, to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices, in all of one’s waking hours…’” (52–3) because “[r]eason is man’s fundamental means of survival.” (57) And it is his virtues that “[…] designate the fundamental kinds of action that are necessary to sustain human life” (52).
The second virtue is honesty, which is “[…] the refusal to fake reality” (8). For example: “If a physician ignores the CT scan results, he cannot prescribe effective treatment for his patient; if an electrician ignores faulty wiring, he cannot prepare a safe building for its occupants; if a man ignores signs of his own emotional deterioration, he cannot achieve happiness” (79). Therefore, “[h]onesty, in Rand’s view, means that a person ‘must never attempt to fake reality in any manner’” (75). “Whenever a person is dishonest with others, one prominent consequence is the need to conceal his deception” (81). And “[…] the deeper problem with deception of others is that invented ‘goods’—as invented ‘facts’—cannot actually advance a person’s life” (81). “It would make no sense to pursue a near term ‘gain’ by methods that sabotage one’s longer-term welfare (e.g., earning a profit this year by employing means that will bankrupt the business soon thereafter […]” (82). “Through dishonesty, a person makes himself dependent on others—on their standards and their ignorance” (83). It is “[…] comparable to that of a person on a boat that is springing leaks, frantically patching one after another” (85). Therefore, “[…] I would suggest that dishonesty is likely to eat away at a person’s self-esteem […]” (85). They must create lie after lie in order to keep up the ruse. However, “[a] person stands under no moral obligation to divulge his knowledge to an inquiring Nazi. In such cases, the person who lies is not attempting to gain a value. […] Rather, he is acting rationally to protect a value under attack” (94). “All moral guidance is intended for the normal course of events, since those are the conditions we ordinarily face and that allow us to identify principles that provide effective guidance” (94–5). “‘In such a case, morality cannot say what to do. Under a dictatorship—under force—there is no such thing as morality. Morality ends where a gun begins…in such emergency situations, no one could prescribe what action is appropriate. That is my answer to all lifeboat questions. Moral rules cannot be prescribed for these situations, because only life is the basis on which to establish a moral code’” (95) since “[m]orality is a tool of self-preservation” (96). “In a natural emergency, a great value is at risk; in a metaphysical emergency, a person’s very mode of survival is immobilized” (98). So, morality can still exist (just differently) in certain types of emergencies. For instance, “[i]n a natural emergency, a woman might be morally justified in taking a neighbor’s car to rush her husband to the hospital or in breaking into a neighbor’s vacant house to use his phone to call an ambulance if her own is not working. Ordinarily, rational egoism would forbid such violations of others’ property, but the emergency justifies it. This does not mean that morality is silenced all together and totally inapplicable, however. The person who violates the basic principles of morality is still obligated to recognize that his emergency (genuine as it is, for him) is not an emergency for everyone and does not suspend all other individuals’ rights. Accordingly, he must be ready to pay compensation to those whose property he has taken” (98). This is why “[h]onesty is not intrinsically virtuous or a categorical imperative, to be blindly obeyed regardless of circumstances” (99–100). Even “white lies” can be considered on the same level as total dishonesty. “The essential problem with well-intentioned dishonesty is the same as that with any dishonesty: It does not work. As Peikoff observes, a lie that attempts to protect others from certain facts is as impractical as any more blatantly sinister lies” (102). “It infuses artificiality into individuals’ relationships” (103). “Essentially, Rand holds, a person should either tell the truth about an issue or refuse to discuss it” (103). “In fact, as Rand observes, telling a man the truth is a form of respect” (104).
The third virtue is independence, which is“[…] setting one’s primary orientation to reality rather than to other people” (9). For example: “While the independent person will choose his career by reference to the relevant facts of reality (e.g., his enjoyment of the work, his aptitude for it, his judgment of its value, employment prospects), the second-hander will choose his career by reference to what other people think of it (e.g., becoming a physician ‘because everybody is impressed by doctors,’ joining the family business because all of his siblings have, going into a ‘helping’ profession because society considers it noble)” (111). “Independence, according to Rand, is ‘one’s acceptance of the responsibility of forming one’s own judgments and of living by the work of one’s own mind’” (107). “It is not ‘whatever I want’ that is most important for a rational egoist, but whatever, in fact, will objectively serve his flourishing” (124). “Rand rejects the image of man as either a ‘lone wolf’ or a ‘social animal,’ asserting that he is, in fact, a ‘contractual animal’” (130).
The fourth virtue is justice, which is“[…] judging other persons objectively and treating them accordingly by giving them what they deserve […]” (10). For example: “This is reflected when we think that an especially attentive waiter deserves a big tip, a hard-working staffer deserves special commendation, the corrupt politician deserves defeat, or a rapist deserves a lengthy prison sentence” (138). “Justice is the application of rationality to the evaluation and treatment of other individuals” (135). [As a side note, “[…] retribution refers to ‘the imposition of painful consequences proportionate to the injury caused by the criminal act’” (138).] “Justice is essential for the prudent promotion and protection of one’s values” (148). “Implicit in judging others objectively is judging individuals as individuals. Justice forbids sweeping generalizations, blanket condemnations, or benedictions on the basis of nonessential similarities among people” (152). “‘Since men are born tabula rasa, both cognitively and morally,’ Rand reasons, ‘a rational man regards strangers as innocent until proved guilty’” (154). So, men are not born “morally perfect,” but every decision to survive and flourish from birth is perfect. “Morality does not demand cooperation with those who would turn a person’s virtue against him, making it a tool in his own victimization. As Peikoff observes, ‘Justice cannot require that a man sacrifice himself to someone else’s evil.’ In normal circumstances, however, where a person’s silence would reasonably be taken as agreement with something he does not support and he would not be unjustly penalized for speaking out, he must speak” (162). In terms of forgiveness for an injustice, it may be “[…] proper, Peikoff observes, when the offender makes restitution to his victim (if possible) and demonstrates that he understands the roots of his breach, has reformed, and will not repeat the transgression” (166). “Forgiveness, then, must be earned […]” (166). And where it is concerned, “[e]ssentially, as Peikoff recognizes, mercy is ‘the policy of identifying [a person’s deserts], then not acting accordingly […]’” (168). Therefore, mercy is not considered to be a virtue.
The fifth virtue is integrity, which is“[…] loyalty in action to rational principles” (11). For example: “He does not speak at a meeting on behalf of a policy he deems important, for instance, because he thinks he will seem foolish. He fears rejection from the voters, so he tells them what he thinks they want to hear rather than his true convictions. He fears criticism from students, so he lowers his standards to offer them more palatable grades” (179). “Rand describes integrity as ‘loyalty to one’s convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality’” (176). It is complete “‘[…] loyalty to rational principles’” (176). Whereas, “[i]n the end, a lack of integrity amounts to a lack of principles” (181). These “[…] moral principles should never be reified as inherently obligatory. Integrity does require, however, the refusal to compromise one’s principles” (188). “While people often think of violations of their principles as cheating ‘just a little,’ any cheating inevitably means abandoning those principles completely, since the cheater is enthroning something other than those principles as sovereign” (190). If any cheating occurs, then it must be dealt with “[i]n a word: justly. He should acknowledge his lapse, objectively evaluate it, and dedicate himself to avoiding its recurrence” (196). For “[…] evil cannot generate objective values. The good, in contrast, has nothing to gain in any compromise, precisely because evil (to the extent that it is evil) does not generate objective values” (191). Good gains only from good. And the courage to correct an error in virtue, “[…] then, is being ‘true to existence’ […]” (195). With this virtue, I have a personal essay I wrote back in college about how I stole peanuts when I was five years old and thereafter learned the virtue of integrity from my parents.
***
The Five-Year-Old Robber
As I walked through the aisles, humming to myself, my hands running down each pre-packed produce item, I noticed an open container full of peanuts. The container was at eye-level and my eyes clung to it and nothing else. Sharply tugging on my mother’s pants, I asked politely if I could have some. She said, “Not now, Katie.” But my mind was already made up and being the stubborn child that I was, I felt the urge to grab some of the peanuts and shove them into my pocket. No one would ever know. I felt a rush of triumph blow over me. I had taken flight with new wings my parents had no control over. If I wanted something, I took it.
Walking behind my mother, the act replayed in my head over and over again – my small hand reaching out, my heart palpitating ten times its normal rate, my eyes shifting back-and-forth, my armpits starting to sweat. And then the grab itself. Cupping my hand, I became the plastic scooper and kidnapped what few peanuts I could. I captured about five unnoticed. I remember the way that their shells felt against the palm of my hand. Each peanut took on its own shape, the rough curvature making every one unique. I almost felt like naming each separate peanut before devouring them whole. But I had to release the light, ridged shells into my soft, sweater-pocket. The pocket itself was so tiny that it could hardly hold down five large peanuts. But I shoved them down its throat with deft accuracy and speed. That way the pocket would not protest and I could go home a free girl – free from trouble.
A grin began to appear on my face, but as I looked up at my mother, I felt an intense drop in my mood. Would she approve of my achievement to outsmart her…or even worse, would father? I gulped. Looking around the current aisle we were being swallowed up in, I noticed it smelled like bleach and large tubs of colorfully labeled goo were sitting on the shelves. We were in the cleaning supplies aisle which seemed like forever away from the peanut container I had just violated. It was too late – the damage was done.
Suddenly, my mother asked me: “Katie is there anything else you’d like since we finished with the grocery list?” This was my chance to confess. It was a miracle. But appearing on my left shoulder the devil whispered into my ear, “Are you nuts, kid? You can’t give up now; you’re bound to get in trouble if you tell her here.” While an angel on my right shoulder yanked on my ear and said, “No! You must confess now, because it will only be worse later.” Later? I was not planning on getting caught at all. The thought had never occurred to me that I would be caught later. But being too nervous and stubborn with my decision, I hesitantly replied, “Nope.” Something in my gut kicked me…or perhaps it was my brain. Either way, we got through the check-out line with ease, my peanuts still being safely hidden away in my sweater-pocket’s mouth.
When we arrived home, I was both excited and nervous to dispose of the peanuts – down my throat. I only had them once before at my godmother’s house last summer, and finally I would get to experience their taste once more. Unnoticed, I crept to my room and unloaded the goods onto my bed. One by one, I proceeded to crack their shells to pieces and gobble up their insides. (Good thing I did not name them). The savory blend of spit and salt mixed in my mouth. I could not think of anything else in that moment of ecstasy. And so, I left my room in a beautiful haze of briny, peanut-y goodness. I went to look outside one of our windows in the kitchen while I enjoyed the last remnants of peanut in my mouth. It was like tasting the sun going down.
My brain had stopped kicking me for a while until my mother yelled my name – my full name: “Kaitlyn Marie Quis!!!” Uh-oh.
“Yes, mama?”
“Come here.” I trudged into my room. I had been caught somehow.
“Why are there peanut shells all over your bed?!” How could I have forgotten?!
“I took them from the store when you told me I couldn’t have any…”
“I’m telling your father. Stealing is not okay!” Oh no, my father will spank me for sure.
My face started scrunching up. Was I really going to cry now when just a few moments ago I had been so happy? Mother walked me over to the living room where father was sitting in “his chair” and began listening to her story. His eyes grew large and frightened as he aimed them at me. Now my head and stomach and heart were all sounding the alarm. My butt was going to be sore tonight. But as I looked back at my dad he could tell that I had no real notion of what “stealing” was – I had only heard the word used a few times in church after-all. I promised them that I would never do it again. I was not a “robber.” My mother and father gave each other one final look and the decision was made in silence. No punishment. Thank goodness! I thought, as a wave of relief came over me.
I had yet to realize though that although I was not physically punished, I was mentally. This thing that is called, “guilt” had been sneaking up on me the whole time. I also had this thing called, “conscience” which was what was doing all the kicking, I suppose. My parents talked to me for a while about why stealing was wrong and I began to understand what I had robbed that grocery store of – money. I also learned what I had robbed from myself – dignity. My mental punishment may actually have been more severe than a physical one, because I had only myself to blame and I thought my parents looked down on me that day. Thankfully, I learned my lesson and never stole anything again. That day, I had tasted the sunset – and it tasted like dirt.
***
The sixth virtue is productiveness, which is“[…] the process of creating material values” (12). For example: “A person can be productive by building a boat or a bridge, for instance, by repairing shoes or writing software, by composing music or researching biology, performing surgery, mowing lawns, selling insurance, shipping, catering, proofreading, or reporting the news” (199). “Productiveness is ‘the process of creating material values, whether goods or services’” (198). “‘The two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work’” (201). And “[t]he sole reason to be productive is to advance one’s own happiness” (205). [As another side note, “Consonant with the recognition that a person’s paying job will not always involve his most productive work, Rand believes that raising children could be productive work […as] a full-time job” (209).] “On Rand’s theory, the point of living is the enjoyment of one’s life, and the standard of value is human life. Correlatively, anything that enhances a human life is to be encouraged” (212). “In holding this, Rand is not endorsing the excesses of a neurotic workaholic. Excesses are precisely that. A person should exercise productiveness in a manner that is compatible with the rational pursuit of all the values that will achieve his happiness” (213). According to Rand, the definition of happiness is “[…] ‘that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values’ […] ‘happiness is an emotional response to something […]’” (216). We “[…] need to grow” (214) as human beings and “[f]ailing to embrace a central productive purpose chokes the primary artery of happiness” (216). “We need material values in order to sustain our lives. The more money a person has, the more easily he can obtain those values. And the more easily he can do that, the more he can tailor his days to his liking, which in itself has life-advancing value” (219).
The seventh and final virtue is pride, which is“[…] a forward-driving commitment to achieve one’s moral perfection” (13).For example: “We do not dispute a test score as perfect simply because the test was not more difficult (being pitched to 4th graders, for instance, rather than 12th graders)” (239). “Rand understands pride as moral ambitiousness, an energetic dedication to being one’s best” (13). “‘As a rule, a man of achievement does not flaunt his achievements,’ Rand observes, and ‘he does not evaluate himself by others—by a comparative standard. His attitude is not ‘I am better than you’ but ‘I am good’” (224). Therefore, “[…] the virtue of pride (as opposed to the feeling of pride) consists in a commitment to rational action” […] “the genuine feeling of pride can only be sustained through the practical exercise of that commitment” (224). It is “[…] pride with moral ambitiousness […]” (225). “The fact that man is a being of self-made soul creates the need to make one’s soul well” (227). And since “[l]ife is action; its sustenance depends on life-advancing action” (236). In this way, “[…] a person is morally perfect when he lives up to moral principles as well as he can” (237). “The key to appreciating how perfection is possible is context. That is, as with all the virtues, we must understand the requirements of perfection realistically” (238). “‘Errors of knowledge are not breaches of morality; no proper moral code can demand infallibility or omniscience’” (239). “It is crucial to appreciate that a normative standard that is beyond our reach is not a genuine standard. For it fails to serve the function of a moral standard, which is to provide practicable instruction. Human beings need moral guidance designed for us, as our nature and circumstances allow us to be” (240–1). [As a final side note, “Benjamin Franklin intended to write a book showing that anyone who tried could achieve moral perfection” (240). “Franklin himself deliberately set out to achieve perfection […]” (240).]
Again, this list of seven virtues is not exhaustive. However, it is difficult to think of another virtue that needs to be included or is not already covered by these major ones. In the final chapters of the book, Professor Smith discusses other conventional virtues that Ayn Rand believes are neither virtues nor vices or are not virtues at all. In terms of charity, Rand says, “‘My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them’” (252). But “[…] charity is not a virtue” (253). Emergencies can be moral as long as there is no coercion. Take, for instance, “‘[…] the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it […] If the person to be saved is not a stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that person’s value to oneself. If it is the man or woman one loves, then one can be willing to give one’s own life to save him or her—for the selfish reason that life without the loved person could be unbearable’” (254). In most cases, “‘[…] one can help only those who don’t actually need it’” (255). In terms of generosity, “[…] Rand characterizes generosity in a letter: as a ‘gift or favor greater than the friend involved could, in reason, expect’” (257). So, according to “[…] Rand’s theory, generosity is neither a virtue nor a vice” (260). In terms of kindness, it is “[…] a means of tending the values one finds in specific other people. Nonetheless, kindness is not a virtue for the simple reason that kindness is not always appropriate” (270). In terms of temperance, “[…] rational self-restraint is an important tool in the pursuit of a person’s objective well-being” (282). But “[…] temperance per se (understood simply as self-restraint and taken to refer to either self-denial or moderation) is not a virtue” (282). [As a quick aside, in terms of friendship and love, “[…] love—in its ideal, rational form—is a value that advances the lover’s life” (292). “‘The Objectivist does not say ‘I value only myself.’ He says: ‘If you are a certain kind of person, you become thereby a value to me, in the furtherance of my own life and happiness’” (301).]
Lastly and most importantly, “Rand’s ethics is animated by the recognition that human life can be sustained only by specific types of actions. This unshakeable fact gives rise to the need for a moral code to guide individuals’ actions” (284) because “[…] values are the content of life. It is these that a person seeks when he seeks his happiness. Happiness is not a goal that is independent of values […]” (303). Therefore, “[…] what the egoist seeks is a world of values” (303).
***
Link: https://www. amazon.com/Ayn-Rands-Normative-Ethics-Virtuous/dp/0521705460
_____________________________________________________________
Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.