Posted on 10/12/2001 4:02:51 AM PDT by Mr. Polish-hammer
Just read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. Here is my take:
I think we all agree on the basic tenet that capitalism is good, and anything else is bad. However, Ayn Rand seems to take this to a whole new level, one which I don't like. She places capitalism into her own moral egoist philosophy; capitalism is not a means to an end, but an end in itself, a moral one. Acting in ones self-interest is moral, altruism is immoral. So donating to charity, in her mind, is immoral. To me, donating to charity is perfectly moral. What is immoral is when the government, or any other third party, forces one to be charitable. Any action done on voluntary terms, or any deal, is perfectly moral, and to call it immoral is non-sensical, if not scary.
To Ayn Rand, the lazy and incompetent, those without ambition, are immoral. Even if they seek no harm, mind their own business, and violate no ones rights, they are still immoral. Their only sin is to not be productive, which only harms society as a whole. It seems that Ayn Rand deems immoral that which does not benefit her, her being part of society.
Another strange aspect to her writing is her animus toward religion. Religion takes a beating in "Atlas Shrugged", being accused of fostering socialist mentality. Paradoxically, she praised the USA, especially its first one hundred years, as being the closest to her ideal. If religion fosters socialism, how does she explain the religous founding, and continuing religous existence of the USA? Moreover, why is it that the strongly socialist countries (USSR, Sweden, etc.) are strongly atheist, or have governments that despise religion?
Many inconsistencies are present in her writing. I'd be interested in hearing her defense. I know there are many fans on this forum.
It is moral to give to charity if it makes you happy to do so.
In a subsequent book "The Virtue of Selfisness " she goes in to this in great detail.
People, who know me, think I am the most generous person they have ever met. I tell them aucontraire, I am the most selfish person they will ever know. I only do what I do, because it makes me feel good.
Admittedly, this is a stretch critique as he pointed out himself, but there is enough truth in it to give one pause. He also said that in reading Atlas Shrugged he had this overwhelming feeling she was preaching to him: Oh, ye of little faith in Rand, get thee to a gas chamber! Go!
This was the latest "update" I could find. IMHO, it doesn't look like they're all hot to do the movie anytime soon.
You got it!
Rand's statement of virtues is unambiguous... "My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists - and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason - Purpose - Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge - Purpose, as his choice of happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve - Self-esteem as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride."
This does not require that every man become the equivalent of Bill Gates to be moral - only that everyone strive to attain the best use of their own capabilities in reason, purpose, and self-esteem so that they can attain their own highest capacity for productiveness.
It also is quite clear that those who undercut reason, those who interfere with productiveness, those who live by the proceeds of the work of others when they could themselves produce, are acting immorally. Enslaving those of ability rather than those without ability does not add virtue to the act of enslavement.
Obviously, based on this, the ultimate legal, political, and economic system, the one which provides individuals with the greatest capacity to realize their potential, free from interference by others, is laissez-faire capitalism. In Rand's view, systems of taxation and redistribution are evil because they a) initiate the use of force, and b) require a man to live for the benefit of others at the expense of his own well-being and under the rule of force (which undercuts reason). Indeed, the only moral relationship in a social system is trade. Even when engaging in charity, a trade should be operating - as in Rearden's speech to his son on the virtue of gratitude.
The morality and practice of Objectivism can seem quite intimidating at first. But after reading Atlas Shrugged many times and following the literature of Objectivism (see the websites on Objectivism) and classical liberalism (the magazine "Ideas On Liberty" from the Foundation for Economic Education, and the magazine Reason are two of the best continuing sources of information for that), you will see that there are many reasons to believe that such a society would be both advanced and benevolent (in the sense that individuals of achievement, having generated enormous wealth in their unfettered activities, will lift those of less capability with them to a higher level of productiveness and wealth).
I hope this helps. You need to spend more time reading the vast literature which Rand and both Objectivists and libertarians have produced, at which point, you will hopefully understand more about the nature of Objectivism and classical liberalism and be able to see the benefits of that way of life.
Mark Cashman
You have encapsulated in a few brief sentences the essence of what Ayn Rand believed and taught.
I first started reading Ayn Rand about 22 years ago. I can tell you it changed my life and for the first time I felt real virtue. Being really alive, really free to think my own thoughts and produce that which renders my existence a happy one....well, you know.
It's funny that she has these views. Paul Johnson points out in "Birth of the Modern" (is that the title - I may be wrong here - probably am) that the left in Europe was really fond of the United States up until the 1840's. After that, because the heightened interest in slavery and capitalism, we fell out of favor with them.
Interesting critique. Personally, to me, Ayn comes across as a nasty person. When I was in college I read some of her stuff, and found her lacking in some areas. In order to win people over, you don't put a sword to people's throats.
One of my philosophy professors told me that he'd met her, and that her body language and tone of voice was always such that one would feel she'd soon leap up and grab ahold of you.
The movie should be interesting.
I should be done reading them in a couple of hours.
You won't be able to in person. She died a few years ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.