Per Rand, it - the Creator - is nature, nature made us rational. The only way we can live at all is by our mind, and by using our mind we can live exceedingly well.
Let me digress. In the Jewish perspective both we and the animals are animated or move, hence we both have souls. But, we have a distinctly human soul. The missing link is not to be found in bones. It is all around us. The smartest animals register something like an IQ of 40. An IQ of 60 would be an imbecile amongst us humans. We are amazingly off the charts. There is a huge enormous gap or missing link between us and the closest thing to us. So, simply on a scientific basis, without invoking any religious reference, we are amazing. It appears, in particular, that we are pre-wired for language and for reasoning. Now, I will interject that in addition to our wonderful mind, we humans are equipped with a couple marvelous hands. To be sure, so are some other creatures. But, the combination of our mind and our bodies to include our hands enables us to act by which I mean to purposely do things that make the future probability of things different. OK, ignore probability, let’s just say make the future different. For example, we can fashion a tool. With a tool, we can become more efficient in our work. Imagining that possibility, we forego immediate satisfaction and make ourselves better off in the future. There you have it. We are neither ruled by instinct nor by immediate gratification. Hence, we are moral creatures with the power to choose between right and wrong. Ayn Rand argues that right and wrong are not choices, or social mores, or pronouncements from on high, but are scientific facts and that acting based on morality is the most selfish thing you can do.
There is a certain emotional hollowness to the argument. You are honest, productive, prudent, courageous, etc., because you are selfish. Kind of turns everything upside down, doesn’t it?
RE: Per Rand, it - the Creator - is nature, nature made us rational. The only way we can live at all is by our mind, and by using our mind we can live exceedingly well.
Well, that’s all relative isn’t it, this “living well” thing?
If I decide that I want to be more like a Nazi because nature made me the way I am, what “objective” natural law tells me this is irrational?
Let’s put it this way to Ayn Rand -— if we came as a result of random collision of matter and atoms, then a random collision of atoms called Nazis just happened to “hit on” a random collision of atoms called “Jews”... why is this not “living exceedingly well” for the Nazis?
The title of the book being reviewed, The Soul of Atlas, keys in to the very essence of the matter, the Soul.
Redmen4ever eloquently states - (edited for length, not content) 'In the Jewish perspective both we and the animals are animated or move, hence we both have souls. But, we have a distinctly human soul. The missing link is not to be found in bones. It is all around us. The smartest animals register something like an IQ of 40. An IQ of 60 would be an imbecile amongst us humans. We are amazingly off the charts. There is a huge enormous gap or missing link between us and the closest thing to us. So, simply on a scientific basis, without invoking any religious reference, we are amazing.'
I would like to add that while I agree to the categorical differences stated, we humans are inherently myopic in this regard. The sheer vastness of the universe virtually guarantees us a spot near the bottom of the charts almost imperceptibly different from the 'imbecile' neighbors. That being stated, please understand that it shows just how petty our differences are in the eyes of our Creator.
Continuing on ...'the combination of our mind and our bodies to include our hands enables us to act... ...and make ourselves better off in the future.'
How the meaning of 'ourselves' is understood provides insight into Rands position. Is it to be taken as improving our own selves and thus through summation the betterment of all or is it to be taken as for the good of the collection of selves, without individual merit?
Finishing up ...'There you have it. We are neither ruled by instinct nor by immediate gratification. Hence, we are moral creatures with the power to choose between right and wrong. Ayn Rand argues that right and wrong are not choices, or social mores, or pronouncements from on high, but are scientific facts and that acting based on morality is the most selfish thing you can do.'
Rands unfortunate use of the word 'selfish' is due ,I believe, to the limits of English language. The intent is to provide a focus that unless one prospers it is not possible to help others but instead is a continual struggle to maintain a day to day existence. Charity begins at home.