Replies

You certainly have failed to understand the definition of altruism. Rand stated many times that altruism was the placing of others ABOVE self. In other words, it is not altruistic to contribute to charity, unless in doing so you deprive yourself of a higher value - such as buying food for your own family.

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

The Temporal Doorway - Den

Bravo, mcashman.

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.

I have read the book Atlas Shrugged three times now. Each time I get something different from it. The first time I read it, my imagination was fired up and suddenly there seemed to be a point to life. I began to really look at my life. The first things that I began to do were to ask myself what I believe and why. Then I began to actually live what I believe instead of floating along. It must have been about 1993 when I read it for the first time. I had never heard of Rush Limbaugh at the time. After finishing the book, I was telling a friend about the ideas that were swirling around in my head, and she handed me Rush's first book from her bookshelf. That was my introduction to logical thought and my being part of this world and paying attention.

Thank you for you post Mark. It is so nice to read that someone understands Rand's work and is able to convey it. I understand, but not deeply enough to convey it in such concise terms.

While I am a practicing Christian and believe what I profess, I do not find any serious conflicts in the ideas of Rand, simply because, when it comes down to it, I have a great pleasure in my relationship with God and do not subscribe to a herd mentality in my belief. I also don't blindly follow all of her ideas. I am sure she would see many different conflicts in my belief and her philosophy, but that is what makes us all special. Our differences.

Hope this made sense. I sometimes have trouble putting my ideas and thoughts on paper.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists - and in a single choice: to live.

In other words hers is a philosophy derived from a tautology. 'A' is 'A', therefore whatever advances 'A' is good. Simple crude but dress it up in high verbiage and you have yourself a nice cult.

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 . . . and classical liberalism . . . you will see that there are many reasons to believe that such a society would be both advanced and benevolent.

Sounds like a cult to me.

It appears Ayn Rand's negative idea of altruism stands in direct opposition to Jesus' knowledge of love. When a poor woman gave all she had to the Temple, thereby to "deprive ..." herself "...of a higher value" Jesus commended her far above those who gave merely out of their excess. (Matt. 12:41-43) Also Jesus defined "greater love has no man than this, that he give up his life for his friends." (John 15:13)

This is reflected in the highest honor we give (usually posthumously) to winners of the Congressional Medal of Honor--men in battle who voluntarily place a higher value on other's lives than to themselves. Courage defined as love in action.

I personally don't see much to admire on Ayn (rhymes with "mine") Rand's ethic on altruism. When it come to Jesus' ethic or Ayn Rand's, there's no contest.

You certainly have failed to understand the definition of altruism. Rand stated many times that altruism was the placing of others ABOVE self. In other words, it is not altruistic to contribute to charity, unless in doing so you deprive yourself of a higher value - such as buying food for your own family.

I'll grant this.

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 philosophy seems arbitrary. She doesn't really explain why "To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason - Purpose - Self-esteem". She just states it as a matter of fact, when it's really just her own opinion, its what would make HER happy. This philosophy appears to be perfectly compatible with Marxism. If it is equal distribution of wealth that one fancies, this will be the PURPOSE that makes this person happy.