
The Vice of Selfishness - A critique of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism (1987) - vinutheraj
http://www.liberalviewer.com/AynRand.htm
======
fuzzmeister
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
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
I wish I could up vote your response more than once. Good Job!

------
darkxanthos
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
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
Ty for that!

------
grandalf
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.

~~~
mquander
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.

~~~
codyrobbins
As Francisco d'Anconia would say, 'check your premises.' Your argument is
predicated on the assumption that there are billions of people on earth not
capable of living the life they imagine. Exactly Rand's point is that this
assumption of yours is not the case, and that, in fact, these people choose
not to live the life they imagine, either because they refuse to work hard
enough for it (they're lazy), they consciously decide to loot the efforts of
others by force (they steal), or they simply don't have the ability to do so
(they're incompetent). In all cases Rand's argument is that these people
should not be entitled to any of the productive efforts of those who produce.

I agree with the original commenter that the essay completely misses Rand's
point. Rand does not ignore the complexities of social systems set up to
repress and down-trod the disadvantaged. Such social systems are precisely the
product of the looters who attempt to destroy productivity and creativity, not
the result of a self-actualized group who achieves their collective self-
actualization at the expense of others. The essayist's example of Genovese's
murder and the conclusion he draws from it is a complete oversimplification. A
selfish person would help a fellow human in distress for any number of
reasons: to stop an injustice they see as unconscionable, for a reward, so
that they could live with themselves afterwards, etc. 'Selfish' does not mean
that one does not help others; it simply means that if one helps others it is
for their own purposes, not because of charity or pity.

I've thought many times, though, that Rand conveniently ignores (insofar as
I've read) the case of those who truly can't care for themselves: the sick,
the insane, and perhaps the crippled as well. But it should be noted that when
asked, Rand categorized herself as a novelist who developed a philosophy for
the sake of writing her novels, not a philosopher who wrote novels.

~~~
dmix
>I've thought many times, though, that Rand conveniently ignores the case of
those who truly can't care for themselves: the sick, the insane, and perhaps
the crippled as well.

There is an interview with Ayn on a talk show and was asked about what should
happen to the "ungifted". She believes that first it is the parents
responsibility to support them but if they are poor and can't afford to then
private charities should look after them.

Found the clip if your interested (around 5-6min in):
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTHn-9hhU>

------
vinutheraj
Here is the same post on the objectivism forum, and their counter-arguments on
the critique !

<http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=15999>

~~~
lesbianmonad
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
And that was a great list of broad generalizations by you! Thanks for
illustrating.

------
vinutheraj
The guy who wrote this has a channel on YouTube -
[http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer?PHPSESSID=5a91ae4c...](http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer?PHPSESSID=5a91ae4c09aca4c79dfe372b8ea76d44)

and he talks about this critique on one of his broadcasts -
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-tIY99QFFk>

------
jibiki
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
"Philosophy 120a November 4, 1987 Professor Fischer"

Apparently, he was writing it for a class: his class.

~~~
jibiki
I can only hope that the article was written by one of Professor Fischer's
students, rather than the professor himself :)

