THE VICE OF SELFISHNESS: A critique of Ayn Rand’s
Objectivism
Philosophy 120a
November 4, 1987
Professor Fischer
Animals have
it easy. The family dog never wrestles with his conscience over the need to
leave some Alpo in his bowl for the poor and hungry strays. Bulls don't apportion the cows to ensure the
joys of family life for all concerned.
And, once an amoeba splits, the two halves feel no need to keep in
touch.
People,
however, do not have such
an easy time of it. The
enlightened, modern person usually measures the progress of civilization by
discerning how well its members look after their comrades. While some limited altruism has been
documented in nature, conscious altruism can fairly be described as an invention
of human beings. Whether it is the Christian
axiom to "love thy neighbor as thyself" or the socialist dictum
requiring "from each according to his ability, to each according to his
need," altruism is widely considered the progressive, humane stance.
So, it would
seem a barbaric throwback when Ayn Rand has the hero of Atlas Shrugged, John
Galt, state, "I swear--by my life and my love of it--that I will never
live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
Yet, it is the thrust of Rand's novel and her objectivist philosophy that it is
the altruists in their various forms that are the true barbarians. According to Rand, it is the parasitism of
the mythologist (read religious) and collectivist (read socialist) altruists
that will eventually sap the productive effort of the few real men and cause
the collapse of civilization. Only
purely self-interested individuals unburdened by the needs of non-producers,
say the objectivists, can keep the progress of civilization on the upward
track.
I read Atlas
Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness.
I even went so far as to subscribe to The Objectivist Forum. Ayn Rand's philosophy has a certain appeal
and, for a time, I considered
myself a disciple of Objectivism.
But, ultimately, Objectivism is flawed and cannot be considered a
plausible ethical theory.
The major
strength of Objectivism is its attack on the socialist concept, "from each
according to his ability, to each according to his need." Rand correctly
points out that such a philosophy kills ability and breeds need. In Atlas Shrugged, she gives the fictional
example of a factory taken over by its workers that institutes this
system. The workers progressively hide
their abilities to avoid the demands the system makes on them. The workers also exaggerate their needs to
gain greater compensation. In the end,
the factory grinds to halt, becoming non-productive and serving no one's
interests.
World events
of the past few years give actual examples to support this fictional
thesis. The two great world communist
powers, China and the Soviet Union, found their socialist based economies
stagnate and unproductive. First China
was forced to reinstitute local capitalism and now the Soviet Union is
undergoing an economic perestroika (restructuring). Considering how diametrically opposed to
capitalism the ideologies of these two countries are, it is obvious from an
economic point of view that John Galt's oath is not only feasible, but
necessary.
But, even in
the realm of economics philosophy, flaws can be found in John Galt's oath. Because, not only does never living for the
sake of another logically preclude any sort of social welfare system, but
Rand's writings specifically attack such a system. Now, the
Of course,
when dealing with philosophy, to attack a theory it is not enough to merely
show that a certain action may cause large numbers of deaths. Large numbers of deaths must also be proved a
bad thing. Theoretically, from a social-Darwinist-type
perspective, such deaths could be an efficient cleansing of the deadwood of
society. These deaths, however, could
only be justified (if even then) if the dying's productivity were totally unsalvageable. These people, though it is simplistic to
refer to them as a homogenous group, can in no way be proven to be genetically
doomed to poverty and non-productivity.
Thus, even if killing the poor is not inherently wrong, the lost
productive potential makes it so.
Moving away
from the purely economic,
the flaws of John Galt's oath and Objectivism are even more
acute. In a variety of situations, the
Objectivist's inability to live for another's sake, even for some short period
of time, is both intuitively unethical to the non-Objectivist and ultimately
self-defeating to even a disciple of Objectivism.
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. The economic example of the social
welfare system already shows part of this problem, but non-economic situations
extend it to the absurd.
A perfect
example of how an Objectivist is required to act incorrectly is that of the
1964 murder of Kitty Genovese on a street corner in Queens. Ms. Genovese was murdered while thirty-eight
of her neighbors looked on for over half an hour without either intervening or
even calling the police. Such bystander
inaction is both obviously intuitively wrong and also self-defeating to the
actor (or, more correctly, non-actor) because of the dangerous social situation
it defines. An Objectivist, however, at
least according to John Galt's oath, would be required to abstain from
action. He certainly could not intervene
and put his life and love of it in danger. 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.
The next flaw
of Objectivism is that not only does it prohibit the helping of other people
for purely altruistic motives, but, it also does not prohibit the harming of
others for purely self-interested motives.
The only prohibition in John Galt's oath is of allowing others to live
for his sake. Thus, the Objectivist will
be driven by self-interest to harm others in situations in which such action is
either intuitively wrong, eventually self-defeating, or both.
Corporate
anti-environmentalism provides a good example of how Objectivist self-interest
can harm others in an intuitively incorrect and self-defeating manner. This example is especially apropos because it
contrasts well with the corporate heroism displayed in Atlas Shrugged. In one current case, fast-food giants are now
using cheap, convenient foam containers to package their foods. These
containers emit chlorofluorocarbons that damage the ozone layer and may
eventually radically change the Earth's environment to the detriment of all
living things. To an Objectivist,
however, the profit inherent in such containers appeals to self-interest while
the dangers are the problem of future generations. Obviously, an Objectivist who cannot live for
the sake of another living person can show no concern for generations yet
unborn. Such action certainly cannot be
condoned intuitively and, by destroying life as we know it, will take with it
whatever Objectivists happen to be around.
In addition,
there are a variety of individual actions which fall under the category of
intuitively wrong and, perhaps, self-defeating. Would an Objectivist's child be
taught to share the last piece of cake with his brother? Could an Objectivist businessman hire hit men
to polish off his competition? Should an
Objectivist smoker put out his cigarette in the presence of a person allergic
to smoke? In each case, pure
self-interest dictates the intuitively wrong decision and creates a social
situation that would be ultimately self-defeating to all.
The final flaw
of John Galt's oath is that it becomes completely monstrous if it falls into
the hands of those less scrupulous than the characters portrayed in Atlas
Shrugged. The Objectivists portrayed in
that novel are an honorable bunch. They
put much emphasis on truth and responsibility in their actions. None of this
honor, however, is inherent in John Galt's oath. With self-interest alone, that
oath, and Objectivism, self-destructs.
If this oath
of self-interest is taken seriously, some of the Objectivists own ideals can be
tossed away by the dishonorable in the name of self-interest. The sanctity of
the contract could be breached at will destroying the ideal business community
which was the aim of the Objectivists in Atlas Shrugged. For a high enough price, any of the members
of that secret society should have exposed the others to the world. And, the oath itself would be disposable given
the right set of profitable conditions.
Clearly, taken to the logical extreme John Galt's oath contradicts
itself making it an implausible ethical theory.
In conclusion,
it is understandable that Ayn Rand on escaping from the Soviet Union would endeavor
to repudiate the overly extreme altruism of collectivist communism. Her theory of Objectivism correctly points
out the flaws
of inefficiency and ultimate self-destruction inherent in that system. But, the pure self-interest embodied in John
Galt's oath in Atlas Shrugged is a dangerous overreaction that both involves
intuitively wrong actions and creates an untenably dangerous social
situation. Clearly, selfishness is no
real virtue and Objectivism is no real theory.