The Case For and Against Ayn Rand’s Philosophy

The Case for Ayn Rand’s Theory of Ethical Egoism (“Objectivism”)

  1. She provides an eloquent defense of the dignity, autonomy, and power of the individual against the claims of oppressive and tyrannical governments.
  2. She provides an equally strong defense of the individual against religious guilt trips, doctrines that present human nature as sinful and corrupted and unworthy and incapable of happiness in this life. She emphasizes the right, even the obligation of the individual to seek his/her own happiness. (Because, as Aristotle would say, the happiest life is the most virtuous one.)
  3. She extols the value of the individual as a rational and productive being capable of living according to the highest patternsof virtue. “Productive”—i.e. creative, bold, and visionary—men and women are models for the rest of society to imitate. Her own fictional hero, John Galt, is the exemplar of this type of person, an idealized portrait of the American “captain of industry.” But by no means is her view of the productive individual confined to business leaders. It includes people from all walks of life. What they have in common is their productivity. As James Lennox[1]puts it, “I don’t think that [Bill Gates’ and other rich men’s] giving their money away is their primary virtue. I think the productivity that earned them their money is their primary virtue.”
  4. Despite all the evil that exists in the world and what might be termed the existential predicament of mankind, she has a positive view of human happiness, if guardedly so. Not surprisingly for an immigrant to the United States, she likes and shares the can-do attitude of the majority of Americans. Her ideas seem to appeal particularly to people in information technology and computer science.
  5. Her sophisticated version of ethical egoism clears away various myths about this school of thought. She broadens the notion of self-interest to what she calls “rational selfishness” or rational self-interest. It is not anti-social, but simply attempts to give self-interest its due within the framework of human values. In this, she is doubtless inspired by Aristotle’s concepts of “self-love” or self-esteem and his virtue of megalopsycheia, or ‘great-souledness,’ something like ‘magnanimity,’ the Latin-derived word that corresponds to the Greek term, but the Greek term is broader in its meaning.

The Case Against Ayn Rand’s Theory of Ethical Egoism

  1. It seems inextricably—or at least too closely—tied to right-wing economics and politics, which many people find objectionable, and shows, in their view, too little concern for the less fortunate.
  2. It puts too much of a burden on the moral autonomy of the individual when the circumstances of tens of millions of individuals genuinely prevent them from realizing their potential and assuming full responsibility for their destiny.
  3. It is too individualistic and doesn’t adequately account for the role of society in shaping the character of individuals,in determining the role in life they will play, and in accomplishing good in the world. The leaders of society whom John Galt leads on strike aren’t the only productive people in the world.
  4. In order to extend the concept of egoism as far as she wants it to go, Rand interprets actions and emotions as egotistical that most people would consider altruistic, like the love and concern people show for family members and friends. Either she contradicts herself or else makes so many concessions to altruism that her theory isn’t really ethical egoism anymore.
  5. Her atheism (or agnosticism) and her view that religion is something evil are offensive to many people, as is her optimism about the potential of human beings to be virtuous on their own and achieve happiness in this life. Maybe for people like Nietzsche and Rand, God is indeed dead, but that just isn’t true for the majority of the population, even for those who are not practicing members of religions.

Robert Greene

Eau Claire, Wisconsin

2/16/11

[1] Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh and one of the officers of the Ayn Rand Society, in a personal communication with the author.