<i>Unrugged Individualism</i> Reviewed

Unrugged Individualism Reviewed
by Joseph Rowlands

David Kelley wrote Unrugged Individualism to be "the first comprehensive Objectivist analysis of benevolence". In this short monograph (59 pages), he makes an excellent start. He first severs the ties between benevolence and altruism, showing them to be unrelated. He then goes on to show how benevolence is perfectly consistent with an ethics of self-interest.

The next part of the book is a more difficult project to undertake, and the groundbreaking part. Kelley attempts to show that benevolence is not only a virtue in Objectivist philosophy, but that it should be considered a major virtue. He says, "A virtue is a major one if and to the extent that the values at which it aims, and the facts on which it is based, are fundamental ones."

In order to make a case for benevolence as a major virtue, he has to break out of the conventional model of benevolence. The conventional model sees benevolence as a response to something bad. If a loved one dies, you provide a shoulder to cry on. If someone is starving, you give them some food. Kelley shows that this narrow view of benevolence is consistent with a malevolent universe premise. Objectivism rejects this depressing view of the world. So if the world isn't mostly pain and suffering, a virtue of easing that pain and suffering could only be a minor virtue.

Kelley resolves this in what I consider the most significant part of the book. In a section titled "Benevolence and Productiveness", he shows that benevolence is far more wide reaching than the conventional model. In this section, he draws a parallel between benevolence and productiveness that sets the stage for a more detailed analysis of each of the "benevolent virtues".

The argument is that benevolence can and should be seen as a form of productivity in social relationships. Values we gain in a social context, like trade and friendship, do not present themselves to us automatically. If we want to trade with others, we need to establish a relationship with them. If we want to have friends, we need to go out and meet people. It's not enough to be willing to take advantage of opportunities. We need to actually go and create them.

Kelley defines benevolence as follows: "Benevolence is a commitment to achieving the values derivable from life with other people in society, by treating them as potential trading partners, recognizing their humanity, independence, and individuality, and the harmony between their interests and ours."

By recognizing that other people have their own needs and desires, we can create opportunities for ourselves to interact positively with them. You can build trading relationships, which allows many future trading opportunities. If you make it fun, pleasant or interesting for others to interact with you, they'll be more inclined to do so in the future.

Does this argument stand up to the major virtue analysis? What values does it aim at? Well you could say that stores and restaurants are going to trade with you either way because they want your business. But at a minimum, you can see that it affects your job opportunities, friendships and romantic relationships, and any other activity involving other people. It's fair enough to conclude that the values aimed at are significant.

What about the other criteria? Is the virtue based on fundamental facts? The facts that it's based on are that every person has their own goals, dreams, values, and beliefs. Each person is an end in themselves. They have their own lives to live. And if you want to deal with them, you have to make it worth their while. That's a pretty significant set of facts. You can make up your own mind whether benevolence is a major virtue.

The parallel between benevolence and productivity is the key insight in this monograph. It's only by showing how significant benevolence is to our lives that the topic is even worth exploring. Unfortunately, I don't think Kelley went far enough.

In comparing benevolence to justice, he says, "Justice is a form of the 'It is' principle. Its focus is on the actual. Benevolence is a 'What if?' virtue whose focus is the potential of others." The point he's making is that benevolence is a kind of productivity, whereas justice is not. Justice is about evaluation, whereas benevolence is about seeking values.

That's not exactly right. All of the virtues are both evaluative and value seeking. A virtue is based on a moral principle that shows how a range of values can be achieved by a kind of action. Rationality is based on the principle that to act effectively, you have to use mental process that provides results consistent with reality. Honesty is based on the principle that only what's real has consequences, and focusing on the unreal can impair your ability to act. In every virtue, there's a principle showing the causal connection between actions and values.

So all virtues are evaluative. They're all 'It is' principles. Even benevolence is an identification of the values and wants of other people. You don't just act cheerful. You determine what kind of actions/attitude would be appreciated.

Similarly, all virtues are value seeking. Each of them are "What if?" virtues. Each of the moral principles can be seen as a guide to how to improve your ability to gain values. Just as benevolence creates opportunities for values, so honesty can create opportunities for value by emphasizing the need to properly communicate what's real, instead of what people want to hear. In that way, honesty creates the opportunity to address real issues and seek real values.

I address this issue more in my article Virtuous Living: Active vs. Passive Virtues. In this article, and those that follow, I show that each of the virtues can be seen as either "active" of "passive". The passive view can be seen as doing the minimum necessary to obey the virtue. The passive form of benevolence is being civil to those you work with, and avoiding hurting those we benefit from. Like all passive virtues, its focus is on avoiding harm.

The active view of virtues maintains a value-orientation. Instead of avoiding bad actions, it shows that courses of actions can actually lead to values, or at least make them easier. So rationality is not just about avoiding irrationality. It's also about acquiring the mental skills necessary to effectively engage with reality. Justice is not about judging people and maybe condemning them as evil. It's about creating the conditions necessary for a just society, enabling the pursuit of values in a social environment. And of course benevolence is not just avoiding getting people angry at you. It's about expanding your opportunities to interact positively with others.

Kelley took a powerful idea, and unnecessarily limited it to benevolence instead of applying it to all the virtues. This doesn't really subtract from the initial brilliant insight. When it comes to benevolence, the focus of this monograph, he's done an admirable job. And by showing an analysis of an active form of a virtue, he thoroughly conveys that Objectivism is a philosophy for living. Bravo.

Discuss this Article (5 messages)