Mr. Boydstun:

In relation with your question I refer you, in what concerns to “ethical egoism” to the pertinent paragraph in my article. There I mention that philosophers’ general definition of “ethical egoism" entails that the avoidance of personal interest may also be a moral action. This already renders what you mention (all ethical norms are justified in terms of the self-interest of the agent) incomplete since you are leaving this part unmentioned. In her Introduction to “The Virtue of Selfishness” Ayn Rand stated that “the concern with one’s own interests… does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil (my enhancement); nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.”

The second phrase of your message is a repetition of the first one where “rational” has been added. But not even this addition “justifies all ethical norms”. On the contrary, as Ayn Rand very specifically pointed out, the ethical norms (i.e. whether a given act is good or evil) must first be answered by ethics. To obtain the required answers she went back to where other philosophers never thought it to be important to go. She asked the first question of the subject: Is morality even necessary? This allowed her to come to the very fundamental fact of deducing a totally new and different type of egoism from reality itself: rational egoism (she preferred to use the term selfishness). Then, through what she deduced, she was able to set the standard within which rational egoism can be considered to be such: the highest moral goal to be reached by rational egoism is personal happiness, but to reach this requires objective principles, such as moral integrity and a respect for the rights of others. And this necessarily and inevitably included her famous axiom that “nobody has a right to initiate an act of violence against others or others”, a norm which, as I have found out from conversations held and messages exchanged with non-Objectivists, is either totally misunderstood or, what is much, much worse, misunderstood or ignored on purpose. In general their commentary is: “Oh, yeah, it means what the Bible (or any other such “moral” command states) says: You have to turn the other cheek, you don’t have to apply violence, and you don’t have to kill”. But this is precisely NOT what the Objectivist moral code states. Rand described it very well in her writings: she made a strong point on justified self-defense when the opponent doesn’t respect the axiom. In my writing “Ayn Rand, I and the Universe” I take up this matter very thoroughly, but I have to ask you to wait until RoR issues instalment 6 (“The logically resulting type of society”).

Finally may I point out that since Objectivism’s “rational selfishness” is an affirmative statement I would say that it isn’t a “theory” but constitutes a law of nature, particularly for homo rationalis.

Fred:

In Chapter 7 (THE REFUELING OF OUR POWER FOR CREATION) of my writing "Ayn Rand, I and the Universe" I fully clarify what I have merely outline in my article "Ayn Rand and Rational Egoism" which I added to my writing in lieu of a prologue.

As I state in the mentioned chapter 7:

"All acts have consequences. So will the growth of Objectivism through the years. Those who adhere to the new ideas cannot be captured back by the old beliefs. They stand on their own and they will keep to the ideas and ideals they defend. Among these consequences, which are multifarious, is the barrier against the influences of "modern art" and its implicit purpose of stopping the evolution of the human intellect.

As stated earlier, the further consequences are a replacement of the up to now prevailing view of existence and of men's relation to it and the erasure of the pernicious code of ethics which resulted from an irrational view of existence (the notion that reality was "created" by an impossible). Its replacement by the Objectivist code of ethics includes the creation of a new type of society that corresponds to the new code. This society is called Capitalism and, of course, it includes the art of Romantic Realism in all its possible ways of expression.

All this will create a situation of clearly defined conflict. By that time, Objectivists will have to be perfectly aware that a very violent opposition will face them. The old dinosaur, in its dying contortions, will lash out furiously. This will be inevitable. A type of society that existed for at least 4 million years is finally coming to its end. It cannot be expected that it will clear the area without any ugly violence.

We are viewing the beginning of a truly human type of society. Why we? Because we happen to be at the present state of the evolution of civilization. Anyone who has read and studied history at depth, with a broad view for repetitive details, cannot avoid the persistent notion that there is a red thread running through all events, linking every positive effort of mankind, presenting itself in every productive strife, in every rational intellectual act, in every betterment of life. It can also be noticed in the efforts made to eliminate the horrors which humanity had to withstand in its long road: the dictatorships of the monarchical and feudal times, the slavedoms, the tyrannies, the Inquisitions, the Holocausts of all types and the wars, the plagues, the famines, the pains and the brutality produced by mankind's enemies.

….

The new ideas have their own way to prosper. A mankind based on rationality and its consequences of personal liberty, individuality, productiveness, integrity, justice and personal pride is the teleological goal. The revolutionary spirit guiding it evidences this.

For a revolutionary position is positive. However, revolution does not mean the killings made by bloodthirsty gangs of fanatics. Each man acting for a productive idea cannot do otherwise than occupy a revolutionary position, even if he himself does not perceive it as such. He is, of course, not a "Che" Guevara, a Stalitler or any such slaughterer nor an ideologist backing such a killer.

A revolutionary is anyone inventing, designing or producing something positive in a society of free men, for he is changing the established for the better. Every inventor is a revolutionary; every scientist fulfilling discoveries is a revolutionary; every man who, with his effort and his fighting spirit, sets up a new enterprise is a revolutionary; every thinker bringing a positive, productive idea to mankind is a revolutionary; every teacher who acts to form individuals capable of taking their own decisions and operate for their own productive, positive purposes, such as Maria Montessori was, is a revolutionary; every doctor curing decease is a revolutionary; every man purporting to produce a joyful, creative environment for himself is a revolutionary; every man who solves his own problems with his own efforts is a revolutionary; every artist projecting in his works the ideals of Objectivism is a revolutionary. All these men and women are revolutionaries, revolutionaries in the deep, fruitful sense of constructing a world proper for the rational individual.

This is the main purpose of Objectivism. Let us look up to it and constructively fight for it, both with our mind and our productive efforts."

While the "showdown" is of ideas I deeply fear that this will only be the overture, the excuse for the enemies of Objectivism to resort to violence, since violence - history has provided sufficient proof for this - unfortunately is, as my prologue also mentions,  the last argument (the "Ultima ratio regis") to which those who are unable to present better arguments, always resort.

History is filled with this "way" of establishing dominance when invalid "arguments" as such cannot convince. This is extremely deplorable and I deeply hope that this "phase" can be avoided, though I doubt it.

I compared the notion of the appearance of a "new human species", as presented by Prof. Cohen, with the appearance of the new philosophy of Objectivism and clearly pointed out that the border crossing is possible. Further, just by stopping short of full conceptualization nobody ousts him/herself from the human species, for the definition of it does not specify the amplitude of rationality. This can be compared with radio waves. The fact that some broadcasting stations have lesser transmission power, i.e. less reach, than others, doesn't turn them to be something different from the radio wave transmitters all broadcasting stations are!

Objectivists should never want to be something like watertight compartments but always open to those who understand (very often they come to do so suddenly, in a flash of insight) our arguments as being correct. When I speak of a new society where Objectivism dominates I clearly understand the dominance of Objectivist ideas. I have never mentioned a dominance of Objectivists over other people. How could I? Objectivism is the philosophy of independent individuals who live and act for themselves, never starting an act of violence against another or others, whether they are Objectivists or not! I thought I had made this absolutely clear. Here too, history shows the difference: Judaism, like all religions, has always imposed or, at least, tried to impose itself by force on other people (the Bible shows this already), Christianity did the same and so does the Islam. That things are getting now much worse than when Rand wrote "Atlas" was foreseen by her not only in "Atlas" but much, much earlier already, in "We the Living" and "The Fountainhead" where the opposition of Kira and the Communists and Roark with the representative of Collectivism, Ellsworth Toohey predicted it.