Joe,
I like the fact that you frame the question of man’s need for values in terms of the fundamental nature of human consciousness as volitional. In her essay, “The Objectivist Ethics,” Ayn Rand moves immediately from the nature of value to the distinctive nature of human consciousness. It is only after establishing that context that she moves on to a discussion of reason as man’s basic tool of survival. One of the glaring faults of Tara Smith’s so-called “scholarly” treatment of this topic (Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist) is that she almost skirts over that issue entirely. I am amazed that her book has received such vast praise from Objectivist intellectuals in spite of her poor treatment of this critical step in validating Rand’s ethical system.
The second chapter of her book, entitled “Rational Egoism: A Profile of Its Foundations and Basic Character,” would have been unintelligible to me if I were not already familiar with the subject matter. She spends pages talking about values and principles without even mentioning the issue of volitional consciousness. She finally makes brief reference to this in the following chapter on the nature of reason, but does not clarify its vital importance. After that, she rarely makes any reference at all to the crucial role that conscious effort plays in Rand’s ethical system. She mentions free will and choice at various points, but her lack of emphasis seems to minimize their significance. As I recall, this was equally true of Smith's prior work, Viable Values.
Craig Biddle gives the issue of 'basic choice' primary importance in his discussion of "the morality of self-interest' in Loving Life. Allan Gotthelf makes the issue of volition central to his discussion of man's life as the standard of value in On Ayn Rand. In OPAR, Peikoff does not take up the issue of ethics at all until he has clearly spelled out the foundational importance of human volition.
I am puzzled as to why Tara Smith would get a pass on this. I am sure her prestigious position as a University of Texas Philosophy Professor has nothing to do with it.
| 
