See Voltaire's "Candide." He portrays how the intellectuals of the time argued from principle that one should be "moral," and then knifed each other in the back at the first opportunity. Rand's great contribution was NOT to demonstrate why one should personally "do the right thing," even when there are great immediate gains to be made from being a total predator. Her arguments in that arena are the best to date, I suspect, when she made them, but are simply not persuasive.
As Xerene and Strackon argued in "Invictus," published by George Smith in the late '60's, if one can get love AND steal money from one's lover, then one is that much better off. And, regarding acting from principle, there is that saying about the hobgoblin of little minds. A truck driver might have a set of guiding principles, too, as in, staying between the lines, keeping a safe following distance, checking the fluids regularly, not letting one's attention drift from the road, not stopping to do other things while en route. However, if he spots a bag of money lying on the ground next to the road, then he would have to be crazy not to at least consider violating some principles in order to grab the bag.
What Rand did do was bind the concept of moral to the concept of life, arguing that "value" was not an arbitrary reflection of whatever one chose to pursue, but rather could be shown to only have meaning with respect to life, to begin with, and then could be bounded and organized into a set of principles by reference to the specific needs of a particular life form as well as the general principles involved in avoiding conflicting interests, not attempting the impossible, etc. A maximized value set would therefore be one in which one pursued interesting, pleasurable, consistent, life enhancing goals.
What she didn't discuss - ever, as far as I know, and for reasons with which most of us have some familiarity - was Branden's contribution to the discussion in "The Psychology of Self-Esteem," which I cited. Branden demonstrated that the value of other consciousnesses was not simply the collective value of the background of civilization and technology, etc., that we all enjoy, nor personal partnerships and their practical advantages. That much would still fit into the "Candide" paradigm. Fine for most of the time, and great to convince other people to follow, but no reason to make it a religion when personal advantage is at stake.
Sure, other people are valuable, but any random person's contribution to my personal welfare is zilch. So, I can consistently support rational values for civilization collectively, and try to convince all my associates to behave as though God was watching them, even though I personally have no belief in any such incentive, and meanwhile rip off my friends and lovers whenever there is a chance to do so in which great gains are accompanied by virtually zero chance of being caught.
However, there is a need, if one pursues that strategy, to constantly monitor one's emotions and spontaneous reactions, not just because one might stupidly let something slip about one's secret predatory inclinations, but because that invisible part of one's psyche needs perceptual reaffirmation as much as any other part. Thus the compulsion that many criminals feel to tell someone about their latest triumph - and the sense of invisibility that follows once one has removed one's self from moral culture.
These combined motivations fuel the creation of all kinds of groups that offer the opportunity to the individual to be intimate with fellows from the group, while systematically alienating one from society in general. I mean gangs, religions, terrorist organizations, etc., etc. The common thread is that the members treat each other as brothers, regardless of past behavior - and, in the case of many criminal groups, specifically because one has violated general moral principle to the point of no return, as in the common gang entrance exam of committing a random murder.
The attention and value that most people place upon intimacy, lovers, friendships, etc., often willing to risk their lives for a lover or friend, for example, simply reflects how important that mirror of one's "soul" in fact is. The fundamental driver is self-love, but that in no way reduces the value to one of the other person. Rather, it is that self-love that makes the other person in an intimate relationship so valuable. And it is that value that drives the need to act honorably - and thus morally - in general, such that one's life could be an open book. This does not exclude the potential of acting as a predator in real lifeboat situations, of course. Any rational person might do so with full moral consistency.
(Edited by Phil Osborn on 1/15, 6:46pm)
|
