Why did Ayn Rand call her vision of ethics "selfishness"?

Jim,

You aren't picking up on the point I was making. I'm making a distinction between what is of value to all (Objective, universal, derived from human nature) and what is an individual value (which may or may not be objective, and may simply be a personal preference, and may actually be a disvalue mistakenly held as if it were a value).

I quoted Rand, "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics — the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man." “The Objectivist Ethics,” in The Virtue of Selfishness, page 23.

She goes on to make it clear that the standard is man's nature, not the individual man's life.

Nothing in what I said, or in what Rand said, should have led you to think anyone was saying democracy decides morality - somehow you have badly misunderstood me.

Honesty, for example, is an objective, universal value - this is so, no matter what a given individual's position is on honesty. On the other hand, I value certain flavors of food - These are individual, not universal. The standards for judging these two values are different. One standard yields moral values, the other yields personal values.

These two standards are not in objective conflict because it is in our rational interest to adopt happiness as our individual purpose (rational egoism), and it is in our rational interest to ensure our personal values all fall within the standard of what is proper for man qua man - the universal, which is our guideline to work within to achieving happiness.

When you construct a building you must adhere to engineering standards, but there is a purpose unique to the individual structure that will drive specific construction choices - these different value types have to be integrated.

I was explaining to Christopher why the universal standard must take precedence over any individual set of values. If it wasn't given precedence there could be NO morality. We need both, but we also need to understand how to integrate them.
--------------

The flaw in Bill's argument that a life and death circumstance might make it moral to initiate violence lies in understanding that these are two different standards that are united in a way that logically establishes precedence and prohibits conflict.

To elevate the personal standard over the universal standard would be a logical error. Like creating a building to suit some whim, but in such a way that violates engineering principles. To imagine a situation that would force a conflict means imagining a situation where there is no morality. Meaning you could not judge any action as good or bad.

Post 61

Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 5:07am

Jim,

I agree with Steve's answer regarding personal and moral values. You also said this:

The philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is famous for abandoning his own children at the door of a foundling asylum, which for most such children of that time was a death sentence. From an Objectivist standpoint, was that a sacrifice he made, or the pursuit of a higher value, namely the creation of his philosophical work, which would have been impeded if he had to divert resources to taking care of his children?

First of all, it's ironic that the guy who came up with the "social contract" couldn't even keep an implied contract to his own children. There is a saying that a low capacity for someone to get along with their neighbors increases their propensity to support altruism. It's like altruists say to themselves:

I hate people. I can't get along with anyone and I don't want to even hear about anyone's problems or crises. I want someone else to care about them. Get them off my doorstep. Keep them out of my life. I wish someone would create a philosophy of personal sacrifice (of the individual to the collective) so that I wouldn't have to deal with people any more for the rest of my life.

Regarding Rousseau's action, he sacrificed his children to himself. In Rand's words, he was being a Nietzschean egoist (an altruist predator). He had some kids and purposefully left them in danger (although it might have been "socially" acceptable to do that in his day). You continue:

Similarly, is it a sacrifice, or is it the pursuit of a higher value, of someone like my sister to get an abortion so she could continue to enjoy a more luxurious lifestyle? Is that essentially any different than what Rousseau did?

Abortions are different. Aborted potentials don't morally matter as much as do actualized individuals (it's moral to treat them differently, rather than to treat them as the same thing). Abortions, when they occur, are true pursuits of higher value. What's not okay is to abort someone after they have been born.

Ed

Post 62

Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 3:09pm

"Abortions, when they occur, are true pursuits of higher value."

So, the more abortions you have, the more virtuous a person?

Maybe you'd like to qualify this, Ed?

All I can think of is Bad Irene and her abortion addiction.

Post 63

Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 3:30pm

Oops, I got got.

Thanks, Ted (keep up the good work).

Anyway, what I was actually saying is that abortions aren't, in-and-of-themselves, the sacrifice of anybody to anybody. However, carrying a pregnancy to term (against your will, or for the "good" of the "unborn") can be a sacrifice. Also, having a kid and then ignoring the crap out of him or her is a sacrifice, too. But what isn't a sacrifice is an abortion.

Now, abortions -- like animal cruelty -- aren't necessarily something to try to experience or to accomplish in one's life. It's probably a whole lot more psychologically healthy to work real hard to avoid them. At any rate, they aren't worthy "accomplishments." Like the basic feeling of pain, abortions are a sign that you have gotten off of the track and that your life might be in need of adjustment.

To be real clear, it's not the pain or the abortion that is bad or wrong -- the pain or the abortion is a signal to you that something else is wrong and might need adjustment.

In the case of the guy who keeps hitting his head into the wall, the pain signals him to stop. In the case of the gal who keeps getting multiple abortions, some introspection is indicated. In the case of "Bad Irene" (an abortion junkie?), this kind of introspection may be hampered by either mental illness or outright evil (evil being the most powerful force that prevents morally-indicated introspection).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/30, 4:39am)

Post 64

Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 4:48pm

Damn it, Ted, ya beat me to it...

Post 65

Thursday, November 5, 2009 - 10:32am

Steve,
You wrote:
"These two standards are not in objective conflict because it is in our rational interest to adopt happiness as our individual purpose (rational egoism), and it is in our rational interest to ensure our personal values all fall within the standard of what is proper for man qua man - the universal, which is our guideline to work within to achieving happiness."
If the reason why we should grant precedence to the "universal standard" (over the personal one) is that it is best for our own, individual lives, then I cannot see why there cannot be at least some cases in which it would be proper to sacrifice someone to oneself. If, say, the price of giving precedence in an individual case(s) were one's very life, but one could escape the dangerous conditions one was in by choosing to value according to an individual standard, then what would the benefit for oneself of not breaking with the universal standard in such a case.
P.S.
I don't know if I'm understanding you correctly as saying that we should grant precedence to the "universal standard" for this reason; if I'm not, please let me know what you meant.
Also, I don't want to be taken in this post as saying there are times when one should sacrifice others to oneself; I am simply saying that if the reason for granting precedence to the "universal standard" is that it advances our own net gain, then this reasoning would not seem to me to apply to all cases, or in all conditions.
thanks.
--Chris

Post 66

Thursday, November 5, 2009 - 12:12pm

Christopher,

I wrote:
"These two standards are not in objective conflict because it is in our rational interest to adopt happiness as our individual purpose (rational egoism), and it is in our rational interest to ensure our personal values all fall within the standard of what is proper for man qua man - the universal, which is our guideline to work within to achieving happiness."

And you replied by asking, "If the reason why we should grant precedence to the 'universal standard' (over the personal one) is that it is best for our own, individual lives, then I cannot see why there cannot be at least some cases in which it would be proper to sacrifice someone to oneself. If, say, the price of giving precedence in an individual case(s) were one's very life, but one could escape the dangerous conditions one was in by choosing to value according to an individual standard, then what would the benefit for oneself of not breaking with the universal standard in such a case."

Let me make up an example. Assume some person sees a way to sacrifice another to himself in some very minor way, and it is a person he doesn't like at all, and he sees a clear gain for himself - nothing major, maybe more money in the bank. So, he is asking himself, "Why wouldn't this be right?"

He is asking why not let my personal standard take precedence over the universal standard.

Here is why: Because the universal standard is the only connection to morality as such - it is what permits the personal standard to become moral. Only if the individual honors the universal morality do they retain any logical right to make any moral assertions. No one should pay attention to someone guilty of theft when they whine about their 'rights' being violated by the police who searched their apartment to find the stolen goods. Because the thief no longer had moral standing in that particular arena - he gave it up when he stole. The person in my example can't ask if his happiness takes moral precedence over anything if he first chooses to leave the realm of the universal standard. It is very much like a stolen concept fallacy - attempting to operate as if they were parsing out what is of value, or ethical, after abandoning morality as such. To be honest and 'integrated' they would need to first adopt some universal standard based upon moral subjectivism - a kind of moral anarchy.

Rational egoism establishes a base for morality that arises out of human nature - it is a proclamation for all men that such and such is true. No one can logically claim to partake of that base as a foundation in some detailed, derived individual position, while denying the base. (And, assuming the possibility of a conflict, or assuming it would be reasonable to choose in favor of the individual over the universal IS denying the base.)
-------------

There is a difference between purpose and moral justification. This comes up when you ask why a person adopts rational egoism, "...if the reason for granting precedence to the 'universal standard' is that it advances our own net gain." Look at how you are asking this. It is like you have hypothesized someone who has chosen a single primary standard of 'net [individual] gain' and is considering whether or not to abide by a universal standard. But from that position, how can they judge the moral worth of anything - they no longer have a universal standard to tell them what is an objective good - their pitiful 'moral' code is circular - self-referring - "What is good for me? Why, is is whatever is good for me?" The existence of conflicts arise only because they don't have a real moral code - one that is universal - that governs the choices they make for their individual life.
-----------

Analogy: Laws have to arise out of individual rights. Imagine what you might tell someone who said, "Yeah, but what if someone sees a net gain with a law in some instance, even if it conflicts with individual rights?" If the purpose of the law is to express individual rights, and if the moral basis of the law is in its integrity to individual rights, then you can see that the question is not logical. The question tells you that the person doesn't grasp the hierarchical relationship between individual rights and laws.

Post 67

Thursday, November 5, 2009 - 1:22pm

The question as to why we should not sacrifice others to ourselves depends on a contextless, atomistic and ultimately empty view of ethics, of persons and of the self.

Human actions are not without context. Profound ethical questions cannot be addressed on the range of the moment. What is the self? Is it an urge that lasts for the length of an action? The mugger thinks (if think is the word) "I want her money, I will take her purse, I will kill her if she resists." But who is this "I" who wants? The mugger will not only exist during the act of the mugging. He will have to live with himself — with his self — for the rest of his life.

Is sacrificing his victim today an action in the service of his self for his lifetime?

These sorts of question rests on the assumption that actions have no consequences, people have no memories, words have no meanings, crimes have no cost. No person who understands what a life, what happiness, what a self is could seriously entertain them.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 11/05, 6:11pm)

Post 68

Thursday, November 5, 2009 - 3:22pm

Steve,

[spacing mine]

Only if the individual honors the universal morality do they retain any logical right to make any moral assertions.

No one should pay attention to someone guilty of theft when they whine about their 'rights' being violated by the police who searched their apartment to find the stolen goods. Because the thief no longer had moral standing in that particular arena - he gave it up when he stole.

The person in my example can't ask if his happiness takes moral precedence over anything if he first chooses to leave the realm of the universal standard. It is very much like a stolen concept fallacy - attempting to operate as if they were parsing out what is of value, or ethical, after abandoning morality as such.

Great point.

Ed

Post 69

Thursday, November 5, 2009 - 3:30pm

Thanks, Ed.

Thursday, November 5, 2009 - 3:33pm

Re:

No one should pay attention to someone guilty of theft when they whine about their 'rights' being violated by the police who searched their apartment to find the stolen goods. Because the thief no longer had moral standing in that particular arena - he gave it up when he stole.

Agreed! Some comedians tell a similar story to define _chutzpah_: "The attitude of a man who kills his parents, then begs the judge for mercy and a reduced sentence on the ground that 'I am an orphan.' "

Post 71

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 9:10pm

And what do you have to back that up with?

Post 72

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 9:16pm

My view of art must be very different. When I sing, draw, and such, I feel as if I am sharing myself with the broader world, and giving thanks for all its benevolence. I don't consider art a self-interested activity. If I made art for my own self interest, it would be heavy-handed and pedantic, for there would be no element of that true inspiration that lies outside of want.

Post 73

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 5:45am

The BASIC purpose of Art is NOT to teach, but to SHOW - to hold up to man a concretized image of his nature and his place in the universe...

Since a rational man's ambition is unlimited... he needs a moment, an hour or some period of time in which he can experience the sense of his completed task, the sense of living in a universe where his values have been successfully achieved...

Art gives him that...

The pleasure of contemplating the objectified reality of one's own sense of life is the pleasure of feeling what it would be like to live in one's ideal world.

[Ayn Rand]

Post 74

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 10:27am

Julius I'm confused, are you saying you are an altruistic artist? And that art should be a self-sacrificial activity? Why can't the artist make art to the mutual self-interest of the artist and his audience?

Post 75

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 9:42pm

In his Post #60, Steve Wolfer wrote,

The flaw in Bill's argument that a life and death circumstance might make it moral to initiate violence lies in understanding that these are two different standards that are united in a way that logically establishes precedence and prohibits conflict.

To elevate the personal standard over the universal standard would be a logical error. Like creating a building to suit some whim, but in such a way that violates engineering principles. To imagine a situation that would force a conflict means imagining a situation where there is no morality. Meaning you could not judge any action as good or bad.

Not true. Conflicts of interest do not obliterate morality; they simply require that we pursue our own interest at the expense of those with whom we have the conflict. The fundamental ethical imperative is always to pursue one's own interest even if doing so entails sacrificing the interests of another. Normally, it doesn't mean that, of course, because under normal circumstances, the interests of human beings occasion no fundamental conflicts. But there are circumstances, admittedly rare and unusual, that sometimes do. The moral imperative in these cases is for each party to pursue his own interests in opposition to the interests of the other(s).

- Bill

Post 76

Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 1:40am

Bill,

In my post, #60, the conflict I refer to is between the two aspects of a person's set of values: His unique personal values and the universal moral code he has subscribed to. There can be no logical conflict between them - if there is, that person is attempting to maintain, to live, a contradiction. I was not referring to a conflict between two people - if you take another look at what I was writing, it was about a conflict within a single person.

If a person decides that one of his own personal values is in conflict with his own chosen universal moral code, and he chooses in favor of the personal value, then he is admitting either that his moral code is wrong, or that he no longer chooses to follow it even though it is right.

All personal values should be consistent with the standards of the universal moral code one has chosen. To not recognize that is to abandon morality, or to redefine it as subjective which makes no sense.

I re-explained this in post #66.

If you concoct a life-boat scenario where two people are in conflict and one person must kill the other to continue living, all you have done is create a peculiar context where a morality based upon normal circumstances no long exists. Is it moral for a lion to eat an antelope? Not according to a morality that is based upon human characteristics of reason and choice which lead to individual rights - those things don't apply to lions and antelopes - nor do those life-boat situations.

One measure of the moral greatness of a man is the degree to which he values his moral integrity. A small man will declare that his "interest" requires him to step away from normal moral requirements under the smallest of stresses. The truly moral man, values morality itself - as a part of his worth, as part of his identity, as part of his character and there may be no stress great enough to make him violate it. That is how he sees his "interest" - and that for him is flourishing and the rewards are too great to give up. While a petty thief or a small time cheat sees his "interest" as requiring that he steal because "times are tough" and he sees no value in being moral and he thinks that he will flourish through theft, but objective reality won't let him have the inner experience of worth that can only come from integrity and honor.

Post 77

Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 5:12am

Is there anything you'd die for?

Recently, I performed a day-dream, thought-experiment wherein I was forced into slavery by Obama the Fascist and his goons. I hated being a slave (in my mind). I couldn't stand it. The setup was such that it was impossible to overcome the Nazi Obommunists. Eventually, I cracked and attacked the guards with all the violence that I could muster in my soul. I went out in a blaze of glory. Even though my only chance at life or living was to surrender my freedom, I chose a virtuous death.

That's what Steve is talking about.

Ed

Post 78

Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 11:41am

Read thru most of the posts and have quite a graphic illustration of 'selfishness'. Perhaps Ms. Rand had a language barrier or she enjoyed the challenge of coining a new word. Testing her influence on a laymans term. Conjecture for sure. Yet that is the difficulty in interpreting anothers concept and decription of reality as one percieves it.
First thing to accept is the fact that no two brains are identical and the synapses in each brain will fire at exactly the same way to produce identical thinking in two individuals at the same time. Therefore no two people will ever think exactly alike.
The word selfish has long been employed to define the boundary between benevolence and greed. The morals of an individual being a matter of a personal choice. Only a fool would assume that they are the only individual studying Rand and that many others are developing their own interpretation of her thoughts as they pertain to ones own.
A test of objectivity ,enjoy the freedom to accept Rands interpretation of the word whether one accepts it or not. If Rand where 'old school' selfish she would have been living in Gallt's cabin. A stuggle ensues with the ish part of the word as it is ambiguous. However she did demonstrate her Ethos and walked her walk and not just talked her talk. Compare Selfishness to Ethos it is a learning experience.

Post 79

Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 4:36pm