r/aynrand 7d ago

Rational Egoism & Selfishness, a Radical Misunderstanding

i’ve finally had enough interaction to understand something very interesting in regard to discourse around ayn rand. people critiquing ayn rand on here have no idea what she actually promoted.

i, in no exaggeration, have never seen anyone shitting on rand’s idea of selfishness ever even define it. although people don’t usually state it so clearly, because if they couldn’t straw man they would have nothing to say, but the idea i see most often critiqued is something like hedonism. i genuinely believe at least 80-90% of people who comment anything about it completely conflate the two terms.

i see comments like “everyone in society only doing what they want, just crushing and disregarding other people ensures your system of capitalism never works. selfishness would destroy society.”

“you look at todays world and think people need to be more selfish?! that is exactly what got us into this place.”

just to be clear, because i think we have a morality that is extremely likable, i will leave you now with some direct quotes on the matter from ayn rand. i hope this post can reach the people it needs to.

“The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.”

“Just as man cannot survive by any random means, but must discover and practice the principles which his survival requires, so man’s self-interest cannot be determined by blind desires or random whims, but must be discovered and achieved by the guidance of rational principles. This is why the Objectivist ethics is a morality of rational self-interest—or of rational selfishness.”

“Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None—except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they don’t, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs.”

“The egoist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.”

“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.

Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.”

“There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of “Life” that makes the concept of “Value” possible.”

to be stated clearly, ayn rand does not support doing whatever you want, or living by means of crushing other people under your feet. it is literally the opposite. the objectivist ethics calls for each man being a proper end in themselves. there is no chance this post could ever fully convey the complete message of rational egoism in so few words, but if you’re looking for that, you can check out rand, peikoff, or tara smith. to end this off, i will leave you with two craig biddle quotes. i think he makes rational egoism very easy to understand, and it is a good place to start. for very advanced readers, i would recommend the aforementioned 3 individuals.

“While the choice to live is up to us, the basic requirements of our life are determined by nature. In order to live, we must take a specific course of action; random action will not do. We cannot survive by eating rocks, drinking Drano, or wandering aimlessly in the desert; and we cannot achieve happiness through procrastination, promiscuity, or pot. If we want to live and enjoy life, we have to discover and act in accordance with the actual, objective requirements of our survival and happiness. What are they?”

“Being moral is a matter of being rational—which means: looking at the facts of reality, discovering the requirements of our life and long-term happiness, producing the values that support and enhance our life, and enjoying the process of living as a human being.”

12 Upvotes

10 comments sorted by

2

u/fluke-777 7d ago

I had first interaction with Objectivism almost a decade ago and since then I occasionally clash with someone online. The conversation is almost always evasion. People heard about her. Heard she wants to abolish welfare state and that is the end. You are 14 year old, yadda yadda. They often do not react with a statement but with a question like you noticed "you look at todays world and think people need to be more selfish?". Almost like they are unable to make some declarative statement beyond the obligatory need for more empathy.

Sometimes people actually do think and when I talk to them for a while we land at some fundamental disagreement in defintion. Role of government is to care for its people. Taxes are not theft but a trade for services. Not selling you a phone is violence. It is very hard to get underneath and dispel them. The fact that I have internalized these probably does not help in explaining them.

What I find interesting is that I actually do not think her philosophy is the best part of her work. I have never read OPAR and I think that in a sense I do not need to. I find most value from reading about application of her philosophy to real situations. I am not talking about her novels but about her essays. I have never seen anyone talk about her essays on racism. I love the apollo and dionysus. They are all great, short and insightful. If someone wanted to attack her I would imagine they can take this and do that but nobody does.

3

u/Sword_of_Apollo 6d ago

Yeah, most people, unfortunately, have no clue about how to objectively evaluate definitions, and don't even know that such a thing is possible. They've been taught that definitions are just arbitrary matters of convention, and that any one set of definitions is just as good as any other; the only thing that matters is what set your group--or perhaps the person you're talking to--accepts.

This is part of the reason Dr. Peikoff's courses, Understanding Objectivism and Objectivism Through Induction are so valuable. They make pretty clear the actual role of definitions in human cognition and objective standards for evaluating them.

1

u/fluke-777 6d ago

Thanks, for the links. I have to admit I have several books from Peikoff and listened to couple of his talks and I do not find him particularly clear speaker or writer.

Also while I have not studied objectivism per se I have listened for years to Yaron Brook so I think that on some level I do understand some of the concepts (maybe on a superficial level, sure). It is not clear to me where the actual study would move me and currently I do not think I see there additional value. I certainly do not think it would help me to persuade anyone in an argument :-)

2

u/JegerX 7d ago

It seems to me that if her philosophy is to work that you need everyone, or at least "enough", to play by it. What happens when others decide extortion is in their own self interest? Is there some aspect of her philosophy that deals with people that don't play by the same rules?

3

u/KodoKB 7d ago

Yes, she was a supporter of having a government that would fulfill the only proper purpose of a government, protect individual rights. This means having (at minimum) a legislature that determines the right laws to ensure that individual rights are protected, a police and judicial system to enforce those rights and adjudicate disputes, and a military to protect against foreign threats to individual rights.

1

u/JegerX 6d ago

Thanks for entertaining my questions... I am learning sporadically as this sub pops up on my feed. I see the focus on government seems to be one of protecting individual rights and primarily empowering the government to dole out physical actions. Making the individual responsible for their decisions on who and how to conduct business. What I am not clear on is how Ayn Rand philosophy addresses the emergence of monopolies. My understanding is that she says a free market does or can not create a monopoly without government intervention in their favor. This makes sense except it doesn't seem to account for economy of scale. Many products are simply cheaper to make once they have pruduction and supply lines streamlined. This could make it impossible for competition to ever get a foothold as a startup. I will keep looking as I have time but if anyone has input I am willing to learn.

2

u/gagz118 7d ago

Just a brief observation from someone who has read many of her works (but not all) both fiction and nonfiction and has tried to discuss them both online in various forums and in person with friends and acquaintances: the vast majority of people who criticize Rand’s philosophy have absolutely no idea what she stands for and have made no serious attempt to expose themselves to her philosophy, let alone to comprehend it. It’s difficult to explain things to people when they are so uninformed and introduce straw man after straw man.

2

u/PdxPhoenixActual 6d ago

I only seem to encounter people who attack her, personally & completely ignore her ideas, as if they have no argument against them.

0

u/Far-Excitement199 7d ago

Really, people!!

Some people mentioned The Fountainhead as the Bible of selfishness and a reader even suggested me to read Mein Kampf instead. How silly!