The Virtue of Selfishness: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition
Reviews (171)
Ayn Rand was Brilliant, but...
My General Overview: Ayn Rand has a 'controversial', but brilliant and effective philosophy that can best be applied to your personal life and sense of ethics. She advocates both ethical and rational egoism and dismisses altruism as a vice rather than a virtue. Ayn made a great case against altruism in favor of ethical/rational egoism as a much better alternative. Her writing style is concise, direct, and illustrative of her points and arguments. It's accessible to readers who don't have a thesaurus nearby at all times, so this is much better than Immanuel Kant's confusing, convoluted, nonsensical work. Ayn Rand also makes a strong case for the rejection of mysticism and the adoption of reason as your primary guiding principle in life. Objectivism is a very motivating philosophy because, if you live by it, you will be pursuing your Values (she uses the word 'values' to describe passions and aspirations). The core components of Objectivism are Reason, Productivity, and Self-Esteem, all great on their own, but even better in combination. Ayn's philosophy addresses how we ought to live, in a very practical sense rather than meandering abstractions like some other philosophers. My Contentions: Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, is great when applied to your personal life. However, my biggest contention with her work is the fact Ayn endorses capitalism that is unregulated by the government. No; I'm not a socialist. I'm a capitalist, but I believe government regulation is an extremely important aspect of a market economy. There are too many real world examples (i.e., 2009 recession, Flint Michigan's water, etc.) of unregulated or barely regulated markets causing serious economic problems and, worse, even public health concerns. So, while I'm on board with Objectivism as a personal philosophy, I'm certainly not on board with it as a POLITICAL philosophy. Definitely not. Ayn Rand dismisses collectivism as inherently bad, while individualism is heralded as inherently good. To a certain extent, I agree with this assessment, but Ayn paints a picture that's way too 'black and white' on this issue. I believe MOST collectivism is bad, but I can't help but notice Social Collectivism, such as government building roads or providing single-payer healthcare, is reliably successful. Research the Nordic Model if you don't believe some forms of collectivism can actually be good. Yes, most collectivism fails by almost every measure, but SOME forms of collectivism are very successful and beneficial to society. I agree with Ayn Rand's advocacy of Individual Rights being of maximal importance. However, there must be a government that both grants and protects those Individual Rights. They do not come out of thin air; they're not 'natural' rights. Rights are social constructs, so while I agree Individual Rights are the most important thing in society, I don't believe those rights to be self-evident. We human beings must figure out what those rights are, set up a system that grants them, and also have a system that PROTECTS them. No rights are natural or just fall out of the sky. Individual Rights are the most important thing we need in society, so I agree with Ayn Rand on that bit, but rights are still social constructs at the end of the day. If Individual Rights were truly self-evident, these huge authoritarian nightmare governments of human history would have never existed. But, sorry... they did exist and some still DO exist (i.e., North Korea), so rights are social constructs, not self-evident, and we must establish those rights ourselves, as humans. I agree with Ayn Rand about using Reason as our primary guiding principle; we have to use Reason to determine what our Individual Rights are. They're not clear until we make propositions and arguments in favor of why certain rights ought to be granted/protected in our civilizations. Property Rights are also something I agree with Ayn Rand on. Yes, I definitely believe in private property being extremely significant to a prosperous society. However, those too, like the Individual Rights, are not self-evident and we must figure out for ourselves what these Property Rights are, what they mean, what the nuances and implications are, etc. And we should use Reason, not Mysticism, to do that. My Politics: Since I know Ayn Rand's work is very politically charged ever since the Tea Party movement leaders pretended to be Objectivists (they were definitely pretending and probably didn't even read Ayn's work)… I will go ahead and reveal my personal political beliefs. I'm a Social Democracy style liberal and a Civic Nationalist. Now that you know that about me, you can probably see why I had some issues with the political implications of Ayn's philosophy. But, that's okay. Objectivism is still a great PERSONAL philosophy to live your life by; I just think you ought to evaluate your politics differently than how you live as an individual. Politics is a lot more nuanced and complicated than Ayn makes it out to be. A market without government regulations is simply NOT the solution to modern economic struggles and it also isn't an ideal market in my view. Why 4 Stars? Because I have a lot of contentions with Ayn's economic and political ideas. Having said that, Objectivism is sound, logical, and great for your personal life.
One of the most thought-provoking books I've ever read
This book is a collection of essays by Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden. It covers the ethics of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism. You don’t have to be interested in philosophy or Ayn Rand to get something out of this book, but you do have to approach it with an open mind. Quite predictably, a continuous theme throughout the book is the immorality of altruism and virtuousness of (rational) selfishness. I picked up this book a bit skeptical, especially because of the cult that seems to surround Ayn Rand. But this work was extremely thoughtful and thought-provoking. Probably one of the most interesting books I’ve ever read. More people should give it a chance. Rand and Branden talk a lot about “the virtue of selfishness.” “Selfishness" is defined from the get-go as “rational self-interest,” and Rand even offers an explanation for why she uses the word “selfishness” at all (it’s in the Kindle preview!). In the first chapter, Rand says that life is an end in itself, and that “Reason, Purpose, and Responsibility” are the things we should value in order to secure our life. We achieve those three values by being rational, productive, and having pride in ourselves and our work. So, since our life is an end in itself, there’s no moral obligation to subject ourselves to the will or whims of others. In fact, she argues that living for others is flat-out immoral. Throughout the book, Rand and Branden addressed almost every concern and question I had (and have seen others have) regarding the ethics of her philosophy. Altruism is defined as sacrificing oneself for someone else, and Rand denounces it as immoral. But there are cases where an “altruist act” is actually in your rational self-interest. Rand gives the following example: Someone is going to torture your significant other to death in order to get something from you. If you love this person so much that living without them would be impossible, then the moral thing to do would be to “sacrifice” yourself. It’s not really self-sacrifice though, since it's in your rational self-interest. Rand also denounces racism, violence (except in self-defense), criminal activity, and exploiting others for your own gain (!!!). Really, it’s like her critics have never read her work. She is very clear on her stance with each of these issues: vehemently opposed. One unanswered question I still have after reading this work: since I have the right to do what I want with my property and time, can I give a homeless man a dollar? Can I loan my friend my car for the weekend? Would either act be immoral? I’m confident that the answer is yes, I can do these things, but I’m not sure whether (according to Objectivist ethics) it would be immoral. What I got from this book: The essays by Nathaniel Branden on self-esteem and mysticism were especially enlightening for me. I also really enjoyed reading about the “doomsday mindset” (my words - I forget how Rand/Branden called it exactly) that we all apparently have inherited from religion and superstition. This “the world is going to shit” outlook is what compels us to embrace altruism. Overall, the virtue of selfishness itself is incredibly empowering. It says that I am responsible for myself and my actions, and that I owe it only to myself to live a happy, meaningful life. I love that. And I loved this book. Who should read this book: Everyone and anyone can get something out of this book, but especially students and people just getting into the working world. It’ll empower you to work harder and take responsibility for yourself and your actions. And it’ll also get you to think more about what you’ve been taught, what you believe, and why. I alternated evenings between reading this book and listening to Leonard Peikoff’s lectures on “The Philosophy of Objectivism” (available online through the Ayn Rand Institute). I thought Peikoff’s lectures complimented this work well. Now I’m reading something that’s the polar opposite: Bertrand Russell’s
Provocative ideas, even if you disagree with them
There are nineteen articles in this volume, fourteen by Rand and five by Nathaniel Branden. The longest is "The Objectivist Ethics," in which Rand explains her philosophy of "Rational Self Interest." The remaining articles are examples of the application of this philosophy. Rand contends that "that which furthers (a living being's) life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil." Thus the basic human value is "rational selfishness...the value required for man's survival." How do people determine if something is "good or evil"? If the person experiences pleasure, it is a signal that the experience is "good" and that the person is acting properly. If the individual has pain, the feeling shows that the experience is "bad." People understand these sensations by using their intelligence, by thinking. Since people are not born with intelligence, they must study about the world and how to think well so that they can live properly. There are two essentials for survival: thinking and productive work. A person who tries to survive without thinking is no better than an animal. Productive work is the way people sustain themselves, getting food, adequate comfort, and time for study and self improvement. The work should be "the fullest and most purposeful use of the mind." Living by her agenda results in a feeling of pride, the realization that one has achieved the best that one can achieve. This achievement is selfish. The individual is interested in himself, his own life, and not the life of another or of society. The individual deals with others only when he wants to do so, without constraints or directives, unforced, in an exchange that "benefits both parties by their own independent judgment." Society is good when it gives individuals the two things necessary for human existence: knowledge and trade. "The only proper, moral purpose of a government is to protect man's rights." Since a person's life is the top value, how should a person act in the following examples? 1. Should a man save his wife who he loves and feels that he can't live without or twenty strangers? The wife because she is dear to him. 2. Should a man act courageously and take an unreasonable chance to save another person's life? No, his life comes first. 3. Should people devote their lives to help the poor rise from poverty? No, he should devote himself to his own concerns, his life. 4. Is faith and self sacrifice for others correct? No, they are the cause of all evil and the deterioration of humanity. There are three problems with this volume. First, it is very repetitious. Rand's philosophy is contained in the first chapter and the book presents nothing new after it. It only rehashes the message and applies it to various situations. Second, Rand bases her philosophy on ethics, an amorphous subject that many scholars correctly feel is very subjective. She would have done much better to base her ideas upon reality, upon what is "true and false," upon the nature of people and the laws of nature. The result is the same, but the presentation would be clearer. Third, many philosophers would agree that the basic human nature, that which distinguishes them from animals and inanimate objects is their intelligence, and that, as Rand contends, being altruistic is not an inherent part of a human being. Yet, as Aristotle pointed out, man is a social animal, he must live with and interact with people to survive. Thus helping others is necessary, at least to some extent. Rand ignores this when she insists that altruism is evil.
Be Selfish! Just don't call it moral.
This book posits an empowering ideology that encourages individuals to pursue their interests with self-determinant agency. In Virtue of Selfishness, Rand unveils the Objectivist ethos: a life in which an individual acts for one's self is properly the highest moral life one can live. Objectivism is an attractive philosophy in its exaltation of the individual and his personal achievement as the ultimate end-game of existence. However, ultimately Objectivism is reduced to the ethics of egoism: acting selfishly is inherently acting morally - merely assuming an inverted form of the "beneficiary criterion of morality" it assails in altruism. Inevitably, the philosophy merely substitutes the individual for the collective as that beneficiary. Rand and Objectivists alike vehemently deny this assertion. Rand demarcates what exactly constitutes a moral action. Designating Objectivism as a "morality of rational self-interest," Rand claims that as living entities biologically constituted to value our existence and the objects that sustain it, we are morally obligated to act efficaciously to those ends - existence in itself induces an ethical responsibility of self-progressing action. Therefore, in crude biological terms, it is not God nor society that composes moral authority - instead it is our very nature itself. Rand argues that "the fact that a living being is, determines what it ought to do." (17) All who live implicitly understand existence as 'good' - and that the continuation of this existence is the first and highest moral edict nature affirms. Those who reject this basic truth subsequently contravene not only the first and highest law of nature but also transgress the very essence of existence. Consequently, an action is ethical only if that action advantages the individual to the attainment of greater 'value' for one's life. Rand attests that life is in end in itself, and that an individual can objectively ascertain what serves his greater existence and what does not. At a most basic level, this reality is signified by the physiological phenomenon of 'pain' and 'pleasure' (17). Perhaps this is the best encapsulation: "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." (23) Upon this exposition, Objectivist critics promptly declare that individuals can murder, steal, and cheat their way to Objectivist heaven. This is not necessarily the case. Rand would assert that individuals will rationally conclude that destructive actions that harm others' self-sustaining interests incidentally do not serve their own. Such actions encourage collective behavior that compromises one's ability to pursue his own self-interest. In immediate terms, I should not wrong my neighbor precisely because such an action entails the risk of incarceration, execution, or retaliation. Inevitably, the morality that results lacks the 'thou shalt not' categoricals of most ethical modes. Instead, the correct moral choice for a singular event is properly arrested by an ad hoc calculation of an individual's ultimate benefit. Each individual event requires an individual deliberation - because the broad contours that comprise the class of actions that can best benefit an individuals' acquisition of value/life can not be properly circumscribed by any categorical rules of morality. Thus the flaw within the Objectivist ethics is not that it does not forbid most conventionally immoral actions; it is that it does not forbid them unilaterally. If my self-interest is the standard by which actions are ethically judged, then the prohibition against murder becomes a conditional rather than a categorical one. Thus, in Objectivist eyes, murder is not inherently wrong. Instead, murder is only wrong because it is an action that does not serve one's own self interest (I risk incarceration, execution, reprisal, etc). Hence, if murder did serve my self-interest, it would not only be morally permissible according to Objectivism, but also morally sound. If I can murder someone - accrue substantial personal/pecuniary gain - and no one will discover my actions, will I suffer any negative ramifications to my self-interest? Subsequently does that murder not have moral sanction? Objectivism could resolve this issue by claiming that harmful acts against others still don't serve one's self interest, in that they incur latent consequences not immediately palpable. For if everyone acted against one another (even in the absence of ostensible ramifications), the society encouraged would be one comprised of insidious backstabbers who harm one another the moment they sense no evident consequences. This society would doubtlessly compromise the pursuit of self interest. It would thus be ethical as well as pragmatic to forbid all such transgressions categorically, in that such prohibitions protect individual self - interest. But this reasoning merely circles back to the methodology of discerning the correct moral action in the first place. The claim that injuring another - in the absence of overt injury to my own self interest - still bears an opaque consequence is an abstract claim that often opposes an action that bears apparent and concrete self-interest. One could rationalize that destructive actions against the interests of another are categorically unethical in that they ultimately harm one own's self interest. However in practice, individuals confronting such an action could easily rationalize exemptions, particularly when an action that harms one another carries a patent benefit with no known ramifications. In fact, the 'opaque/distant' consequences mentioned regarding actions committed against others appear contrived to place Objectivism in greater harmony with more conventional modes of morality. And so the circle continues, and Objectivism veers in vertiginous circles of reasoning to this contradictory conclusion: In Objectivist ethics, transgressions against others is both always and never permitted. Ascertaining the correct moral action shouldn't entail such convoluted abstractions. This problem originates from the methodology applied to discern the relationship between self-interest and morality: reason. Objectivists insist reason is a foolproof faculty {Rand calls its potential for knowledge 'limitless' (18)} that objectively gleans the substantive (and thus moral) worth of an action to one's self. There are also issues with Objectivism's implied 'by any means necessary' consequentalism towards 'being' - any action that enhances survival is thus 'good'. This is a tough proposition to swallow - and when one does - this cocktail tastes like the hard liquor of Darwinism chased by a sweet twist of ethics. Our genetic identity prescribes a biological - not a moral - blueprint for existence. The confluence of biological fitness with moral worth is problematic, for morality is an evaluative construct derived from our biological constitution - a composition that is not ab initio moral but just 'is'. Survival is antecedent to morality rather than concurrent with it. Thus why must an organism sustain itself? Why is it unethical for an individual - as the true sovereign of his being - to terminate himself, especially after rational deliberation (i.e. in the situation of a life of total suffering)? Objectivists claim reason forbids actions that jeopardize self-existence. But if reason is the paramount force that frames our purpose and morality, critical to the accuracy of such a position is the discussion of rationality itself. Camus and others have claimed that the purpose of epistemology is not to extinguish reason entirely or to aggrandize reason as infallible. Instead, the purpose is to lucidly acknowledge its limits. Rand eschews such humility, and in her book, reason - paradoxically - exalts itself as a nearly omnipotent instrument for truth. The other side of the coin, where reason falls on its own sword, suffers its own paradox. Whereas one might argue that Rand applied reason poorly in imparting it with such objectivity and omniscience, philosophers who could be said to reason most prudently (which is in itself a problematic evaluation) are often the ones who subsequently depreciate the faculty most (Hume, Kant). Every episode of reason evaluating its own efficacy is doomed to paradox (it is akin to a student grading his own test without an answer key - there is no external/objective standard for evaluation). Most attempts at such inevitably result in epistemological suicide. Rand's assertion that reason can convey moral proclamations from a superficial throne of its own construction is illusory - for its scepter is its own hand. The problem is not that morality itself is subjective or relative, it is that Rand's particular claim to objective morality - that rationality affirms selfishness (acting on one's own behalf) as the consequent ethics - is flawed: the rationale expressed is less than compelling, discordant with many other sound ethical reasonings, and presumes to crown itself as 'objective' without 'objective' proof of such a designation. Can one live unequivocally selfishly and morally? This is the question explored in the Virtue of Selfishness. Certainly, any 'beneficiary criterion of morality' presents an ethical system fraught with contradictions. It is not surprising that philosophers in academia scoff at Objectivism as unsound and sophomoric. It is an empowering ideology, but poor philosophy. In terms of the individual/collective egoism/altruism opposition, it can best be resolved by a holistic incorporation of the two seemingly disparate interests. Formulating a moral framework that eschews this either/or construct would be ideal.
The Rational Morality of Selfishness
To some of the people who have written previously striving to stain Ayn Rand and Objectivism with examples of brutal acts, it would be a good idea to at least have the decency to actually read The Virtue of Selfishness so they would know what they are talking about, because as is, they only stand out as examples of people talking about a subject they know nothing about. Even more the posted review from the Library Journal, which heads the page, is a highly prejudicial piece of work that only exhibits the author's emotional feelings and distaste for Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Full of sharply pointed adjectives like "outlandish" and "sadly dated" and "mutant symptoms" the author fails to offer factual evidence to make his claim, and in other instances, such as his claim that Rand advocated "the rights of the individual at the expense of the community" was completely mistaken. Without a doubt, this is a forum of opinions and one has to expect a wide variety of different views from all types of people. But I would expect Amazon to follow a higher standard when posting comments by media sources such as Library Journal. If you are going to post something from a media source, at least post an articulate and well-informed piece instead of a highly prejudicial post, filled with the author's ungrounded opinions divorced from facts. In the early sixties, when The Virtue of Selfishness hit the market, it was one of the first book-form expositions of Objectivism. True to form, in the introduction to the book, Ayn Rand defines a new concept of egoism and points out that her definition of selfishness, or rational self-interest, differs radically from the common usage of the term. She does this in order to describe positive character traits, and make it possible to conceptualize the self-reliant, self-respecting independent man or woman, who lives his or her life for their own sake, without sacrifice on anyone's part. She explains how the negative connotation of selfishness serves as a package deal to negate the concept of an independent and talented man or woman living their life for their own sake. What Ayn Rand set out to do with her revolutionary concept of rational self-interest was to conceptualize the men and women of ability and talent: creators, producers and builders, who live independent lives, without sacrificing others to themselves or themselves to others. One of the best graphic illustrations of this concept is the characterization of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead. Here, one sees in a fictionalized version of the Objectivist view of selfishness: a character in love with life, his work, the act of creation, and the sharing of these values with others of similar mind and personality. Obviously in our society, the Saddam Hussein concept of the selfish brute, who mauls and defiles everything in his path, is very common. However, a cursory knowledge of history would tell one that these horrors, that people often try to slander Objectivism with, are almost always the result of self-sacrificial behavior in the name of a higher cause with an authoritarian leader at the helm. Self-sacrifice and the duty to serve others are at the fundamentals of fascism, Nazism, communism, and every other blight on civilization since the beginning of time. Saddam Hussein would be a perfect example of this: a man who saw himself as the great Arab leader who would unite the Arab world against the infidels, and in the process, sacrificed anyone and anybody in the name of his higher, mystical cause. Pol Pot was another example. An authoritarian leader armed with his idea of a Marxist agrarian revolution, he had no compunction, under the guise of self-sacrificial service to others, to kill and murder millions of people in order to achieve his perfect, unselfish society. In contrast to this, on examining Ayn Rand's life, one would see a magnificently benevolent women in love with the mind and efficacious behavior, who by pursuing her rational self-interest, has enlightened the minds of millions of her readers and helped them to pursue a more fruitful and productive life. Her writings on the sorry state of the educational system and its attempt to obliterate reason, reality and individualism are masterpieces of benevolence for those who are trapped in this system, and want to break free from this mind-destroying nightmare. Rational self-interest is a revolutionary concept that challenges the morality at the very root of our society. If this interests you and you are looking for a different vision of the world, a vision of a better, more rational and productive existence, The Virtue of Selfishness (VOS) may be a book you would want to investigate.
Good read
Most of the material you know if you follow Rand Or have listened to her over the years. I do like her bit on rasicm , that is something that was really enjoyable and I encourage everyone to read.
I was nice, now I’m selfish and happy
Read this book a few times now and I always catch something I missed. This book has helped me to think more about myself and what I want instead of what people think/want. Reminds me daily that I’m not put on this planet to save or help anybody, I come first always. I’ve built better relationships with better people over the years because of this book.
Beginning of moral revolution that the Enlightenment so much needed but never got
This is the book that brought me to Ayn Rand's ideas and challenged everything I thought about selfishness. Self-sacrifice, betraying one's values and living for others is not equivalent to morality. Morality is something completely different.
Love the Writing Style
This was my first introduction to Ayn Rand although I've read and followed people who you might call fellow-travelers of hers for a long time. I had always heard that the writing in Atlas Shrugged was a bit of a slog, so I was pleasantly surprised by the writing style here. It's exactly what I like to see in an author. She's concise, yet laser-precise in her use of language, she defines her terms consistently, and works step by step from first principles, and doesn't ramble. She does regularly restate her positions using different words, which you might consider filler, but in my experience, this seems like a common convention for European writers of the time. Personally, I think it's a useful convention in that it guards against later readers playing word games to reinvent the author's meaning, by providing a backup context for the point they're trying to make.
Not what you think
Give it a try it’s not what you think ! It’s awesome And insightful
Comments
Post a Comment