I think the lack of understanding stems from the
deep-seated moral preconceptions most of us are inculcated with. To understand
Rand’s concept of morality, “the
Objectivist Ethics”, one must completely
set aside the pre-conceptions about altruism and selfishness and the purpose of
morality, and essentially start from scratch with a mental moral blank slate.
That’s very hard to do. It was for me. It took time to grow into the
understanding. My preconceived notions of altruism as the good and selfishness
as evil kept getting in the way.
Once you cast aside this conventional
understanding of altruism as the good and selfishness as the bad and morality
as solely about how you treat others, you are on your way to understanding the
Objectivist Ethics, which Rand termed rational selfishness to distinguish her
reasoning from the biases of our preconceived notions.
Understanding rational selfishness is hard. But
once you grasp it, a funny thing happens: It clicks for you that in many ways,
you and most people live more like rationally selfish individualists than
altruists—and that doing so does not require sacrificing yourself to others or
sacrificing others to yourself. You realize that being rationally selfish is
not only conducive to a good and flourishing life, but also conducive to
mutually rewarding relationships with others; it is vital to both. Quite
simply, you can’t live right without being selfish—rationally selfish.
Achieving a life the best it can be is only possible to the extent that you act
rationally selfish. Then it hits you: Rand didn’t so much as invent a new
ethics as articulate explicitly something most of us try to be most of the
time—only don’t know it and don’t see it as virtuous. She just taught us how to
be properly selfish and that it is good, thus removing the guilt of living for
ourselves.
However, it’s not only a matter of not
understanding. I’m convinced there are people for whom understanding Rand is
not the problem. There are people who simply like the conventional view that
altruism is good and selfishness is bad, because it gives them a
rationalization to use other people as means to their own ends. After all, if
living for others is the ideal, then why not be “others,” and demand that they
live for me? Why be immoral and selfishly keep what I earn for myself? Why not
take the altruists at their word? If modern moralists are right, then my needs
grant me a moral entitlement to other people’s lives and property, which is
their duty to provide. The conventional view of morality is tailor-made for the
unscrupulous—the greedsters and predators and socialists—and they take full
advantage of it.
As to the question, I looked up “selfism” in my
1979 Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. The definition at that time, when Rand
was still alive, is simply “absolute selfishness. [rare.]”—whatever that means.
I don’t remember Rand ever using the term selfism in her writings, perhaps
because it’s so vague. Anyway, I can see why someone could think of Rand’s
selfishness as a middle between altruism and selfism. But I don’t think that’s
accurate. If “absolute selfishness” means exploiting or sacrificing others to self,
then it is merely the flip side of the altruist coin, which calls for sacrifice
of self to others. Rational selfishness stands against both, instead calling
for non-sacrificial, win-win relationships based on what Ayn Rand called the trader principle. Ayn Rand didn't propose a middle ground. She proposed a third moral alternative.
Related Reading:
Why be moral?
Your life depends on it!—Jaana Woiceshyn: “To
say that many people are confused about morality is an understatement. Yet, our
lives depend on getting morality right.”
Related Viewing:
Yaron Brook Responds to Ben Shapiro's view of Objectivism: Regarding altruism, trade, happiness, rational selfishness, and hedonism.
No comments:
Post a Comment