AYN RAND'S "THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS"

Because a reader suggested I read at least the title essay in Ayn Rand's book, The Virtue of Selfishness, I did so.  What follows is my unedited, brief commentary as I picked out selected quotes.  Toward the end of the essay, I may have stopped my notes.  I'm not saying that my responses are in any way worthwhile, but they are mine.  The beginning of the essay was tedious, nearly beyond what I could bear, and, although it became more interesting further along, I was not at all taken with the ideas nor with the style of writing, and I remain perplexed about the appeal of Rand's philosophy, except to those who wish to justify their own egotism and selfishness.  The text of the book may be found here in pdf format.
    
Rand: "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."

Me: Bullshit.  Just because you say so does not mean that my rational selfishness will not conflict with your rational selfishness?

Rand: "The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material.  It is the principle of justice.  A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. He does not treat men as masters or slaves, but as independent equals. He deals with men by means of a free, voluntary, unforced, uncoerced exchange—an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgment. A trader does not expect to be paid for his defaults, only for his achievements. He does not switch to others the burden of his failures, and he does not mortgage his life into bondage to the failures of others."

Me: What of inherited wealth?

Rand: "Nothing is given to man on earth except a potential and the material on which to actualize it. The potential is a superlative machine: his consciousness; but it is a machine without a spark plug, a machine of which his own will has to be the spark plug, the self-starter and the driver; he has to discover how to use it and he has to keep it in constant action. The material is the whole of the universe, with no limits set to the knowledge he can acquire and to the enjoyment of life he can achieve. But everything he needs or desires has to be learned, discovered and produced by him—by his own choice, by his own effort, by his own mind."

Me: What about education in childhood and youth?

Rand: "In spiritual issues—(by “spiritual” I mean: “pertaining to man’s consciousness”)—the currency or medium of exchange is different, but the principle is the same. Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man’s character. Only a brute or an altruist would claim that the appreciation of another person’s virtues is an act of selflessness, that as far as one’s own selfish interest and pleasure are concerned, it makes no difference whether one deals with a genius or a fool, whether one meets a hero or a thug, whether one marries an ideal woman or a slut. In spiritual issues, a trader is a man who does not seek to be loved for his weaknesses or flaws, only for his virtues, and who does not grant his love to the weaknesses or the flaws of others, only to their virtues."

Me: Love as conditional; love as long as the beloved gives you pleasure; love as a commodity to be traded.  Not love at all.

Rand: "But these very benefits indicate, delimit and define what kind of men can be of value to one another and in what kind of society: only rational, productive, independent men in a rational, productive, free society.  Parasites, moochers, looters, brutes and thugs can be of no value to a human being—nor can he gain any benefit from living in a society geared to their needs, demands and protection, a society that treats him as a sacrificial animal and penalizes him for his virtues in order to reward them for their vices, which means: a society based on the ethics of altruism."

Me: Is illness a vice?

-------------

As I've already said, I read The Fountainhead when I was in college, but I thought it weird and boring, and, in hindsight, I believe I didn't "get" it. I'm not the only one who "missed the point".

Journalist Nora Ephron wrote that she had loved the novel when she was 18 but admitted that she "missed the point," which she suggested is largely subliminal sexual metaphor. Ephron wrote that she decided upon re-reading that "it is better read when one is young enough to miss the point. Otherwise, one cannot help thinking it is a very silly book."

As I read the information about the book at Wikipedia, I remembered that I saw the 1949 movie with Gary Cooper, and I have a vague sense that I thought it dull and dreary and found Cooper's Roark to be a lackluster character.  Thus, I saw no reason to follow up and read Atlas Shrugged, Rand's pièce de résistance.

Ayn Rand's given name is pronounced to rhyme with "mine ".

Paul Ryan then:

"The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand," Ryan said in a speech in 2005.

Paul Ryan now:

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview." 

ROMNEY AND RYAN - "THE ICEMEN COMETH"

"Think of all the folks we'll leave in the dust."  "Oh yes!  Ha, ha, ha."

What a perfect headline and what a splendid opinion piece by Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite.

We are falling prey, in the United States, to the temptation to equate “freedom” with selfishness.

This is ultimately a counsel of despair and the direct antithesis of the biblical values of love and compassion.
....

Jesus of Nazareth was absolutely clear that we have a responsibility to care for one another. Jesus instructed us to “love one another” (John 13:34). Cultivating the virtues of empathy, compassion, and support for other people is the way we love one another in an individual and in a social sense.
....

Yes, Ryan’s attachment to the works of Ayn Rand is revealing of his own views and it’s deeply problematic. But the problem of selfishness as a virtue is far more widespread and corrosive in American society than the views of any one person.

Through decades of conservative ideology, the concept of freedom itself has been narrowed to mean simply ‘it’s okay to be selfish.’ In fact, caring for our fellow citizens is regarded as the antithesis of our own individual freedom.

The blood running through the veins of the individualistic, freedom-loving conservatives seems to have turned to ice water.  Ayn Rand's philosophy, or "morality" as she chose to call it, of the negation of self-sacrifice is the antithesis of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  The wonder to me is how those amongst the selfish freedom lovers who call themselves Christians reconcile the Randian morality and the teachings in the Gospel.

Thistlethwaite is correct when she says the equation of freedom to selfishness has leached into the consciousness of many in the country who may know little of Rand, while the ardent Rand disciples seem soulless in their lack of empathy.  To run a country putting Rand's philosophy into practice would result in life in a dystopia, the likes of which it would be difficult to imagine. Some brave and gifted soul should imagine and write a fictional account. 

H/T to IT at The Friends of Jake for the link.

MIKE WALLACE INTERVIEW WITH AYN RAND

Well!  So this is the "morality" that the Republican Party embraces.  This is the writer whose books Paul Ryan insists that his staff read when they come to work for him.  The video is a 7-minute excerpt from an interview of Rand by Mike Wallace in 1957 which runs to nearly 30 minutes.  I watched it all and found Rand's words and manner to be chilling.  First of all, Rand's darting eyes and body language are strange, indeed.  She is unable to look at Wallace for any length of time, and she seems to be shrinking back from him during the interview.

Rand's "morality" favors the rational self-interest of the thinkers who never allow emotion to influence their conclusions.  Selfishness rules, and altruism has no place in Rand's "morality".  If the policies of  laissez-faire are in force, then the common good will result.  Greed, which is as evident today as ever it was throughout history, the desire to accumulate more and more money and goods at the expense of those less fortunate, seems not to be noted at all.  By simply leaving rational achievers to their own devices, without constraints, Rand and her disciples believe that all deserving people will benefit...somehow.  By magic?  As for the undeserving, who knows what becomes of them in Rand's morality?

This one interview sheds much light on where the far right, who have now become middle-of-the roaders in the Republican Party, get their ideas.  What I don't understand is how a person who subscribes to Rand's "morality" can claim, at the same time, to be an observant Christian, Jew, or Mormon.  Objectivism is in direct opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the teachings in the Hebrew Testament on mercy and justice.

Paul Ryan is Roman Catholic, and I have to wonder if he reads the church's teachings on social justice as assiduously as he reads Ayn Rand.

In an unusually pointed correspondence, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urged lawmakers to consider the moral implications of their actions as they prepared to vote on the Ryan budget.

"We join with other Christian leaders in calling for a 'circle of protection' around our brothers and sisters at home and abroad who are poor and vulnerable," the bishops wrote in the spring. They said the "moral measure" of the debate "is not which party wins or which powerful interests prevail, but rather how those who are jobless, hungry, homeless or poor are treated." 
.... 

And he [Ryan] pushed back at those who criticized him for abandoning the Catholic principle of "preferential option for the poor and vulnerable." 

"Simply put, I do not believe that the preferential option for the poor means a preferential option for big government," he said.

There you have it from Ryan, the Pericles of Janesville.  (H/T to Charles Pierce.)

The entire 30 minute interview is here at YouTube.