This is a short description of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, as stated by Rand herself in 1962:
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
Ayn Rand grew up in Communist Russia and hated Socialism and the Communists. For her, the ‘collective’ was an awful idea. The only possible good, she felt, was a pursuit of rational self interest. A person was only good when a person was acting for their own self interests.
Rand, a novelist and a political philosopher, saw her ‘heroes’ as people who worked for themselves and cared nothing for the needs of others. The ultimate enemies, to her, were the people who saw charity and altruism as good, and sacrifice as a high moral calling.
In John Galt’s famous monologue at the end of Atlas Shrugged she wrote:
“For centuries, the mystics of spirit had existed by running a protection racket-by making life on earth unbearable, then charging you for consolation and relief, by forbidding all the virtues that make existence possible, then riding on the shoulders of your guilt, by declaring production and joy to be sins, then collecting blackmail from the sinners.”
Rand was a strict atheist. She saw God as a myth and believers, ‘mystics of the spirit’ as corrupt fools who preached the dreadful evil of self-sacrifice and caring for others. She believed that the highest moral good was personal prosperity and that the evil of poverty was caused by the evil of the poor. If people were poor, it was because they deserved to be and were probably just lazy. If the people with prosperity let the poor starve and go naked, then the world would be a better place. The poor would either work harder and have some prosperity or die. Either alternative was fine.
The philosophy of Ayn Rand can be summarized in one line from John Galt’s monologue:
“Do not remind me that it pertains only to this life on earth. I am concerned with no other. Neither are you.”
For her, there is no God, no immortal soul, no afterlife, no morality of the soul, no common-good.
Her philosophy has one problem. If there is a God, then she is not only wrong, she’s wrong in a particularly sinister and brutal fashion and is little more than an ethical nihilist.
I raise the issue of Ayn Rand because of something very interesting. She has been, for quite a while, dismissed as a crackpot of her era. Her philosophy was often seen as little more than a reaction to Soviet rule and as an apologia for her hedonistic lifestyle. She was a brilliant writer to be sure and something of a political philosopher. The thing is, when I studied political philosophy in the 1970's our professor found her ideas to be on the periphery of sanity.
But, for some unusual reason, Ayn Rand has come into vogue.
Recently Governor Mark Sanford wrote an essay in Newsweek about Ayn Rand. It is a very thoughtful article and he attempts to make an argument that Rand makes a strong argument, useful for today, about limited government and how individuals, when unfettered by government interference, can do great things. He does prelude his comments with a criticism of Rand in which he states, “I've grown more critical of Rand's outlook because it doesn't include the human needs we have for grace, love, faith, or any form of social compact.”
In quoting “The Fountainhead” and adding his own words, Sanford writes: “I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need … I recognize no obligations toward men except one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society." Cold though they sound, these words contain two basic truths. First, an individual can achieve great things without governmental benevolence, and second, one man has no right to another's achievement. These are lessons we should all remember today, when each week is seemingly marked by another government program designed to fix society.
The problem with Sanford’s logic here is that he is speaking strictly about government involvement being the obstacle. Rand would go much further than this----and does. She not only detested government involvement, but also detested an ethical involvement or a religious perspective of God. “I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life....”
The first question on the Evangelical Catechism, used by churches from a Lutheran perspective and Evangelical Synod within the United Church of Christ is this:
What should be the chief concern of man? Man’s chief concern should be to seek after the Kingdom of God and his righteousness.
Reformed Church tradition and the Heidelberg Catechism:
What is your only comfort in life and in death?
That I am not my own,
but belong—
body and soul,
in life and in death—
to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ.
He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood,
and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil.
He also watches over me in such a way
that not a hair can fall from my head
without the will of my Father in heaven:
in fact, all things must work together for my salvation.
Because I belong to him,
Christ, by his Holy Spirit,
assures me of eternal life
and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready
from now on to live for him.
Question four of the Roman Catholic background Baltimore Catechism:
What must we do to gain the happiness of heaven?
To gain the happiness of heaven we must know, love, and serve God in this world.
Jesus when asked what the greatest commandment answered quickly:
Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
What is the form of greatest love according to Jesus?
Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.
In fairness to Mark Sanford, he’s trying to make an argument for smaller government and does make a point and indicates that Rand is in the neighborhood of making a point. The problem is, that when we cite Ayn Rand, we are citing a person who is not about small government, she’s about no constraints whatsoever on anyone other than keeping them from constraining someone else. She makes Gordon Gecko come off sound like Gandhi. To his great credit, Sanford makes some arguments about her having something of a point, but recognizes that the ice on which he is skating, by referring to Rand, is thin. Frankly, it was too thin to make a valid point.
The ‘virtues’ of Ayn Rand are being advocated on talk radio every day. Her philosophy is being spoken of, increasingly, as good for the United States. Politicians are citing her more and more.
Ayn Rand must be seen for what she was and is, an ethical nihilist who is best appreciated as a fiction writer with crackpot ideas for an ideal society; a society that ultimately has no common good because it has no God.
It is not a society I want to be a part of.
No comments:
Post a Comment