Tuesday, November 10, 2009

The Moral Vacuum in Objectivism

In one of Reason magazine's many retrospectives on Ayn Rand, Shikha Dalmia neatly summarizes a major problem in Objectivist ethics:

This has profound and unfortunate political consequences. On the practical level, it makes it difficult to build a strong and growing anti-government movement based solely on Rand's philosophy, because the older cohort of her followers is falling off on a regular basis. On the theoretical level, Rand's ideas offer no real possibility of developing robust civil society responses to address the needs of those down on their luck. It is difficult to imagine a Randian qua Randian, say, volunteering in a soup kitchen to feed the hungry, or even founding the Fraternal Order of Fellow Randians to provide free health coverage and housing to jobless and homeless Randians. Since misfortune and distress are a normal part of the human condition, a philosophy that offers no positive, private solutions to deal with them will just have a harder time making the case against government intervention stick.

Rand held that charity was not only not morally obligatory, but was immoral because it placed the needs of others above those of the self. I've always found this to be an inadequate ethical premise, if for only pragmatic reasons.

Eventually, each one of us will find ourselves flat on our back and helpless, like a flipped-over turtle. We'll be down, crushed, and broken, and we'll need someone to pick us up -- with no expectation of remuneration. The Objectivist would simply pass by without stopping. And a society wholly comprised of such individuals will degrade over time because members would not get assistance when they need it. Some altruism is necessary.

Of course, a society in which there existed a general social contract -- you pick me up when I'm down, and vice versa -- could be said to espouse selfishness as the fundamental motive.

7 comments:

bob said...

People study and talk about philosophies because there are flaws to be found.
Reading Atlas Shrugged earlier this year I was bothered by the selfish nature of Objectivism. Even as I was rooting for the indutrialist to stop the intrusiveness of the government.

I wonder if we aren't more interested in her ideas now because she looks more like a prophet than a philosopher.

Dan Trabue said...

Of course, a society in which there existed a general social contract -- you pick me up when I'm down, and vice versa -- could be said to espouse selfishness as the fundamental motive.

Perhaps. Which may be one reason why you I suspect you might prefer Jesus' solution:

But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Creator in heaven...

If you love [ie, do good for, help, etc] those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?


While it is true that, as you do unto others, so often you will have done unto you, that need not be the motivation. Rather, we ought to just do the right thing for its own sake (and that, in turn, will be better for our sake and for society, as well).

Cynicism aside, I suspect you're more Jesus-ian, than Rand-ian on this point, yes?

John said...

Cynicism aside, I suspect you're more Jesus-ian, than Rand-ian on this point, yes?


Probably, Dan. But right now I tend to err in favor of taking care of myself and my family (and to hell with the rest of the world) while I sort things out.

John said...

bob wrote:

Reading Atlas Shrugged earlier this year I was bothered by the selfish nature of Objectivism. Even as I was rooting for the indutrialist to stop the intrusiveness of the government.


Yeah, and the literal worship of the dollar was creepy.

Dan Trabue said...

But right now I tend to err in favor of taking care of myself and my family (and to hell with the rest of the world) while I sort things out.

"There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven..."

rtaylortitle said...

You confuse tax-funded charity with individual and/or organized voluntary donations or services.
An individual's first concern should ALWAYS be their person. Obviously, I would be in no position to donate to individuals or organizations to assist others unless I am in a position MYSELF to do so.
You obviously subscribe to context dropping when you equalize the private with the state.
I'm 63, just read "Atlas Shrugged" for the 3rd time and completely agree with its ideals.

John said...

You confuse tax-funded charity with individual and/or organized voluntary donations or services....You obviously subscribe to context dropping when you equalize the private with the state.


How do you gather this impression from what I have written?