The Virtue of Selfishness: Ayn Rand’s Model for a Better World
Over the past six decades, Ayn Rand’s largely misunderstood ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’ essay has both awoken and angered a society hellbent on black and white tribalism.
“Only a rationally selfish man is capable of love—because he is the only man capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising value. The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.”
Hypothetical:
An empath chooses to shut down a functioning society to save a small amount of lives to the detriment of the majority. Conversely, a sovereign citizen, successful in his pursuits, accepts risk as a trade off for existence. Once the empath invokes his lockdown rule, the sovereign citizen fails. As a result of the temporary law, a small amount of lives are saved, however, many other citizens are rendered derelict.
Who is the selfish one?
I believe, intrinsically, simply by remaining passive within the bounds of tyranny is selfish. It’s the banality of evil. Derived from the proto-Germanic selbaz, the word selfish has been thoroughly bastardised over the past century, its definition shifting from the original meaning (self-love) to the accusatory buzzword we know today.
The question we now face strikes as quite pertinent in this failing modernity: Is selfishness primarily a concern with oneself, or exclusively a concern with oneself? One suggests self-concern to the detriment of others, the other suggests self-concern with the intention to influence others. Perhaps this is where Ayn Rand failed in her explanation, and where her zealots draw the ire of an altruistic mainstream.
In order for a society to remain efficient, productive, cohesive, even prescient, each individual’s primary concern must be with himself. If an individual becomes the major stakeholder in his own interests, rather than a philosophy of social principle, a welfare state will transform into a more libertarian free market laced with more opportunity for the individual to prosper. Attach this philosophy to the majority, and cultural influence will dictate a situation where society has pulled itself up by its bootstraps. This is called the zen of selfishness, and can only be obtained through self-reflection and hard work. To be stoic within, and gentle without, is a trait that runs against the grain of the path of least resistance; everything that is worth the effort does.
One must still understand, however, that the virtue of respect, patience, and nuance, are required in this philosophical trait. To begin, one must live by the Judao-Christian social contract; this is the core foundation of societal function.
Is there a selfishness that lies within an individual’s pursuit of liberty? On the surface, perhaps. However, beneath lies an instinctive pursuit for the greater good. Amid the pursuit of one’s own liberty, a metaphorical domino falls, thus beginning a similar pursuit for another — selfishness, at least on a local level, prevails over altruism every day of the week.
Is it possible to be both successful, selfish and ethical? It all depends on your definitions of these terms. I believe it impossible to be ethically successful in wealth—to reach the top, one must be selfish, and people will be trampled whether that is your intention or not. This is the law of the universe and requires no rectification. However, I believe it absolutely possible to be both ethical and selfish in general day to day life. Without bringing religion into the equation, simply by living by the ten commandments in a stoic realm means there is plenty of breathing space for both.
Within the investment realm, to be successful in wealth suggests ethics must be put out to pasture. This is correct. It’s one thing to live a life of ethical selection, boycotting certain corporations because of a particular political belief, but apply that strategy to investment and one may very well starve. Life is a complex balance; the yin and yang of selfishness is no exception.
In the political realm, any spectrum of politics is inherently unethical. There is argument though, that violence can be justified to serve the greater good. But altruism doesn’t necessarily equate to ethics. Is it coincidence that humans are the only animals who consider the application of ethics and morality into their approximate society, yet are perhaps the only psychologically tormented species on the planet? Being unethical may be considered self-serving, but consider this: if the individual takes responsibility for himself in a fiscal, nutritional, and physical manner, then perhaps future generations won’t have the need to consider such a conundrum. After all, isn’t selfishness the only path to sovereignty, and sovereignty the purest path to an ethical society?
We have been indoctrinated to believe violence a sin, and pacifism a virtue. From a historical perspective, the implementation of Judao-Christian principles around the time of Christ is where this thinking began. Whilst modern society has accepted this notion in a general sense, what many fail to realise is that our species has survived and evolved for 3 million years prior, yet the past 2000 years has seen an accelerated devolution and dismantling of the fabric of life like we’ve never seen before. Coincidence? Clearly pacifism amid the people under the watchful eye of violent tyranny has played its role. Grand scale violence is leading our planet to a speedy doom, but one can’t help but think the passive populous are to blame. Again, life is complex.
The monopoly of grand scale violence perpetrated by government is abhorrent. It is the key mechanism used to control the masses, us, the abused horse in the piss-soaked stable. Without grand scale violence, government withers. Violence comes in many forms, and media manipulation of the masses is perhaps the most heinous violence of all. Pacifism cannot work as a viable tactic in the eye of this storm. Enter the age of fifth-generational violence. Man should have no qualms resorting to violence against an unjust authority in the pursuit of individual liberty.
Altruism: there is a legitimate argument to suggest that altruism goes against every fibre of our genetic makeup. (Richard Dawkins—The Selfish Gene) our genes are selfish by design, or at the very least selfish by default. There is also an argument suggesting that each act of altruism is motivated by selfishness.
*excerpt from The Atlas Society ‘Virtue of Selfishness’ review
What does Ayn Rand mean when she describes selfishness as a virtue?
Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each individual, is his or her own well-being. Since selfishness (as she understands it) is serious, rational, and a principled concern with one's own well-being, it turns out to be a prerequisite for the attainment of the ultimate moral value. For this reason, Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue.
In the introduction to her collection of essays on ethical philosophy, The Virtue of Selfishness (VOS), Rand writes that the "exact meaning" of selfishness is "concern with one's own interests". In that work, Rand argues that a virtue is an action by which one secures and protects one's rational values—ultimately, one's life and happiness. Since a concern with one's own interests is a character trait that, when translated into action, enables one to achieve and guard one's own well-being, it follows that selfishness is a virtue. One must manifest a serious concern for one's own interests if one is to lead a healthy, purposeful, fulfilling life.
Rand understands, though, that the popular usage of the word "selfish" is different from the meaning she ascribes to it. Many people use the adjective "selfish" to describe regard for one's own welfare to the disregard of the well-being of others. Moreover, many people would be willing to characterize any instance of desire-satisfaction in these circumstances as "selfish," no matter what its content. Thus, many people arrive at the following composite image: Selfish people are brutish people who are oblivious to the negative consequences of their actions for their friends and loved ones and who abuse the patience, trust, and goodwill of all comers to satisfy their petty whims.
Rand certainly recognizes that there are people who fit this description, and she certainly does not believe that their behavior is in any sense virtuous. But she opposes labeling them "selfish." Rand believes that this application of the word blurs important philosophical distinctions and foreordains false philosophical doctrines. First, this understanding of selfishness construes both whim-fulfillment and the disregard of others' interests as genuinely self-interested behaviors, which they are not. Second, this understanding of selfishness suggests an altruist framework for thinking about ethics.
To elaborate on the first point: Rand believes that the elements of human self-interest are objective. All human beings have objective biological and psychological needs, and one's actual interests are identified by reference to these needs. Mere whim-fulfilment is therefore not constitutive of human well-being because one's whims might be at odds with one's actual needs. Moreover, the character traits of the "selfish" brute are not compatible with any human being's actual, rational interests. Humans live in a social world; in order to maximize the value of their interactions with others, they should cultivate a firm commitment to the virtues of rationality, justice, productiveness, and benevolence. A commitment to these virtues naturally precludes such brutish behaviour.
To elaborate on the second point: Rand argues that the conventional understanding of selfishness implies an altruistic framework for thinking about ethics. Within this framework, the question "Who is the beneficiary of this act?" is the most important moral question; right acts are acts undertaken for the "benefit" of others and wrong acts are acts undertaken for one's own "benefit." Rand believes that this approach passes over the crucial ethical questions: "What are values?" and "What is the nature of the right and the good?" In addition, the altruist framework suggests a dichotomy between actions that promote the interests of others to one's own detriment and actions that promote one’s own interests to the detriment of others. Rand rejects this dichotomy and affirms the harmony of human interests.
Rand writes, "Altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his own life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others…it permits no concept of benevolent co-existence among men…it permits no concept of justice".
For her, the truly selfish person is a self-respecting, self-supporting human being who neither sacrifices others to himself nor sacrifices himself to others. This value-orientation is brilliantly dramatized in the character of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead. The further elements of selfishness—the character traits that, when translated into action, implement a concern for one's own real interests—are discussed and illustrated in that work, in Atlas Shrugged, and throughout Rand's non-fiction.
Finally, one might ask why Ayn Rand chose to use the term "selfish" to designate the virtuous trait of character described above rather than to coin some new term for this purpose. This is an interesting question. Probably, Rand wished to challenge us to think through the substantial moral assumptions that have infected our ethical vocabulary. Her language also suggests that she believes that any other understanding of selfishness would amount to an invalid concept, i.e., one that is not appropriate to the facts and/or to man's mode of cognition. In addition, one might interpret Rand as asserting that her definition captures the historical and etymological meaning of the word. But certainly, her praise of selfishness communicates instantaneously and provocatively the practical, this-worldly, egoistic, and profoundly Greek orientation of her ethical thought.
© Chuck Hagen
