Objectivist Morality

[Objectivist]

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues…
— Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.

From What is the Objectivist Position in Morality (Ethics)?

For thousands of years, people have been taught that goodness consists in serving others. "Love your brother as yourself" teach the Christian scriptures. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" preach the Marxists. Even the liberal Utilitarian philosophers, many of whom defended free market capitalism, taught that one should act always to attain "the greatest good for the greatest number." The result of this code has been a bloody trail of wars and revolutions to enforce self-sacrifice, and an endless struggle in society to achieve equality among people. It seems loving our fellow man is a fine way to hate him.

According to Objectivism, a person's own life and happiness is the ultimate good. To achieve happiness requires a morality of rational selfishness, one that does not give undeserved rewards to others and that does not ask them for oneself.

It [objectivism] teaches what became plain as the West got rich: that a harmony of interests exists among rational individuals, so that no one's benefit need come at the price of another's suffering. Because one person's happiness does not come at the expense of another's, a life of mutual respect and benevolent independence is possible for all. It is the doctrine of "live and let live," to the full and in every way.

Now how can such a harmony of interests exist? Aren't our interests really in conflict? Aren't we each at the other's throat? The answer is that human beings are not vampires, feeding on each other, nor need we live as hunter-gatherers, simply feeding on limited natural resources. Where animals graze the land, humans can cultivate it. The human mode of living is production: the creation of value from the raw materials around us. Human beings see a rock, and we invent tools, smelting techniques, stone buildings, steel girders, paved streets, and so on and on. We see a tree, and we make furniture, fuel, papers, books, construction materials, medicines, and so on and on. The application of reason to our problems allows us to create solutions. Thus we are not like dogs squabbling over meat or children sharing a pie; we are each creators, making new goods through our productive work, materially and morally.

The virtues of Objectivism, then, define principles of action that lead to the achievement of objective values, considered in the full context of human life. The key principle of the Objectivist ethics is rationality, as against mysticism and whim. The ethics is a code of benevolence and justice toward other people: holding evil-doers to account for their vices, but treating rational and productive people with good will and generosity. It entails integrity, allowing no breach between our principles and our actions. A rational being practices honesty, loving the truth more than deception; and he lives first-hand, on the basis of his own judgment and effort, so independence is a virtue. The Objectivist ethics places industry and productivity in one's chosen work at the center of life's concerns. It is the code of a person who holds his head up with pride, in an objective appreciation of his merits and in aspiration to improvement in the future.

Traditional ethics contrast the image of man as an animal with the ideal of man as an otherworldly monk. Man is by nature a ravening beast, on this view, and he must be taught self-denial and self-sacrifice to be angelic and meek. Objectivism holds that man lives best as a trader, acting rationally for his own sake and dealing with others by exchanging value for value. Traditional ethics extol courage in the face of death as a virtue; Objectivism counsels integrity in the long-term pursuit of happiness. Traditional ethics extol charity as the mark of nobility; Objectivism extols productive achievement, because no one exists merely for the sake of others. It is an ethic for those who want all life has to offer, consistently, over the full course of life.

[jascowhiz0]

So which is more important; your happiness or the community's happiness?

[Osborn F Enready]

Obviously the individual, because individuals make up a community of free-will.

[Objectivist]

According to Objectivism, a person's own life and happiness is the ultimate good. To achieve happiness requires a morality of rational selfishness, one that does not give undeserved rewards to others and that does not ask them for oneself.

[Alive]

Quote by: Objectivist My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem.

Empirically false, lots of men live without such values. Alternatively, everyone alive lives with them, in which case there is little point in elucidating them as everyone already follows them.

For thousands of years, people have been taught that goodness consists in serving others. "Love your brother as yourself" teach the Christian scriptures. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" preach the Marxists. Even the liberal Utilitarian philosophers, many of whom defended free market capitalism, taught that one should act always to attain "the greatest good for the greatest number." The result of this code has been a bloody trail of wars and revolutions to enforce self-sacrifice, and an endless struggle in society to achieve equality among people. It seems loving our fellow man is a fine way to hate him.

Not really. The love was always conditional, and it was others who were hated, not the ones we were taught to love; the wars were against the hated and not the loved. True pacifists exist, and actually do not fight wars.

Jesus also said I come to bring a sword, and his followers have tended to be quite explicit in their condemnation of heretics. It was not "self-sacrifice" that they fought for, but the spread of their particular brand of the religion, which was perhaps proxy for other causes, self-sacrifice not among them.

Similar story with Marxists, who advocated forms of violent overthrow against the enemy from the beginning. And love was never the motive.

It [objectivism] teaches what became plain as the West got rich: that a harmony of interests exists among rational individuals, so that no one's benefit need come at the price of another's suffering. Because one person's happiness does not come at the expense of another's, a life of mutual respect and benevolent independence is possible for all. It is the doctrine of "live and let live," to the full and in every way.

This is fairly true, especially in our modern industrialized economy that relies on specialization and trade of goods produced through that specialization. These days, wealth is very much based on skills, and trading of those skills, which means that everyone working for one's own interest often creates optimal situations. However, this was not so true in the neolithic age, when land for farming was the biggest source of wealth. In those days, happiness is far more zero-sum; only a small minority can live well because the need for farming labor just for human substinance is so high. That minority elite is often determined by ability to kill those who reject it. Perhaps objectivism makes limited sense as a philosophy for our age, but this historical problem shows it entirely non-universal.

The virtues of Objectivism, then, define principles of action that lead to the achievement of objective values, considered in the full context of human life. The key principle of the Objectivist ethics is rationality, as against mysticism and whim. The ethics is a code of benevolence and justice toward other people: holding evil-doers to account for their vices,

This is not self-interest or particularly rational. A person who punishes an evil-doer does so at full cost to himself, and to everyone's benefit; as has been noted by evolutionary biologists examining human society; punishment is itself an altruistic, "irrational" act (at least when not enacted by a governing body), not really different than, say, charity.

but treating rational and productive people with good will and generosity. It entails integrity, allowing no breach between our principles and our actions. A rational being practices honesty, loving the truth more than deception;

Why? What is rational about honesty or integrity?

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Alive Jesus also said I come to bring a sword, and his followers have tended to be quite explicit in their condemnation of heretics. It was not "self-sacrifice" that they fought for, but the spread of their particular brand of the religion, which was perhaps proxy for other causes, self-sacrifice not among them. Similar story with Marxists, who advocated forms of violent overthrow against the enemy from the beginning. And love was never the motive.

History upholds everything that I have said.

Christians believe that altruism is an ideal. Objectivism holds that that is the greatest sin. Nothing good has come from the belief that you must sacrifice yourself for others. Only the countless wars and bloodshed.

Marxists believe in a form of government where it was ok for the government to seize private property and control industries so that your brother gets the same as you. It didn't matter whether you made more then that brother, you still got the same compensation for it.

The Marxist ideas were sanctioned because people believe that the greatest virtue is to sacrifice your production and your strengths and give them to people that need. [Being your brother's keeper]

This is fairly true, especially in our modern industrialized economy that relies on specialization and trade of goods produced through that specialization. These days, wealth is very much based on skills, and trading of those skills, which means that everyone working for one's own interest often creates optimal situations. However, this was not so true in the neolithic age, when land for farming was the biggest source of wealth. In those days, happiness is far more zero-sum; only a small minority can live well because the need for farming labor just for human substinance is so high. That minority elite is often determined by ability to kill those who reject it. Perhaps objectivism makes limited sense as a philosophy for our age, but this historical problem shows it entirely non-universal.

Why are we concerned of the past? Concern yourself of the present and what applies to the world currently as we see it. The realities of the present make an impact on us, not the actions of the past.

This is not self-interest or particularly rational. A person who punishes an evil-doer does so at full cost to himself, and to everyone's benefit; as has been noted by evolutionary biologists examining human society; punishment is itself an altruistic, "irrational" act (at least when not enacted by a governing body), not really different than, say, charity.

It is self-interest to hold an evil-doer accountable. It might save your life or protect you from them. The act of punishment is not altruistic. You are not sacrificing yourself to punish another. You help yourself by punish another.

Why? What is rational about honesty or integrity?

Because when you lie you fake reality. Reality is what you live in, it's where you exist. Do you want to live a fake life? Is it rational to want to live in something that does not exist?

[sdbest]

Quote by: Objectivist According to Objectivism, a person's own life and happiness is the ultimate good. To achieve happiness requires a morality of rational selfishness, one that does not give undeserved rewards to others and that does not ask them for oneself.

Are you the kind of person who can be "happy" when all around you are not? Can you enjoy a feast among the starving? Can you enjoy warmth when others live in cold?

And if the fates conspire to force you--through no fault of your own--to come to my home and beg for bread, should I turn you and your family away?

Just wondering.

Regards
S.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: sdbest Are you the kind of person who can be "happy" when all around you are not? Can you enjoy a feast among the starving? Can you enjoy warmth when others live in cold?

First and foremost what other people feel is of no importance to me. The only feeling I know and feel are my own. Can I enjoy a feast among the starving? Yes. Can enjoy the warmth? Yes.

Do you want to know why? Because I know that I worked hard to achieve it and that it is my right to have it. Do you want to know my favorite holiday? Thanksgiving. It's strictly an American holiday. The lavish meal is a symbol of the fact that abundant consumption is the result and reward of production.

And if the fates conspire to force you--through no fault of your own--to come to my home and beg for bread, should I turn you and your family away?

There is no such thing as fate.

I would never beg. Rather I know that my virtues, abilities, and strengths will allow me to succeed where ever I go, because I know that men of ability are always in high demand. I may not be able to afford many luxury, but at least I will be living knowing that I am living by my own means, my own accomplishments, and the talent that I have rather then taking the productivity and talent of others.

[sdbest]

Quote by: Objectivist ... I know that my virtues, abilities, and strengths will allow me to succeed where ever I go, because I know that men of ability are always in high demand.

Selfishness is not a virtue, and is not a characteristic of many men of ability.

FWIW, the nature of my work requires that I hire--from time to time--"men of ability" and women. You can be sure that someone with your approach to other people would never be retained by me. I'm confident that someone so self-centered and self-obsessed and so disregarding of other people as you would be unable to work effectively within a team of other "men of ability."

You might want to consider the fact that few, if anyone, has has ever succeeded at anything solely on their own efforts. For the simple reason that merit is only one of many factors that influences who and who doesn't succeed and who is rewarded or not. Even Ayn Rand needed a publisher.

I wonder what weaknesses you have that make being concerned for others so difficult--such an impossible, repugnant burden--for you.

I truly and sincerely, and without a trace of sarcasm, wish you good fortune in your lonely life.

Regards
S.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: sdbest Selfishness is not a virtue, and is not a characteristic of many men of ability. FWIW, the nature of my work requires that I hire--from time to time--"men of ability" and women. You can be sure that someone with your approach to other people would never be retained by me. I'm confident that someone so self-centered and self-obsessed and so disregarding of other people as you would be unable to work effectively within a team of other "men of ability." You might want to consider the fact that few, if anyone, has has ever succeeded at anything solely on their own efforts. For the simple reason that merit is only one of many factors that influences who and who doesn't succeed and who is rewarded or not. Even Ayn Rand needed a publisher. I wonder what weaknesses you have that make being concerned for others so difficult--such an impossible, repugnant burden--for you. I truly and sincerely, and without a trace of sarcasm, wish you good fortune in your lonely life. Regards S.

May I recommend Ayn Rand's book: The Virtue of Selfishness.

[Alive]

Quote by: Objectivist History upholds everything that I have said. Christians believe that altruism is an ideal. Objectivism holds that that is the greatest sin. Nothing good has come from the belief that you must sacrifice yourself for others. Only the countless wars and bloodshed.

Um, you are not responding to my point. My point was that for Christians, love was always conditional. It was not the love that lead to wars, but the hatred (broadly defined) present in the religion and/or its institutions. Pacifist sects of Christianity do not fight wars, which proves in itself that love of others isn't the cause of war.

In other words, if everyone took up an unconditionally altruistic religion war would stop. It is not the love in Christianity that brings wars but the hate, which itself does not depend on the love.

Why are we concerned of the past? Concern yourself of the present and what applies to the world currently as we see it. The realities of the present make an impact on us, not the actions of the past.

Uh, I wasn't the one who brought up Marxism and Christian wars. The past is revealing because it tells us things about the present. It is also simply an interesting subject in its own right. So tell me, do you think objectivism is only a religion for our time and not for all time?

It is self-interest to hold an evil-doer accountable. It might save your life or protect you from them.

Or it might not. Consider a murderer who kills people at random, in a huge population. Your own chance of dying is very small, so going after him at full risk and cost to yourself is against your self interest. However, if everyone else thinks that way, the murderer can get away killing people free. The guy who decides to punish the murderer at his own cost and therefore benefit the rest of society is doing an altruistic act.

It is simply a mathematical fact that punishment for crime can only be explained altruistically under certain conditions.

Because when you lie you fake reality. Reality is what you live in, it's where you exist. Do you want to live a fake life? Is it rational to want to live in something that does not exist?

When you lie you misrepresent reality to other people for your own benefit. This does not "fake reality" for yourself. It is completely rational to lie for personal benefit if all you are interested in is self-benefit. If you are an altruist, on the other hand, honesty makes sense as a way to benefit others.

[SoylentGreen]

Objectivist Is it rational to want to live in something that does not exist?

Good question. If we believe its not then should the fact that Rand's religion doesn't actually exist and that you want to live in it give us any cause to question your rationality?

[sdbest]

Quote by: Objectivist May I recommend Ayn Rand's book: The Virtue of Selfishness.

...which, as a young man, I read. Not only read, but also "believed." I also read Atlas Shrugged. I found Rand's arguments compelling, at first. Probably because they fed my own youthful selfishness, and desire for a seemingly ethical rationale or excuse to ignore what I viewed as demands from other people--demands which I was ill-equipped to meet.

My view now is that the fear of those demands (and fear it was) was a product of my lack of confidence in my own strength to not only shoulder my own burdens and pursue my own ambitions but also help others along the way--and also to have the strength to ask help of others when needed.

Ayn Rand's is a foolish philosophy because it weakens--not strengthens--those who follow it. In all aspects of life--physical, mental, ethical, social--strength comes from use and incrementally adding "weight". The more you work, think, live ethically, extend a hand to others the more you challenge yourself in all areas, and the stronger you become. Weakness comes from not doing things, including not helping others.

Regards
S.

[Athena]

Quote by: Objectivist According to Objectivism, a person's own life and happiness is the ultimate good. To achieve happiness requires a morality of rational selfishness, one that does not give undeserved rewards to others and that does not ask them for oneself.

I don't know how well this works for mothers. You see we have this problem. Children are born dependent on their parents. For the first several years of a child's life, someone must care for the child 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. How do the needs of a child fit into putting one's self first?

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Athena I don't know how well this works for mothers. You see we have this problem. Children are born dependent on their parents. For the first several years of a child's life, someone must care for the child 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. How do the needs of a child fit into putting one's self first?

Since it is your child, and you naturally love that child, you must take care of it for your own well being. You take care of your child selfishly knowing that if your child was to die you would be devastated. The word selfish is a bad word to use and it conveys a negative meaning. All it simply means is that you place your interests first.

You do not sacrifice yourself to take care of your child. You are not a sacrificial animal at your child's demand.

[SoylentGreen]

Objectivist Since it is your child, and you naturally love that child, you must take care of it for your own well being.

Does this also extend to the love you have for your wife or husband or your parents and by default to your partners parents.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: sdbest My view now is that the fear of those demands (and fear it was) was a product of my lack of confidence in my own strength to not only shoulder my own burdens and pursue my own ambitions but also help others along the way--and also to have the strength to ask help of others when needed.

You mistake Rand's philosophy. You should not have to shoulder other people's burdens. It is their responsibility not yours. You do not need strength to ask help of others, you compensate for that help. You give value for value. You trade one skill for another. You do not take just because you need.

Ayn Rand's is a foolish philosophy because it weakens--not strengthens--those who follow it. In all aspects of life--physical, mental, ethical, social--strength comes from use and incrementally adding "weight". The more you work, think, live ethically

Objectivism holds that working for your rational self-interest is a morally right think to do. Everyone works for something. Why work for other's interest when the only way to happiness is to work for your own?

Thinking is important in Objectivism. It is only through reason (thinking) that one can perceive reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

What moral code do you live ethically by? Every man is means to himself. He must not sacrifice himself to others and he must not sacrifice others to himself. Man is not a sacrificial animal. The highest moral purpose of his life is to live for himself and for his happiness and to let other people do the same.

...extend a hand to others the more you challenge yourself in all areas, and the stronger you become. Weakness comes from not doing things, including not helping others.

Altruism does not strengthen you, it does not strengthen others. Giving up your talent for nothing does not strengthen you. It diminishes what you have to give. Giving something without having them work for it does not strengthen them. It does not make that person better.

You have hit the jackpot on weakness. Weakness comes from not doing things. So where are you with those that create from their own ability and talent and expect to be compensated for their production? So where are you with those that do nothing and take for nothing because they need?

[Objectivist]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Does this also extend to the love you have for your wife or husband or your parents and by default to your partners parents.

I'm going to recommend reading this article completely: Love and Selfishness

Here is some quotations from the article:

It [Love] is the most selfish experience possible, in the true sense of the term: it benefits your life in a way that involves no sacrifice of others to yourself or of yourself to others. To love a person is selfish because it means that you value that particular person, that he or she makes your life better, that he or she is an intense source of joy--to you. A "disinterested" love is a contradiction in terms. One cannot be neutral to that which one values. The time, effort and money you spend on behalf of someone you love are not sacrifices, but actions taken because his or her happiness is crucially important to your own. Such actions would constitute sacrifices only if they were done for a stranger--or for an enemy. Those who argue that love demands self-denial must hold the bizarre belief that it makes no personal difference whether your loved one is healthy or sick, feels pleasure or pain, is alive or dead.

You love someone because he or she is a value--a selfish value to you, as determined by your standards--just as you are a value to him or her.

The nature of love places certain demands on those who wish to enjoy it. You must regard yourself as worthy of being loved. Those who expect to be loved, not because they offer some positive value, but because they don't--i.e., those who demand love as altruistic duty--are parasites. Someone who says "Love me just because I need it" seeks an unearned spiritual value--in the same way that a thief seeks unearned wealth. To quote a famous line from The Fountainhead: "To say 'I love you,' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"

[Objectivist]

To Sdbest:

The principles of Objectivism from The Ayn Rand Institute: Home are these:

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.

In order to disagree with Objectivism you have to hold Reality is not independent of emotions, wishes, hopes, or fears and that facts are not facts, but facts are what you want them to be.

You have to believe that there is another means besides reason to perceive reality, there is another source of knowledge, and that reason is not the basic principle of survival.

You have to say that the purpose of man is to live for another man. That his interests do not matter and that you have to rely on another man to be interested in your needs in order to survive.

And finally you have to say that man has the right to initiate force against another man to get what he wants. He has to say that the government has the right to initiate force on anyone they choose. He has to say that freedom is a right that the government gives you, not a right which you are entitled to just because you exist. You have to believe in a system where it is morally right to obtain value by force, or by stealing.

Are you prepared to disagree?

[banko]

Quote by: Objectivist