The Virtue of Selfishness

Rating:
Summary: my subjective take on it...
Review: Cold war ramblings. People throw words like rationality and enlightenment around and all over randian or marxist - college minded arenas etc. this is a historically significant book but for those seeking less reactive and more stable ideologies I'd recommend something else.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting, flawed, worth reading.
Review: I'm not a philosophical expert, but I find Rand's epistemology to be very bad, basically little more than a twisted version of nominalism. However, I stand by my former assertion that there are some compelling and interesting ideas present in the ethical facet of her philosophy that stand alone from the epistemological foundation. Because, quite frankly, Rand's epistemology is not good. (At this point, I direct objectivists to hit "not helpful" and skip the rest of the review, because they probably hate me already.)

Rand's basic claim is that man's life should be used as a moral criterion, and a moral life supplicates a rational means of elucidating information and identifying what is right and what is wrong. With this NEW concept of egoism, Rand and Nathaniel Brandon explain that MY happiness should be my most important goal, but not to satisfy my happiness with whims, cheap thrills, or hedonistic kicks. (Brandon's essay "The Psychology of Pleasure" does a good job illustrating what a rationally selfish man seeks to give him pleasure in the context of art, love, and productive work.)

The prima facie perspective suggests that this should be workable, and Rand's confident, florid prose (which I must confess I like) might sway you. But I became skeptical of her argument when she talks about the immortal being who can have no values because it is not alive, nothing is for or against it. I don't see why an immortal would be incapable of valuing anything, and Rand's argument doesn't flesh that out enough. Could not an immortal being still love and value things because they give her happiness? Or is an immortal being without the desire to be happy? Not that I know any immortals personally, but you know...

Still, I think the basic premise lends itself to some interesting ideas. Of course, I'm one of those hardcore libertarian folks who believe in individualism, responsibility, small government, and all those good things. Since Rand was in many ways the same, I find myself agreeing with her on many issues. And let's face it, we usually like reading stuff that reflect our own ideas. In this volume, there's a pair of great essays called "Collectivized 'Rights'" and "Man's Rights" that tie in pretty well with the libertarian mindset. Also great is the essay "Racism," a brilliant, scathing attack on bigotry, although she takes it farther than you'd expect and writes some intuitive tidbits. Plus, I get a kick out of some of Rand's terms, like calling the USSR a "slave pen" and her use of "goon squad" in the last essay. Good stuff, hehe.

In my previous review of this book, I gave it 5 stars because I thought it was interesting. In this, my second review, I am deducting a star. Not because of my disagreement with the philosophy (although I DO disagree with a big chunk of it), but because I think this collection of essays misses a number of issues that, if they'd been addressed, may have given the ethical part of Rand's philosophy more credence. For instance, she doesn't accommodate much benevolence in this collection, but I think she could have worked it in. (She touches upon it with "The Ethics of Emergencies," but it doesn't answer a number of questions.) There aren't many Howard Roarks and John Galts in the world...most people aren't perfect, and need to cooperate and help each other in order to succeed. However, one of Rand's most important points, I think, is that human relationships should exist without sacrifice. Every man is responsible for his own survival, and it is morally wrong to sacrifice yourself for someone unimportant to you, and equally immoral to expect someone else's sacrifice for your sake. This doesn't eliminate charity, though. You just shouldn't bring harm to yourself in order to help someone. Of course, you could deleteriously affect your own welfare to help someone, but it might not be a sacrifice depending on the circumstances. Say you could pay fifty million dollars to cure your wife of the ULTRA DEATH VIRUS OF DOOM (ominous, eh?). Doing so is not a sacrifice, since your wife should be more important than money, of course. I think a lot of Rand's critics missed points like this. It wasn't ALL about money.

Even though Rand's ideas about love and sex come through, uh, rough in her fiction, here it's very clear what she was trying to show (questionable though it was, at least in The Fountainhead...Atlas Shrugged was just consenting sex that was rough). She avers strongly that love is an entirely selfish thing....you don't just love some random person off the street as favor. You love someone that mirrors personal qualities that are important to you: intelligence, conviction, self-esteem, and morality, for instance. I strongly concur with her on this one, and Brandon writes a good essay about it in the aforementioned "The Psychology of Pleasure."

I also think Rand's argument against bringing harm to others is too shallow. She deals with this in a part of the first essay, but doesn't get into it enough. This complaint isn't necessarily a problem with the philosophy itself, because Rand may have had good answers to this and other issues. But I think the book probably should have added more depth to this topic, as well as some others, but I'm not going to discuss them all.

I suggest that people read this book carefully, note to good bits of her ethics, identify the not-so-good bits, and keep it around for a laugh. She's so venomous about some issues that it gives me a chuckle. (That eyeball analogy is good stuff, hehe.) She also has some great arguments against the ethical basis for socialism.

Rating:
Summary: Cut out the Middleman
Review: I recommend this book over Ayn Rand's novels. You don't have to put up with hundreds of pages of the conversations of Howard Roark, Dominique and John Galt. This reader is always surprised by the perennial claim that the author's Fountainhead novel is rated second on the all time best seller list after the Bible. For the reader who wants some exposure to Ayn Rand's philosophy called Objectivism, this book, "The Virtue of Selfishness" is the way to go. This way the reader can cut out the middleman and get the philosophy straight from the author. You actually get a more well rounded view of her philosophy. As a reader who tackled both the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, I consider my time was better spent with this book. My problem with this book is that I feel the author could have done a better job explaining how Objectivism would work within a society, not just the individual. Ayn Rand extols pure capitalism and the U.S.A. was her adopted country, and the country closest to her ideal. Why didn't she mention or explain away examples such as J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie or John D. Rockefeller where the big winners can actually change the rules of the game from "free for all capitalism" to monopoly. The book is also
silent on the segment of society requiring charity. What would be the effect on a society based solely on Ayn Rand's philosophy ?

Rating:
Summary: Review of the Book, not the Ideas
Review: I am writing, ostensibly, to provide you with some information regarding the book, in order that you may make a more rational decision as to whether you will purchase it.

Rand is often provocative, and mention of her/and or her philosophy can create instant dichotomies. I will not, in this review, critique the ideational content of her work. I offer this review with some "objective", pardon the pun, criticism.

1. This work offers a concise, fairly complete philosophy (which you may or may not agree with), from the essential and foundational steps, to their eventual results in daily life. This complete-package approach is an interesting window into her philosophy. Several issues could have been explored in more detail surely, but this collection of essays acts primarily to spark thinking on behalf of the reader.

2. Her philosophy is a shocking alternative to the present implicity accepted norms in society. Her counter-arguments to both traditional and contemporary systems of ethics are interesting and worth consideration, even if you eventually endeavour to refute them.

3. This work presents profound ideas in rather straightforward text. Topics include: ethics metaphysics politics values comments on contemporary trends in philosophy comments on ethical relativism

4. This work provides some insight into the breadth and depth which simple assumptions may have on daily life. Rands ideas, and those she illustrates for purposes of refutation, are extrapolated from basic intellectual concepts to day-to-day effects on human life. This concept-to-consequence style of writing offers a holistic perspective that can easily be applied to the work of other philosophers. For this reason I suggest this book to students of philosophy to gain a perspective of the impact of philosophical ideas.

5. Finally, this is perhaps the most succinct and most accessible of Rand's works, and a reading of it should allow sufficient insight into the body of her thought to understand her stance on several issues. If you are looking for a 'summary of Rand', this is the book I would suggest.

Rating:
Summary: Individualism and self-interest lead to an enlightened world
Review: Far from offering an excuse to be wantonly self-interested, Rand compels the reader to understand the difference between irrational whim and reasoned self-interest. This book is no primer for the would be hedonist. Rather, it is a call to anyone who seeks to find and honest and rational lens through which to view the modern world.

The reader is advised to persevere through the initial chapters as the author lays out the case for why she wrote the book. Once a foundation for discussion has been laid, you are exposed to Ms. Rand's clarity of thought and visionary understanding of the times we live in. The book is peppered with references to "today" (meaning the early 1960's when the book was written) that sound like they were written TODAY!

This book would also benefit anyone who seeks to understand the Objectivist philosophy that is the basis for Ayn Rand's two monumental novels, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

I plan to read it over and over, until I have it committed to heart.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting read.
Review: This is probably one of maybe fifty books that everyone should read in high school or college. Although the debate around the title subject is frankly a bit on the semantic side (Is it truly "selfish" to let someone drown even if you WANT them to not?), there are ideas and ideals here that just about everyone can borrow at least parts from in formulating their own world view.

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful; interesting twist
Review: This is one of my favorite philosophical books I've read. After reading each of Ayn Rand's books, it is always interesting how I see things from a different perspective. If you'renot sure about the term 'Selfishness' just try this book because it is a great conversation piece with nearly every crowd of people. It is excellently written and very clear and concise.

Rating:
Summary: The best ethical formulation in the history of philosophy.
Review: Many years ago while discussing the Chrysler bail-out with two colleagues, they mentioned that Lee Iacoca, in pursuing the government action, was pursuing his "self-interest". The discussion on government interference in economic matters interestingly took place in the context of a debate on the contents of this book. Listening to me defend its concept of self-interest and why I thought humans should indeed pursue their self-interest, they seem perplexed that I was objecting vociferously to the Chrysler bail-out. After all, was not Lee Iacoca pursuing his self-interests when he arranged the government bail-out?

This conversation, done with two people who are now fairly well-known philosophers, illustrates the deep bias surrounding the concept of self-interest. The fact that Lee Iacoca thought he was pursuing his self-interest in arranging the bail-out does not mean that it really was in his self-interest. If a person is lost in a forest and starving, and then spots a mushroom he/she believes is nutritious but in fact is poisonous, are we to accept that the eating of the mushroom is in the person's interest? The fact that we believe something is in our interest does not make it so.

The author of this book makes a brilliant case for the ethics of self-interest, with this concept being rooted in the organism's identity. It is the characteristics of the organism that determine what is good or bad for it. Ethical values arise when the organism can exhibit choice over a collection of alternatives, and is distinctly self-aware of these choices. And due to the complexity of both the organism and the environment, the context will determine the choices available to the organism. An Eskimo in the Artic North certainly faces different choices than an individual living in the jungles of the Amazon. In addition, because the organism is not omniscient, the choices made may act to the organism's detriment. Adaptation takes time, and the organism will suffer or even die if bad choices are made.

Organisms with a self-awareness of choices, or moral agents, are thus governed by what characteristics they possess, and the environments in which they find themselves. The author of this book argues brilliantly for a morality of self-interest, and her care and skill in elucidating the concept of self-interest and ethics in general, makes this book the best formulation of ethics in the history of philosophy. In addition, the book could be read in the context of modern theories of rational agents, both in philosophy and the field of artificial intelligence.

The author has defined "rationality" in a manner quite different from what the word stands for in economic theory, the latter of which views it as a descriptive concept. If a person is labeled as "rational" in economic theory, it means that the person is attempting to optimize his self-interest, regardless of the facts that might indicate otherwise. "Rational" for the author is quite different. What the author is saying, and is most profound, is that many of the actions that have been taken as an excuse for self-interest, such as lying, deception, and violence, are indeed never in one's interest. To label a human as "rational" in her view, is to characterize the person as one who is optimizing their self-interests, but these interests, because of the nature of the biology of humans, and the nature of the human psyche, never involve lying, deception, and violence. This is a bold and interesting move in ethical theory, and differentiates the author's formulation from most others in the history of philosophy.

The ethical doctrines of this author are also intimately related to what science can tell us what indeed is in the interest of organisms, in order for them to optimize their health and general well-being. Most refreshing though is that this formulation of ethics is exceedingly optimistic. It asks the reader to consider that rationality, productiveness, and pride are the virtues of self-interest. Plundering, violence, cheating, and deception never are. With its emphasis on the power of the human mind and its efficacy, it is certainly a philosophy that meshes will with our time. Even though written down over four decades ago, its optimism coupled with its practicality makes it pure 21st century.

Rating:
Summary: Ignore the nonsense, this is a good read.
Review: This book is an excellent introduction to Ayn Rand's ethical theory, which consists of her particular version of egoism. A person's life is their own and should not be sacrificed to others or for a lesser value against their will(or contrary to their "rational self interest"). Also, a person should not expect the sacrifice of others for his/her sake either. The typical objection to this is that it eliminates charity. This is not true. She definitely needed to clarify this point more, but according to Rand, if a person sees value in giving to others, it is perfectly moral and rational to do so. The point is, it should not be a moral DUTY to do so, it should be a choice. As long as you are not trading values for non-values, and as long as it is your choice and you are not forced, it is ok. Giving and helping is not what Rand was against, but, as already mentioned, she did not make this clear enough. Her reaction against altruism is so extreme that at times it does seem that she sees any act of charity or goodwill as a sign of communist tendencies. Rand's argument is, although obviously not completely valid, at least clearly expressed and reasonable. Some ammendments and clarifications are needed.

People really need to take the time to go through Rand's work and separate the good points she makes from the bad and not allow her polarizing style of expression to lock them into either swallowing it whole or rejecting it outright. A lot of the reviews of this book are good examples of this problem.

I give this book 5 stars because it is well-written, entertaining, and expresses very clearly and forcefully what Rand's views were on this topic. I am a fan of Rand's writing and have been influenced a lot by her thinking, but I do not turn a blind eye to some of her obvious errors. I think others should try taking a similar attitude toward her work.

Rating:
Summary: Beware: Rand Makes Crucial Mistakes!
Review: As a former Randian and current philosophy professor, I think it's important to warn the world that she does indeed make crucial errors. Lots of them. She was definitely brilliant -- to this day, The Fountainhead is one of my two favorite books -- read it if you haven't! But beware the *philosophy*.

Here's one important mistake. A lot of the time Rand misunderstands her own moral and political justifications. She has genuine insights but mistook what they were. For instance, her defense of egoism and laissez-faire capitalism is often consequentialist. That means, the justification she offers for acting egoistically and adopting a laissez-faire capitalist system is in terms of the positive overall outcomes of doing so. Perhaps we could allow that in general she speaks as if egoism and l-f benefit primarily the community in which they flourish, though she definitely thinks that these are the right values for human beings in general, if they live in anything like a modern community. A good chunk, perhaps more than half, of Atlas Shrugged is devoted to making this point. It isn't mere backdrop that the world is falling apart. (Think also of For the New Intellectual.)

All along Rand plays up the positive consequences of egoism and l-f. But she speaks as if what's thus justified is a total, unlimited commitment to those things. That is, it is *always* morally right to act egoistically and l-f should be total, 100%, nothing beyond military, police, courts, and the necessary infrastructure for those functions. And no taxes whatsoever. Rand can say, for instance: *always* act in your own (rational, long-term) self-intereste, *never* take property -- but then she justifies that claim by reference to the positive consequences of doing these things.

Two questions thus arise: first, are there any cases in which it is just *false* that being egoist or adopting unlimited l-f has the best consequences? (It seems to me, frankly, that there are *plenty* of such cases!!! They are the norm, in fact!!! But notice this is purely an empirical question on which I, as a philosophy professor, have no claim to expertise, though I do read a lot.) Second, in such cases, if there are any, *what*'s justified? To act egoistically or adopt l-f -- or to act non-egoistically or limit capitalism in some way? Rand has given us no reason to think that in *these* cases, egoism or l-f capitalism is what's justified. Or at least, insofar as her justification for egoism and l-f in the other cases was the very fact that they did have good overall consequences (a lot!), she's given us no reason to draw her desired conclusion in these cases.

It seems obvious that Rand was scarred by Communism and her ideas rigidified to some extent. In that sense, her convictions were held as if religious (and, like most or all religions, there is much truth in what she says). (Inordinate fear of "creeping socialism" -- which makes the only option to pure capitalism seem terrible -- is of course not unique with Rand. In fact, I think it's much of what makes sincere Conservativism possible. But Rand really took it to special heights.)

Of course, I recognize that Rand says all that stuff about life and choice between existence and non-existence and stuff. Well, that's all just crap, frankly -- here I *do* have expertise. I don't have time to write about it now, though I hope to one day, since it is important (there are many more Randians than is commonly recognized, since you can't really publicly admit the extremity of your views -- although Rand herself would say you should, I think). But take it from me -- whatever truth there is in what Rand wrote with respect to her explicit philosophical defense of egoism and unlimited l-f capitalism falls far short of those claims (that those things are *always* right). Rand set out to supplement her genuine insights (much of which were about the productive invisible hand of capitalism, a fact which even liberals acknowledge) with a philosophical foundation, but her foundation was not only spurious (justified nothing, in fact) but misleading: she thought she'd proven something which went way beyond those insights. She thought she'd proven a kind of Absolutism about egoism and laissez-faire capitalism. (I'm tempted to say: "and you want to see the results? look all around you!")

I'm a consequentialist philosophically (yay to Mill, Sidgewick, Moore, Parfit, Brink, Singer and the rest, though read Glover's Humanity for some warnings) and a liberal politically (yay to all the [genuine] bleeding hearts out there) and nothing Rand says makes me doubt those commitments, though I've absorbed her lessons thoroughly, many years ago in fact.