Rating: 
Summary: No conflicts of interest among rational people
Review: The heart of Ayn Rand's ethical system is that the goal of ethics is to guide human beings in living full and successful human lives, and that there are no ultimate conflicts of legitimate interest among rational people.This collection of essays is the primary source in which Rand makes her case for this ethic. Her presentation is indeed flawed; as one reviewer notes, she doesn't make sufficient allowance for human beings to be directly motivated by concern for one another. But making the adjustments necessary to include benevolence doesn't alter the overall ethical outlook much; it just allows the good of other people to be a value legitimately sought for its own sake by rational agents. The standard of value is still "life," and the contention that there are no conflicts of interest among fully rational people still stands. So it needs a little work, and I'm not entirely persuaded that the result should still be called "egoism" (I personally prefer the term "rational eudaimonism"). But remember the book's subtitle: Rand was trying to offer a _new_ concept of egoism. Both her supporters and her detractors need to keep this fact in mind, or they will charge her with having said things she didn't. She does not, as one reviewer says, "leav[e] no room for argument" or "achieve . . . absolute certainty with no contradiction." But that means merely that one must read her critically and carefully, just as one would any other author. So ignore the inflated claims of her most ardent "followers" and think for yourself; her die-hard supporters are not worried that you'll catch _her_ in a mistake, but merely that you'll find out that _they've_ wasted their lives serving as dogmatic, "individualistic" mouthpieces for an imperfect spokesperson. Readers should also dig out a copy of Brand Blanshard's _Reason And Goodness_, which may be the single best volume ever written on ethics. (Or see the section on "ethics" in _The Philosophy Of Brand Blanshard_.) Blanshard's ethical thought presents a much sounder overview of the issues involved, and his clear-sighted "rational temper" makes a nice contrast to Rand's rather badgering tone.
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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
| 
