{"id":686,"date":"2025-03-13T18:56:36","date_gmt":"2025-03-13T18:56:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/chapter\/7-4-1-rands-argument\/"},"modified":"2025-04-02T21:42:05","modified_gmt":"2025-04-02T21:42:05","slug":"7-4-1-rands-argument","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/chapter\/7-4-1-rands-argument\/","title":{"raw":"7.3.1 Rand\u2019s Argument","rendered":"7.3.1 Rand\u2019s Argument"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n

The first argument\u00a0we\u2019ll examine was developed by the Russian emigre philosopher and novelist named Ayn Rand (1905-1982). Rand was a staunch opponent of communism who dramatized her ideas in the best-selling novels\u00a0The Fountainhead<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Atlas Shrugged<\/em>, as well as in essays with titles such as \u201cThe Virtue of Selfishness.\u201d She calls her theory \u201cObjectivist Ethics<\/strong>,\u201d a philosophy that emphasizes the pursuit of one's rational self-interest as the foundation of morality, meaning that individuals should act in ways that best serve their own well-being, based on reason and objective values, rather than sacrificing themselves for others or acting on purely emotional impulses;\u00a0the core principle is that life is the ultimate value, and actions should be taken to sustain and enhance one's life.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

\r\n

Her argument for Ethical Egoism goes like so,<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

\r\n
    \r\n \t
  • What makes human life valuable is its individuality.<\/li>\r\n \t
  • Fulfilling yourself as an individual requires putting your own needs and interests first.<\/li>\r\n \t
  • Altruistic behavior involves sacrificing your own interests for those of other people.<\/li>\r\n \t
  • So, acting ethically should be avoided since it undermines what makes human life valuable.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nThat is, we should be wary\u00a0of the ethical demand for self-sacrifice since this undermines what is truly valuable about human lives. This is exactly what happened in communist countries \u2013 individuals were asked to sacrifice their own selfish desires and interests for the good of the whole and in the end, they got nothing for their sacrifices, while the leadership who demanded these sacrifices accumulated power and privileges it denied to everyone else.\r\n

    Assessment of Rand\u2019s Argument<\/strong><\/h2>\r\nRand\u2019s argument\u00a0is essentially that ethics in the traditional sense of a set of commands that require us to put others first is incompatible with genuine concern for human individuality and with individuals\u2019 truly achieving their personal goals. That is, to the extent that we contribute to the welfare of others, we are required to give up our own welfare. But is this true? It would be true if human social life were a \u201czero sum game\u201d where my gain is only possible if others lose an equal amount. Poker is a good example of a zero-sum game in which it makes no sense to act benevolently towards others. If I am playing poker I am playing to win money from others \u2013 their loss is my win and vice versa. But is life in society really like a poker game in which I must take from others to win? Aren\u2019t there ever any benefits to all (and each) from cooperating, from setting aside immediate gains for the sake of a greater collective good? Of course there are. For example, several investors might pool their resources to open a business that benefits all of them much more than if each had simply stolen the others\u2019 contributions. This is possible since valuable goods can be created when we work together. Unlike in poker, where there is a fixed pool of money that is divided among the players in the end, in society we can use our given resources to make more things of value than we started with. Thus, Rand\u2019s argument proves in the end to be unsound, since the second and third premises are just false \u2013 fulfilling yourself as an individual does not require putting your own needs and interests first, and altruistic behavior might not have to require a complete sacrifice of your own interests.\r\n\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"
    \n

    The first argument\u00a0we\u2019ll examine was developed by the Russian emigre philosopher and novelist named Ayn Rand (1905-1982). Rand was a staunch opponent of communism who dramatized her ideas in the best-selling novels\u00a0The Fountainhead<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Atlas Shrugged<\/em>, as well as in essays with titles such as \u201cThe Virtue of Selfishness.\u201d She calls her theory \u201cObjectivist Ethics<\/strong>,\u201d a philosophy that emphasizes the pursuit of one’s rational self-interest as the foundation of morality, meaning that individuals should act in ways that best serve their own well-being, based on reason and objective values, rather than sacrificing themselves for others or acting on purely emotional impulses;\u00a0the core principle is that life is the ultimate value, and actions should be taken to sustain and enhance one’s life.<\/p>\n

    \n
    \n

    Her argument for Ethical Egoism goes like so,<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

    \n
      \n
    • What makes human life valuable is its individuality.<\/li>\n
    • Fulfilling yourself as an individual requires putting your own needs and interests first.<\/li>\n
    • Altruistic behavior involves sacrificing your own interests for those of other people.<\/li>\n
    • So, acting ethically should be avoided since it undermines what makes human life valuable.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      That is, we should be wary\u00a0of the ethical demand for self-sacrifice since this undermines what is truly valuable about human lives. This is exactly what happened in communist countries \u2013 individuals were asked to sacrifice their own selfish desires and interests for the good of the whole and in the end, they got nothing for their sacrifices, while the leadership who demanded these sacrifices accumulated power and privileges it denied to everyone else.<\/p>\n

      Assessment of Rand\u2019s Argument<\/strong><\/h2>\n

      Rand\u2019s argument\u00a0is essentially that ethics in the traditional sense of a set of commands that require us to put others first is incompatible with genuine concern for human individuality and with individuals\u2019 truly achieving their personal goals. That is, to the extent that we contribute to the welfare of others, we are required to give up our own welfare. But is this true? It would be true if human social life were a \u201czero sum game\u201d where my gain is only possible if others lose an equal amount. Poker is a good example of a zero-sum game in which it makes no sense to act benevolently towards others. If I am playing poker I am playing to win money from others \u2013 their loss is my win and vice versa. But is life in society really like a poker game in which I must take from others to win? Aren\u2019t there ever any benefits to all (and each) from cooperating, from setting aside immediate gains for the sake of a greater collective good? Of course there are. For example, several investors might pool their resources to open a business that benefits all of them much more than if each had simply stolen the others\u2019 contributions. This is possible since valuable goods can be created when we work together. Unlike in poker, where there is a fixed pool of money that is divided among the players in the end, in society we can use our given resources to make more things of value than we started with. Thus, Rand\u2019s argument proves in the end to be unsound, since the second and third premises are just false \u2013 fulfilling yourself as an individual does not require putting your own needs and interests first, and altruistic behavior might not have to require a complete sacrifice of your own interests.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":101,"menu_order":20,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-686","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":903,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/686","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/101"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/686\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1285,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/686\/revisions\/1285"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/903"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/686\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=686"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=686"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=686"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppscphi1012ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=686"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}