Author’s note: This is chapter 8, the afterword, and the appendix of my book Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It (Richmond: Glen Allen Press, 2002), which is an introduction to Ayn Rand’s morality of rational egoism. Chapters 1–7 were reprinted in prior issues of TOS.
Concluding Summary: What We Now Know
The purpose of this book has been twofold: (1) to show that morality is a matter not of divine revelation or social convention or personal opinion—but, rather, of the factual requirements of human life and happiness; and (2) to show what, in essence, those requirements are.
We have seen that the claim “If there is no God, anything goes” is false. Morally speaking, nothing goes—except actions that promote human life. And since human beings are individuals—each with his own body, his own mind, his own life—moral actions are selfish actions—actions taken by an individual to promote his own life.
The false alternative of religion versus subjectivism has been exposed: Religion is a form of subjectivism. But this is not a problem, because just as there is no evidence for the existence of God, so there is no need for him. We don’t need him for a standard of morality, because human life is logically the standard of morality. We don’t need him for purpose or meaning, because we choose our own purposes; thus, the meaning of our life is whatever we make of it. In short, we don’t need God for guidance, because—if we choose to use it—our rational judgment tells us what is true or false, good or bad, right or wrong.
The is–ought problem has been solved: Since life is the standard of value, if we choose to live, then reality (what is) dictates what we ought to do—we ought to take the actions necessary to sustain and further our life.
Morality is not subjective, but objective; it is not created by the human mind, but discovered by it. Just as truth is discovered by reference to evidence and the principle of non-contradiction, so morality is discovered by reference to the requirements of human life and the principle of non-sacrifice. While a person or group might have faith or feel that drinking Drano is “good” or that dishonesty “pays” or that human sacrifice is “the way to go,” neither faith nor feelings—individually or collectively—can change the nature of reality or the factual requirements of human life and happiness.
Morality is a matter of observation, logic, and the law of causality. It is black and white, either/or, through and through. It is an immutable fact that to live as human beings we have to observe the laws of nature and think; hence the objective value of reason. It is an immutable fact that if we want to sustain and further our life, we have to choose and pursue life-promoting goals; hence the objective value of purpose. And it is an immutable fact that if we want to accomplish our goals and achieve genuine happiness, we have to earn and maintain the conviction that we are able to live and worthy of success; hence the objective value of self-esteem. These three—reason, purpose, and self-esteem—are the fundamental requirements of human life and happiness; thus, they are the basic moral values.
Correspondingly, virtues are the kinds of actions that sustain and further human life; vices are the kinds of actions that retard or destroy it. Thus, right versus wrong is a matter of rationality vs. irrationality, productiveness vs. parasitism, honesty vs. dishonesty, integrity vs. hypocrisy, independent thinking vs. second-handedness, justice vs. injustice, pride vs. humility. Moral virtues are the basic actions that account for the objective requirements of human life; they are the principled actions on which human life depends.
To live as a human being, one must identify and satisfy numerous long-range and wide-range needs—both material and spiritual—and (fundamentally speaking) there is only one way to do it: by thinking rationally and acting accordingly.
While nothing can compel a person to be moral, the unalterable fact is that the only way to live and achieve genuine happiness is by being moral—by consistently choosing, planning, and pursuing rational, life-promoting values—by being genuinely self-interested as a matter of principle. What each person chooses to do is up to him, and the consequences of his choices and actions are his: either to suffer or to enjoy.
Rational egoism is the only morality that is for human life; thus, it is the only morality that is actually moral. Those who choose to be rationally self-interested thereby make the most of their life—and they are morally good because of it.
In the realm of politics, rational self-interest requires recognition of the fact that in order to take life-promoting action, one must be free to do so; one must be free to act on the judgment of one’s mind. The only thing that can stop one from doing so is other people, and the only way they can do it is by means of physical force.
In order to live together as civilized beings, rather than as barbarians—in order to coexist as independent equals, rather than as masters and slaves—people have to refrain from using physical force against one another. Hence the principle of individual rights: Each person morally must be left free to act according to his own judgment—so long as he does not violate the same rights of others.
A moral society—a civilized society—is one that bans the use of initiatory physical force from human relationships and delegates the use of retaliatory force to the government for the sole purpose of protecting individual rights. Accordingly, such a society prohibits its government from using physical force except in retaliation against those who initiate (or threaten) its use. And the only social system that does so—thereby leaving people free to act fully as human life requires—is pure, laissez-faire capitalism.
Just as rational egoism is the only morality that is actually moral, so laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system that is actually moral. And just as the first leads to the second, so the second depends on the first. Egoism and capitalism mutually imply each other; to uphold either consistently, one must uphold both unwaveringly.
It all comes down to this: Do you want to live in a world in which you are free to choose and pursue your own goals and values; free to do with your own body, your own mind, your own life, whatever you think is in your best interest; free to engage with other adults in whatever kinds of relationships you and they agree to engage in; free to think, work, and achieve whatever you are willing and able to achieve; free to keep, use, and dispose of the products of your own efforts; free to trade your goods and services with others voluntarily, by mutual consent and to mutual advantage; free to act according to your own judgment in all areas of your life; free to live fully as a human being? In short: Do you want to make the most of your life and achieve the greatest happiness possible?
If so, you must embrace, advocate, and defend laissez-faire capitalism; the principle of individual rights; and the ethics on which they, your life, and your happiness depend: rational egoism—the morality of self-interest. It is supported by the facts of reality. It is required for human existence. It is a matter of loving life.
Afterword
Terrorism, Altruism, and Moral Certainty
Loving Life is based on Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, which she called “a philosophy for living on earth.” In the midst of our war against terrorists and the governments that support them, the importance of a philosophy for living on earth could not be more apparent—or more urgent.
The conflict has reached its ultimate climax; the choice is clear-cut: either a new morality of rational self-interest, with its consequences of freedom, justice, progress and man’s happiness on earth—or the primordial morality of altruism, with its consequences of slavery, brute force, stagnant terror and sacrificial furnaces.1
Ayn Rand wrote those words in 1960. If only more people had faced the facts of morality back then.
Islamic terrorists are religious altruists: They selflessly commit human sacrifices for the sake of a supernatural “other”—an alleged God. The essential solution to the problem of terrorism (whether religious or secular) is the same antidote needed to counter any form of human sacrifice: a proper morality. As Ayn Rand explained, and as we now know: “The creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral.”2 A proper morality—a morality for the moral—is a code of non-sacrifice: the morality of life.
If we want to protect our lives and our loved ones from murderous aggressors, if we want to defeat terrorists (or any such evil), military superiority is not enough. In a battle against evil, military superiority is a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient condition; we also, and more fundamentally, need moral certainty. If we are to win this war, we need to be morally certain that we have the absolute right to annihilate terrorists and their sponsors by any means necessary. And the only source of (genuine) moral certainty is an observation-based, non-contradictory, rationally provable, objective code of values. Fortunately, we now have one. The question is: Will we proudly embrace it, or will we humbly allow the creed of sacrifice to continue mowing us down? Will we act resolutely and finish the job that must be done, or will we act timidly and take only partial measures? Will we defend ourselves properly and destroy all known terrorists as well as all governments known to support terrorism, or will we act with “restraint,” surrender to “world opinion,” and allow some of them to remain in existence, to continue plotting attacks against us, and to slaughter more innocent people in the future?
The only way to summon the moral courage to do what obviously needs to be done is to possess the moral certainty that it is objectively the right thing to do. And the only way to possess such certainty is to know what you now know.
I urge you to tell people about the objective morality you have discovered. Give this book to your friends. Read Ayn Rand’s books. Give them to your friends. Tell everyone you know that “There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and Man’s Life is its standard of value.”3 As Ayn Rand said: “The world is ours, whenever we choose to claim it, by virtue and grace of the fact that ours is the Morality of Life.”4
Appendix
Emergency Situations: The Principle Remains
I have relegated the subject of emergencies to an appendix because—contrary to the approach of some ethics professors who treat the subject as if it were the central issue in morality—it is, in fact, only an afterthought in the field.
Logically, we can apply moral principles to emergency situations only after we have discovered and validated such principles. And the discovery and validation of moral principles require a process of rational thinking applied to the requirements of normal, everyday human life—such as those examined in the main body of this book. Now that we do have a set of valid moral principles, we can address the subject of emergencies quickly and easily.
An emergency is an unexpected and serious situation that requires immediate action. What makes a situation serious and require immediate action? The fact that it has serious and immediate bearing on human life. In other words, like all moral concepts, the concept of “emergency” presupposes and depends on the principle that human life is the standard of moral value. Detached from this base, the concept is meaningless.
Thus, while an emergency is an unusual situation, the basic principle of proper conduct when faced with one remains: If a person wants to live as a human being, he has to act in a rational, self-interested manner. As Ayn Rand put it, the rational principle of conduct is: “Always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one.”5 Emergencies are no exception to this principle; they are just urgent situations in which, to be moral, a person must be rationally self-interested under extraordinary circumstances.
In all situations, emergencies included, moral action is selfish action—action that, according to one’s own rational, independent judgment, is in one’s best interest. As to how this principle applies in any particular situation (whether ordinary or extraordinary), the only person who can decide is each individual involved; the only person he can decide for is himself; and the only way he can decide is by reference to the available and relevant facts—the full context of his knowledge, values, abilities, commitments, and alternatives.
Should I (an able swimmer) jump into the river to save my lover, who just fell in and cannot swim—or should I allow her to drown? What would be the selfish thing to do?
Should I (an armed father) shoot the kidnapper who just stuffed my child into his car and is now running around to the driver’s side—or should I watch him get in and drive away? What would be in my best interest?
Should we (the United States of America) annihilate the governments that have sponsored terrorism against Americans—or should we pretend that they aren’t evil, didn’t mean any harm, and won’t do it anymore? What would be in our best interest?
Should I (a bodyguard, policeman, or Marine) protect the people under attack whom I have voluntarily contracted to protect—or should I run away? What would be consistent with my chosen values?
It is all a matter of honesty, integrity, and justice—in a word: rationality.
As to whether it can ever be proper to risk one’s life in order to save the life of a stranger whom one is not under contract to protect, it still depends on one’s own independent judgment with respect to the available and relevant facts. Would the rescue attempt constitute a sacrifice of one’s values? If so, it would be immoral; if not, it would be morally permissible. Does one think one is capable of the mission? If so, it would be morally permissible; if not, it would be immoral suicide. Would one be doing it out of selfish reverence for human potential—or selfless “duty” to serve others? The first motive is moral; the second is evil.
To be moral, one must be selfish—emergencies included.
Now, what if a person is faced with a serious predicament in which, according to his own rational judgment, none of his alternatives appears to be any more or less self-interested than do any of his others? Then he is not in an emergency situation, but at a moral impasse.
A moral impasse is a situation in which moral concepts—such as “right” and “wrong,” “should” and “shouldn’t”—are not applicable because, given the circumstances, they are stripped of all meaning.
The realm of morality is the realm of choice—choice regarding that which is for or against one’s life as a rational being. Moral concepts can have meaning to a person only when he can discern a rationally self-interested difference among his alternatives. When no such difference can be seen, no moral choice can be made.
Look at it this way: How can a choice be “selfish” if the person who makes it does not think it is in his best interest to do so? Obviously it can’t. Thus, if a person is faced with a situation in which he cannot determine a rationally self-interested course of action, any “choice” he makes regarding the predicament is outside the realm of moral judgment.
Such situations are popular with subjectivist college professors, who present them to unwary students in an effort to convince them that there are no right or wrong answers to moral questions. A typical dilemma goes as follows. (I apologize in advance for bringing this image to your mind, but it is the kind of example offered in some of the so-called ethics textbooks in use today.)
You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don’t he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don’t have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?6
The answer to this (and to all such questions in all such situations) is: There is no “should” about it. This is a moral impasse; any “choice” one makes regarding it is logically outside the realm of moral judgment. (A professor’s choice to pose such a question in an effort to propagate moral skepticism, however, is not.)
Lastly, it is worth emphasizing that, while bad things can and sometimes do happen in life, in a moral society—one that respects and protects individual rights—disasters are not the rule but the exception; emergencies are extremely rare, and moral impasses are even rarer. In a capitalist society, life consists primarily of opportunities to choose among better and worse alternatives; to pursue and achieve selfish, life-promoting goals; and to do so with the comforts of technology and in the company of civilized people. Moral principles are essential to the whole process. While we occasionally need them in order to deal with emergency situations, we continually need them in order to live and love life.
You might also like
[groups_can capability="access_html"]
Endnotes
1 Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual (New York: Signet, 1963), p. 54.
2 Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 141.
3 Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 122.
4 Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 169.
5 Ayn Rand, “The Ethics of Emergencies,” in The Virtue of Selfishness (New York: Signet, 1964),p. 50.
6 Victor Grassian, Moral Reasoning (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1992), p. 6; similar examples can be found on pp. 6–10 and in other college texts.
[/groups_can]
