Rand On Moral Justification

 

 

 

 

I do not have enough knowledge of ethics at this point to know if Ayn Rand is right in dismissing altruist ethics (That she repudiates altruism is acceptable, but for its not providing moral justification for its outlook is something I am not clear on at this point, or if that is even the most salient deficiency exhibited by altruist thinkers; still, let us proceed.) for it failure to provide moral justification, but let her lay out that account for us on Pages x and xi of her book, The Virtue Of Selfishness: “The choice of the beneficiary of moral values is merely a preliminary or introductory issue in the field of morality. It is not a substitute for a morality nor a criterion , as altruism has made it. Neither is it a moral primary: it has to be derived from and validated by the fundamental premises of a moral system.”

 

My response: As Rand argued a few pages earlier, one first must identify the values that will conceptually populate one’s moral system, and then piece them together as a valid argument for one’s account of ethics. Who is the beneficiary of that account—whether it is others or oneself as the recipient, that disputed designation follows from the established moral argument. Her criticism of altruists here seems to hold together. I would want to know if altruist never lay out their set of values, before leaping to assumptions about others being the beneficiary of each and every action, or the values presented are amoral or immoral wholly and automatically.

 

I would also want to know if altruists were psychological altruists (self-referenced)—and that they esteemed inner natural altruism as the positive force at work in the universe-- if they believed in free will and innate human goodness. I would want to know how my account of people as depraved (Psychological altruism is a negative thing, the source of evil and selfishness--bad self-interest playing out in groups—psychological altruists in need of training and self-control to build a good character, embedded and grounded in a lifelong chasing after self-realization in the service of the good deities and the self.

 

I would want Rand to implicitly or explicitly define that the beneficiary of acted upon moral values is one of four moral motives for willing and doing, and if this extra condition at work in moral considerations is offered in her alternative account—her rational egoism—to emotive altruism.

 

The first of the four motives—these four moral motive are innate and teleological, and the one favored by an ethicist is exhibited as the most powerful moral motive generating choice and action in the agent-- is psychological egoism as bad selfishness, the source of evil in the world, and this is what altruists declare.

 

The second moral motive is psychological egoism as good selfishness, and this is what Rand sees as at work people, and altruist religions have tamped this natural proclivity down, distorting it and perving it.

 

I do not much suggest that either form of psychological egoism, bad or good, is the dominant moral motives pulsating through the consciousness of each individual.

 

I believe the primary moral motive operating in people at birth is psychological altruism as bad selfishness and worse selflessness. It is the source of hurt in the world, coming right out of hell itself.

 

The fourth, primary moral motive at work in people from birth is psychological altruism as good selfishness and generous selflessness sacrificing the self for the sake of others. This moral motive exists naturally but is a weak impulse but it can and should be nurtured and encouraged.

 

There are four normative types of value systems that build on moral motive. The first is benevolent normative egoism: we should pursue our rational self-interest as our most important, but not only moral aim. Rand and I agree on this.

 

There is second normative system is malevolent normative egoism: that we should advance our own interests by any means necessary, trampling whoever gets in the way: all means justify this end. This moral code is satanic.

 

There is a third normative system of benevolent altruism suggesting we sacrifice ourselves for the good of others—we serve in the military to protect all Americans, for example—and this minority moral priority cannot be dismissed as important for human survival and human well-being.

 

Thefourth normal system is malevolent altruism espoused and practiced by criminal gangs, mass movements and cruel clique bullies and groupist thugs, and this ethical system is pure hell on earth, and without redeeming value whatsoever.

 

I have digressed liberally, but now wish to return to Rand’s sensible point that a well-argued moral account of values must be presented by the ethicis, and then she can announce who is to benefit from the public implementation of said values.