Her Golden Rule?

 

In this entry I will argue that Ayn Rand had her own version of the Golden Rule, which was her altruistic qualifier of her individualistic rational egoism, though she would likely furiously denounce me for characterizing her outlook as altruistic and benevolent. I think I am right, and I will lay out my argument below.

 

Here is a paragraph from Page 27 of her book, The Virtue of Selfishness. I will quote the paragraph and then interpret what she wrote: “The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or welfare of others—and, therefore, man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others or sacrificing others to himself. To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his happiness is man’s highest moral purpose.”

 

My response: First, she intends for the theme of this paragraph to serve to lay out her vision of the social principle which should guide people’s lives. She begins by asserting that life is an end in itself, and that is the value which the individual is to protect and prioritize because his life and his interest are the end for a human to chase after.

 

Second, when she typically denies that the end for the individual is most certainly not to see his life purpose as built around sacrificing himself in service to others, she is embedding this premise in a social context, suggesting that all members of the community prioritize pursuing their self-interest.

 

Third, here is where her Golden Rule comes in (treating others as one would want to be treated): Each member of the community is to live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others, nor sacrificing others to himself.

 

She makes an unstated egalitarian assumption here: that each person has worth and dignity, and each person will not sacrifice herself for the sake of others, nor allow her to morally justify her coercing others to sacrifice themselves to her.

 

This is a huge concession and admission that there is a way the community as a whole is to function: imagine a society of anarchist-individuating supercitizens, in the future, wherein the citizens/supercitizens primarily (not solely as Rand insists) pursue their own interest, rarely sacrificing themselves to others (Rands insist that they never sacrifice themselves to others.). If all individuate and all are able to handle their own affairs, these hyper-competent, fiercely independent, skilled and self-sufficient people need no one to take care of them, so no other citizen is any longer required to look after them.

 

Also, integral to the individuator’s tendency to sacrifice primarily of the self for the self’s sake is also firmly bonded to the acceptance of the principle of self-limiting when it comes to boundary issues with neighbors. That neighbor is to be left strictly alone to maverize, do her own thing and build a life for herself, without wasting time, happiness, or resources, being forcibly compelled by a stronger neighbor to sacrifice herself for his gratification.

 

This is how Rand’s Golden Rule works (she likely would deny it all) but if maverizing is added to the concept that the individual is ethical only when he primarily sacrifices the self of yesterday to improve the self tomorrow, this Mavellonialist version of the Golden Rule is arguably the most morally advanced formulation of it so far.