Two Moral Questions

Let me quote Ayn Rand from her book, the Virtue of Selfishness, Page viii: "There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together in one 'package-deal': (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a moral code of values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance. My response: I will play along with her for now until she defines values under her egoist ethics. If altruism does substitute the second question for the first, ignoring a definition of values first, then leaping right to who should be the beneficiary of values, however they are defined, seems like a special case of begging the question. Without defined moral values, perhaps humans are left without moral guidance, or at least without clarifying moral guidance. Let me quote Rand some more: "Altruism declares any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil. Thus, the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value--and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes." My response: How Rand characterizes altruism and egoism is accurate for the most part, but perhaps to sweeping a characterization. All but the most radical altruists would accept that some egoist motivations are acceptable even moral. All but the most extreme egoists would allow that my rights end where the rights of my neighbor begin. Most egoists have some sense of the merit of serving the public good, even if it is best met and managed by all pursuing their enlightened self-interest. Still, altruists do self-refer to themselves as good and generous, and to egoists as bad and selfish, and this altruist worldview is pervasive throughout our society, and perhaps throughout the world, and Rand is calling our attention to this sorry, misleading misunderstanding as to what is good and what is bad for people. Rand worries that bad moral actions are countenanced, even promoted and perpetuated, as long as the beneficiary is anyone but oneself (Her criticism seems largely correct here.): "Hence, the appalling immorality, the insoluble conflicts and contradictions that have characterized human relationships and human societies throughout history, under all the variants of altruist ethics." Here she is capturing how altruist ethics have bred and sustained most of the wickedness at large in this world. The Mother and Father are egoists, and Satan and Lera are altruists, so, because they rule humanity and this world, wickedness abounds and is spreading. Rand is a materialist and an atheist, and I am an immaterialist and a theist, but we agree that egoism is good, and altruism is bad. The moderate and metaphysical qualifier at work in my ethics, would allow me to concede that egoism can be a bit bad and selfish, and that altruism at time can be noble and selfless. The exception always proves the rule.