On Pages 20 and 21 of her book, The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand contrasts the automatic code of survival that an animal lives or dies by with the learned/taught mastered code of survival that a rational human being must master to survive and adapt: "And an animal has no choice in the standard of value directing it actions: its senses provide it with an automatic code of values, an automatic knowledge of what is good for it or evil, what benefits it or endangers its life. An animal has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. In situations for which its knowledge is inadequate, it perishes--as, for instance, an animal that stands paralyzed on the track of a railroad in the path of a speeding train. But so long as it lives, an animal acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice: it cannot suspend its own consciousness--it cannot choose not to perceive--it cannot evade its own perceptions--it cannot ignore its own good, it cannot decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer.
Man has no automatic code of survival: he has no automatic course of action, no automatic set of values. His senses do not tell him automatically what is good for him or evil, what will benefit his life, or endanger it, what goals he should pursue and what means will achieve them, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. His own consciousness has to discover the answer to all the questions-but his consciousness will not function automatically. Man, the highest living species on the earth--the being whose consciousness has a limitless capacity for gaining knowledge--man is the only living entity born without any guarantee of remaining conscious at all. Man's particular distinction from all other living species is the fact that his consciousness is volitional."
My response: What is she getting at by making this contrast? It seems that animals and humans both need a code of values to do what is good for them and perpetuate their lives, and that same set of values is to alert them to stimuli and responses that are evil, and destroy the animal or human. Now, if Rand--I do not know yet--defines good as what please us, and keeps us living, and if she defines evil as what is causing us pain, all the way to the extent of perishing, she needs to define pleasure and pain. There are good pleasures that are virtuous and extend and expand our moral life, and perhaps our physical life. Bad pleasures make us more vicious and might take our lives. Good pain is that which we grow and learn from, whether it extends our life or not. Bad pain is when we suffer but there is no elevating or redeeming lesson gained from it, or it is pain that we inflict upon ourselves, the world or others, up to and including murdering others, creatures or ourselves.
It might be that good is whatever extends or enriches the individual's life: it is ennobling; and evil is shrivels, injures or ends the individual's life. Perhaps this is what Rand means.
An animal, a robot more or less--even a rock has some sentience and some free will--cannot choose to do evil, to destroy its life morally or figuratively or literally and biologically as can an alcoholic or meth addict. Rand is correct that humans can will to destroy themselves and do.
I believe we are born depraved, so because selflessness is evil, and self-interest is virtue, being born depraved or selfless indicates that we are naturally filled with self-loathing, and strive mightily to destroy ourselves right away or over the decades in spiritual, moral and biological ways. Rand is right in asserting or implying that rational self-interest is doing good not evil, acting in ways that ennoble and preserve the self and its life, not smothering and nicking it by a thousand nihilistic sins. We have some free will, more than animals by far, so we can choose to hurt, attack or literally destroy our lives, and that evil choice is common even prominent and pervasive as humans commit billions of sins every day. Rand also implies that humans require a moral code that they devise, and the youngsters must be inculcated by their parents to know how to live and how to take care of themselves. Gaining such knowledge is not innate but acquired, and learning self-discipline and self-control is hard work that requires years of effort to master. But there is no more worthy undertaking for each human child to participate in.
Humans require values or moral concepts to know how to live.
No comments:
Post a Comment