On Pages 16 and 17 of her book, The Virtue Of Selfishness, Ayn Rand argues that other ethical systems failed because they are irrational, whimsical and altruistic. They just assume that these traits are beneficial, then they produce actions to complete these desires and then call that circular think good. Rand has a point that we have to ask why we require a system of values, what constitutes it, and then we can select the value system that gives us want we want and need to be better persons and get more out of life.
She writes: “To challenge the basic premise of any discipline, one must begin at the beginning. In ethics, one must begin by asking: What are values? Why do men need them?
‘Value’ is that one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept ‘value’ is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals or values are possible.”
My response: Rand introduces two novel thoughts here: First, there must be alternatives in life or choices, or values are not possible. One must choose what is good or evil, right or wrong, true or false, beautiful or ugly. The wise and proper, positive choice has value because it is superior to its polar opposite. This also implies a hierarchy of values from bad and base of the stairs, rising up to the top of the stairs for a good or best value.
Discover also that Rand the worker and active person equates value with having a goal. Humans make decisions of value when they set and chase after a goal worth pursuing.
Rand continues: “I quote from Galt’s speech: ‘There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate objects is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life and death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; it chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.”
My response: On Page 16, I quoted some lines, and then wrote a blog entry to the effect that the why-we-need-values-question can be answered. I suggested that humans are beasts and part angel, so the sentient side requires moral values to give humans a chance to live, love, and be good and know God. This is a negative answer to why we need values, but it is vital to wrap one’s arms around.
In the quote above, Rand seems to be offering a positive answer to her question about why humans need values. Because humans are intelligent, and require moral training to flourish and survive, they need a set of values or action-goals commensurate with the needs and ambitions of a sentient, living being: to elect to exist or go out of existence. Galt wisely advises that a human being that elects to live and live well, will bring to bear his practical wisdom, choosing acts that are of value to him personally as well as intrinsically on their own. Because he is a rational animal, with speech and free agency, his actions can be categorized as good or evil, and if he chooses the wise route, his choices will be primarily good and valuable, and his actions will be commendable, his character, over time a virtuous one. A life well lived is self-sustaining and self-generating (Did she anticipate maverizing here?), and a life poorly lived is other-dependent and passive, acted upon.
Rand continues: “To make this point fully clear, try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, and entity that moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have not interests and no goals.”
My response: It is funny that I like many believe that a robot would be a new intelligent species invented by humans, but then are a separate race of smart beings with souls of their own. It also makes me wonder if Rand was thinking of a deity, all-powerful, indestructible, and immortal, though she was an atheist.
Her psychology seems sound. Humans live and can and will die; they can choose to live or die. They can choose to create value and do and be good, or create bad values by electing and carrying out bad choices. The creator of bad values is doing evil deeds and is evil or becoming an evil character. Humans can have a goal to achieve.
Rand continues: “Only a living entity can have goals or can originate them. And it is only a living organism that has the capacity for self-generated, self-directed action. On the physical level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex—from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man—are actions generated by the organism itself and directed towards a single goal: the maintenance of the organism’s life.”
My response: Rand focuses on the primary goal of any organism, but especially humans with consciousness: to maintain their life by physically surviving as well as working to fulfill completing or meeting valuational objectives of a higher order like goodness, wealth-production, inventing, doing art, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment