Ayn Rand, Morality, and Personal Decisions

I have been heavily influenced by Ayn Rand’s philosophy since about the same time last year. Earlier, my philosophically-oriented friend used to say I spout her philosophy, due to the similarities he found between my way of thinking and what she expounded, but I never really considered myself to be influenced by Rand, for I had read none of her works except Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

All that changed after reading Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. I went around dazed for a long time, trying to understand, trying to fit my world view to the new lens I had acquired. I succeeded at last after months of deep thought, but I still had misgivings on my understanding of ethics, morality, justice and social principles.

As part of a course here at IIT-M, I decided I’d do a book review of her The Virtue of Selfishness, partly because it’s a small book and partly because I really wanted to fill in the gaps in my understanding. I read it at a time when I was already in emotional turmoil, and it made my head spin. Life would never be the same again.

It’s not that I imbibed philosophy from a book; I was already thinking along similar lines, and the book brought it out, made it explicit, and guided me in my thinking. People generally scorn at learning life’s lessons from books; for me, learning is learning regardless of the source. My major learning comes from seeing how two people I know think, and I’m not embarrassed to admit that.

Morality, at its best, is selfishness. Morality is the guiding light behind all our actions, yet we never really think about it and try to formalize it. In fact, conventional wisdom has it that morality is subjective, ought not to be defined, but in a broad sense consists of not hurting others and helping them out. It is such vague ‘definitions’ of morality, which try to obscure the truth from our mind, that Ayn Rand totally trashes.

Morality, as defined by Rand, is a hierarchy of values chosen by man in order to pursue his rational long-term self-interest. The term selfishness means concern with the self. It is this concern with the self that should drive all our actions. Sounds obvious, but the point is often misrepresented and misunderstood. The competing paradigm of morality is one of altruism, which preaches selflessness. It means the giving up of a greater value for a lesser value in order to serve a larger public purpose. Under such a moral code, the moral thing to do would be to give up your sight so that 2 blind men can see, your lungs so that a smoker can continue his disastrous habits, your kidneys to save 2 people the discomfort of dialysis, and your heart so that another person can live on. By sacrificing your life, a greater value to you, you can benefit 6 others, a lesser value to you, and serve the public good. That’s the tenet of altruism, and its proponents, however hardcore, never seem to practice what they preach.

Our minds have, somehow, been conditioned to accept altruism in its milder forms. By sheer instinct, we cannot avoid being selfish, but the propaganda of altruism has the effect of distorting our thoughts and view of reality enough to push through the altruist agenda. Common phrases such as rich people should give back to society, companies should follow corporate social responsibility, we need to save the environment, etc. are all a part of the altruist view of morality.

Coming back to selfishness. If it is the exact opposite of altruist morality, then it should be definable as the choosing of a greater value over a lesser value, to serve our own selfish needs. And yes, it is definable that way.

GETTING BACK TO GROUND LEVEL

After spewing out a lot of abstract concepts, let me explain how exactly I can be selfish in my daily life with an example. The example isn’t simple; a simple one wouldn’t suffice to explain the depth of the concept.

Let’s say I have a friend I hold dear but who, I think, doesn’t reciprocate my feelings. English being a sexist language, I’m going to use ‘he’ to denote the friend hereon. I think he doesn’t reciprocate my feelings because he wronged me in some way and refused to acknowledge it, failing which I find it indigestible for me to continue the friendship.

My philosophy is the answer to the question “What should I do?”

The selfish thing to do would be to give up the lesser value for the greater value in order to pursue my rational, long-term self-interest. The question now boils down to: which is the greater value?

What is a value anyway? It is merely something for which you act to gain or keep it.

In this scenario, what are my two values? One is the friendship, which I seek to preserve, and the other is my feeling about what has happened.

Ideally, I should give up on my feelings of the moment and value the friendship more since its loss would hurt me more than swallowing my feelings. The moral thing to do would be to give in, make amends and resume the friendship, which may grow stronger after such rifts.

No.

Not so, and not so obvious.

Morality is a code of values which helps me act according to my rational, long-term, self-interest. Had the long-term part not been there, the above solution would be moral.

The right question to ask is, should I continue to be friends with he who doesn’t value my friendship enough to right the wrongs he committed? For him, his ego in not giving in is a greater value and the friendship at stake is a lesser value. In other words, he values my friendship less than his pride, even when he knows he has done wrong.

By holding such a friend dear, I’d be doing an injustice to my long-term self-interest. It is better for me to acknowledge that the friendship is at an end, suffer in the short-term and be more careful in placing my trust in people in future.

Greater value correctly identified: Giving up on those who don’t reciprocate since they’re not worthy of you.

Lesser value correctly identified: The beautiful friendship you had, and which you can save by swallowing your feelings of the moment and accepting the fact that you need them more than they need you.

The moral thing to do in this hypothetical example is to break that friendship, suffer a short-term setback, while being more careful in future.

This illustrates another point about morality. Being moral does not equate to being happy all the time. Morality is merely the tool you use to strive for happiness. This answers questions such as what’s the point in being moral when it only makes you unhappy. It’s the time horizon which needs to be looked at: ephemeral happiness now at a huge cost or incur a greater cost for a more lasting happiness in the future. Such decisions add up, their effects amplifying over time.

Some things are worth giving up on, even though they are dear. That’s an amazing lesson I learned.

In the other side of the example, it is easy to determine the moral thing to do. If that friendship matters, accept your mistake. If not, save your ego.

This illustrates another point about morality. Moral values are not absolutes. There is no decree that you choose friendship over ego or vice-versa. It is your choice entirely, based on your values, your subjective appraisement of what you desire.

I hope this example has sufficiently conveyed how morality is the right lens to use for personal decision-making. It feels good to blog again after well over a year. Thank you, readers, and comments are most welcome.