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.
