Customer Reviews

The Virtue of Selfishness

5 star:		(53)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(24)

 

 

Many years ago while discussing the Chrysler bail-out with two colleagues, they mentioned that Lee Iacoca, in pursuing the government action, was pursuing his "self-interest". The discussion on government interference in economic matters interestingly took place in the context of a debate on the contents of this book. Listening to me defend its concept of self-interest and why I thought humans should indeed pursue their self-interest, they seem perplexed that I was objecting vociferously to the Chrysler bail-out. After all, was not Lee Iacoca pursuing his self-interests when he arranged the government bail-out?

This conversation, done with two people who are now fairly well-known philosophers, illustrates the deep bias surrounding the concept of self-interest. The fact that Lee Iacoca thought he was pursuing his self-interest in arranging the bail-out does not mean that it really was in his self-interest. If a person is lost in a forest and starving, and then spots a mushroom he/she believes is nutritious but in fact is poisonous, are we to accept that the eating of the mushroom is in the person's interest? The fact that we believe something is in our interest does not make it so.

The author of this book makes a brilliant case for the ethics of self-interest, with this concept being rooted in the organism's identity. It is the characteristics of the organism that determine what is good or bad for it. Ethical values arise when the organism can exhibit choice over a collection of alternatives, and is distinctly self-aware of these choices. And due to the complexity of both the organism and the environment, the context will determine the choices available to the organism. An Eskimo in the Artic North certainly faces different choices than an individual living in the jungles of the Amazon. In addition, because the organism is not omniscient, the choices made may act to the organism's detriment. Adaptation takes time, and the organism will suffer or even die if bad choices are made.

Organisms with a self-awareness of choices, or moral agents, are thus governed by what characteristics they possess, and the environments in which they find themselves. The author of this book argues brilliantly for a morality of self-interest, and her care and skill in elucidating the concept of self-interest and ethics in general, makes this book the best formulation of ethics in the history of philosophy. In addition, the book could be read in the context of modern theories of rational agents, both in philosophy and the field of artificial intelligence.

The author has defined "rationality" in a manner quite different from what the word stands for in economic theory, the latter of which views it as a descriptive concept. If a person is labeled as "rational" in economic theory, it means that the person is attempting to optimize his self-interest, regardless of the facts that might indicate otherwise. "Rational" for the author is quite different. What the author is saying, and is most profound, is that many of the actions that have been taken as an excuse for self-interest, such as lying, deception, and violence, are indeed never in one's interest. To label a human as "rational" in her view, is to characterize the person as one who is optimizing their self-interests, but these interests, because of the nature of the biology of humans, and the nature of the human psyche, never involve lying, deception, and violence. This is a bold and interesting move in ethical theory, and differentiates the author's formulation from most others in the history of philosophy.

The ethical doctrines of this author are also intimately related to what science can tell us what indeed is in the interest of organisms, in order for them to optimize their health and general well-being. Most refreshing though is that this formulation of ethics is exceedingly optimistic. It asks the reader to consider that rationality, productiveness, and pride are the virtues of self-interest. Plundering, violence, cheating, and deception never are. With its emphasis on the power of the human mind and its efficacy, it is certainly a philosophy that meshes will with our time. Even though written down over four decades ago, its optimism coupled with its practicality makes it pure 21st century.

This is one of my favorite philosophical books I've read. After reading each of Ayn Rand's books, it is always interesting how I see things from a different perspective. If you'renot sure about the term 'Selfishness' just try this book because it is a great conversation piece with nearly every crowd of people. It is excellently written and very clear and concise.

As a former Randian and current philosophy professor, I think it's important to warn the world that she does indeed make crucial errors. Lots of them. She was definitely brilliant -- to this day, The Fountainhead is one of my two favorite books -- read it if you haven't! But beware the *philosophy*.

Here's one important mistake. A lot of the time Rand misunderstands her own moral and political justifications. She has genuine insights but mistook what they were. For instance, her defense of egoism and laissez-faire capitalism is often consequentialist. That means, the justification she offers for acting egoistically and adopting a laissez-faire capitalist system is in terms of the positive overall outcomes of doing so. Perhaps we could allow that in general she speaks as if egoism and l-f benefit primarily the community in which they flourish, though she definitely thinks that these are the right values for human beings in general, if they live in anything like a modern community. A good chunk, perhaps more than half, of Atlas Shrugged is devoted to making this point. It isn't mere backdrop that the world is falling apart. (Think also of For the New Intellectual.)

All along Rand plays up the positive consequences of egoism and l-f. But she speaks as if what's thus justified is a total, unlimited commitment to those things. That is, it is *always* morally right to act egoistically and l-f should be total, 100%, nothing beyond military, police, courts, and the necessary infrastructure for those functions. And no taxes whatsoever. Rand can say, for instance: *always* act in your own (rational, long-term) self-intereste, *never* take property -- but then she justifies that claim by reference to the positive consequences of doing these things.

Two questions thus arise: first, are there any cases in which it is just *false* that being egoist or adopting unlimited l-f has the best consequences? (It seems to me, frankly, that there are *plenty* of such cases!!! They are the norm, in fact!!! But notice this is purely an empirical question on which I, as a philosophy professor, have no claim to expertise, though I do read a lot.) Second, in such cases, if there are any, *what*'s justified? To act egoistically or adopt l-f -- or to act non-egoistically or limit capitalism in some way? Rand has given us no reason to think that in *these* cases, egoism or l-f capitalism is what's justified. Or at least, insofar as her justification for egoism and l-f in the other cases was the very fact that they did have good overall consequences (a lot!), she's given us no reason to draw her desired conclusion in these cases.

It seems obvious that Rand was scarred by Communism and her ideas rigidified to some extent. In that sense, her convictions were held as if religious (and, like most or all religions, there is much truth in what she says). (Inordinate fear of "creeping socialism" -- which makes the only option to pure capitalism seem terrible -- is of course not unique with Rand. In fact, I think it's much of what makes sincere Conservativism possible. But Rand really took it to special heights.)

Of course, I recognize that Rand says all that stuff about life and choice between existence and non-existence and stuff. Well, that's all just crap, frankly -- here I *do* have expertise. I don't have time to write about it now, though I hope to one day, since it is important (there are many more Randians than is commonly recognized, since you can't really publicly admit the extremity of your views -- although Rand herself would say you should, I think). But take it from me -- whatever truth there is in what Rand wrote with respect to her explicit philosophical defense of egoism and unlimited l-f capitalism falls far short of those claims (that those things are *always* right). Rand set out to supplement her genuine insights (much of which were about the productive invisible hand of capitalism, a fact which even liberals acknowledge) with a philosophical foundation, but her foundation was not only spurious (justified nothing, in fact) but misleading: she thought she'd proven something which went way beyond those insights. She thought she'd proven a kind of Absolutism about egoism and laissez-faire capitalism. (I'm tempted to say: "and you want to see the results? look all around you!")

I'm a consequentialist philosophically (yay to Mill, Sidgewick, Moore, Parfit, Brink, Singer and the rest, though read Glover's Humanity for some warnings) and a liberal politically (yay to all the [genuine] bleeding hearts out there) and nothing Rand says makes me doubt those commitments, though I've absorbed her lessons thoroughly, many years ago in fact.

This unconvincing collection of essays touts Rand's "Objectivist" dogma. Though once an adamant believer in Objectivism, upon actually LEARNING about the philosophic issues that Rand addresses (I now have a degree in philosophy), the incredible irrelevance of her work is glaring. She has scarcely a single new thought to add on any topic, though most of her admirers familiarize themselves only with hers. Her angry, blunt style is totally rediculous for someone trying to write coherent philosophy, yet the heavy-handed manner is rather convincing if you don't pay too much attention to detail. Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of Modern Philosophy would find her work insulting in its rash presumptions, and even laughable were it not the case that so many people (who pick up her novels, or who only have read HER *philosophy*) get spellbound by her warped ideas. Look folks: THIS IS NOT PHILOSOPHY. At best, these essays represent a series of rampant, misguided ARGUMENTS that contain only small doses of appeal. If you don't understand the ways that her works fall short of EVER being considered seriously by professional philosophers, then grab anything written by ROBERT NOZICK. His nature of dialect will be broad, precise, and completely honest--a whip-lash of a change from Rand. Ayn Rand's NOVELS sell with relative success purely becasue they have epic qualities that popularily attract. Additional value (beyond entertainment) is difficult to extract, which is not good news for her non-fiction work.

This is probably one of maybe fifty books that everyone should read in high school or college. Although the debate around the title subject is frankly a bit on the semantic side (Is it truly "selfish" to let someone drown even if you WANT them to not?), there are ideas and ideals here that just about everyone can borrow at least parts from in formulating their own world view.

I recommend this book over Ayn Rand's novels. You don't have to put up with hundreds of pages of the conversations of Howard Roark, Dominique and John Galt. This reader is always surprised by the perennial claim that the author's Fountainhead novel is rated second on the all time best seller list after the Bible. For the reader who wants some exposure to Ayn Rand's philosophy called Objectivism, this book, "The Virtue of Selfishness" is the way to go. This way the reader can cut out the middleman and get the philosophy straight from the author. You actually get a more well rounded view of her philosophy. As a reader who tackled both the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, I consider my time was better spent with this book. My problem with this book is that I feel the author could have done a better job explaining how Objectivism would work within a society, not just the individual. Ayn Rand extols pure capitalism and the U.S.A. was her adopted country, and the country closest to her ideal. Why didn't she mention or explain away examples such as J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie or John D. Rockefeller where the big winners can actually change the rules of the game from "free for all capitalism" to monopoly. The book is also
silent on the segment of society requiring charity. What would be the effect on a society based solely on Ayn Rand's philosophy ?

Cold war ramblings. People throw words like rationality and enlightenment around and all over randian or marxist - college minded arenas etc. this is a historically significant book but for those seeking less reactive and more stable ideologies I'd recommend something else.

I'm giving this 4 stars because if you want any of Rand's nonfiction works, you want this one. Also, if you are at all interested in Rand's ideas outside of fiction, this is probably the collection of her essays that gets to the point fastest.

This book contains, in an essay called The Objectvist Ethics, Rand's "main ethical argument". In discussion forums about Rand's ideas, people talk about this central argument alot: Rand's justification for egoism, Rand's unique usage of the word "selfish", and so on. Well, this is the book where Rand actually states these views, and makes her arguments. If you want to read the original, this is it.

If it matters, I think this book is also important for anyone curious about Rand's philosophy, because her main ethical argument, in the essay I mentioned, is very bad. The entire thing hinges on abusing the heck out of the word "value" and tossing around forceful rhetoric about "life and death". I read it when I was younger, and never could tell what the point was, so I told myself I would read it again later. Well, I finally got around to it a few months ago, and it was very disappointing. In over 25 pages of essay, there are only one to two pages of real philosophic argument. Moreover, I've since learned that the essay, Rand's main ethical argument, was originally a speech and has simply been transcribed into essay form!

It is very disappointing, especially for an author so well-regarded for her fiction, and especially for all the hype that surrounds her on the Internet. The vision of life Rand presents with the heroes in her novels sure feels nobel, but when she tries to sit down and do philosophy, it comes out worse than mediocre. This is the nonfiction Rand book that makes these flaws most obvious. Her other nonfiction works are mainly political.

I read this book a few years ago when I was a sophomore in college. I hadn't read too many books at that time and it was my first Rand book. From the first page I was absolutely enthralled. It was the most intellectually stimulating experience of my life up to that point.

Some people who read this book will reject it out of hand because they don't like some or all of her conclusions. But she argues everything so clearly and thoroughly starting with basic premises building up to complicated philosophical ideas that it's hard to rationally disagree.

Before I read this book I had only vague conceptions of what I believed or valued. This book gave me a logically consistent foundation for my views on morality, politics, and philosophy.

What Rand is fighting for is the idea that reason is supreme and can be effectively used to optimize life in all its aspects. She uses reason to analyze many big questions such as "What is the purpose of morality?" "How should I decide what moral ideals to choose for my life?" "What is the proper role of government?" and more.

I have now read most all of her work and agree wholeheartedly with almost every detail of her philosophy. But where we do disagree I find it to be insignificant because her entire philosophy I believe can be summed up in this statement: "Use reason without contradiction to guide your life in every way" which I completely agree with.

That statement seems obvious enough but once I understood its significance (through reading her books) I saw that people everywhere all the time are knowingly contradicting themselves in their beliefs and actions. Indeed, without knowing it, they will argue passionately that contradicting yourself is the proper way to act and think. These are the Rand haters.

How can you seriously consider the opinion of someone who says in a debate "You're taking logic too far." Or "Reason is good for some things but not for everything". Or "Your argument makes sense but I'm just being practical". Such people don't seem to grasp what reason is. They might as well be saying "2 plus 2 equals four sometimes and five other times".

I highly recommend this book and would also say that if you do disagree with Rand on some point don't abandon reason taken to its logical conclusion to support what you are saying. If you do you have already lost the argument. If there are any logical errors in her writing they should be treated as errors and not as an indictment of her philosophy of using reason which is absolutely correct.

If you're not selfish and objective, you'll never be enough of a person to help a single soul, including yourself.

This is a daring seminal work in one of the core controversies of human history: individualism versus forced altruistic collectivism.

The problem for those poor raging anti-Randians ( who lust to scold the rest of us) is that they necessarily assume Rand's rationalistic self-interest doctrine in the process of criticizing it.

Preachers of universal unselfishness want you to help any self in the world---AS LONG AS IT'S NOT *YOU*.

Forced love, from body or paycheck, is rape. And it will always produce hate and misery.