The Lamar University Electronic Journal of Student Research Summer 2008
Now and Again: How Ayn Rand’s Objectivist Theory Shapes Present-Day Ethical Controversies
Misti M. Morgan
PhD Student in Educational Leadership The Whitlowe R. Green College of Education Prairie View A & M University Assistant Principal Houston Independent School District Houston, Texas
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Professor and Faculty Mentor PhD Program in Educational Leadership The Whitlowe R. Green College of Education Prairie View A&M University Member of the Texas A&M University System Prairie View, Texas Visiting Lecturer Oxford Round Table University of Oxford, Oxford, England Distinguished Alumnus Central Washington University College of Educational and Professional Studies
________________________________________________________________________ ABSTRACT In this sensitive time of war, poverty, and crisis, Ayn Rand reaches across the years to offer a solution so fundamental and yet extremely controversial: save yourself. True to her Objectivist ideals, Ayn Rand examines the romantic ideals of selfsacrifice and individualism in the pursuit of man’s highest moral purpose, the pursuit of his own happiness. ________________________________________________________________________
Introduction War is hell. Ayn Rand knew this best, as the war of ideas and philosophies pushed her constantly to the front of the firing line. Often, Rand‘s Objectivist theory was met with skepticism by the masses, forcing her on the defensive of her very personal views. Yet Rand‘s conviction to her ideals alone sets her apart from a crowd of many modernday philosophers, and in her collection of essays in The Virtue of Selfishness (1964), she plainly outlines her beliefs about how we as individuals should govern ourselves in times of sacrifice, crisis, and change. While Ayn Rand makes almost premonitory warnings about the consequences of sacrifice and selflessness, it is my opinion that her solution to racism is unfortunately shortsighted and wholly unrealized some forty years later. Nevertheless, in these times we live in where indecision and uncertainty rule, one has to give tremendous credit to Rand for her firm sense of beliefs, and her unwavering devotion to her ideals. Purpose of the Article The purpose of this article is to examine Ayn Rand‘s Objectivist philosophy against present-day ethical controversies of altruism, sacrifice, and racism. Current events serve as a litmus test for Rand‘s convictions, determining if a philosophy written over three decades ago is still applicable to present-day conflicts.
In Case of Emergency, Check Your Premises In The Ethics of Emergencies, Ayn Rand reiterates her rejection of altruism, defining sacrifice as ―the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue‖ (Rand, 1964, p.50). In her opinion, any man who would freely give his life in place of another has no real regard for his own. Rand‘s philosophy triggered a thought that had recently taken root in my consciousness. I watched this past week as President George W. Bush openly wiped away tears at a posthumous Medal of Honor ceremony for a fallen war hero. Navy SEAL Petty Officer Michael Monsoor was killed in Iraq in September of 2006 when he fell on a grenade to save his comrades during insurgent fighting in Ramadi. Monsoor was praised throughout the ceremony for his selflessness during a time of crisis. Mike and two teammates had taken position on the outcropping of a rooftop when an insurgent grenade bounced of Mike‘s chest and landed on the roof. Mike had a clear chance to escape, but he realized that the other two SEALs did not. In that terrible moment, he had two options – to save himself, or to save his friends. For Mike, this was no choice at all. He threw himself onto the grenade, and absorbed the blast with his body. One of the survivors put it this way, ―Mikey looked death in the face that day and said, ‗You cannot take my brothers. I will go in their stead‖ (Duck, 2008, p. 2). While I pondered what must have been a scene wrought with emotion, I couldn‘t help but step inside Ms. Rand‘s shoes and see this event as she might have – as a tremendous waste of life. To Rand, Petty Officer Monsoor needlessly sacrificed himself, thereby forfeiting the Objectivist ethic that his ―life‘s highest moral purpose‖ is the achievement of his own happiness (Rand, 1964, p. 51). Rand even outlines the reason
why a person would sacrifice him or herself so willingly – in summary it is due to a lack of self esteem on the part of the willing. While I may not support the argument that self esteem propelled Petty Officer Monsoor to his death, I do agree with Rand to the extent that an underlying psychological crisis may have caused Monsoor to respond so ―heroically‖. The horrors of war are real, and none would know that better than the soldiers themselves. For those who are fighting the battle, I can only imagine that the war seems as depressing and as endless as a season of night. I believe that it is entirely plausible that when faced with the choice of a future riddled with post-traumatic stress disorder or death, Petty Officer Monsoor and countless other dead soldiers chose the relief that only death could bring from such an insidious war. Rand further expounds on the appropriateness of sacrifice in times of emergency only: ―It is on the ground of that generalized good will and respect for the value of human life that one helps strangers in an emergency—and only in an emergency‖ (Rand, 1964, p. 54). Rand defines an emergency as ―an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible‖ (Rand, 1964, p. 54). Hurricane Katrina and its decimation of the Gulf Coast, specifically New Orleans, came to mind as an ―emergency sacrifice‖. While many died, more lives would have been lost had the government not initiated a massive, albeit delayed, response. Thousands of Katrina evacuees were displaced and relocated; they were given provisions and an opportunity to return to a semblance of their former lives. Yet as the months after Katrina passed, the milk of human kindness began to evaporate amidst a wave of Katrina survivor-related violence, unemployment, and in the minds of many, ingratitude towards the helping hand that had been previously extended. Rand makes a clear, and in my opinion, a precise distinction between a metaphysical emergency and a normal risk of existence. It is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers, if it is in one‘s power. For instance, a man who values human life and is caught in a shipwreck, should help to save his fellow passengers, but this does not mean that after they all reach shore, he should devote his efforts to saving his fellow passengers from poverty, ignorance, neurosis or whatever troubles they might have. (Rand, 1964, p. 55) What many volunteers failed to take into account in the aftermath of Katrina was that many of the victims lived in abject conditions prior to the storm (residents who were not living in abject conditions before the storm were more able to right themselves after Katrina). By offering the displaced new homes, jobs, and financial assistance, these selfsacrificing do-gooders were establishing a dependency that would eventually result in a thankless attitude of entitlement. It is difficult to speculate on how an historic event could have been altered, but it is my sincere belief that the Katrina experiment was a failure due in large part to the lack of understanding that Rand projected: that help should be given in an emergency only, and that it should be withdrawn once the crisis has passed and before a social dependency is established. The Katrina experience returned another long-standing issue to the forefront – the question of the United States‘ overinvestment in foreign aid. The ―guns or butter‖
debated fueled some of the post-Katrina backlash, insisting that the United States could have more readily responded to the disaster if our resources and manpower had not already been stretched in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries. As Rand succinctly states, ―The principle that one should help men in an emergency cannot be extended to regard all human suffering as an emergency and to turn the misfortune of some into a first mortgage on the lives of others‖ (Rand, 1964, p. 55). Given the vast atrocities of our own nation; poverty, crime, joblessness, illiteracy, homelessness, and other plights, it is improbable that we as a nation should invest so much of ourselves with such a small return on investment; many of the countries which the United States occupies or assists could not or would not assist us if we suddenly became the needy. Rand‘s position on emergency assistance is absolute – man should never subordinate the moral purpose of his life to the ―welfare of others‖(Rand, 1964, p. 56) and given the dire consequences for Petty Officer Monsoor and the Katrina controversy, I am inclined to agree. On Racism – Forgetting February Ayn Rand abhors racism, associating it with the much-maligned collectivism to which she is also opposed. In particular, Rand indicts modern racists for attempting ―to prove the superiority or inferiority of a given race by the historical achievements of some of its members‖ (Rand, 1964, p. 148). This opinion formed a profound question in my mind that subsequently initiated a personal debate – if I am to accept Rand‘s philosophy, then I as an African-American woman should reject the notion of Black History Month, a brief celebration of our ancestral accomplishments. While initially stupefied by Rand‘s suggestion, I do find validity in her argument – as individualists, it is not our right as a race to stake our claim to the accomplishments of others. Instead, we should focus more on blazing our own trail as individuals, without regard for the color of our skin or for the goal of becoming a credit to our race. I am even more convinced of Rand‘s position when I consider the treatment by my fellow African-Americans of Black History Month. The significance seems to be lost on the present generation. The spirit of entrepreneurship and creativity that drove many of our black progenitors to be the individuals that they were has been replaced with a reverence for following some of the most destructive trends of today: ―gansta‖ mentality and a dereliction of personal responsibility. Though I am not ready to renounce Black History Month altogether, I do see relevance in Rand‘s argument that man is to be celebrated as an individual, and we as individuals owe it to ourselves to write our own histories. Rand excoriates civil rights leaders for their push for affirmative action. She writes, Instead of (Negro leaders) fighting against racial discrimination, they are demanding that racial discrimination be legalized and enforced…instead of fighting for ‗color-blindness‘ in social and economic issues, they are proclaiming that ‗color- blindness is evil and that ‗color‘ should be made a primary consideration. (Rand, 1964, p. 154)
Rand is not alone in her argument. Affirmative action has been sanctioned, repealed, and reconsidered in many arenas (employment and higher education are prime examples) for the past two or more decades. The prevailing sentiment at present is that race should not be a factor in areas of promotion, and that persons should be considered solely on their own merit. As I see it, the error in Rand‘s logic is that the very racism that Rand condemns is what should prevent the abolishment of affirmative action ―until further notice.‖ There are few examples in the annals of modern history where people did the ―right thing‖ just because it was the right thing to do; minorities gaining an equal number of early college admissions as their majority counterparts, employees having a racially balanced workforce, minority business owners garnering an equal number of contracts as ―other‖ companies. Such instances are rare or nonexistent. As a society, there is a disingenuous effort on the part of affirmative action opponents to make us believe that the playing field is being leveled on its own, when in fact it very much remains unbalanced and intact. Rand is also deluded in her support of capitalism as an ―antidote to racism‖ (Rand, 1964, p. 150). Capitalism is defined as ―an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations‖ (Capitalism, 2006, p. 1). While well meaning, here again, capitalism does not make allowances for the wellintentioned minority businessman who cannot get his foot in the door of opportunity for the cronyism and back scratching that denies equal opportunity. That denial, coupled with the undeniable undercurrent of institutionalized racism that still exists today, dooms the capable and qualified minority capitalist to a marginal or failed career. Rand fails to recognize that her romantic ideals of a society equal in opportunities and achievement is a fallacy and remains one to this day.
Concluding Remarks In conclusion, Ayn Rand makes a brilliant case for why America should rethink its position on foreign and domestic aid in times of crisis and need. Rand suggests that we as a nation have stretched ourselves thin with playing hero to other distressed countries, and in this manner, we have indeed mortgaged innocent lives both at home and abroad. In times of war, our nation‘s heroic persona may also mislead others to see themselves as heroes, making worthless altruistic sacrifices to their own detriment. Rand‘s philosophy on racism seems to be predicated on the assumption that racism would cease to exist by the sheer will of men, yet many of these same men perpetuate the racism that Rand detests. Her position on affirmative action and her view of capitalism as the great equalizer are romantic ideals that have yet to find a place in this post-Civil Rights era of ever-present racism and discrimination.
References Duck, Jennifer (2008, April 8). Bush emotional at medal ceremony for fallen Navy SEAL. Retrieved April 10, 2008, from abcNEWS Website: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/bush-emotional.html Rand, A. (1964). The virtue of selfishness. New York: Signet. Capitalism (2006). In Random House Unabridged Dictionary [Web]. New York: Random House, Incorporated. Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism