Editing Objectivism (section)

=== {{anchor|Ethics: rational self-interest}} Ethics: self-interest ===
<!-- This Anchor tag serves to provide a permanent target for incoming section links. Please do not move it out of the section heading, even though it disrupts edit summary generation (you can manually fix the edit summary before saving your changes). Please do not modify it, even if you modify the section title. It is always best to anchor an old section header that has been changed so that links to it won't be broken. See [[Template:Anchor]] for details. This text: [[Template:Anchor comment]]. -->
Objectivism includes an extensive treatment of ethical concerns. Rand wrote on morality in her works ''[[We the Living]]'' (1936), ''[[Atlas Shrugged]]'' (1957) and ''[[The Virtue of Selfishness]]'' (1964). Rand defines morality as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life".<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=13}}.</ref> Rand maintained that the first question is not what should the code of values be, the first question is "Does man need values at all—and why?" According to Rand, "it is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible", and "the fact that a living entity ''is'', determines what it ''ought'' to do".<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=18}}; for more on Rand's metaethics see {{harvnb|Binswanger|1990|pp=58–66}}, {{harvnb|Smith|2000}} and {{harvnb|Gotthelf|Lennox|2010}}</ref> Rand writes: "there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. [...] It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death".

Rand argued that the primary emphasis of man's [[free will]] is the choice: 'to think or not to think'. "Thinking is not an automatic function. In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort. Thinking requires a state of full, focused awareness. The act of focusing one's consciousness is volitional. Man can focus his mind to a full, active, purposefully directed awareness of reality—or he can unfocus it and let himself drift in a semiconscious daze, merely reacting to any chance stimulus of the immediate moment, at the mercy of his undirected sensory-perceptual mechanism and of any random, associational connections it might happen to make."<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=22}}; for more on Rand's theory of volition, see {{harvnb|Binswanger|1991}}; {{harvnb|Branden|1969}}; and {{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|pp=55–72}}.</ref> According to Rand, therefore, possessing free will, human beings must ''choose'' their values: one does not ''automatically'' have one's own life as his ultimate value. Whether in fact a person's actions promote and fulfill his own life or not is a question of fact, as it is with all other organisms, but whether a person will act to promote his well-being is up to him, not hard-wired into his physiology. "Man has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history."<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1992|p=1013}}</ref>

In ''Atlas Shrugged'', Rand wrote "Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch—or build a cyclotron—without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think."<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1992|p=1012}}</ref> In her novels, ''The Fountainhead'' and ''Atlas Shrugged'', she also emphasizes the importance of productive work, romantic love and art to human happiness, and dramatizes the ethical character of their pursuit. The primary virtue in Objectivist ethics is [[rationality]], as Rand meant it "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action".<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=25}}; {{harvnb|Smith|2006|p=7}}</ref>

The purpose of a moral code, Rand said, is to provide the principles by reference to which man can achieve the values his survival requires.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1989a}}</ref> Rand summarizes:
{{Blockquote|If [man] chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course. Reality confronts a man with a great many "must's", but all of them are conditional: the formula of realistic necessity is: "you must, if&nbsp;–" and the if stands for man's choice: "if you want to achieve a certain goal".<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1982|pp=118–119}}</ref>}}

Rand's explanation of values presents the proposition that an individual's primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being—it is for his life and his self-interest that an individual ought to obey a moral code.<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2006|pp=23–24}}</ref> [[Ethical egoism]] is a corollary of setting man's life as the moral standard.<ref>{{harvnb|Peikoff|1991|p=230}}</ref> Rand believed that rational egoism is the [[logical consequence]] of humans following evidence to its logical conclusion. The only alternative would be that they live without orientation to reality.

A corollary to Rand's endorsement of self-interest is her rejection of the [[Altruism (ethics)|ethical doctrine of altruism]]—which she defined in the sense of [[Auguste Comte]]'s altruism (he popularized the term<ref>{{cite web |title=altruism (n .) |url=http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=altruism |work=Online Etymology Dictionary |publisher=Douglas Harper |access-date=27 May 2021}}</ref>), as a moral obligation to live for the sake of others. Rand also rejected subjectivism. A "whim-worshiper" or "hedonist", according to Rand, is not motivated by a desire to live his own human life, but by a wish to live on a sub-human level. Instead of using "that which promotes my (human) life" as his standard of value, he mistakes "that which I (mindlessly happen to) value" for a standard of value, in contradiction of the fact that, existentially, he is a human and therefore rational organism. The "I value" in whim-worship or hedonism can be replaced with "we value", "he values", "they value", or "God values", and still, it would remain dissociated from reality. Rand repudiated the equation of rational selfishness with hedonistic or whim-worshiping "selfishness-without-a-self". She said that the former is good, and the latter bad, and that there is a fundamental difference between them.<ref name="vos">{{harvnb|Rand|1964|p=18}}</ref>

For Rand, all of the principal [[virtue]]s are applications of the role of reason as man's basic tool of survival: rationality, honesty, justice, independence, integrity, productiveness, and pride—each of which she explains in some detail in "The Objectivist Ethics".<ref>See also {{harvnb|Smith|2006}}</ref> The essence of Objectivist ethics is summarized by the oath her ''Atlas Shrugged'' character John Galt adhered to: "I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."<ref>{{harvnb|Rand|1992|p=731}}</ref>

==== Criticism on ethics ====
Some philosophers have criticized Objectivist ethics. The philosopher [[Robert Nozick]] argues that Rand's foundational argument in ethics is unsound because it does not explain why someone could not rationally prefer dying and having no values, in order to further some particular value. He argues that her attempt to defend the morality of selfishness is, therefore, an instance of [[begging the question]]. Nozick also argues that Rand's solution to [[David Hume]]'s famous [[is-ought problem]] is unsatisfactory. In response, the philosophers [[Douglas B. Rasmussen]] and [[Douglas Den Uyl]] have argued that Nozick misstated Rand's case.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Ayn Rand and the Is-Ought Problem |last=O'Neil |first=Patrick M. |journal=Journal of Libertarian Studies |date=Spring 1983 |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=81–99 |url=https://www.mises.org/sites/default/files/7_1_4_0.pdf }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Nozick On the Randian Argument |last1=Den Uyl |first1=Douglas |author-link1=Douglas Den Uyl |last2=Rasmussen |first2=Douglas |author-link2=Douglas B. Rasmussen |journal=The Personalist |date=April 1978 |volume=59 |pages=184–205}} Reprinted along with Nozick's article in ''Reading Nozick'', J. Paul, ed., 1981, [[Rowman & Littlefield]].</ref>

Charles King criticized Rand's example of an indestructible robot to demonstrate the value of life as incorrect and confusing.<ref>King, J. Charles. "Life and the Theory of Value: The Randian Argument Reconsidered" in {{harvnb|Den Uyl|Rasmussen|1984}}.</ref> In response, Paul St. F. Blair defended Rand's ethical conclusions, while maintaining that his arguments might not have been approved by Rand.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/10/rp_10_7.pdf |title=The Randian Argument Reconsidered: A Reply to Charles King |first=Paul |last=St. F. Blair |journal=Reason Papers |date=Spring 1985 |issue=10 |access-date=September 14, 2011}}</ref>