Tara Smith: Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist

[Mr. A]

My Review of Tara Smith’s Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist

In this book, Tara Smith does a thorough job in her presentation of Ayn Rand’s brand of egoism, rational egoism. How one leads a selfish life by taking the proper kinds of actions required to advance ones self-interests and in doing so, flourish. The largest part of this book focuses is on the seven core virtues of rational egoism. This book is Smith’s second book on Rand’s ethics, the first one being Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality (here is my review: http://www.bookandreader.com/forums/f6/tara-smith-viable-values-24453.html)

Because egoism is widely perceived as reckless, self-indulgent whim-worship and the selfish person as thoughtless, unprincipled, and inconsiderate of others, the suggestion that egoism can demand the disciplined adherence to a moral code will itself be surprising to many.

If one is going to pass a judgment on egoism, it is important to know it in its strongest form. This is what I think Rand offers. It is equally important to get Rand right, as her views have been subjected to tremendous distortion over the years. Whatever one's final verdict on the merits of Rand's theory, we cannot have confidence in our assessment until we give that theory a full and fair hearing.

And this work gives it such a hearing, to one willing to listen…

In Rand's view, the case for egoism is one with the case for morality itself.

Any nonegoistic ethics, then, could not be proper for mans life, as Smith evidences. Rand’s morality is grounded in mans life, precisely where it’s roots lie, and everything else is an outgrowth of that, and when practiced consistently, can lead to human flourishing. To the degree of which her morality is not practiced consistently, or not at all, is the degree to which it hinders such flourishing. Instead of advancing, promoting, furthering ones life and interests, it then can only be life-diminishing, self-defeating, self-destructive, maybe even life ending depending upon the action of course.

Morality, Rand writes, "is 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."

Human life, long range, depends on principled action that is grounded in natural facts about life's necessary conditions. The seven virtues identify the fundamental categories of such action. In Rand's view, the popular image of the selfish person misconstrues what a person's interest consists of and how it can be achieved.

Tara Smith goes on in depth by dealing with all of the seven core virtues of rational egoism, each one getting it’s own chapter: the master virtue being rationality, then onto the other virtues that of honesty, independence, justice, integrity, productiveness, and pride.

She shows exactly how those virtues relate to a persons self-interest. Smith’s treatment of each of the virtues, makes them very clear and understandable to readers and also provides examples to illustrate them, and shows how each one is rooted in man’s life and why he must practice them in order to flourish. I will definitely go into one or more of the virtues just to give readers an idea of just how Smith does this.

Once again, this is another book by a Rand scholar, that I have highlighted so much in on my Kindle, that almost any page I turn to in it, looks like I am holding a bar of gold in my hands - it’s that valuable.

Anyone interested in just what Ayn Rand’s morality of rational selfishness, rational self-interest, rational egoism, entails, this is such a valuable resource to have on hand. Though Rand laid out her ethics in her essay “The Objectivist Ethics” which one can read in The Virtue of Selfishness, read Atlas Shrugged and so forth, Tara Smith’s book gives such a robust, more elaborate way of understanding Rand’s ethics more in depth.

 

[Mr. A]

Part 2 of my review of Smith’s The Virtuous Egoist.

Now on to the virtues which are the main course of this book.

After reading about them here, it should give one an idea of just why Rand’s morality of self-interest (selfishness) is beneficial to one’s life. Smith does a fantastic job in going into each of the virtues in depth, of which I can only touch on here.

Rand’s virtues are fact-based reality-oriented, as with everything else in her philosophy, so objective, hence the name Objectivism she chose to call her philosophy as a whole, since objectivity is so all pervasive throughout it. Her morality, Objectivist Ethics, is based on the factual requirements of human life, in which the virtues are action oriented, practical ways of achieving those requirements for a human being not only to live by, but to flourish. Rand’s morality is prudential necessity, where the moral is the practical and the practical the moral - there is no dichotomy between the two. When looking at the virtues, each are practical and because they are practical, they are moral. They are moral, because they are practical in man’s life.

I will now start with the master virtue: rationality.

Rationality is the master virtue, because all the others virtues of her morality are derivatives of it. Being rational consists of several things, like using the faculty of reason and following the principles of logic…

“The case for rationality is so basic that it requires little elaboration. Indeed, the belief that one should defend rationality with rational argument presupposes the propriety of rationality."

Anyone who seeks to live, that choice necessitates the need to be rational. Think of what effects being irrational can have on one’s life, to human flourishing. Yeah. Smith goes into all of this fully. The virtue of rationality is fidelity to reality, governing one’s thinking, one’s actions by evidence and logic and not turning away from reality by evasion, ignoring facts, refusing to acknowledge reality, and so forth… as it’s not in one’s self-interest to do so, it is not ultimately beneficial for an individual to do so:

There is no alternative, back alley route to satisfying life's requirements. Heeding reality is the only way to succeed. […] The facts of reality set the terms of existence and thus of success in all activities that could fuel a person's existence. Accordingly, a person's achievement of his life and happiness lies in respecting those facts through uncompromising rationality.

Smith goes way more into the virtue of rationality in her book.

Moving on now to the next virtue of Rand’s morality: honesty. Yes, honesty. Why is honesty a virtue in Rand‘s egoism? Precisely because honesty is in one’s self-interest, it’s egoistic, like ALL her virtues, as Smith evidences. Honesty in Rand’s morality, in practice, amounts to that one “must never attempt to fake reality in any manner”, as Rand says.

The basic meaning of honesty is straightforward, in Rand's view. As the refusal to fake reality, honesty consists in a deliberate, principled renunciation of any evasion, distortion, misrepresentation, or artifice.

Dishonesty can be of no value to a person, as it is not in their self-interest to be dishonest, it is not beneficial to human life to be dishonest. Reality is what it is, regardless of whether or not you try to fake any of its facts.

The case for honesty, like the case for morality itself, is completely egoistic. Honesty is a "profoundly selfish virtue," in Rand's view. For dishonesty is self-denying and self-defeating. To willfully ignore or misrepresent reality is to subvert one's rational faculty, which most truly is one's self […] Dishonesty is self-defeating insofar as pretending that facts are other than they are only diverts a person from identifying and pursuing rational strategies for achieving the objective values that will advance his life. The propriety of honesty is not a concession granted out of deference to some authority other than self-interest.

Because reality sets the ultimate terms of a person's survival, reality - rather than one's own or others' beliefs or wishes - must command a person's paramount allegiance. Faking reality is futile. Dishonesty only diverts a person from facing the facts that he must face, in order to act in ways that can achieve his objective flourishing.

Smith also goes into lying in self-defense, which can be moral to do, as it would be an act of self-defense against force or the threat of force rather than a genuine act of dishonesty, as such. If you’d like to know more about that distinction, please see the book. She also brings up so-called “white-lies” that people often approve of, but Rand out rightly rejects, and Smith explains as to why in the book.

Smith provides concrete examples on just why dishonesty is not ultimately in one’s self-interest. She also speaks of the effects dishonesty may have on one psychologically, of which she does a great job in illustrating. Again, I am only touching on these virtues here, to give one an idea of what Rand’s morality entails.

 

[Mr. A]

Part 3 of my review.


Now I turn to another virtue of Rand’s morality: independence. I would like to spend more time on this one.

To Rand, independence is accepting the responsibility of making one’s own judgments, thinking for oneself, taking actions to sustain one’s own life.

Egoism counsels the pursuit of self-interest. A person cannot serve himself unless he has a self, however, and it is the exercise of independence that enables a person to be a self, to be an individual possessing thoughts and ends of his own. Thus independence serves the self not only in the way that all rational virtues do, by fostering the achievement of the values that human life requires. It also helps a person to build a genuine self for whom anything could be objectively valuable.

The attitude appropriate to the independent person is not “me first,” but “reality first - and only I can apprehend it for myself.’ It is not “whatever I want" that is most important for a rational egoist, but whatever, in fact, will objectively serve his flourishing. Given that reality is what a person must heed in order to flourish, all virtue demands that a person steer himself by the compass of reality - that is, that he proceed rationally. Indeed, because independence is a corollary of rationality, no thought or action can be independent, in the relevant sense, unless it is rational.

Rational thought is something that a person can only engage in for himself. […] No one else can think for a person. Nor can a person reach rational conclusions or acquire knowledge without thinking for himself.

Independence is a precondition of rational judgment. To the extent that any thought process is dependent, treating other people as its touchstone, it is not rational. And because independence is vital to rationality, independence is vital to life. For human beings, living depends on rational thought and action. While this is most obvious for a person alone on a desert island, regardless of whether a person exists in isolation or in society with millions, the wellspring of values - what allows a person to create those things that will genuinely advance his life - is his mind's grasp of reality. We live on independent thinking, quite literally.

The alternative to independence, is second-handedness. Smith goes into many types of second-handedness in the book, such as looters (thieves) who are dependent upon other peoples values, property, etc, moochers are dependent upon others, too, even (ethical) altruists, as they need others to live for, serve others values, their actions are determined in regards to others… there are plenty of ways in which people do not act independently too, in not using their own thinking, their own judgment but accepting something on faith, that is definitely second-handedness, as well, as you are accepting something either blindly or contrary to any evidence or proof, without (independent) judgment, without (independent) thought… So instead of relying on oneself to create or earn values, second-handedness relies on others that do, like a thief on those that had actually earned wealth, if they hadn’t earned that wealth there would have been no values created in the first place, thus no money for the looter to loot. So second handedness is parasitism, they are parasites, dependents not independents. This is why you find in Rand’s brand of rational egoism, to live independently is to create, earn values and so forth, one can trade them with others, and obtain other goods that way, but not by expropriation, but by voluntary trade.

Now I brought up trade, so this actually brings us to another aspect of independence that Smith addresses in the book - the independent persons relation to others.

So far we have seen that independent persons relations to others is not second-handedness, not parasitism, but it’s voluntary association with others, that is actually in the self-interest of an independent person - being a trader, and/or producer, but certainly not a looter or a moocher.

In relation to others, an independent person must identify certain facts about another person and whether or not that person is a potential value or is of value to them, whether the independent person can offer objective value to that other person, as well, and so forth.

Love and friendship can be among the most rewarding values to a persons life, so in order to seek out such relationships, an independent person has to use his own judgments about the value or potential value any person can have in his life. If he shares a mutual value affinity with another person, or whether he and another share no real core values, he has to take into consideration, to see which relationship would be in his self-interest to pursue, engage in and so forth. I shouldn’t have to belabor that point.

In relation to other people, like with other independent productive people that is in the economic realm, they can create values (products, services), create jobs, create art, write books and so on -- which can potentially be beneficial to an independent persons life, and self-interests, but he must judge whether or not that they are beneficial to his own life. Where one works, what line of work, what one eats, what are good books to read (this book ) - the point is he has to act independently, think for himself, think of his own self-interests, and judge for himself.

While a person often should engage others in order to advance his well-being, what is essential for independence - and for his ultimate flourishing - is that a person learn the reasons behind others' opinions rather than accepting them at face value, without question. When an independent person accepts others' opinions, those reasons are the foundation of his decision. What is salient for an independent person is not that another person holds a particular view, but the basis for the view. Nothing in Rand's conception of virtuous independence, then, entails shunning other people. Given the tremendous value that human beings can offer one another, that would clearly be a foolish course for anyone committed to his own well-being. What independence does require, however, is that a person's thoughts and actions always be truly his own. Because human life depends on rational action and because rationality is inherently a do-it-yourself enterprise, independence is vital to human survival.

 

[Mr. A]

Part 4

On the subject of judging, now is the time to bring up another virtue: that of justice.

[W]hile individuals may differ over the exact demands of justice, one also finds near consensus that injustice stems from selfishness. It is the drive to advance their own interest that leads some people to treat others unjustly.

Rand disagrees. It is not egoism that stands in the way of justice, she contends, but the lack of it - the lack of thoughtful, rational egoism.

And as I go through the virtue of justice, you will see why justice is in one’s self-interest, beneficial to one’s life, just like all the other virtues in Rand’s morality.

Justice is the application of rationality to the evaluation and treatment of other individuals.

This is why I said before that all the virtues are derivatives of the master virtue, the virtue of rationality. How else is one to evaluate others? Using irrationality? It’s certainly in one’s self-interest using rationality when judging a persons character and conduct, and as such, evaluations and judgments must be objective:

The heart of justice, again, lies in evaluating others objectively and treating them accordingly by giving them the good or bad that they deserve.

He must evaluate other individuals objectively and treat them in ways that serve his values, supporting those who can contribute to his life and opposing, or at the least steering clear of, those likely to do damage.

Well, that’s certainly practical, like all the virtues are.

Because other people stand to affect a person's values, self-interest demands that he try to predict their likely impact on him. […] a person needs to evaluate others' character as well as their conduct on particular occasions.

If we are to create the values that sustain our existence and if we are to safeguard these values, we need to judge individuals objectively and to treat them as positively or as negatively as they deserve.

Just like how one does this with things one encounters in one’s life, evaluating things based upon whether or not it is one‘s self-interest. If one does not judge what one eats or drinks, you could be drinking a bottle of water or a bottle of Drano, but if one does evaluate what it is that one is going to be drinking, he drinks the water and not the Drano if he wants to live. He evaluates other people as they stand to impact his life, as he does those other things. It is in his self-interest and clearly beneficial to his life to do so, just like evaluating what to drink, he does so in regards with who to associate with, who not to, etc.

By this stage, it should not be difficult to understand that the rationale for justice is entirely egoistic. The reason that a person should treat others as they deserve is ultimately grounded in the benefit of doing so to his own self-interest.

How one should treat a person who has stolen a diamond necklace from around their neck, should be different than how one had treated their lover who had bought it and had clasped it around their neck the night before. I do not think I should have to belabor the point of justice much more here.

Something to note further on justice though, that Smith brings up:

Because the purpose of justice is the achievement of values, its impetus is actually positive “justice consists first not in condemning, but in admiring," Peikoff writes. The just person is not poised to criticize or eager to harp on others' shortcomings. Rather, Peikoff portrays justice as "human prospecting," a search for what is good in people while, of necessity, remaining alert to what is had. A person's flourishing demands that both the good and the bad in others be confronted for what they are.

And to recap:

Justice is the virtue of judging other people objectively and of treating them accordingly by paying them the rewards and punishments that they deserve. While this is the basic conception of justice that has prevailed for centuries, on Rand's view, the rationale for exercising justice is entirely egoistic. Because a person's values stand to be helped or harmed by the conduct and character of other people, a person needs to assess others' probable impact on his values and to treat others accordingly in order to promote his long-term flourishing. People deserve certain treatment from a person because […] their vices are potentially damaging to him, and their virtues are potentially valuable. Faking the character of other people is as fruitless and self-destructive as faking in regard to anything else. The failure either to judge others objectively or to treat others in ways correlative with one's judgment would be treason to one's values.

Smith also goes on to explore justice and it’s relationship to individual rights, as Rand’s ethics is the basis for her political-economic views. One should note that Rand’s Objectivism is an integrated whole, from metaphysics to epistemology to ethics to politics, and even to aesthetics (art). When reading this book it can give one an idea how Rand provides the proper moral base and justification to principle of individual rights and to (laissez-faire) capitalism.

 

[Mr. A]

Part 5

Now let’s take a look at another of Rand’s virtues: integrity

This one is also egoistic, as it’s instrumental in rational egoism, and is essential to value achievement and human flourishing. Basically it’s practicing moral principles.

The reason that a person should exercise integrity is the same reason that he needs to adhere to rational principles in the first place: Irrational action works against his life. Only the consistent loyalty to rational principles that integrity prescribes enables a person to reap the rewards of the other virtues and to achieve objective values. Breaches of integrity defeat a person's purpose of achieving his happiness.

Being virtuous, the value that integrity has in a persons life, is the value that morality itself has in a persons life, being moral is in one’s self-interest, a benefit to ones life.

Another virtue: productiveness

It’s a process/method through which a person transforms elements from his surroundings into objective values to further his life, benefit his life. It’s the creation of material values, like goods. Rand says it‘s “shaping matter to fit one’s purpose”, “translating an idea into physical form”. What gives it value, why it is in one’s self-interest, why it is of benefit to one, why it is valuable to a person, is rather easy to grasp - as we, as Smith says, “literally, make our living through productive action”. Productive work (mental and physical effort), is a virtue because it makes human survival possible. It’s not only a means of sustaining one’s life, but of becoming self-sustaining. The virtue can be concerned with man adjusting his background to him, to his purposes, more than him adjusting to his background, like animals do. Smith says that the virtue is a “systematic, ongoing method of meeting the challenges of survival.” Obviously that is in one’s self-interest, it’s egoistic, like the other virtues. By practicing the virtue, man makes himself into a person that is able to provide things for himself. It not only can satisfy his immediate needs through productive action, but can allow him to be able to create still further values, raise his standard of living from bare subsistence survival. Note that productiveness demands rationality, so you can see again, that the master virtue is rationality, in which all the others I have discussed (and one more to discuss next) all are derivatives of it. Rand’s defense of this virtue, as well as all the others, is that it is entirely egoistic, in one’s self-interest to practice, beneficial to one’s life.

Bear in mind that living is a process of self-generated, self-sustaining activity. This is what living literally consists of. For human beings, the fundamental self-sustaining activity is productive work.

Productive work should be the central purpose of a rational egoists life.
That all said, this should have given one an idea of some of what this virtue of Rand’s entails, and can further explore it in the book.

Now onto the last of the major/core virtues of Rand’s morality: pride[/I]

Basically this virtue can be described as moral ambitiousness. Wanting to be virtuous, moral.

Human life is an ambitious end; it can only be achieved through a correspondingly ambitious policy of rational moral action. This is what pride calls for.

much of the value of [the virtue of] pride stems from the value of morality itself. It is good to be morally ambitious, seemingly, for all the reasons that it is good to be moral. Because morality is our means to flourishing, it is through the conscientious exercise of all the moral virtues that a person can attain that objective. Indeed, Peikoff observes that the rewards of pride "are all the values that a proper moral character makes possible.

And it’s through the virtue of pride, that one gains self-esteem:

He must think well of himself in order to act well and thereby gain the values that fuel his flourishing. A person's estimate of his actions, his history, his character - of his self- will influence what he seeks and how hard he works to attain it; it will influence what he encourages himself to do, what he allows himself to do, and what he demands of himself.

A person's fundamental assessment of his ability and of his worthiness will inevitably color every choice that he makes. A negative verdict is debilitating. For a person will not normally waste his time on what he deems himself incapable or unworthy of. Without self-esteem, a person will not value his own happiness sufficiently to adhere to the rational moral code that his happiness depends on. He is likely to be deterred from pursuing apparently desirable ends by the unspoken thoughts, 'Why bother? I wouldn't be able to actually get that," […] The lack of self-esteem will thus cripple a person's ability to act in the ways that his flourishing requires. With self-esteem, by contrast, a person will be more inclined to take the actions that can advance his life and disinclined to take those that will be bad for him. Self-esteem gives a person confidence in his judgment, confidence in his identification of what the proper course is, and reason to stay that course in the face of occasionally wayward inclinations.

The larger point in the argument for the virtue of pride […] is not simply that self-esteem is extremely valuable, but that pride is necessary to acquire self-esteem.

Smith goes into this relation more in depth in the book for those interested.

Anyone who wants to learn more about self-esteem, as such, I will emphatically recommend, as I have been for many years, the many works of Nathaniel Branden on it, him being the leading expert and pioneer in the self-esteem movement in psychology.

So, in conclusion to my review, in all, this should have provided at least a sufficient amount of information from the book to show just how all the virtues in Rand’s morality of selfishness are in one’s self-interest, beneficial to ones life to live by. That being irrational, being dishonest, being dependent, being unjust, lacking integrity, being unproductive, having low self-esteem is not ultimately beneficial to one’s life, to one’s self-interest, to human flourishing. For more in depth discussion of each virtue, please see the book, I only touched on them here in order to aide in discussion of them here.

Any questions or comment on the virtues themselves? I have other book reviews that go more into Rand’s morality, as such. This book largely deals with the virtues of it, so let’s try to focus on those exclusively here.

 

[Hugh]

 

[Mr. A]

I have no clue as to what "tl:dr." stands for in the picture.

 

[Conscious Bob]

I have no clue as to what "tl:dr." stands for in the picture.

It means Too long; didn't read.

 

[Mr. A]

Oh, OK, thanks.

For those that it's not too long for them to read it, any questions, I will try to answer for you.