JONTILLMAN.COM | part of the problem since 1976

I have found it very hard, since I go about espousing certain ideas about frugality and living more simply and taking care of oneself, to avoid a group of people who label themselves various things (Libertarians, libertarians, Objectivists, “anarcho-capitalists” etc…) and would like to see me call myself that thing too. Discussion with these sorts is always tiring and tedious, as anyone who has ever chatted up a university freshman who has just read Atlas Shrugged can attest; being able to pronounce certain words, such as “ethics”, does not imply that you understand the concepts therein.

In more or less direct ways, all of these people are engaged in the two activites that all types of conservatives have always been engaged in; looking as if they are radicals and searching for a moral justification for greed. It seems natural then that if they are not parroting Saint Ayn then they are parroting someone who is parroting her for them. As a student of philosophy, who belives that there is great intellectual rigor and reasoned debate necessary for the trying of any idea, the instant one of these conversations begins I begin looking for an exit.

Ayn Rand, and her sychophantic followers have done more in the twentieth century to damage and degrade philosophy and rational discourse than any other group of people. Her appalling and deliberate misuse of the English language, particularly as it relates to philosophical jargon, has helped to confuse several generations of college freshmen into believeing that “altruism” and “selfishness” mean far different things than they do - a necessary condition for here later justifications of greed and blind self-interest thatshe calls “objective”. Never mind the fact that as popular pseudo-philosophies go, “Objectivism” is one of the most subjective going.

This anti-intellectualism can easily be seen in most, if not all, of Rand’s writings, but I like the example provided by “The Ethics of Emergencies”. In this essay, she claimed that people who are altruists will suffer some severe consequences. Among other horrors, these people will lose their self esteem and their respect for others. And so the reason one ought to be an ethical egoist, to Rand, is to avoid these consequences.

(I will ignore, for now, the twisting and redefining of language necessary to make her concepts of “selfishness” and “atruism” recognizable as she defines them.)

Here we have a perfect example of Randian, and later Objectivist, psuedo- or anti-intellectualism. The rebranding of previously debated and discredited ancient moral philosophies (ethical solipsism or ethical egotism) as insightful new thought (rational self interest or Objectivism) shows either a complete ignorance of philosophy (and humanity) on the part of Rand, or a scorn for the intellect of those whom she was writing for, an assumption that they would not be scholarly enough to spot solipsism when they see it. Given how carefully Rand crafted her public persona, I am inclined towards the latter.

Her theory of ethical solipsism is not a theory of ethics, and is only a thesis about prudence or rationality. So instead of “altruism has failed so egoism is true” we now have “altruism has failed so we have no ethical system left”. Theses about ethics are theses about other people, “moral truths” generated via ethical theses do not mesh well with slef-interest; is it morall wrong to catch a cold?

Sorry Randians, you cannot claim that theory T is correct because T is the denial of theory Y, which somehow bothers you; so no more dogmatically accepting ethical egoism because Rand doesn’t think altruism works.