JONTILLMAN.COM | part of the problem since 1976

In my recent screed about Ayn Rand, I said then that I would ignore her twisting and redefining of language necessary to make her concepts of “selfishness” and “atruism” recognizable as she defines them. Now I will address them, in the best way possible, given the person I am discussing, by quoting her:

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value - and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.

Beautiful isn’t it, in all of it’s sophomoric pretense of a justification of greed? The main thrust of all Rand’s writings is right ther, in that quote. The thousands of pages she spewed were nothing more than recapitualtions of that very thought, in various disguises and with various borrowed and perverted terms.

Now, I agree that she has done an admirable job, through her writing, of showing us exactly what greed, or as she softens it, ’selfishness’ is. However, I cannot see where she has given it any moral or ethical basis, or has in any way brought it up from the lowest of human impulses to become the highest. Those who would say that she has are no different than the racists and bigots who read the masturbatory Turner Diaries and take them as some sort of justification for their intolerance and hatred.

Invert Rand’s screed about altruism and greed, and an accurate picture of what she, and her followers believe, emerges:

Greed declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is evil, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is good. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value - and so long as that beneficiary is no one other than oneself, anything goes.

Pathetic, isn’t it? Not quite as pathetic as when her fans try to apply their “libertarian” principles to dating…