The ethics of Emergencies

(Originally written July 13, 2006 in Book 3)

The Virtue of Selfishness
The Ethics of Emergencies
Ayn Rand

"The psychological results of altruism may be observed in the fact that a great many people approach the subject of ethics by asking questions as 'Should one risk one's life to help a man who is a) drowning, b) trapped in a fire, c) stepping in front of a speeding truck, d) hanging by his fingernails over an abyss?" (Rand, 43).

Altruist ethics causes men to suffer:
1) a lack of self-esteem (his first concern in the previous question is not how to serve his own life, but how to sacrifice it)
2) a lack of respect for others (they consider all men as doomed beggars crying out)
3) a nightmarish view of existence (we are trapped in a malevolent universe and disaster are our primary concern)
4) an indifference to ethics, a cynical amorality (because he ponders only ethical situations like the quote, which he will likely never encounter)

Sacrifice is the forsaking of a value for a lesser one or for a non-value.

Altruism bases virtue on how sacrificial a man is. The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance of your values and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one.

Linehan - I oppose this on two grounds. First, who is defining what is rational here? Obviously it is not God because God does sacrifice greater values for lesser ones, i.e. himself for man. But since God is the model of rationality to denounce sacrifice as being rational is in fact irrational. Second, on a much more practical sense, I value a honeymoon and I value eating. Eating necessarily has a higher value because it is essential to life. A honeymoon needn't happen to sustain existence. But I can sacrifice a meal or two to save for a lesser value. Trivial, but subjectively important values would have to be discarded in Rand's theory.

"Love and friendship are profoundly personal, selfish values" (Rand, 44).

Love is an expression and assertion of self-esteem, a response to one's own values in the person of another.

"A selfless, disinterested love is a contradiction in terms; it means that one is indifferent to that which one values" (Rand, 44).

"The time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one's own happiness" (Rand, 45).

Linehan - That is utterly disgusting. That means that a person is only as valuable as the amount of happiness one can derive from another. We are humans, not parasites.

Rand - We have a non-sacrificial way of helping our friends. If we buy a gadget rather than food for a friend we have no business pretending to be his friend. To strangers and acquaintances we only give respect and good will. We give them that because they have 'potential value'.

Linehan - Thus a man is worthless to me until he manifests his potential value. If he never manifests it, he remains worthless. I thought you said it was altruists who were cold-hearted.

Since men are born tabula rasa cognitively and morally a man regards strangers as innocent until proven guilty on account of their potential value.

Linehan - There is no tabula rasa in man. If nothing else, man is born with fear. Fear needn't be taught, it comes naturally. Objects to fear may change through teaching, but fear itself is innate (as well as many other things).

Rand - In emergencies men can risk themselves to save others (who are strangers to him) but not at the expense of his own life. Once the disaster has subsided and normal conditions come back, strangers receive only the good will and respect they deserve.

Poverty and illness are not emergency situations. They are normal conditions of existence.

Linehan - Ms. Rand you charge altruism as being based on a metaphysical assumption of a malevolent universe. If poverty and illness are matter-of-fact normal conditions of existence, then this existence cannot be anything but malevolent except for maybe the cruelly indifferent.

I believe that where we find our sharpest disagreement is in the nature of happiness. For your side, you feel that happiness is created through man's selfish acts. It is undeniable that man can derive a sense of pleasure from a selfish act, but it is short-lived. Another selfish act is then required to sustain the waning pleasure. Thus, happiness becomes a string of isolated points of pleasure and if sustained well enough can be called 'happiness'. This is shallow! At best this is a hollow happiness that has no core. For my part, I believe that happiness is derived through selfless acts. There is a peaceful contentment in providing for others as best as one can. When it is practiced regularly it becomes a person's mode, their essence. They derive happiness, a genuine connection of events of good will towards others, through the physical acts of good will. Even the poorest of the poor can be happy in this world, but that is only because happiness is not determined by your speculative non-sense. Objectivist happiness is not happiness, but a game of self-serving pleasure seekers fulfilling their animalistic lusts. It is shallow and leaves not only a hollow happiness, but a hollow man.