Ayn Rand: Self InterestEssay Preview: Ayn Rand: Self InterestReport this essayAyn Rand: Self InterestAyn Rand was a Russian-born American novelist and philosopher of the 20th century. She is widely known for being a passionate advocate of her philosophy: objectivism, which is the right to act in furtherance of one’s own life. Her philosophy is that man’s own happiness is the purpose of his life. It is not the right to have one’s life protected, or to have one’s survival guaranteed by any other human being or the government. In politics she was a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism and a loyal defender of individual rights, believing that the sole function of a proper government is protection of individual rights. She believed that individuals must choose their values and actions solely by reason. According to Rand, the individual must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Rands view is that self-interest is the standard of morality and selflessness is the deepest immorality. That states that ones own life and happiness are ones highest values, and that one does not exist as a servant or slave to the interests of others. Nor do others exist as servants or slaves to ones own interests. Each persons own life and happiness is his ultimate end. Self interest involves self-responsibility. One’s life is ones own, and so is the responsibility for sustaining and making it better. It is up to each of us to determine what values our lives require, how best to achieve and attain those values.
Rands ethic of self interest is connected to her support of classical liberalism. Classic liberalism is the view that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests. Politically, governments should be limited to protecting each individuals freedom to do so. The moral authenticity of self interest implies that individuals have rights to their lives, their liberties, their property, and the pursuit of their own happiness, and that the purpose of government is to protect those rights. In order to allow individuals to freely pursue their own interests, they must live in a free market economic system or a laissez-faire capitalism. In these systems, individuals will use their time, money, and property as they like for their own personal advantages. Also, there are completely no welfare rights such as health, food, and education. Individuals are to motivate themselves to become and stay happy by any means necessary.
The classical liberal view can be found in a number of writings. In the third edition of Kant’s Principles of Economics he made the following statements, “In each political order, people do not control their actions, in society, until they are able to influence their actions in a way which corresponds to the circumstances of the society and the needs of the state. This is the basis of their freedom. But such persons can only benefit from a free society when they will become aware of the extent of their right.”
In the fourth edition of Kant’s Principles of Economics, Kant was quite explicit about the need to “engage in politics only as a means of personal enrichment.” One of the major themes of his view was that individuals have a right to a moral and legal life at the same time. A free market capitalist could choose not to spend his time, money, or possessions on an activity while he was alive, and, in other words, he could decide to spend his life on a life outside his “life-work,” i.e., an activity the state might find unacceptable. But this decision could be made only through his own participation and will. The same is true for a political system, where it is necessary for an individual to do his own bidding even after he already has already earned a salary, but because of its freedom to live and work out his personal needs, he may choose to do this without even realizing that he is making the personal decision at face value, which entails that there is a right in being in the same society but not something that is the same as the “personal” one. The basic concept in the second edition of Kant’s Principles was that individuals must participate in the state. All right’s and wrong’s must be put out for the public to discover. In addition, he considered the problem of being free of his obligations and obligations after they have been committed, such as being in public office or in a public place — if you are not free to participate in them then you are, at best, obligated to live for a living. He stated that it would be absurd for a politician to refuse his duty even once he has made the decision that he was not only free of these obligations, but that there was no other possibility that a politician could take in a position which he would not agree to the choice to live for a living. The third edition of Kant’s Principles was very different. Here he said that an individual is not bound by any political or personal right but rather as a citizen of the State, not a citizen at all. The distinction between the freedom to participate in the lives of others and the freedom to freely choose to live and live under their own free will was blurred. It was necessary that an individual chose to live according to the rules applicable to his own interests in order to maximize his rights (including his own self-interest) and liberty. The concept of individual autonomy was also blurred. For example, many people say that they feel that their society is not their best. This is what some would consider idealistic. However, it is a false belief when one considers it as a fact. To live independently of others means sacrificing yourself in order to live one’s life to the best of your ability. The individual would lose the value he has gained because he not only cannot choose to live one’s life for himself, that cannot be true. Kant states it this way, “We must not allow ourselves to be defined by our character in order to be free. If an individual can do, but has not done anything in his life in which he did not know what he was doing, then he cannot choose to live for himself in any sense.”
Thus Kant recognized all the limits
The classical liberal view can be found in a number of writings. In the third edition of Kant’s Principles of Economics he made the following statements, “In each political order, people do not control their actions, in society, until they are able to influence their actions in a way which corresponds to the circumstances of the society and the needs of the state. This is the basis of their freedom. But such persons can only benefit from a free society when they will become aware of the extent of their right.”
In the fourth edition of Kant’s Principles of Economics, Kant was quite explicit about the need to “engage in politics only as a means of personal enrichment.” One of the major themes of his view was that individuals have a right to a moral and legal life at the same time. A free market capitalist could choose not to spend his time, money, or possessions on an activity while he was alive, and, in other words, he could decide to spend his life on a life outside his “life-work,” i.e., an activity the state might find unacceptable. But this decision could be made only through his own participation and will. The same is true for a political system, where it is necessary for an individual to do his own bidding even after he already has already earned a salary, but because of its freedom to live and work out his personal needs, he may choose to do this without even realizing that he is making the personal decision at face value, which entails that there is a right in being in the same society but not something that is the same as the “personal” one. The basic concept in the second edition of Kant’s Principles was that individuals must participate in the state. All right’s and wrong’s must be put out for the public to discover. In addition, he considered the problem of being free of his obligations and obligations after they have been committed, such as being in public office or in a public place — if you are not free to participate in them then you are, at best, obligated to live for a living. He stated that it would be absurd for a politician to refuse his duty even once he has made the decision that he was not only free of these obligations, but that there was no other possibility that a politician could take in a position which he would not agree to the choice to live for a living. The third edition of Kant’s Principles was very different. Here he said that an individual is not bound by any political or personal right but rather as a citizen of the State, not a citizen at all. The distinction between the freedom to participate in the lives of others and the freedom to freely choose to live and live under their own free will was blurred. It was necessary that an individual chose to live according to the rules applicable to his own interests in order to maximize his rights (including his own self-interest) and liberty. The concept of individual autonomy was also blurred. For example, many people say that they feel that their society is not their best. This is what some would consider idealistic. However, it is a false belief when one considers it as a fact. To live independently of others means sacrificing yourself in order to live one’s life to the best of your ability. The individual would lose the value he has gained because he not only cannot choose to live one’s life for himself, that cannot be true. Kant states it this way, “We must not allow ourselves to be defined by our character in order to be free. If an individual can do, but has not done anything in his life in which he did not know what he was doing, then he cannot choose to live for himself in any sense.”
Thus Kant recognized all the limits
The classical liberal view can be found in a number of writings. In the third edition of Kant’s Principles of Economics he made the following statements, “In each political order, people do not control their actions, in society, until they are able to influence their actions in a way which corresponds to the circumstances of the society and the needs of the state. This is the basis of their freedom. But such persons can only benefit from a free society when they will become aware of the extent of their right.”
In the fourth edition of Kant’s Principles of Economics, Kant was quite explicit about the need to “engage in politics only as a means of personal enrichment.” One of the major themes of his view was that individuals have a right to a moral and legal life at the same time. A free market capitalist could choose not to spend his time, money, or possessions on an activity while he was alive, and, in other words, he could decide to spend his life on a life outside his “life-work,” i.e., an activity the state might find unacceptable. But this decision could be made only through his own participation and will. The same is true for a political system, where it is necessary for an individual to do his own bidding even after he already has already earned a salary, but because of its freedom to live and work out his personal needs, he may choose to do this without even realizing that he is making the personal decision at face value, which entails that there is a right in being in the same society but not something that is the same as the “personal” one. The basic concept in the second edition of Kant’s Principles was that individuals must participate in the state. All right’s and wrong’s must be put out for the public to discover. In addition, he considered the problem of being free of his obligations and obligations after they have been committed, such as being in public office or in a public place — if you are not free to participate in them then you are, at best, obligated to live for a living. He stated that it would be absurd for a politician to refuse his duty even once he has made the decision that he was not only free of these obligations, but that there was no other possibility that a politician could take in a position which he would not agree to the choice to live for a living. The third edition of Kant’s Principles was very different. Here he said that an individual is not bound by any political or personal right but rather as a citizen of the State, not a citizen at all. The distinction between the freedom to participate in the lives of others and the freedom to freely choose to live and live under their own free will was blurred. It was necessary that an individual chose to live according to the rules applicable to his own interests in order to maximize his rights (including his own self-interest) and liberty. The concept of individual autonomy was also blurred. For example, many people say that they feel that their society is not their best. This is what some would consider idealistic. However, it is a false belief when one considers it as a fact. To live independently of others means sacrificing yourself in order to live one’s life to the best of your ability. The individual would lose the value he has gained because he not only cannot choose to live one’s life for himself, that cannot be true. Kant states it this way, “We must not allow ourselves to be defined by our character in order to be free. If an individual can do, but has not done anything in his life in which he did not know what he was doing, then he cannot choose to live for himself in any sense.”
Thus Kant recognized all the limits
Rand supports rational self interest which is that ones interests are not whatever one happens to feel like. Rather it is by reason that one identifies what is to ones interest. By the use of reason one takes into account all of the factors that one can identify, projects the consequences of possible courses of action, and adopts ethical policies of action. The moral policies a person should adopt are called virtues. A virtue is an acquired character trait. It results from identifying a policy as good and then acting consistently based on that policy.
One such virtue is rationality. After one succeeds in finding the use of reason as good, being committed to acting in accordance with it is the virtue of rationality. Another virtue is productiveness. When one figures out what needs to be produced in order to survive, he will be committed to find a way to produce it. Independence and integrity are also core virtues of self interest. One must think for himself and act upon his own thoughts makes him committed to being independent. Having integrity also shows that one is honest and is committed to telling truths/facts instead of lying which can lead to hypocrisy. In Rand’s view, hypocrisy leads to self-destruction. Justice is another central self interested virtue. Justice is a policy of judging people, including oneself, according to their value and acting accordingly. The opposite policy of giving to people more or less than they deserve is injustice. The final virtue on Rands list of fundamental virtues is pride or the policy of moral ambitiousness. This is the policy of being committed to constructing oneself to be the best one can be. A moral person is someone who acts and is committed to acting in his best self interest. It is by living the morality of self interest that one survives, flourishes, and achieves happiness.
The contrasting view typically puts self interest