Ayn Rand, Self Interest, and the Ownership of Ideas
Ayn Rand and Self-Interest - https://aynrand.org/ideas/philosophy/#tab-3-in-rands-words
1. If man is the beneficiary of all of his actions and rational self-interest, then Objectivist ethics are right.
2. His right to be the beneficiary is grounded in the fact that he is a rational human being with rational morality.
3. Therefore, the Objectivist ethics are right, when man is acting rational and objective (1, 2 MP)
Premise one does not sit well with me. Unlike what Rand says, there must be a scenario when self-interest is not served. Or rather, self-interest might not be the best word to use in this argument. For instance, the first martyr according to Catholic tradition was St. Stephen. Rand would argue that by dying for his beliefs he is furthering his self-interest because he places his faith before his own life, thus he is serving the purpose he wishes to serve. In my opinion, Rand’s concept that placing a commitment to a faith or idea before oneself is serving self-interest implies an ownership to ideas that is incompatible with the nature of thought.
Theists argue that religion is something that originates beyond human conception. When placing an idea before oneself is considered furthering self-interest, there seems to be an implicit and off-putting ownership to an idea than is not able to be owned by anyone person. No one is able to own a religion. Similarly, ideas that formed as a result of collaboration are also unable to be owned by any one person. For example, America was founded on the basis of liberty, as stated by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Soldiers that fought and died to preserve liberty did so to ensure that there is a world that they will not be able to see but will benefit future generations. While they placed the idea of liberty above their lives, it cannot be selfish to pursue liberty. Someone can experience liberty and its benefits, but the concept itself goes beyond man.
1. If Objectivist ethics are right, then if man is the beneficiary of all of his actions and rational self-interest.
2. Man is not the sole beneficiary of his actions because there is an implicit idea of ownership to actions and ideas when one is the sole beneficiary. There exist some ideas that go beyond man.
3. Objectivist ethics are not entirely right (1, 2 MT)
1. If man is the beneficiary of all of his actions and rational self-interest, then Objectivist ethics are right.
2. His right to be the beneficiary is grounded in the fact that he is a rational human being with rational morality.
3. Therefore, the Objectivist ethics are right, when man is acting rational and objective (1, 2 MP)
Premise one does not sit well with me. Unlike what Rand says, there must be a scenario when self-interest is not served. Or rather, self-interest might not be the best word to use in this argument. For instance, the first martyr according to Catholic tradition was St. Stephen. Rand would argue that by dying for his beliefs he is furthering his self-interest because he places his faith before his own life, thus he is serving the purpose he wishes to serve. In my opinion, Rand’s concept that placing a commitment to a faith or idea before oneself is serving self-interest implies an ownership to ideas that is incompatible with the nature of thought.
Theists argue that religion is something that originates beyond human conception. When placing an idea before oneself is considered furthering self-interest, there seems to be an implicit and off-putting ownership to an idea than is not able to be owned by anyone person. No one is able to own a religion. Similarly, ideas that formed as a result of collaboration are also unable to be owned by any one person. For example, America was founded on the basis of liberty, as stated by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Soldiers that fought and died to preserve liberty did so to ensure that there is a world that they will not be able to see but will benefit future generations. While they placed the idea of liberty above their lives, it cannot be selfish to pursue liberty. Someone can experience liberty and its benefits, but the concept itself goes beyond man.
1. If Objectivist ethics are right, then if man is the beneficiary of all of his actions and rational self-interest.
2. Man is not the sole beneficiary of his actions because there is an implicit idea of ownership to actions and ideas when one is the sole beneficiary. There exist some ideas that go beyond man.
3. Objectivist ethics are not entirely right (1, 2 MT)
Comments (1)
I don't even see how this follows in the first place. 1 talks about states of affairs, 2 talks about rights.
Quoting Mackensie
Essentially, according to the quote of Rand you linked, rational self-interest is not actually self-interest the way we usually understand it. It's defined by an "objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles". From the context, this supposed objective morality is derived from the "nature of man" and leads to personal fulfillment.
This sounds pretty close to a form of virtue ethics. But the details depend on how the objective moral code can be known.