Customer Reviews

Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Noting how recent scholarly work in ethics dances around the edges of seriously grappling with egoism, Dr. Smith offers the invitation: Why not judge ethical egoism by squarely confronting it in its most powerful and consistent form? Thus her comprehensive, systematic presentation of Ayn Rand's ethics. This book is particularly welcome because important elements of Rand's ethical thought are scattered among her novels and various essays, with further illumination sprinkled in her journals, her live Q&A, and reflected in works by her leading and longtime students (primarily Dr. Leonard Peikoff). Smith draws all of this together into a single, clear, carefully organized presentation, judiciously employing comparison and contrast with contemporary academic thought to clarify distinctions and to highlight the novel and powerful aspects of Rand's ideas.

Smith's presentation is masterful, executed with clarity, power, and finesse. Yet it is accessible, and she maintains a warm, reflective style throughout that is grounded in the realities of human life. While following along as Smith unwinds the major virtues Rand identified, what makes them virtues, and what they demand of us in action, you may find that you can't help but consider the implications regarding your own behavior -- the character you are shaping by your everyday choices and actions -- the course you are charting in your own life. This is a solid academic work, but it is also the deepest sort of practical self-help book, implicitly encouraging people to get real and seriously consider what it means to live as a human can and should.

-----

Regarding Steve Jackson's review: Smith was clear about her mission of presenting RAND'S ethical ideas, and doing so certainly doesn't entail a survey of all fully-, semi-, non-, and anti-Objectivist thought regarding Rand's ethics. That would be a different book, and Mr. Jackson denying Smith's achievement here by leading people to confuse her purpose with his own is unjust. Smith took on a worthy and substantive project, and she absolutely knocked the ball out of the park.

This book should be next on your reading list if you want an in-depth and rigorous study of Ayn Rand's ethics of Rational Egoism beyond what you can glean from reading Ayn Rand's novels and non-fiction essays. First of all, although this book is philosophically rigorous, it is highly readable. Personally speaking, I thought reading this book was a pleasure.

This book offers a detailed understanding of the Objectivist principles of *how* one should be moral. The first chapter is a useful introduction to what virtues are and what one can expect to gain from reading this book. The second chapter is a brief overview of Ayn Rand's answer to *why* one should be moral and hence, is a summary of Tara Smith's book "Viable Values". The third chapter goes into great detail on rationality, which is the primary virtue according to Objectivist ethics. The next six chapters are each devoted to one of the six secondary virtues of Objectivist ethics, which are: Honesty, Independence, Integrity, Justice, Pride and Productivity.

The last chapter should also be of great value to those who enjoy reading beyond the lines. In this chapter, Dr. Smith evaluates four other qualities which are commonly held to be virtues: Charity, Generosity, Kindness and Temperance, according to Objectivist principles. Although Dr. Smith indicates that these qualities are not inherently bad according to Objectivist principles, she nevertheless correctly concludes that since Objectivism holds one's own life as the standard of value, these qualities cannot properly be considered virtues according to Objectivist principles.

Overall, this is an excellent book for anyone seeking a more thorough understanding of the philosophy of Ayn Rand!

I have only used this book as a reference but as such it has done an excellent job clearing up some confusions. For context, I have read most of Ayn Rand's work and have thought about them quite a bit. This book takes Ayn Rand's ideas and chews them, looking at all the different angles and playing devil's advocate.Tara Smith writes very clearly. I highly recommend it for someone who reads Ayn Rand's writings but has trouble seeing just how some ideas really look like.

Some of the ideas this book helped me with was life as the standard, what happiness really means to Objectivists, and how an egotist has true friendships. It also helped me get a better understanding of the primary virtues of Objectivism. Highly recommend it.

Tara Smith's book makes a valiant attempt to put a good face on ethical egoism. Be that as it may, she doesn't succeed in shoring up the defenses where they're most needed. The prime objection to ethical egoism is that by promoting interpersonal conflict it refutes itself. A frontal attack goes as follows.

Ethical egoism: it's morally right that an individual optimize self-interest. By willfully frustrating an individual's efforts to do so, then, competitors willfully controvert what it's morally right that the individual do. But willfully controverting what's morally right is morally wrong. Hence, an individual's competitors are morally in the wrong. Now, if ethical egoism is the true moral philosophy, then we confront a contradiction whenever individuals compete: each of them both IS and is NOT morally in the wrong--wrong from the others' correct perspectives but not wrong from his own. Thus, so long as competition is possible, we have the consequence that if ethical egoism is true, then it's possible that contradictions are true. Competition IS possible. Ergo, if ethical egoism is true, then it's possible that contradictions are true. But, of course, it ISN'T possible that contradictions are true. So it's NOT the case that ethical egoism is true. Ethical egoism is therefore false. R. I. P.

The laments of ten trillion shrieking, slavering Objectivists notwithstanding, ethical egoism bites the dust unless it doesn't lead to interpersonal conflicts of interest. But, of course, it DOES lead to interpersonal conflicts of interest: it's a veritable RECIPE for them.

Ayn Rand Rand clearly wants to have her cake and eat it too. She advocates ethical egoism as a viable ethical theory but offers no reasoned rebuttal to the objection that it promotes interpersonal conflict. She simply lays down the fiat that "there is no conflict of interests among men who...do not make sacrifices nor accept them...." History begs to differ. It confirms, in fact, that uncompromising pursuit of self-interest is a veritable recipe for interpersonal conflict. And the qualification about rational self-interest changes nothing unless it enjoins one to adopt a NOLO CONTENDERE stance toward competitors. A NOLO CONTENDERE provision, however, injects dissonance into an Objectivist's moral psychology: such an individual must regard his own interest as ethically paramount yet be willing to compromise it whenever it conflicts with anyone else's. When was the last time you met somebody with THAT moral outlook? Sorry, no sale.

Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" argument is sometimes employed to show how pursuit of individual self-interest will militate to the general good. However, arguing that benefits to others provide the moral justification for one's own selfishness effectively makes one an altruist, not an ethical egoist. Furthermore, the Invisible Hand doesn't make a dent in the frontal-attack argument. The Invisible Hand argument, in fact, is vitiated by some pretty serious logical gaps. Anyone with a taste for this topic is referred to "The Invisible Hand and the Prisoner's Dilemma", CONTEMPORARY MORAL PROBLEMS, 10th Edition, James E. White, Ed. (Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2009), pp. 399 - 400.

Tara Smith actually does a better job of dealing with these matters than Rand herself. But in the final analysis, Smith, like all other apologists for ethical egoism, is forced to engage in a disingenuous forensic rope-a-dope when it comes to interpersonal conflicts of interest, letting objections bounce off her position unanswered and afterward smirking, "Nya, nya! Didn't touch me!"

Well, Smith's defense of ethical egoism doesn't touch its critics, either.

Prof. Tara Smith follows up her defense of Ayn Rand's metaethics (VIABLE VALUES) with this work devoted to the normative ethics of Objectivism.

Smith starts with an excellent point. There have been versions of egoism throughout history. However, there have been few which are non-predatory and rights-respecting. The most prominent and influential version that kind of egoism is Ayn Rand's. Why not discuss the most consistent version of ethical egoism?

As an exposition of Rand's ethics, this book generally succeeds. Smith references Rand's letters and journals (which have in part been published) as well as her essays and novels. This is a large amount of material to integrate and Smith does it successfully. Her work is certainly of a much higher level than typical Objectivist writings. To give one example, unlike, say, Leonard Peikoff, Smith actually tries to understand what people mean by humility and then critiques the concept intelligently. Another example is honesty. Smith is aware of the standard arguments against Objectivism's instrumentalist opposition to dishonesty. I don't think she successfully answers them, but she doesn't duck problems. I was, however, a bit disappointed with Smith's discussion of charity, since she skirts around certain questions related to helping strangers. Smith doesn't give a clear answer to the question of whether it is morally appropriate to give to people who are victims of natural disasters. She states that optimally it would be best to know if those in need were moral. But if a tsunami struck an area where the victims were predominantly religious, would it be immoral to offer help? Smith's answer is presumably yes, but she doesn't say.

My major complaint with this book is Smith's use of sources. If Smith is of the opinion that Rand's journals and letters are relevant for understanding Rand's ethics, then what about Nathaniel Branden's essays? When Rand broke with Branden in 1968 she stated that Branden's pre-split writings were consistent with Objectivism. She obviously had a high opinion of them since she included several in her work THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS. Certainly these essays, written during the time of Rand's mature philosophy, are of much value in understanding Rand's ethics. Smith's discussion of certain psychological issues related to ethics (such as self esteem) would have been much improved if she had interacted Branden's articles including "The Psychology of Pleasure." Yet Smith doesn't even mention Branden, much less give a reason why she ignores him. Given that Rand did not excise Branden's essays from her books, why does Smith consign them to the Orwellian Memory Hole?

It's particularly disappointing that Smith decided to limit the secondary sources concerning Objectivism almost entirely to authors associated with Leonard Peikoff's Ayn Rand Institute (such as Peikoff, Harry Binswanger and even popularizer Craig Biddle). There are many scholars that Smith overlooks. For example, she doesn't mention Objectivist philosopher David Kelley, even though his book UNRUGGED INDIVIDUALISM is quite relevant to her discussion of benevolence. Likewise there is no mention of Chris Sciabarra, Roderick Long, and Eric Mack, all of whom have written valuable material concerning Rand's ethics. Since Smith considered it appropriate to discuss non-Objectivists such as Philippa Foot and Rosalind Hursthouse, her unwillingness to engage in non-ARI Objectivists and writers influenced by Rand is most curious. I suspect that Smith's decision with respect to sources was influenced by her association with the ARI. (If you do a search of the book you will find that "Peikoff" appears on 143 pages.) Since Kelley and Branden are no longer within the line of apostolic succession, any mention of them is ultra vires.

When Smith departs from her area of expertise, she makes a few mistakes. She asserts that Jesus opposed judging, citing the well-known injunction in Matt. 7:1 ("Judge not that ye be not judged."). She even argues that Catholics who looked the other way regarding pedophile priests were following Jesus' teaching. However, Jesus was likely only opposing self-righteous judgment. Later in Matt., Jesus discusses church discipline and advocates expelling members when appropriate. (Matt. 18:15-17.) The New Testament contains many example of judging, including the exclusion of sexually immoral people from the church. Smith later argues that Jesus urged his followers to sell everything and give to the poor. Jesus told one specific person to sell everything and there is no suggestion that it was a universal commandment.

AYN RAND'S NORMATIVE ETHICS is the most important work to date on Rand's ethics and certainly one of the best works by an Objectivist philosopher. Given its price, I'm disappointed by Smith's decision to exclude authors based not on the quality or relevance of their work, but on their standing with the ARI.