The late Ayn Rand became famous for promoting the “virtue” of selfishness in bestselling novels (Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead) and non-fiction works. In the process she attracted a devoted following of academics and public intellectuals, including former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan. Others claim Rand’s circle was more like a cult.
Her philosophy, called Objectivism, “is rational self-interest and self-responsibility – the idea that no man is any other man’s slave,” according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “The virtues of her philosophy are principled policies based on rational assessment: rationality, productiveness, honesty (in order to rationally make the best decisions we must be privy to the facts), integrity, independence, justice, and pride. Her political philosophy is in the classical liberal tradition, with that tradition’s emphasis upon individualism, the constitutional protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property, and limited government.”
Ethical Egoism
But it’s her ethics of self-realization, which in philosophy is called “ethical egoism,” that intrigued me — horrified me, too — and which, I believe, accounts for Objectivism’s widespread popular appeal. Ethical egoism says we should always act in accordance with our self interests. In fact, we have an ethical obligation to do so! Moreover, ethical egoism says it’s never our responsibility to satisfy the interests of others, unless of course it would advance our interests as well.
Who thinks like this? Lots of normal people. Monsters too. Think Gordon “Greed is good” Gecko of Oliver Stone’s movie Wall Street.
Ethical egoism may work well in theory or in movies but it wreaks havoc in personal relationships. If there’s no give-and-take, no yielding of self-interest from time to time in personal relationships, get ready for a self-realized but lonely life.
I’ve long felt that the ethical aspects of Objectivism provided a very poor model for living a satisfied life. But I was mistaken. There is a place for the ethical egoist – at the gambling table.
In June 2003 I read an article in The New York Times Magazine by John Hodgman called “Ayn Rand, in Spades.” Hodgman profiles a highly successful poker player, Adam Wildavsky, who applied the principles of Objectivism to his favorite game with great success. Here are some excerpts from that article.
To Think or Not to Think
“One of Rand’s basic premises is that man has free will which is expressed primarily through a single choice: to think or not to think,” Hodgson said.
“One of Rand’s favorite adjectives is ‘indifferent’: it describes a kind of Objectivist Zen state of selfish focus, and it describes Wildavsky perfectly,” Hodgson said. “He seems beautifully clueless of the anxiety that permeates the hotel [where a large championship poker competition is being held].”
“When discussing the advantages that his Objectivist approach brings him, Wildavsky often returns to the same motif: reason trumps emotion,” Hodgman said. “This is more than an abstract motto. It is, as he plays, a constant, rigorous, exhausting inner struggle: to resist guesswork and gut reactions and ’spacing out’, to analyze each hand in itself, each bid, play after play after play.”
“…Wildavsky is always tranquil at the table, always silent,” Hodgman said. “He refuses to rehash hands at the table or to listen as other partners chew one another out, an uncommon deaf-muteness he has named ‘The Keller Convention’, after Helen Keller. It wasn’t always this way. He used to be a ‘terror’ of the table, he tells me. Then he stopped looking at the game emotionally and started looking at it Objectively. ‘Selfishness is what led me to the idea that it would be more profitable to be nice to my partner.’”
Other Wildavsky insights are: “Emotions are not a means of cognition.” And, “Look for the selfish, not the sentimental, reason.”
Are there other situations, besides the wagering table, in which you might apply ethical egoism? Let me know.
Copyright © 2009 by Vince Reardon
