Philosophy

A comment made at my book club meeting the other day is haunting me. The person suggested that corporate corruption and greediness, the Tyco and Enron kind, is the legacy of Ayn Rand. To think that Randian philosophy means “What is good for me is what I’ll grab, and to hell with the rest of you” is a bizarre notion to me. I wish there had been time to ask her to elaborate. I think she’s missed the point.

In a true “Randian” business world the corporation pays its workers the highest salaries, values and preserves natural resources, engages in honest reporting to shareholders, produces the most reliable, safest and most desirable product or service – all because those practices are the best way to ensure long-term success. 'Profit' isn't evil. Instead, it is the very thing that keeps the business world 'moral.' In the personal world, the actions and their results are the same. True self-interest isn't evil - it keeps us moral and right.

I’ve had discussions with people for years over the morality of “other-serving” vs. “self-serving,” usually with these people telling me that 'serving others' is morally superior. And I agree that it is 'good' but then they insist on the opposite notion as well – that anything “self-serving” is inherently evil. That's the part I have trouble with. Benefit others – Good. Benefit self – Bad? Serving others 'selflessly' is what I don't accept as more moral.

What I got from Ayn Rand's writings was that valuing and serving yourself is the only way you can be a decent person. Yes, a decent person, in the traditional “American values” sense. (And no, I don't see the religious conflict there, although I suspect others might.) If you truly do things in your own best interest, then the interests of others will be equally served - with no danger of disrespect for the 'other.' This is the critical issue. The underpinnings for this position are simply that self-respect and respect for others are absolutely coupled; to value yourself is a necessary precondition for valuing others. If you respect yourself and therefore act in your own interest you will never hurt another; you won’t pollute, cheat, steal, insult, or commit offense against others. In mutual respect, you each, in turn, succeed, because you are on the same plane. If you are unable to see the ultimate value of “Me” then you have no hope of understanding the value of “You.”

What of the person who believes he must put others above himself? That nobility is in serving others while sacrificing self? What of those who think the communist mantra “to each according to his ability, from each according to his need” is an ideal to be admired, while believing that people are, unfortunately, incapable of achieving that “ideal?”

Me – Unworthy. You – Worthy? We all seem to agree that the principle doesn’t work in practice. But they think it doesn’t work because people are inherently evil. I think (and Rand does too) that it is because the principle itself is evil. It is the principle, not our “evil nature” that leads us to the superior-inferior, saver-victim, helper-helpless, pitying-pitiful attitudes that always seem to result from the 'selfless serving of others.' How can respect – how can decency – survive at all when the principle assumes that someone is unworthy?

Yes, we should volunteer our time; donate to charity; help others so that they can help themselves. But we can't pretend that we are not serving and honoring ourselves first in doing so. As long as we understand and believe that, we don't – can’t – indulge ourselves with thoughts of our own superiority over those we are helping.

And just think what we accomplish when we believe in ourselves.