Status
Available
Call number
Collection
Publication
Signet (1964), Edition: First Edition, Paperback, 151 pages
Description
The provocative title of Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness introduces an equally provocative thesis about ethics. Traditional ethics has always been suspicious of self-interest, praising acts that are selfless in intent and calling amoral or immoral acts that are motivated by self interest. Ayn Rand's view is exactly the opposite. This collection of nineteen essays is an effective summary of Ayn Rand's philosophy, which holds the value of the individual over and above that of the state or any other "collective." The thread running through all of the essays is Rand's definition of selfishness as "rational self-interest," with the idea that one has the right to assure one's own survival, to pursue happiness, and to own the fruits of one's labor without having to sacrifice any of these to others against one's will.… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member LisaMaria_C
Ayn Rand was once asked if she could present the essence of her philosophy while standing on one foot. She answered: Metaphysics: Objective Reality; Epistemology: Reason; Ethics: Self-interest; Politics: Capitalism. I first encountered Ayn Rand through her works of fiction as a young woman barely
Do I agree with everything within these pages? Well, let's say there is still much of it where I have doubts, and where I feel uneasy about her tone if nothing else. She wrote in the book:
I hear once in a while: 'Why do you use the word selfishness to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean'? To those who ask it, my answer is: 'For the reason that makes you afraid of it'
That's rather a slap at the reader and her opponents. Yet having read her books, even without her elaborating, I knew what she meant. Or thought I did. That people do fear selfishness as an ideal. Make no mistake--this is a demanding ethic. It requires integrity, to never fake reality. To never let your weakness stand as a plea for the unearned. It doesn't allow you to cover up a lack of self-worth by being subsumed by being part of a "greater" whole.
At the same time--and this is more a matter of tone than substance--I do think Rand undervalues benevolence, kindness, generosity. I found I liked better Spinoza's formulation of the question of ethics. Spinoza, like Aristotle (and Rand), emphasizes that ethics is about human flourishing and happiness. But what I like about Spinoza is his emphasis on reciprocity and empathy--in other words, the Golden Rule that has been a near universal in moral thinking from Confucius to Jesus: “Every man should desire for others the good which he seeks for himself.” Spinoza recognizing humans flourish best with other humans argues it’s in a person’s self-interest, and makes a person happiest, when consequently people “are just, faithful, and honourable in their conduct.” I like that squaring of the circle of selfishness and altruism--which I think Rand too easily dismisses. But you know, were it not for Rand bringing philosophy alive to me and convincing me it's important I would never have read Aristotle--or Spinoza.
Show More
out of my teens. Back then I was already an atheist, one with a great belief in science and reason. There was nothing in her "metaphysics" or "epistemology" that I found the least bit surprising or controversial--indeed in essentials I already agreed with her. Her ethics and her politics were a different story. I remember reading Atlas Shrugged and thinking "you crazy bitch." But she did touch off a revolution in my thinking, changing me from a liberal to a libertarian.Do I agree with everything within these pages? Well, let's say there is still much of it where I have doubts, and where I feel uneasy about her tone if nothing else. She wrote in the book:
I hear once in a while: 'Why do you use the word selfishness to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean'? To those who ask it, my answer is: 'For the reason that makes you afraid of it'
That's rather a slap at the reader and her opponents. Yet having read her books, even without her elaborating, I knew what she meant. Or thought I did. That people do fear selfishness as an ideal. Make no mistake--this is a demanding ethic. It requires integrity, to never fake reality. To never let your weakness stand as a plea for the unearned. It doesn't allow you to cover up a lack of self-worth by being subsumed by being part of a "greater" whole.
At the same time--and this is more a matter of tone than substance--I do think Rand undervalues benevolence, kindness, generosity. I found I liked better Spinoza's formulation of the question of ethics. Spinoza, like Aristotle (and Rand), emphasizes that ethics is about human flourishing and happiness. But what I like about Spinoza is his emphasis on reciprocity and empathy--in other words, the Golden Rule that has been a near universal in moral thinking from Confucius to Jesus: “Every man should desire for others the good which he seeks for himself.” Spinoza recognizing humans flourish best with other humans argues it’s in a person’s self-interest, and makes a person happiest, when consequently people “are just, faithful, and honourable in their conduct.” I like that squaring of the circle of selfishness and altruism--which I think Rand too easily dismisses. But you know, were it not for Rand bringing philosophy alive to me and convincing me it's important I would never have read Aristotle--or Spinoza.
Show Less
LibraryThing member antiquary
A libertarian friend says Rand has good ideas but writes badly,. I find her the reverse: she writes well but has impractical ideas.
LibraryThing member jpsnow
I didn't expect much from this one and ended up seeing that my once-thought "fatal crack" in her philosophy was not as it appeared. (Short form: It's acceptable to put a child or other above yourself so long as that's consistent with your values -- then it's not a sacrifice.)
LibraryThing member mwhel
Nathaniel Branden should receive a higher billing as the co-author, since many of the articles that make up this book are his. The book promotes Rand's philosophy of Objectivist Ethics; that rational selfishness is positive, and advances society. Every person must find his own balance between
Show More
serving himself and serving others. This is the essence of Psychological Egoism and Objectivist Ethics. How can we get happiness from the simplest of life's pleasures knowing the level of suffering in the world? What duty do we have to lessen that suffering? This book explores the gray areas and the subjective aspects of morality. It discusses the deep conflicts between what our society teaches us about guilt, sin, authority, social values, motivation, success and happiness. This book explores the real motives behind people's seemingly selfish or altruistic actions. The very act of reading a book to oneself could be considered a act of selfishness. It represents hoarded time spent serving one's own self iterests, with the aim of increasing one's own satisfaction and self-worth. That could be considered a mild sin in our orthodox value system. Overall, this is a very thought-provoking compilation of articles. Show Less
LibraryThing member jimmaclachlan
Rand is always worth reading, even if I never entirely agree with her. She makes me think a lot & always broadens my vocabulary. Don't pick this up without a dictionary & a lot of quiet time. It's not a quick read, but something I read in small doses over several months. She makes a very valid
Show More
point for selfishness & being aware of her views on it have helped me understand myself & others much better. Really an amazing departure from the politically correct but logically supported & thought through. Show Less
LibraryThing member rnavarrete
ayn rand is a great author. She speaks like a prophet and changes my aspects.
LibraryThing member TadAD
Ayn Rand's philosophy...without the benefit of her skill at story-telling...is somewhat tough to take.
LibraryThing member RonManners
"AYN RAND here sets forth the moral principles of Objectivism,
the philosophy that holds man's life—the life proper to a rational
being—as the standard of moral values and regards altruism as
incompatible with man's nature, with the creative requirements
of his survival, and with a free
Taken from the Back Cover.
the philosophy that holds man's life—the life proper to a rational
being—as the standard of moral values and regards altruism as
incompatible with man's nature, with the creative requirements
of his survival, and with a free
Show More
society."Taken from the Back Cover.
Show Less
LibraryThing member AshRyan
By way of review, I thought I would simply provide some brief excerpts from one of the essays in this collection, "The Argument from Intimidation", so that readers can get a glimpse of her reasoning and writing style. As an added bonus, these excerpts are relevant to some of the other reviews
"[The Argument from Intimidation] is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy...
"All smears are Arguments from Intimidation: they consist of derogatory assertions without any evidence or proof, offered as a substitute for evidence or proof, aimed at the moral cowardice or unthinking credulity of the hearers...
"A moral judgment must always follow, not precede (or supersede), the reasons on which it is based.
"When one gives reasons for one's verdict, one assumes responsibility for it and lays oneself open to objective judgment: if one's reasons are wrong or false, one suffers the consequences. But to condemn without giving reasons is an act of irresponsibility, a kind of moral 'hit-and-run' driving, which is the essence of the Argument from Intimidation."
This book also includes Rand's groundbreaking essay on moral philosophy, "The Objectivist Ethics", as well as applications of her theory of rational egoism to produce original analyses of topics such as "Racism". A truly exceptional book...read it for yourself and make up your own mind!
Show More
here:"[The Argument from Intimidation] is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy...
"All smears are Arguments from Intimidation: they consist of derogatory assertions without any evidence or proof, offered as a substitute for evidence or proof, aimed at the moral cowardice or unthinking credulity of the hearers...
"A moral judgment must always follow, not precede (or supersede), the reasons on which it is based.
"When one gives reasons for one's verdict, one assumes responsibility for it and lays oneself open to objective judgment: if one's reasons are wrong or false, one suffers the consequences. But to condemn without giving reasons is an act of irresponsibility, a kind of moral 'hit-and-run' driving, which is the essence of the Argument from Intimidation."
This book also includes Rand's groundbreaking essay on moral philosophy, "The Objectivist Ethics", as well as applications of her theory of rational egoism to produce original analyses of topics such as "Racism". A truly exceptional book...read it for yourself and make up your own mind!
Show Less
LibraryThing member ague
Great book. You cannot just listen to the critics of rational self-interest as they mostly don't know what they are talking about.
LibraryThing member cwflatt
The first chapter on Objectivist Ethics was a wonderful incite into why we (humankind) demand a set of standard ethics that apply to everyone. Ethics are not something that change with the wind but a set of basic human nature that have existed since creation.
LibraryThing member Denverbook
While I reject most of her premises, Rand writes well and sets forth the philosophy that has been encompassed by current Republican conservative thought in the first decade and a half of the 21st century. All of her reasoning seems to be 10 degrees off from the common truth. She rejects altruism as
Show More
destructive of society and generally rejects the idea that people can be victims of capitalism. Her views are totally in in synch with atheism. Rand, like her current day disciples, has no concept of grace (unmerited love). Even though she hopes to limit the definition of selfishness, the title word is accurate in the broader definition; but there is no virtue in selfishness. Show Less
LibraryThing member ecw0647
Ayn Rand was not afraid of turning conventional wisdom on its head. For millennia, one of the few ethical principles that prevailed across cultures was the value of altruism, i.e. , giving up your life for the benefit of others. Rubbish, writes Rand.
Rand was as anti-community and pro-individual as
"Every human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others and therefore, man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself." I find this statement profound in its implications; if it were to be adopted everywhere, wars would cease. It's only because we have bought into the principle of sacrificing oneself for the greater good that armies can survive, yet the reason is so others can accumulate or obtain what you should be able to.
In her philosophy, the happiness of the individual is paramount. Religious types will find her philosophy more than unsettling, because as an atheist, she values the present and current life above everything else. Whether you like her or not, several of the essays are well worth the time to read, particularly "Collectivized Rights" and "Man's Rights." One's gut response is to say that she has rejected charity and helping others. Not at all. It's just that helping others should not be at one's own expense, e.g., spending a fortune to cure one's wife of a disease because the wife is important to oneself would fit nicely into her worldview. Love is entirely selfish.
An important book no matter where you stand.
Rand was as anti-community and pro-individual as
Show More
anyone I have ever read. Adamantly opposed to coercive state and religious power, she built a philosophy, Objectivism, on rational thinking and reason. She became too dogmatic and rigid for my taste in later years; nevertheless, she has some very interesting things to say."Every human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others and therefore, man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself." I find this statement profound in its implications; if it were to be adopted everywhere, wars would cease. It's only because we have bought into the principle of sacrificing oneself for the greater good that armies can survive, yet the reason is so others can accumulate or obtain what you should be able to.
In her philosophy, the happiness of the individual is paramount. Religious types will find her philosophy more than unsettling, because as an atheist, she values the present and current life above everything else. Whether you like her or not, several of the essays are well worth the time to read, particularly "Collectivized Rights" and "Man's Rights." One's gut response is to say that she has rejected charity and helping others. Not at all. It's just that helping others should not be at one's own expense, e.g., spending a fortune to cure one's wife of a disease because the wife is important to oneself would fit nicely into her worldview. Love is entirely selfish.
An important book no matter where you stand.
Show Less
LibraryThing member DinadansFriend
The prose is clearly written. But, as a person who has experienced parenthood, the ideas expressed are indeed egoistic. But they are in no way a pattern for an individual who is a social animal. It is a rationalization of sociopathy. Do read it, so as to gain an insight into the actions of the
Show More
totally self interested and absorbed. Neither of the authors chose, or could be brought to, reproduce. Show Less
LibraryThing member steve02476
I promised a friend who likes Ayn Rand that I’d read at least 50 pages of whatever Rand book he selected. He picked this one and I made it to 65 pages (the first 4 essays, three by Rand and one by Nathaniel Branden) before abandoning it. To a large part, I don’t really understand what Rand and
Show More
Branden are getting at. (Some parts I did get, and of those I agreed with some but not with most of it.) Honestly, though, even when I’m having trouble grasping a philosophical work, I can still get a sense of whether I “like” it or not. In this case, not so much. Glad to have given it a shot, though, it’s clear a lot of people find a lot of wisdom in it. Show Less
Subjects
Language
Original publication date
1964
Physical description
144 p.; 6.8 inches
ISBN
0451129318 / 9780451129314