MENU

New Perspectives on Ayn Rand’s Ideas

By Edward W. Younkins

May 14, 2022

SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)

 

This article addresses various viewpoints with respect to Ayn Rand’s ideas. The first section takes a look at Rand’s philosophy at a macro level. It discusses what it means to be an advocate of Closed Objectivism or Open Objectivism, or simply to be Rand-influenced. The next six sections briefly discuss specific areas of Rand’s philosophy in which possible flaws have been identified and/or in which improvements have been suggested.

 

Closed Objectivism, Open Objectivism, or Something Else

According to Leonard Peikoff and the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), the proper noun “Objectivism” refers to Ayn Rand’s specific philosophy with a distinctive content that she defined. Objectivism is the name of Rand’s accomplishment. The official, authorized doctrine remains unchanged and can be found in her books, essays, and lectures and those of others which had her explicit endorsement.

ARI’s closed-system interpretation is that the Objectivist philosophy is an immutable system with its fundamental principles determined by its creator, Ayn Rand.

ARI’s closed-system interpretation is that the Objectivist philosophy is an immutable system with its fundamental principles determined by its creator, Ayn Rand. Anyone with a viewpoint or interpretation that varies from the official doctrine can express his ideas, but he would be precluded from using the appellation, Objectivism. It follows that an individual cannot call himself an Objectivist when discussing issues of doctrine with which he disagrees. Whereas it is certainly acceptable to develop one’s own ideas where he believes that Rand’s system is deficient, he can’t change her system by incorporating his own perspectives. That person would not be considered an Objectivist when doing so. Philosophy is open, but Objectivism is closed.

According to David Kelley (1990, pp.81-85), Objectivism is a unique achievement, a well-integrated but young philosophy lacking detailed treatises on many substantive matters. “By historical standards, what we have is no more (though no less) than the foundation and outline of a system.” (Kelley, 1990, p77). Hence, Objectivism should be an open system that can be enhanced by incorporating new knowledge, and ideas from other perspectives, provided that they are based on solid evidence and are consistent with Objectivism’s central tenets in metaphysics (reality is objective), epistemology (reason is the only means of knowledge and survival), ethics (man is an end in himself), and politics (laissez-faire capitalism), and many other broader principles. Kelley founded The Atlas Society (“TAS,” formerly Institute for Objectivist Studies) to advance Open Objectivism. Within the framework of basic tenets, TAS scholars investigate new expansions and refinements

Knowledge of Objectivism is therefore open-ended, contextual, and fallible, and open to discussion, debate, interpretation, and review. Objectivism, as a philosophy of reason, must be open to further understanding and possible development. TAS therefore, considers itself to be an Objectivist organization, but many people outside that group may consider TAS to be a neo-Objectivist, post-Objectivist, neo-Randian, post-Randian, or objectivist institution. But some critics consider TAS to be not Objectivist at all.

Sciabarra (2003) has observed that there is an evolving distinction between Objectivism and Randianism.

Sciabarra (2003) has observed that there is an evolving distinction between Objectivism and Randianism. He explains that the Objectivist label would designate rigorous or strict adherence to every aspect or detail to Rand’s philosophical framework. Randian, on the other hand, could mean “relating to” or “resembling” Rand’s philosophical framework. Sciabarra quotes Rand as follows, “If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with—and then indulge in any flights of fancy you wish on your own.”

I believe the key is that the concern of every individual should be with truth as an integrated whole. When constructing one’s own worldview or conceptual framework, it is legitimate to take a selective approach with respect to existing philosophical positions because consistency with reality is all that really matters. It is thus appropriate for a person to extract what is true and good from the writings of Ayn Rand and others and to use those components as a basis for a better interpretation that allows for a superior understanding of what would constitute a morally right socioeconomic system. By integrating, modifying, and synthesizing ideas of others with one’s own ideas, it is possible to get closer to a comprehensive, logically consistent view of the world and a foundation and justification for a free society. Eschewing labels, each person has the ability to select the best ideas from a variety of sources, adapt them to his own purpose, and add his own views and integrate them to serve his own ends. The key is to use one’s own independent rational judgement. I have used this approach in some of my articles (2005, 2008, 2010)

Today, there are many individuals, like myself, who are proponents of Ayn Rand’s work, but who see areas where modifications, changes, or expansions are needed. Errors and flaws can be identified in her ideas and improvements can be made. Rand’s ideas are valuable, but her thinking is not flawless. If one is Randian (or is Rand-influenced) that only means the person agrees with a considerable amount of Rand’s philosophy and/or that the individual concurs with her general approach.

I suggest that a person not use the label of Objectivism when he agrees with certain of Ayn Rand’s essential Objectivist ideas but not with others. Rand chose the name, Objectivism, for her own specific and immutable philosophy. Each person speaks for himself and can reject or modify Rand’s ideas on particular topics. When he does so, he should not call himself an Objectivist. However, he could choose to say that he is Rand-influenced, Randian, or perhaps objectivist. Philosophy is open and better ideas can supplant, supersede, expand, or emend previously promulgated ideas. Each of us is responsible for assessing the ideas of others while valuing reason and the discovery of truth.

 

Life-Centered Ethics

Bissell (2005) has called for an expansion of ethical concerns beyond the survival-flourishing debate. At that time, he advocated a three-tiered model of life centered ethics—survival, flourishing, and generativity. He explained that generative acts such as creation and production are not restricted to procreation and reproduction. Generativity includes creating things that aid in spreading a person’s ideas and values throughout the culture. Bissell explained that this involves externalizing oneself through what he has given to the world.

In addition, Kathleen Touchstone (2021) has argued that “reproductivity” is ethically on par with productivity and that parenting is an essential part of human flourishing. Vinay Kolhatkar (2021) has added that human needs incorporate both a genetic legacy and a non-genetic legacy (value reproduction in society)—individuals have a desire to leave a mark, in addition to a need for relationships including romantic, friendship, guardianship, and camaraderie. Bissell’s current thinking is also that the model of life-centered ethics should be four-faceted (not three-faceted)—survival, flourishing, generativity, and legacy. Generativity involves the production of value outside of oneself during one’s life and career, and legacy, involves the production of value external to oneself that exists after one’s life and career.

Tibor Machan (2000) asserted that Rand did not address how evolutionary biology could be made compatible with free will and morality.

Tibor Machan (2000) asserted that Rand did not address how evolutionary biology could be made compatible with free will and morality. Indeed, Rand’s longtime associate, Nathaniel Branden expressed astonishment at Rand’s discomfort with the theory of evolution. However, more recently, Kolhatkar (2020) has hypothesized that Rand’s instincts on evolution (“that we may be still evolving as a species”) may well prove prescient if one accepts the Jaynesian theory of the uniquely human part of consciousness.

 

Individual Rights

Ayn Rand approached the derivation of individual rights by way of ethical egoism. For her, rights are a moral concept. She argues that each person should pursue his rational self-interest as a matter of his primary moral responsibility. She explains that it is from this responsibility, that every other moral principle, including the principle of individual rights, gains its justification. Rand bases her argument for individual rights on moral principles on the premise that the moral task of each person is his survival and flourishing as a unique, individual human being. For her, rights are moral principles which apply to people within a social context and which are protected by the minimal state.

Rasmussen and Den Uyl (2005) base their strong alternative view of individual rights as metanormative principles based on the universal characteristics of human beings that call for the protection and preservation of the possibility of self-directedness in society regardless of the situation. Because they do not base individual rights on attaining human flourishing, they believe they have formulated a strong argument for a non-perfectionist and non-moralistic minimal state politics. They see a problem in putting what Rand has called a moral principle (i.e., individual rights) as the subject of political action or control. Their goal is to abandon the idea that politics is institutionalized ethics. They say that statecraft is not soulcraft.

Although fundamentally agreeing with Rasmussen and Den Uyl with respect to natural (i.e., negative) rights, Touchstone (2021) presents a case that the positive right to care for children from their parents is a fundamental right. A child’s right to parental care is a natural right and is not based on reciprocal exchange. The transfer is unilateral from parents to child. She argues that human rights begin with human life and that they are not derivative. Those who created that life are responsible for fulfilling the positive right to childcare, but not for creating that right.

 

To Live: Choice or Moral Obligation

According to the “official” or “voluntarist” interpretation of her ideas, Ayn Rand holds that a person needs to choose to live or to flourish in order for ethical obligations to exist for him. If one chooses to live, then a rational ethics will inform him regarding the principles of action he is required to take in order to put his basic choice into effect. By tracing oughts to the choice to live, Rand appears to be suggesting that individuals who do not make the choice do not have obligations. Because the choice to live is fundamental, there are no normative reasons for making it or not making it. If there are no moral obligations to live, then the choice is ultimately arbitrary or optional. If a person does not choose to live, then he is outside the domain of morality.

For Aristotle, the ultimate end (or goal) for a human being is not chosen—it is inherent in man’s nature. It is the nature of an individual human person’s potential for flourishing, which exists as a potentiality whether or not it is chosen, that determines his obligation. The Aristotelian perspective is that a person’s natural function is to live. Is life a value because an individual chooses it, or should a person choose life because life is a value?

Neo-Aristotelian philosopher, Douglas B. Rasmussen (2002, 2006), is critical of the claim that Ayn Rand definitively held the view that all moral obligations depend on a pre-moral choice to live. He explains that Rand held that life is the ultimate value for each human being. He notes that her idea of ultimate value has no reference to choice. Therefore, the choice to live does not underpin moral evaluation. It follows that the choice itself can be morally evaluated based on the existence of something (i.e., a person’s life) that is an end in itself—one should choose life because it is a value. Life is “choiceworthy” and has “directive power” for an individual’s actions, irrespective of an individual’s choice. Consequently, Rasmussen concluded that Rand contradicted the idea that all moral obligations are contingent upon a choice to live.

 

Psychology

Although Ayn Rand contended that philosophy and psychology are totally distinct, from the early days of Objectivism onward, a number of thinkers have commented on the compatibility of Objectivism and psychology, particularly humanistic psychology, positive psychology, and cognitive psychology. Psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden is the principal figure in the self-esteem movement in contemporary humanistic psychology. His worldview is clearly related to Objectivism as evidenced in his many books beginning with his The Psychology of Self-Esteem (1969).

A number of thinkers have commented on the compatibility of Objectivism and psychology, particularly humanistic psychology, positive psychology, and cognitive psychology.

Nathaniel Branden took issue with what he viewed as Rand’s simplistic and inaccurate views on psychology which he saw as a complex and nuanced field of study. Approaching psychology from a philosophical, realistic, and moral viewpoint, he was concerned with the psychological content of Rand’s epistemology. His moral vision was apparent in his many writings about self-esteem. Blending ideas from philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and evolutionary science, his dialectical approach was to switch back and forth between the conceptual and the empirical. A proponent of the notion of the integrated mind, he said that human beings have the capacity and the free will to initiate and to maintain a continuous structure of the flexible transfer of information between specific conscious and subconscious facets of the mind. Consequently, he emphasized the centrality of each person’s implicit philosophy and values (1969, 1994, 1997).

Ayn Rand defined psycho-epistemology as “the study of man’s cognitive processes from the aspect of the interaction between the conscious mind and the automatic functions of the subconscious.” Barbara Branden lectured on psycho-epistemology as the psychology of methods of thinking, the difference between directed and undirected thinking, common faults in thinking, and motivational issues that interfere with thinking. In addition, Harry Binswanger has offered his own astute observations on the role of the subconscious in thinking and on the particular operations by which one “programs” his subconscious.

Edwin A. Locke has published extensively with respect to work motivation, job satisfaction, and incentives. He is internationally known for his research on goal setting and is interested in the application of the philosophy of Objectivism to the behavioral sciences. So is Ellen Kenner, a licensed clinical psychologist and host of a nationally-syndicated radio show. Her specialty is exploring how to apply Ayn Rand’s rational, pro-happiness philosophy to mental health issues. Edith Packer wrote a variety of articles about psychological issues from an Objectivist perspective. Robert L. Campbell has studied the psychological aspects of Objectivism and argues that Rand’s epistemology drew on findings and ideas from the so-called Cognitive Revolution in psychology (1999). Epistemology and psychology are the special interests of Jerry Kirkpatrick, a scholar who combines the philosophy of Ayn Rand with Edith Packer’s psychology (1998).

Martin E.P. Seligman is credited with introducing the term “positive psychology” in his 1998 APA Presidential address. However, humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow actually used the words “positive psychology” in a chapter entitled “Toward a Positive Psychology” in his book, Motivation and Personality (1954). Humanistic psychologists of the 1950s such as Maslow, Carl Rogers, and Gordon Allport, believed that psychology should be based on the study of healthy, fully-functioning, creative individuals. Although humanistic psychology uses more qualitative methods and positive psychology uses more quantitative methods, they share common goals and interests. They overlap with regard to their theoretical presuppositions and thematic content. The importance of personal happiness, the central premise of positive psychology, was held by Ayn Rand and illustrated and explained in her fictional works and philosophical writings. Scholarly work done by people in the field of positive psychology can be used to extend and refine the ideas espoused by Ayn Rand with respect to attaining one’s individual human flourishing and happiness.

 

Virtues

Rand makes a powerful case that the rational pursuit of one’s flourishing requires the consistent practice of seven essential virtues—rationality, honesty, independence, justice, integrity, productiveness, and pride. She saw rationality as the master virtue and the other six virtues as derivative from the primary virtue. Some scholars have pointed out that Rand did not specifically discuss the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom—that is, prudence. It is likely that she considered practical wisdom as part of rationality. Others have suggested that her version of virtue ethics might be improved by including positive qualities such as benevolence, kindness, generosity, charity, tolerance, civility, empathy, and so on in her prescription for moral perfection (Kelley 1996).

Den Uyl (1991) has studied the virtue of prudence and its relationship with Rand’s virtue of rationality.

Den Uyl (1991) has studied the virtue of prudence and its relationship with Rand’s virtue of rationality. Prudence, or practical wisdom, is the intellectual faculty for judging the best course of action for specific individuals in particular circumstances. He explains that the main purpose of a minimal State is to protect the liberty of individuals to exercise the supreme intellectual virtue of prudence in the moral pursuit of one’s flourishing or self-perfection. He argues that prudence and rationality, although emphasized differently, are actually quite similar. He makes the case that prudence could perhaps be considered to be a Randian virtue.

Bissell (2020) laments Ayn Rand’s tendency to present her ethical ideas in negative terms, particularly with respect to the seven essential virtues that she identified. He calls for a more consistently positive approach and reframing of those virtues. This is a particularly important principle to follow in discussing a philosophy for living life, not a philosophy for avoiding death. People need to be made aware of what to do in order to be happy, rather than being told what not to do to avoid being sad. It is better to lay out a positive case with respect to the virtues that one should aspire to, instead of focusing on what a person should reject. Bissell urges a turn toward eudaimonism and away from dysdaimonism in attaining one’s values and making one’s life better, rather than merely knowing numerous ways to avoid suffering and death.

 

Human Sociality

Ayn Rand has been criticized for inadequately recognizing the social nature of human beings and accounting for the values and virtues of human society. She had little to say about facets of the social nature of human beings such as the family, childrearing, human interrelationships, and voluntary associations of individuals. There have been efforts to build a thicker theory of the integrated human person than the one espoused by Ayn Rand. She is said to have failed to recognize that human existence is constituted by relationships.

Rand is said to have failed to recognize that human existence is constituted by relationships

Den Uyl (1995) has explained that a person’s moral maturation requires a life with others. Benevolence, friendship, and charitable actions can be expressions of one’s self-perfection. Relational actions can be perfections of a person’s capacity for cooperation and particular manifestations of that capacity. The obligation for pro-social, other-directed actions is that the benefactor owes it to himself. Sociality is essential to a man’s attempt to live well. It follows that kindness and benevolence are not the result of impulse or obligation to others, but rather are rational goals.

In Unrugged Individualism (1996), David Kelley views benevolence as a commitment to achieving the values derivable from life with other people by (1) treating them as potential trading partners and (2) recognizing their humanity, independence, and individuality, and the harmony between their interests and ours. Benevolence means goodwill towards others. It involves a positive attitude toward people in general, a desire for their well-being, and a desire for peaceful and cooperative relationships with them. As an ethical principle, benevolence is not a matter of feeling, but rather a policy of action. It is therefore possible to be benevolent even when ones does not feel a positive emotion. Benevolence includes such traits as civility, sensitivity, kindness, sympathy, generosity, and charity. Given that people live in society, and given that misfortune can affect any person, it is clearly in a person’s self-interest (and crucial to his happiness) to live in a world in which people deal with one another in a spirit of helpfulness and mutual benevolence.

According to Tibor Machan (1998), generosity can lead to one’s happiness because (1) it is a value to live in a society where people extend help to others and (2) giving help may be interpreted as a type of investment. Generosity is one of our means of pursing our values—it is the importance we place on the well-being of others. Generosity involves the giving of something (i.e., an individual’s time, effort, or property) as an expression of the giver’s values, to an individual or group of individuals without the legal right to, or expectations of, specific immediate returns. As a virtue, generosity should be practiced at all stages of life; however, the extent and objects of your generosity will depend upon the stage of your productive life and other relevant circumstances. Because our lives are limited in time and we are limited in our resources and ability, we must discern and choose only a limited number of acts and objects to value through our generosity. However, a life that includes no acts of generosity is certainly morally deficient.

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

References

 

Bissell, Roger E. 2005. “Beyond Survival and Flourishing: The Aristotelian Tripod and the ‘Fullest Life.’” Unpublished paper on the personal site of Roger Bissell.

———. 2020. “Eudaimon in the Rough: Perfecting Rand’s Egoism.” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 20, no. 2: 453-78.

Branden, Nathaniel. [1969]2001. The Psychology of Self-Esteem: A New Concept of Man’s Psychological Nature. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

———. 1994. The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem. New York: Bantam Books.

———. 1997. The Art of Living Consciously: The Power of Awareness to Transform Everyday Life. New York: Simon and Schuster.

 Campbell, Robert L. 1999. “Ayn Rand and the Cognitive Revolution in Psychology.” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 1, no. 1: 107-34.

Den Uyl, Douglas J. 1991. The Virtue of Prudence. New York: Peter Lang.

———. 1995. “The Right to Welfare and the Virtue of Charity.” In Liberty for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Tibor R. Machan and Douglas B. Rasmussen. Lanham, MD.

Kelley, David. [1990] 2000. The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand: Truth and Toleration in Objectivism. Transaction Publishers; 1st edition.

———. 1996. Unrugged Individualism. Poughkeepsie, NY: Institute for Objectivist Studies.

Kirkpatrick, Jerry. 2019. Independent Judgment and Introspection: Fundamental Requirements of a Free Society. Upland: CA: Kirkpatrick Books.

Kolhatkar, Vinay. 2020. “Will Ayn Rand’s Conjectures on Evolution Be Proven Right?” accessed online at https://www.thesavvystreet.com/will-ayn-rands-conjectures-on-evolution-prove-right/

_________. 2021. “The Ten Psychological Needs of Human Beings,” accessed online at https://www.thesavvystreet.com/the-ten-psychological-needs-of-human-beings/

Machan, Tibor R. 1998. Generosity: Virtue in the Civil Society. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute.

———. 2000. Ayn Rand. Peter Lang Inc., International Academic Publishers, 2nd Ed. December: pp. 142-43.

Maslow, Abraham H. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper.

Rasmussen, Douglas B. 2002. “Rand on Obligation and Value.” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 4, no. 1: 69-86.

———. 2006. “Regarding Choice and the Foundations of Morality: Reflections on Rand’s Ethics. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 7, no. 2: 309-28.

Rasmussen, Douglas B. and Douglas J. Den Uyl. 2005. Norms of Liberty: A Perfectionist Basis for Non-Perfectionist Politics. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Sciabarra, Chris Matthew. 2003. “Ayn Rand’s ‘Objectivism’ is Dead: Long Live the Randians!” in Liberty and Power.

Seligman, Martin E.P. 2011. Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-Being. New York: Free Press.

Touchstone, Kathleen. 2021. Freedom, Eudaemonia, and Risk: An Inquiry into the Ethics of Risk-Taking. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Younkins, Edward W. 2005. “Menger, Mises, Rand, and Beyond.” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 6, no. 2: 337-74.

_______. 2008.  “Toward the Development of a Paradigm of Human Flourishing in a Free Society,” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 9, no. 2: 253-304.

________. 2010. ” Human Nature, Flourishing, and Happiness: Toward a Synthesis of Aristotelianism, Austrian Economics, Positive Psychology, and Ayn Rand’s Objectivism,” Libertarian Papers, 2, no. 35: 1-50.

 

(Visited 2,009 times, 1 visits today)