"Ayn Rand's philosophy is unlivable, either by her or anyone else."

Here, contra some of the arguments made in James Kidd's essay "Ayn Rand Attack on Christian Morality", is an except from "Ayn Rand: Architect of the Culture of Death", by Dr. Donald DeMarco, an essay that became (in a longer and somewhat different form) a chapter in Architects of the Culture of Death (Ignatius Press, 2004), by DeMarco and Benjamin Wiker:

Throughout the course of history, according to Ayn Rand, there have been three general views of morality. The first two are mystical, which, for Rand, means fictitious, or non-objective. The third is objective, something that can be verified by the senses. Initially, a mystical view reigned, in which the source of morality was believed to be God's will. This is not compatible either with Rand's atheism, or her objectivism. In due course, a neo-mystical view held sway, in which the "good of society" replaced the "will of God. The essential defect of this view, like the first, is that it does not correlate with an objective reality. "There is no such entity as 'society,'" she avers. And since only individuals really exist, the so-called "good of society" degenerates into a state where "some men are ethically entitled to pursue any whims (or any atrocities) they desire to pursue, while other men are ethically obliged to spend their lives in the service of that gang's desires."

Only the third view of morality is realistic and worthwhile. This is Rand's objectivism, a philosophy that is centred exclusively on the individual. It is the individual alone that is real, objective, and the true foundation for ethics. Therefore, Rand can postulate the basic premise of her philosophy: "The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A – and Man is Man."

An individual belongs to himself as an individual. He does not belong, in any measure, to God or to society. A corollary of Rand's basic premise is that "altruism," or the sacrifice of one's only reality – one's individuality – for a reality other than the self, is necessarily self-destructive and therefore immoral. This is why she can say that "altruism holds death as its ultimate goal and standard of value." On the other hand, individualism, cultivated through the "virtue of selfishness," is the only path to life. "Life," she insists, "can be kept in existence only by a constant process of self-sustaining action." Man's destiny is to be a "self-made soul."

Man, therefore, has a "right to life." But Rand does not mean by this statement that he has a "right to life" that others have a duty to defend and support. Such a concept of "right to life" implies a form of "altruism," and consequently is contrary to the good of the individual. In fact, for Rand, it constitutes a form of slavery. "No man," she emphasizes, "can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as 'the right to enslave.'" Moreover, there are no rights of special groups, since a group is not an individual reality. As a result, she firmly denies that groups such as the "unborn," "farmers," "businessmen," and so forth, have any rights whatsoever.

Her notion of a "right to life" begins and ends with the individual. In this sense, "right to life" means the right of the individual to pursue, through the rational use of his power of choice, whatever he needs in order to sustain and cultivate his existence. "An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is evil." As Rand has John Galt tell her readers, "There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence." Man's existence must stay in existence. This is the mandate of the individual and the utility of the virtue of selfishness. Non-existence is the result of altruism and careens toward death. Making sacrifices for one's born or unborn children, one's elderly parents or other family members becomes anathema for Ayn Rand. She wants a Culture of Life to emerge, but she envisions that culture solely in terms of individuals choosing selfishly, the private goods of their own existence. If ever the anthem for a pro-choice philosophy has been recorded, it comes from the pen of Ayn Rand: "Man has to be man – by choice; he has to hold his life as a value – by choice; he has to learn to sustain it – by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practise his virtues – by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality."

No philosopher ever proposed a more simple and straightforward view of life than the one Ayn Rand urges upon us. Man=Man; Existence = Existence; only individuals are real; all forms of altruism are inherently evil. There are no nuances or paradoxes. There is no wisdom. There is no depth. Complex issues divide reality into simple dichotomies. There is individualism and altruism, and nothing in between. Despite the apparent superficiality of her philosophy, Rand considered herself history's greatest philosopher after Aristotle. ...

Ayn Rand's philosophy is unlivable, either by her or anyone else. A philosophy that is unlivable can hardly be instrumental in building a Culture of Life. It is unlivable because it is based on a false anthropology. The human being is not a mere individual, but a person. As such, he is a synthesis of individual uniqueness and communal participation. Man is a transcendent being. He is more than his individuality.

Here is a 2004 Ignatius Insight interview with DeMarco and Wiker about their book.

Comments

[Dan Deeny]

This is an excellent book. I learned about the intellectual foundation of eugenics, abortion, and birth control. I recommend this book to everyone.

[Jared]

Thanks for the post.

[Ethan]

To see a panorama of people at the heart of the culture of death, have a look at Darwinism-Eugenics http://inbredscience.wordpress.com/euvolution/

[Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto]

Ayn Rand's work continues to do harm, seeing that publishers and distributors in the Left have made her an instrument of progressive objective.

Rand's affectation exposed complexity and convoluted theories that have deceived many; under dedicated examination the cracks begin to show and what appeared significant, cognitive, is in reality an attempt to gain access into fundamental category of knowledge that comes out as pseudo-philosophy.

[Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto]

Inestability and clashing loyalties, permeate through her life as she learned more about what she originally adhered to, as in the case of her loyalty to Knietzsche.

She seemed to favor the Republican Party and volunteered to work in the election of 1940, for Wendell Wilkie, an ex-democrat that after loosing to FDR, te re-elected Roosevelt hired Wilkie as his personal representative(!).Wilkie was not well regarded by Republicans afterward.

[Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto]

Her devotion to abortion rights, atheism and avertion to Religion discredit her apparent conservatism which, in my opinion was merely dabbling, incosistency or an intentional desire to use appearences as a disguise.

If she was truly what she pretended to be, why is the Left so interested in promoting her? Her book Fountainhead, signed and dedicated to Ely J. Kahn has been listed for sale at $ 56,000.00; The same book on its 25th anniversary is listed at $ 7,000.00 .

[LJ]

"No man," she emphasizes, "can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as 'the right to enslave.'"

There are large holes in Rand's philosophy and as the author points out, it is unlivable yet I have never heard a credible rebuttal to the above statement. Nor have I ever discovered the right to enslave taught in Christian doctrine. Quite the opposite, in fact.