Ethics: Self-interest.

("Man is an end in himself.")



In the following post I will analyze some concept/s of the essentials of the classical Objectivism as published in the ARI pages proposing expansions, complements and/or new thoughts about them.

Traditional Objectivism:

Ethics

"Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man—i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life." Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism—the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.


Expanding the concept:

No doubt Rand's ideal of man is high and man's reason has the most value in the modern-western-civilized society of the 21th century (please see Nathaniel Branden's article "The Objectivist Ethics in an Information Age Economy" about this subject)
It always seems to me that Ayn Rand made her philosophy thinking in an ideal man living in an quite ideal society, as she said "How things ought to be"
But what happens when you grew & live in a place where these values are not so "valued" by society, where irrationality is the rule and not the exception, where it is not so easy to stand for your objectivistic principles? Or at least not that easy to follow the "rules" (1) derived from them?
Easy: you think more, you put your reason to work even harder to analyze much more carefully your choices in order to find the best possible way to live even when it is not so perfect as it "ought" to be
You try to live in a manner that allows you to reach a whiter degree of gray in a society where the gray context slowly tends to black everyday, if we take the metaphor used by Ayn Rand herself in her essay "The Cult of Moral Grayness" from the book "The Virtue of Selfishness"

My contribution in some practical advices:

1-How you defend your personal rights in a quite collectivized society barely floating in the midst between the chaos of the jungle law and some light forms of socialism, where the opinion and laws of the majority is far stronger than your right to live as you want and even to defend yourself from external aggressions?
By example:
You have no real right to self-defense because you are not allowed to have arms but the bad guys always manage to get one and kill you in any corner where the police never appear to protect you
Or angry groups of "poor" people cut the street protesting for some alleged injustice or claiming for undeserved privileges or money while you have to be always alert to turn back your car without any protest because they have the "right" to assault you if they want
The answer is simple:
Keep a low profile because your are basically outnumbered. And try to walk over the thin red line between legal an illegal if you need to, and look for some way to defend yourself because nobody will care of your dead body if you not.
Stay out of trouble specially if there is some camera of the news around because journalists will only try to make you the public bad story of the day, specially if you think in some way different from the masses.
Conlcussion: If the law is against your rights then try to stay as far from the law as you can

2-How do you participate in the global culture when your country lives near the stone age in technology, ideology and market strategies?
By example:
It is almost impossible to get even a decent internet connection, or products that are not consumed by the majority who are mostly advocates of the local low-quality goods and folklore and hate everything from central countries because they are "imperialists" and it is not possible to buy things from these countries because the borders and customs are closed in order to force you to buy only national bad products or nothing at all.
The answer is also simple:
Never give up in growing, in try to keep yourself in tune with the global pulse, the World is far bigger than your little town. You should always try first the "right" way, but when the society where you live doesn't allow you to do so, then feel free to try alternative options in order to learn new things, to enjoy the culture, to expand your mind. Nobody will refund your life if you waste them remaining an ignorant fool only for keeping irrational laws that you didn't made. It is risky (as everything worthy in life) but remember the example of Hank Rearden in "Atlas Shrugged" when he didn't have problems in evading the law when the law it self was illegal.
Conlcussion: Rationality is always the best option, and it become more essential in directly proportional form with the irrationality of the context

3-Keep your principles as your most valuable treasure but avoid falling into fanaticism or extreme dogmatism and most of all always try to be happy.
Ayn Rand's Objectivism is a goal, is the lighthouse in the night, is the horizon to head to, but never sacrifice your own happiness to follow her teachings so strictly that you get suffocated by your own desire of perfection, take the Objectivistic path step by step and eventually allow yourself a break, because otherwise you will end hating and dropping Objectivism as any other dogmatic religion that puts your freedom in a cage.
Objectivism is meant to be a lifelong commitment but because you like them, because it is good for you and helps you to enjoy better your life, and not because you have to comply with some sort of new "Objectivistic ten commandments" (Please see Nathaniel Branden's article "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" about this topic).
The driving idea behid this analysis is that practical application of philosophy to your real life has to be evaluated both in quality and quantity, and when you speak in the real World about "quantity" about measurement, it appears immediately the concept of "tolerance" which is the margin of error allowed according to your quality requirements.

Conlcussion: I think that even when Ayn Rand herself wouldn't have approved some part of your particular life or actions, I am sure that she would have approved an approach to her philosophy based on individuals as free, analytic protagonists of their own lives, and not "intellectual lambs" that follow another prophet. Because she was a free soul before anything else.
As she said: "Reality confronts man with a great many "musts," but all of them are conditional; the formula of realistic necessity is: "You must, if " and the "if" stands for man's choice...."

---

(1) There is a very interesting analysis of rules vs principles in the David Kelley's article published in the Atlas Society's site "Ruled -- Or Principled?" where I extracted the following concept:
"We do need objective standards. But objectivity requires principles, not rules. The choice is to be principled, acting on one's own understanding of reality, or to be ruled-by an explicit authority or by the cramped and encrusted dictates of tradition. For anyone who values his own life and his own autonomy, that's an easy choice."

Mr. Kelley