The Key to Success and Prosperity in an Ayn Rand Society

Rosnisha D. Stevenson
PhD Student in Educational Leadership
College of Education
Prairie View A&M University
English Teacher
Mayde Creek High School
Katy Independent School District
Houston, Texas

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

Professor

PhD Program in Educational Leadership

Prairie View A&M University

Member of the Texas A&M University System

William H. Parker Leadership Academy Hall of Honor (2008)

Prairie View A&M University

Visiting Lecturer (2005)

Oxford Round Table

University of Oxford, Oxford England

Distinguished Alumnus (2004)

Central Washington University

College of Education and Professional Studies

 ABSTRACT

Webster’s Dictionary defines the word selfish as excessively or exclusively concerned with
one’s own well-being (304). Society tends to negatively look at the word and a person who
is labeled as a selfish person or being selfish. When one puts his or her own needs above
someone else, in a “normal” society they are considered as being selfish; but not according
to Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism and rejecting altruism.

Introduction

In Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness (1961), Rand introduces the world to her
philosophical views on just what she believes the true definition of “selfishness”. She explores
“Objectivism” and ethics in her book. She explains to the reader that ethics “is a code of values
to guide man’s choices and actions, the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the
course of his life” (p. 13). This article shows how Ayn Rand views selfishness and proves that
selfishness can be both right and wrong according to the situation that one is challenged.
Purpose of the Article

The purpose of this article is to discuss how every man has the divine right to be selfish
depending on the circumstances and the situation they are in. Not all things placed before the
good of others are considered selfish. The book The Virtues of Selfishness and Ayn Rand (1961)
shows when man has the right to be selfish and not feel bad about or doubt his actions.

Objectivism

“Objectivism” is a philosophy that was developed by author Ayn Rand (1961). “Objectivism”
holds: that reality exists independent of consciousness; that individual persons are in contact with
this reality through sensory perception; that human beings can gain objective knowledge from
perception through the process of concept formation; that the proper moral purpose of one's life
is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest; that the only social system
consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez-faire
capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas,
by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he can
comprehend and to which he can respond (“Objectivism”, n.d.). Man must be concern first and
foremost with himself in order to be productive in society and therefore be of use to society.
Society can not better itself when everyone is concerned about everyone else. You must first
take care of yourself in order to be successful in society. Ayn Rand (1961) was able to put her
philosophy of “objectivism” into four terms:
1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
 2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-Interest
4. Politics: Capitalism
She then translated her four terms into lameness terms for everyone to understand her new
philosophy:
1. “Nature, to be commanded, must obey.”

2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”

3. “Man is an end in himself.”

4. “Give me liberty or give me death”

(Rand, n.d., p.¶)

It is Ayn Rand’s belief that in a metaphysical society, everyone has the epistemological
ability to decide and determine for himself, what should be done to the betterment of oneself.
You must first and foremost take care of yourself in order to be of use to anyone else. This idea
is not by any means calling for everyone to be self centered and conceded, but to take care of
yourself so that you can help in the betterment of society. This is not in anyone calling on
everyone to be all about me, but for you to first take care of “me” so that you can help, assist and
make life better for “you”.
Selfishness

Following the philosophy of “objectivism” may lead for people to assume that a person is
being selfish and consider them a selfish person, but it is quite the contrary. In order to survive
in society you must be selfish, if you don’t take care of you, who will? So let’s take a look at the
meaning of the word selfish/selfishness. The word “selfishness” in today’s society has a
connotation of being unethical and morally wrong. The exact dictionary definition of the word
“selfishness” is: “concern with one’s own interests” (Rand, 1961, p. vii). How can one survive in
a world without being selfish and concerned with oneself? In order to survive, one must think
logically and place their needs above anyone else’s in order to be useful to anyone, let alone,
himself. Going through life putting others needs before your own, can ultimately cause harm to
both parties involved. You must be selfish in this world in order to survive and an attack on
selfishness “is an attack on man’s self-esteem; to surrender one, is to surrender the other” (Rand,
1961, p. xi). Once you take care of “self” you are more apt to take care of those around you and
society benefits as a whole.
Great Leaders in Society Who Had to Be Selfish in Order to Lead

Society will not immediately succumb to the idea of being selfish, but in her own way,
Ayn Rand had the key to surviving and making it in society.
 “In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of
a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares
for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any
immediate moment. This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us
whether concern with one’s own interest is good or evil; nor does it tell us what
constitutes man’s actual interest. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions (Rand,
1961, p. vii).
Had Bill Gates not been a little selfish, would we have Microsoft? One can logically believe that
Bill Gates put himself before others in order to achieve his goals of creating Microsoft, to better
improve society; really, where would we be today without the creation of Microsoft?
If Queen Elizabeth I relied solely on the feelings and emotions of others, she wouldn’t be
know as one of the greatest rulers of this world, the ruler of an era dubbed “The Golden Age”,
she knew the value of her life and her personal judgments and did not completely rely on others
to determine what was right and what was wrong for England, she understood the value of she
understood the value of her nation and what it took to up hold that nation. She understood that
An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means-and it
sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism’s life is its
standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good and that which threatens it is the
evil (Rand, 1961, p. 17).
The value of England was what Queen Elizabeth was focused on, England was the good and
those who were against the Queen and had ill intentions was the evil. Was Queen Elizabeth
selfish by not marrying and producing an heir for England or was she thinking logically and
rationally about what was good for her? Had she not put her needs in front of all of her advisors
and others who wasn’t ethically thinking about the Queen, England wouldn’t had prospered as
much as it did under her forty-five years of reigning.
You can play both sides of the card when it comes to both Bill Gates and Queen
Elizabeth. They can also be viewed as unselfish and putting the needs of others above their own
by focusing on the betterment of society and the good old down home axiological needs of others
and society first. Bill Gates is a great humanitarian, always giving back what he worked so hard
for to the betterment of others. Bill Gates gives an abundance amount of money back to
universities and others in need. Where Ayn Rand would be totally against the idea of putting
others need above your own, Bill Gates is about giving back his fortune to assist others.
Because a genuinely selfish man chooses his goals by the guidance of reason and because the
interests of rational men do not clash-other men may often benefit from his actions. But the
benefit of other men is not his primary purpose or goal; his own benefit is his primary
purpose and the conscious goal directing his action (Rand, 1961, p. 67).

Bill and his wife Melinda are one of the most giving couple in America today, and with one of their
primary goals in life being able to help and give back to others, Ayn Rand would not view them as
following her philosophy but leaving in an altruist society. A person must never put the needs of
others before his own and shouldn’t work just so others can benefit; this is not the way of living the
life of objectivism.
 Emergency Situations

There are situations that may require you to rely on the epistemology that you have attained
through everyday life and come to the rational, that it is okay to help someone else out because you
have studies the metaphysics of the situation and realized that you will not be placed in harms way
by assisting someone in need. The question is asked, “should one risk one’s life to help a man who
is: a) drowning, b) trapped in a fire, c) stepping in front of a speeding truck, d) hanging by his
fingernails over an abyss?” (Rand, 1961, p. 49) A man who lives in Ayn Rand’s world of objectivism
would have to carefully evaluate the situation, even in an emergency situation. Would saving or
helping this other individual in any way harm or endanger you? In an altruism society, their focus on
metaphysics and axiology would tell them that thinking that way is ethically and morally wrong; and
they would logically evaluate the situation so that they assist their brother in need at all cost. Taking
that approach man would suffer several consequences:

1. Lack of self-esteem-since his first concern in the realm of values is not how to live his
life, but how to sacrifice it.

2. Lack of respect for others- since he regards mankind as a herd of doomed beggars crying
for someone’s help.

3. A nightmare of existence-since he believes that men are trapped in a “malevolent

universe” where disasters are the constant and primary concern of their lives.

4. And, in fact, a lethargic indifference to ethics, a hopelessly cynical amorality-since his

questions involve situations which he is not likely ever to encounter, which bear no
relation to the actual problems of his own life and thus leave him without any moral
principals whatever. (Rand, 1961, p. 49)

When you look at the above consequences of living an unselfish life, one may begin to
wonder if being selfish isn’t so bad. You are not totally closing yourself off from society, but you are
looking at the long term effects of your actions. Man must examine in emergency situations if going
or doing something to help someone in trouble, if it would endanger you. You are just as important
to society as the next man. Would loosing you and all of the other “John Galts” (as cited in Rand,
1957) of the world improve or endanger society? What would happen if the John Galts in the world
went around helping people in certain “emergency situations” before thinking about the long term
consequences, what would society do if they weren’t selfish?” Everyone can’t go around bailing out
society and signing stimulus bills to assist those that should have followed the objectivism
philosophy in the first place, which might have prevented them from getting in the situation that they
are in, with needing someone to bail them out.

You also have leaders who members of society look up to a great deal, that are leaving a life
against Ayn Rand’s philosophy by being martyrs to help make a difference in the lives of their
community. Such martyrs as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Medgar Evers, and Malcolm X. These
civil rights leaders fought for the rights of the people in their community during the “Jim Crow”
times to make a difference for African Americans, sacrificing their lives and the lives of their
families, forgetting about themselves in the process.

Ayn Rand states that “the moral purpose of a man’s life is the achievement of his own
happiness. This does not mean that he is indifferent to all men, that human life is of no value
to him and that he has no reason to help others in an emergency. But it does mean that he
 does not subordinate his life to the welfare of others, that he does not sacrifice himself to
their needs, that the relief of their suffering is not his primary concern, that any help he gives
is an exception, not a rule, an act of generosity, not a moral duty, that it is marginal and
incidental-as disasters are marginal and incidental in the course of human existence-and that
values, not disasters, are the goal, the first concerns and the motive power of his life (Rand,
1961, p.49).

These mean saw that their culture was in a state of emergency and needed someone to step forward
and make a difference in their lives. Dr. Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers and Malcolm X not only
sacrificed the lives of their families, but put their needs on the backburner for the African American
community, and ultimately gave their lives for the cause. Dr. King went so far as to envision a dream
for the African American community and stated that dream in his famous, “I Have a Dream” speech:

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and
tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of
former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of
injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom
and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be
judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having
his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in
Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and
white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made
low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the
glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together (King, n.d., p. ¶).

Dr. King was living the life of altruism, thinking of the society that he lived in and only
wanted to improve the environment that he was surrounded by and make a better life for those
who were to come after him. These three men selfless acts cost them their lives and deprived
them the right to see their children grow up and conquer their dreams. Ayn Rand would have
been against the acts of them risking their lives and would have asked herself the questions
before going out and standing up for the people, if this was an emergency that would endanger
her life and if so, it wouldn’t be a risk that one should be willing to take. You must evaluate all
situations that you are willing to put your self in and if the situation is an endangerment to your
life, then it is not a risk that one should be willing to take. What good are you to the community
if you are no longer here to make a difference? Most people would consider these men as
heroes, heroes who made a difference for the African American community and without them,
where would they be? Although the African American community miss and mourned the lives of
these men, they will forever be grateful that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Medgar Evers and
Malcolm X, didn’t view life as Ayn Rand did and did not follow the philosophy of objectivism.

Concluding Remarks

In conclusion, Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism and her ideas on selfishness is a model that
is fitting for some but not for all. It is a philosophy and view point that one must establish and
follow in order to better themselves so that they may have an impact on society as a whole. This
philosophy proves that it is indeed okay for one to be selfish with keeping in mind that through
their selfishness, they are not only benefiting themselves, but society benefits through their fruits
and labors.
References

Rand, A. (1957). Atlas shrugged. New York: Penguin Putnam, Incorporated.

Rand, A. (1961). The virtue of selfishness. New York: Penguin Putnam, Incorporated.

Rand, A. (n.d.). Objectivism. In Wikipedia [Web]. Retrieved February 8, 2009, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

Essentials of Objectivism (n.d.) The Ayn Rand Institute Web. Retrieved February 17, 2009,

http://www.aynrand2.org/objectivism/essentials.html

King, Martin Luther (n.d). I have a dream. U.S. Constitution Online Web. Retrieved February

17, 2009, from http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html.