Ok. A few questions. What kinds of conducts are desirable, what kinds of not? what is good and what is evil? Is there a standard against which you can evaluate all actions of men? These questions are asked throughout the history despite the fact that they have been elusive all the way. Answerability of these questions depends upon the fact whether goodness or badness(or ethical values/propositions hereafter) is subjective or objective(universal), in other words is anything inherently bad or good in an action or does it depend upon psychological tendencies of a person? Those who believe that ethical values are only subjective in nature has a ready answer as to the standard for goodness, 'whims'. But those who believe otherwise, have a tough job to do. The assertion that an ethical code is rational and hence has an objective justification means that that ethical doctrine is on a par with doctrines of science, it can be proved or disproved the way scientific theories can be. If someone claims that galilio's theories are wrong just take him into a laboratory and show him some experiments that testifies galileo's conclusions. Here we reduced the claim to observable phenomena the proofs of which are directly demonstrable. In a broad sense we need exactly this kind mechanical nature in any ethical code. The obvious advantage is that in case of a conflict of opinions just go back to fundamentals and check it out what is right. Such an ethic would bridge the gap between 'the true' and 'the good'. Has such a code ever been discovered? Hardly any. Many philosophers have put rationality in ethics but hardly has any given a complete ethical doctrine on a rational basis. They hold that ethics is innately irrational. But there are heretics also who believe otherwise. Ayn Rand is the most prominent among them. She has developed a philosophical system named 'Objectivism' wherein she has developed an ethical system that is based on reason. She has written several books elaborating her philosophy but the book I've gone through is 'The virtue of selfishness'. I brief her theory in the next paragraph and if the reader is already familiar with it, he(oh the sexist language!) can skip it.
Her first task is to base her ethical doctrine on metaphysics so that she can derive her doctrine from the metaphysics(the way science is based on observable metaphysical facts). 'Survival of an individual human life' is that metaphysical primary(similar to axiom) upon which the doctrine resides, it is the scale against which all the values are tested. If a value(like honesty, cruelty,truthfulness etc..) increases the chances of survival of a person it is good or desirable and if not it's bad or undesirable for that person. Here she sets individual human life as an end in itself and all other actions are only means to achieve that end. So a person should pursue only those actions which directly or indirectly help him increase his chances of living and to determine what actions are such he must use his reason alone. A man in her theory should be selfish only but rationally so. Because reason is the only trustworthy faculty in humans, emotions are deceptive so it must be cultivated on rational basis only. Here each man will make his own policy independently but since all are guided by reason all individual policies will be in agreement with each other. So this is the essence of her theory everything else is a matter of details, for example love, honesty, cooperation, sacrifice etc can easily be justified or dismantled, without going into details of all those ratiocination I simply add that she has preserved most of the notions of goodness and rejected most of the notions of evil.
Now I happen to disagree with her completely both in essence and in details, reasons being..
1. Prudence, prudence is the tendency to forgo immediate gain in the hope of a better reward in future. For example a farmer will work all the day in the field in order to cultivate a crop which will give him substantial reward in future when he sells it. Prudence is what distinguishes a civilized person from an aborigine. But prudence comes in all shapes and sizes, it's a spectrum, which degree of prudence you prefer is a wholly subjective matter. For example I may save none from my salary(presently none) if I see fit and someone may save a large portion of his salary if he sees fit, you can't say which one is rationally better. So, a less prudent thief can always think of a short term gain, and rob a bank or a soft target rather than thinking that he is spoiling society and in a long term he may be the subject of same treatment, or what would happen to his self-esteem and all that intellectual rubbish. According to Rand's theory he is licensed to do it because it will increase his survival chances. All evils are justified likewise. This is inevitable because the theory includes society only as an add-on to it not as an integral part. In a nutshell the theory is wholly depended upon the individual interests no significance is given to the society as a collective whole. She seems to have realized it but has deliberately ignored it.
2. Suicides are strictly unjustified according to the theory. See suicides are primarily a priority given to one's psychology over physical existence. So if I commit suicide it's because I find my life unbearable mentally(I'm not talking euthanasia which is the special case of suicide). In Rand's theory life precedes emotions because emotions are means to an end that is 'preservation of life'. To an anti-suicidist it may seem valid, but then take the case of a husband risking his own life to save his drowning life or the case of a father sacrificing his life to save his child. All this life sacrifices are unjustified because it takes life which is the only end. She herself concludes that life sacrifices are justified in above cases, but such conclusions do not follow from her theory.
3. She advocates capitalism in absolute lassis-faire(spelling mistake), means absolutely no control over economic activity by the government. Well, only stock-market giants and their likes would celebrate this view.
4. Her theory lacks originality or at least it's not as original as it is purported to be. Objectivism is a watered down Darwinism, a philosophical adaptation of Darwinian theory. But being unoriginal is not same as being fallacious so this point is misplaced in the list.
5. She rejects all kinds of mysticism outright. Another unwarranted conclusion. Mysticism has a high emotional value. Problems arises only when mystics assert their feelings as undeniable truth. Mysticism, if we understand it in it's raw form, is in no conflict with reason or science. Mystic feelings are extra-rational but not irrational.
These are a bit personal..
6.I detest any systematic philosophy. They mar the very spirit of philosophy. They are just anti-rational. Uncertainty and speculation in case of uncertainty are the central parts of philosophy. The moment any certain knowledge is obtained it becomes a separate science and ceases to be philosophy. In such fundamental uncertainty doggy devotion to a particular system of philosophy would be as futile as having no philosophy at all.
7. She mixes rhetorics with ratiocination greatly, few of her arguments seems unfeignedly logical. Rhetorics are notorious tools for indoctrination, they are good for emotive titillation but is misplaced if used in a philosophical treatise.
These are the problems with objectivism, the problems with other ethical codes are also similar in kind. So the chasm between 'true' and 'good' is still wide open. Honesty,truthfulness,humility all these values are thus rationally indefensible, they defy every rational explanation, but why? unfortunately I do not profess to have the answer what I do profess to know is that we mankind do need those lofty values, always whether rational or irrational.
Let me make it clear that I'm no congenital opponent of Rand. I do admire her as an excellent teacher of philosophy and a prolific writer...after all her books are considered modern classics.
P.S: Lately I've realized that I've written this article too poorly and rewriting it is no fun. The issue of ethics needed to be properly elaborated so as to make its importance apparent. Anyway do ask me in case of any confusion or incomprehension.
P.S.S: This critique will appear more sensible if the reader learns Rand's theory directly from her books rather than my review.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It was a delightful read. Happy to have come across it. I have had some conflicts with the admirers of A. Rand. Never read her, but thought if her admirers think like this then there has to be something wrong in her thinking. Got some insights into it from this post. Thanks :)
ReplyDelete