Queinnise - Virtues

To be Selfish is to be Ethical as Oil is to Water! A discussion on the “conflicts” between ethics and selfishness based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand Queinnise Miller PhD Student in Educational Leadership College of Education Prairie View A&M University Teacher/Department Chair Alief Independent School District Houston, Texas William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Professor PhD Program in Educational Leadership Hall of Honor (2008) William H. Parker Leadership Academy The Whitlowe R. Green College of Education Prairie View A&M University Member of the Texas A&M University System Frairie View, Texas Visiting Lecturer (2005) Oxford Round Table University of Oxford, Oxford England Distinguished Alumnus (2004) College of Education and Professional Studies Central Washington University

ABSTRACT To be selfish is good. To be ethical is good. Yet what happens when one desires to be good by being selfish, and consequently is “bad” ethically, or vice versa? Ideally, a person should be able to be true to self while obtaining the ethical morals of society. Unfortunately, there comes a time when one must choose to be selfish or ethical, to be true to ones logical desires, wants, or needs or to look after the good of what is right or wrong for the greater good of man kind.

Introduction According to the teachings of Ayn Rand (1961) in her book The Virtue of Selfishness, to be genuinely selfish is a moral achievement for man kind. Yet, what occurs when the selfishness of man kind conflicts with what the Ways of Knowing Through the Realms of Meaning defines as, the moral knowledge, right deliberate actions, or what a person ought voluntarily do, human ethics? While selfishness may be a virtue, unfortunately there will always come a time in one’s life where a choice of self or ethics must be made. By what is man motivated: Selfishness or Ethics? Purpose of the Article The purpose of this article is to discuss certain situations where being ethical and being selfish cannot occupy the same space. At times being selfish and being concerned with the desires of ones individual wants will not coincide with ethical morals. At the same time making ethical decisions based on the universal and societal moral norms often take no consideration of what would be best for the individual. Sacrificing the needs of the individual for the good of other people is seen as being the ethical thing to do. This article will answer the question for the rational man, is the virtue of selfishness or ones moral and ethical responsibility to society more important? The Virtue of Selfishness When one hears the word “selfish” a negative connotation is most times automatically associated with it. The word “selfish” is pregnant with meaning. MerriamWebster’s dictionary defines selfish as the idea of being concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others. According to the Atlas Society (J.R., n.d.), many people use the adjective "selfish" to describe regard for one's own welfare to the disregard of the well-being of others. Many people would be willing to characterize any instance of desire-satisfaction in these circumstances as "selfish," no matter what its content. Many people arrive at the following composite image: selfish people are brutish people who are oblivious to the negative consequences of their actions for their friends and loved ones and who abuse the patience, trust, and good will of all comers to satisfy their petty whims. To be selfless is having or showing no concern for self. In her book The Virtue of Selfishness (1961), Ayn Rand challenges this definition of selfishness with the idea that to be rationally selfish is a moral achievement for man kind. She believes that selfishness is serious, rational, principled concern with one's own well-being; it turns out to be a prerequisite for the attainment of the ultimate moral value. For this reason, Rand believes

that “selfishness” is a virtue. For her, the truly selfish person is a self-respecting, selfsupporting human being who neither sacrifices others to himself nor sacrifices himself to others (J.R., n.d.). Nathaniel Branden (as cited in Rand, 1961) asks the question “Isn’t Everyone Selfish?” He feels that everyone does what he really wants to do-otherwise, he wouldn’t do it. “No one ever really sacrifices himself. Since every purposeful action is motivated by some value or goal that the actor desires, one always acts selfishly, whether one knows it or not”, stated Nathaniel Branden. Selfishness entails: (a) a hierarchy of values set by the standard of one’s self-interest, and (b) the refusal to sacrifice a higher value to a lower one or to a non value (as cited in Rand, 1961). A genuine selfishness – that is: a genuine concern with discovering what is to one’s self-interest, and acceptance of the responsibility of achieving it a refusal ever to betray it by acting on the blind whim, mood, impulse or feeling of the moment, and uncompromising loyalty to ones judgment convictions and values-represents a profound moral achievement…… (Rand, 1961, p.70). In other words, to be selfish merely means to be true to ones owns beliefs, feelings, needs, desires, and interests. There are some people who are genuinely just self center, self absorbed, and self involved who are not interested in the art of self improvement. There are a select group of people who know that if they can not take value in there own live, then taking value in the life anyone else would be impossible. A person who evades the ability to place oneself as a priority in his own life, cannot be effectively productive in the lives of others. Ethical Responsibility The issue of “selfishness” versus “self-sacrifice” arises in an ethical context. Ethics is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions – the choices and actions that determine the purpose and course of his life (Rand, 1967). Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines ethics as “a branch of philosophy dealing with what is good and bad with moral duty and obligation (p. 819)”. Ethics are the principles of moral conduct governing an individual or a group. Ethics is the fifth realm in the realms of meaning from the ways of knowing. According to the Ways of Knowing Through the Realms of Meaning ethics can also be referred to as moral knowledge. Ways of Knowing through the Realms of Meaning discusses certain truths concerning ethics such as: The essence of ethical meanings is right deliberate action, that is, what a person ought voluntarily to do. Every one is obligated to do right and if one fails to do so, he incurs guilt. The realm of ethics is right action. Moral conduct is the source of the common good, for which everyone is responsible. Ethics can be seen from various vantage points. There are five main areas of moral concern dealing with ethics: Human rights, sex and family relations, relationships among and within class, ethnic, racial, religious, and vocational groups, economic life and political life (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 454-446). While ideally ethics should be clear concise universal principles understood and practiced by all individuals, metaphysically ethics are subjective because not everyone has equal

conceptions of good and right. Depending on the theory of ethics in which one practices, will heavily depend on that persons axiological view point of right and wrong. There are three types of ethical theory “Subjective”, “Formalist”, and “Teleological”. Subjective ethical theory deals with the idea that good and right is defined by subjective feeling-state. That which produces the most pleasure or satisfaction will define the right choice. The idea of right is absorbed into an idea of fact, namely, what pleases or satisfies wants (Kritsonis, 2007). Formalistic ethical theory suggests that the criteria of rightness are certain formal principles of action. According to this theory, there are universal standards of conduct by which decision should be made (Kritsonis, 2007). Finally, the teleological ethical method has the position that the rightness of an act is judged according to the consequences of doing it. If the consequences are good, the act is right; if they are evil, the act is wrong (Kritsonis, 2007). Each of these theories yields a different level of ethical responsibility. Ethical responsibility is expected of everyone and those who do not live there lives based on some ethical theory are viewed as “evil” individuals. Selfishly Unethical What does it mean to be “selfishly unethical”? Ayn Rand believes under the Objectivist principle that there are no conflicts of interests among rational men. This theory does not prove true in all circumstances. Lets consider three different situations where being selfish and choosing ones own personal interest does in fact conflict with the more ethical and moral choice. Consider a young couple with a new baby, the father on a dead end job, and mother working on advancing in her career. They have been married for almost 5 years. Their marriage has faced many difficulties and they have gone through a separation recently. Financially they struggle to get all bills paid and often times must borrow money to get by. Unexpectedly the mother becomes pregnant again despite her birth control regimen. Both parents know that another baby is not in there best interest and neither of them have personal desires to have another baby. Being selfishly unethical they decide to get an abortion. By doing this, they both feel guilt, yet relief, because they put themselves before what many people in society view as the ethical choice of having a second child. Consider Hank Rearden and his relationship with Dagny Taggard in Atlas Shurgged. Hank has been married to Lillian Rearden for years, yet lives in a state of misery. Lillian is generally regarded as a beautiful woman, yet produces no pleasure or happiness in the life of Hank Rearden. Hank is a man of self-esteem who regards the universe as open to his effort, is the profound pleasure he experiences in the productive work of his mind; his enjoyment of life is fed by his unceasing concern to grow in knowledge and ability to think, to achieve, to move forward, to meet new challenges and overcome them – to earn the pride of a constantly expanding efficacy (Rand, 1964). Lillian is of a different soul, one deficient in self esteem, to whom the universe appears as unknowable and vaguely threatening, whose central motivating impulse is a longing for safety, not the safety that is won by efficacy, but the safety of a world in which efficacy is not demanded. She is a person who finds pleasure in not being conscious, whose only

form of relief and only notion of enjoyment is the dim flicker of undemanding sensations. She takes pleasure, not in achievement, but in destruction, whose action is aimed, not at attaining efficacy, but at ruling those who have attained it. The two of them are definitely as oil and water, a perfect mixture impossible. Hank desires something more, something different. He then selfishly but unethically gives in to his desires and begins his affair with Dagny Taggart, a woman with whom he is equally yoked with intellectually, physically, and emotionally. “He dropped back on the pillow and lay still, his eyes closed. His face seemed young, at peace. Seeing it for a moment without the reins of tension, she realized suddenly the extent of the unhappiness he had borne; but it’s past now, she thought, it’s over (Rand, 1957).” Hank Rearden was very conscious of his decision. He rationally decided to no longer sacrifice himself for the good of Lillian yet he doesn’t escape the guilt or contempt he feels. “I had never broken my word. Now I’ve broken an oath I gave for life……” (Rand, 1957, p.254) Eventually he divorced Lillian. Consider the plight of the care giver who understands that most single parents or financially struggling parent have special situations, but recognize their need for stable and reliable child care. This care giver unlike many commercial care giving institutions offers extended hours understands a late payment every now and then, and will care for each child as if he were her own. Suddenly the care givers financial situation changes with the loss of employment from her spouse. She is now the sole provider for her family. Her clients, increase but many of them knowing that she is normally understanding of their situations are late with payments more frequently. Finally, she faced with her mortgage behind and the needs of her own family becoming difficult to handle due to the behind payments of her clients. What is she to do? Her choices are to replace those who are behind on their payments with more reliable clients, or to continue to help out those with special situations. To replace her clients would be in her best interest, yet to no longer offer them a stable place for their children forcing them to find a different source of child care or not work at all, which becomes a snowball effect of their bills being affected and their children placed in unsuitable places for childcare. The caregiver decides to selfishly yet unethically deny care for those with situations and replaces them with reliable clients. Her mortgage is paid but the heaviness from the guilt, makes her wonder was it worth it. Yes. No. Yes! Selflessly Ethical Each individual in the above situation dealt in a “selfishly unethical” manner some would argue. Had they did the opposite and behaved in a “selflessly ethical” manner sacrificing their personal and individual needs, wants, and desires what would be the consequences of that behavior? In the case of the young couple, ethically an abortion is wrong on many levels. The majority of society and religious affiliates deem abortion as murder. If the couple against their own individual interest, wants, and desires decided to have the baby that they did not desire and could not afford, ultimately what good could come out of it? One would argue that many good things could be produced from a selfless act as such. The first baby will have a sibling with whom to grow old with, the immediate financial struggle could breed more ambition for both parents, along with many more positive

possibilities. This same ethical decision could result in bitter parents, children living in poverty, or a marriage destroyed by the pressure that comes with financial difficulty and raising children. In the case of Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart, an affair was the most unethical decision in which he could have made. Ethically, he should have sacrificed his wants and desires and stayed true to the commitment and vow that he had made to his wife and to God. After all, his misery with his wife was possibly self-inflicted. By choosing ethics, would that have made his marriage better? Would Hank become a better husband or business man? In the plight of the caregiver, ethically, how could one deny services to those in need of charitable assistance? The best decision ethically would not be to turn them away, but continue to help them, and try and devise a compromise in which both parties will benefit. Having full awareness of the consequences of denying care to clients with complicated situations which could result in the hardship of the child is not an act of ethics at all. Some would even label the act as heartless. One of the best examples of selfless ethical behavior is that of Dagny Taggart in Rand’s book Atlas Shurgged. When almost every intellectual had vanished and ran away from the lunacy of societies attempt to level the playing field and diminishing the efforts of those who profited from their businesses by putting into effect laws against the productive man, Dagny although angry and frustrated decided to continue working for the good of Transcontinental Railways although she did as a slave. A slave that that in which was considered “ethical” she sacrificed her beliefs, her talents, and desires for the “well being” of society. She selflessly and ethically gave her all. Ethics vs. Selfishness Ayn Rand (1961) believes that before one can value the life of others, one must first value his or her own life. Depending on the premises selected by an individual, his or her values differ making subjective the choice between self and ethics. Ideally following the “objectivist” principle, self and ethics should naturally coexist with one another. “I want it because it is right” (Rand, 1961, p.58). Metaphysically it is impossible for this statement to hold true in all situations even for the most rational man. If man has a limited epistemological grasp on societies axiological foundations, they most often then not selfishness will naturally prevail, because ethics will not hold much ground. The choice between ethics and selfishness is most often made from a state of emotion rather than logic. It is often time the evasion of logic that makes this choice between ethics and selfishness a difficult task. Concluding Remarks In conclusion the choice of self over ethics or vice versa could be a very difficult but necessary choice to make. While it is unfortunate that a choice of such must be made at times, it is believed that such a choice will ultimately lead to a life of fulfillment. What is right and good for self and what is right and good for society sometimes are not parallel entities. This choice should not be made merely based on whims and emotions,

but on logic and genuine consideration of all parties involved, but first to thou own self be true. I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. (Atlas Shrugged) References J.R. N.D. Virtue of Selfishness. The Atlas Society. Retrieved February 19, 2009 from http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx Kritsonis, W. (2007). Ways of knowing through the realms of meaning. Oxford, England: National Forum Journals. Rand, A. (1957). Atlas shrugged. New York: Penguin Putnam, Incorporated. Rand, A. (1961). The Virtue of selfishness. New York: Penguin Putnam, Incorporated. Webster, Merriam. (1999). School Dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts: MerriamWebster, Incorporated.