Every Man As an End in Himself
Did you know that all 328 pages of Tara Smith’s book Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist are available online through Google? [Correction: Apparently only part of it is available.]
I stumbled across the book (which I’ve not yet read) while searching for a quote from Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness, which appears as follows in Smith’s book:
The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that “every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others...” (citation: Virtue of Selfishness, p30)
This particular quote by Rand is, in my view, one of her most incisive, enduring, and valuable observations in the field of ethics or politics.
When Rand was writing her novels in the 40s and 50s, the concept of “selfishness” was perceived very differently than it is today. Apparently, during those eras people almost exclusively associated the “self” with bad, rather than good, ethical behavior.
Today, however — largely due to the influence of Rand and her followers as well as the somewhat self-centered inclinations of the hippie generation — a great many people recognize the importance of self-interested action, and the role that this plays in a healthy psychology as well as a healthy society.
And yet, in a colossal irony fitting of Atlas Shrugged itself, there are still still relatively few who understand the true meaning and significance of treating every person — one’s self emphatically included — as an end in him- or herself.
We are all born with natural narcissistic tendencies. Growing out of those tendencies requires thought, effort, and a willingness to let go of the self-centered illusions that get us by during childhood.
The world hardly needs more people using a “virtue of selfishness” as cover for holding onto these egocentric tendencies.
As such, today I find it much more useful to think and speak in terms of treating people as ends in themselves, than to advocate or endorse selfishness per se.
Rand would agree with this statement, then:
Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end.
Aside from that: The issue of self is one where buddhism and the philosophies of most of us who read your blog diverge. I think this divergence bothers you, since you would like these two valuable paths to be one in some deeper sense.
What I think would help, would be to use buddhist method (not conclusions) to investigate egoism or selfishness. Start more or less axiomatically with your egoism: I am selfish. I act to further my own interests. Then break down what those statements actually mean. By “your interests”, do you include interests that just happen to be similar to everyone else’s interests but that you yourself have never thoroughly evaluated. Big house, for example. Sit down in a quiet place and think about it. While you think, look at the amount of space you require as you sit. What other than yourself are you going to fill all that space in your house with? Or go on vacation and live in a small hotel room. What has happened to your happiness? Did it decrease with the amount of square or cubic meters available as your “territory”? No? What, then, drives your wish for a big house. Go through your “selfish desires” that way, and you will often find that they are not selfish at all, but other-driven.
Coming from the other end, considering compassion for others: Buddhism has good arguments that your self, though one in one respect, is in terms of experience simply a series of different persons in a long, long series. What is your feeling toward the person who is yourself next week? Try to see if that feeling has a resonance with how you feel toward other people near you.
Some Thoughts...
Self and Emptiness - Self IS emptiness, and the access to it... ladder climber view...
I think about Krishnamurti. He never taught dogma, but always questioned. He would ask - “if you really follow that thought, where does it lead? Where does it come from? What is it really meant to solve?”
As you question the self’s desire, inquiring into their own motivation and source, you Always and Invariably come to a facet of non-dual awareness/source. (This is one of my favorite parts of being a coach, when I guide clients to “get” this experientially around something they have been shameful/fearful about, often for decades, and they open into vast love and fearlessness...Yummy!)
The self IS the access to the Selfless, or in the triad
The world is illusion Brahman alone is real Brahman is the world
As I like to say, eternal/emptiness always manifests in a temporal/form. The form is the ONLY access we ever have to the emptiness. AND, the nature of the emptiness is manifest through all form. Our “self”ish desires are manifestations/particularizations of “emptiness/brahman/god/spirit.” The more we understand/know our “self” the more we will relax into the fearless emptiness that is who/what we are (and in the non-dual sense, are not) and sources every desire we have.
From that place, “we” still have values/desires (that’s what happens with “form”al awareness. Organic things have values by their nature, and the mind/awareness is organic...), they just aren’t “ours” in any sense that it means anything about us. We have compassion, love beauty, enjoy dancing/celebration/creation, etc. because we are manifestations of emptiness/divine love, and that is its nature. They exist in the emptiness/space that we are, and guide the form towards its telos.
The more “rational” the thought/mind/system that generates the “desires/values” the more powerfully it moves towards its telos. Or, the more grounded we are in the fearless openess of non-duality, the more we intuit the clearest and most beautiful values to pursue and choices to make. The more irrational/dropped context, the more it takes detours on the journey, often going 180 degrees away from its telos. Or, the more we lose touch with the non-dual fearless ground and try to protect the self from feelings of shame (by trying to “be/achieve” something to prove our value [what I call “constructive drama” in my book “The Key Is In The Darkness”], or by criticizing others to prove our value relative to other’s failures [what I call “destructive drama” in the same book]), the more we invest our time/energy/mind into dropped context self-esteem projects that typically cause us more harm than good.
Check your premises...especially the premises about who/what the self (you) is. When you check them, you find that 99% of what your “self”ish desires consist of is fear-based distortions of divine love. When you inquire into your desires/fears, you can trace the path back to the divine urge at their genesis, then enjoy/pursue them fearlessly.
This is the practical/predictable path to fully engaged non-attachment and joy/power in the manifest realm called being human.
AND, I like to thing in terms of percentage. 80% fear, 20% divine inspiration is a pretty good step forward, compared to the 99%/1% ratio I typically find when my breathing gets short...And once I get used to 80%/20, the 75%/25 is a nice next step...sort of like releasing energy when an electron “jumps shells”...
Again, although divine essence/emptiness is eternal, “I/it” always filter(s) it(self) through my temporal/form/fears, so relative progress is a beautiful expression of my divine nature blossoming through my human experience...
The Self is Emptiness, and Self-ishness is Godliness...
Mark
– Mark Michael Lewis | CEO | Smart Energy Enterprises, Inc. | SEE-Inc. A Beautiful Future Now! http://SmartPowerDrinks.com | Mark@SEE-Inc.com | 707.745.4566 x702 | 508-256-0204 fax Host of “Money, Mission, and Meaning: Passion at Work, Purpose at Play” http://PersonalLifeMedia.com
Thanks for your replies, guys.
Reply to Svein
Svein, you write that “You would like these two valuable paths [Objectivism and Buddhism] to be one in some deeper sense.”
Actually, no, I don’t want them to be one. I see the two philosophies as irreconcilable, and I’ve touched on that subject some here at MJ.
If you see me yearning for a “oneness,” it’s the oneness of reality. But the lenses through which Objectivism and Buddhism see reality are often mutually exclusive, and I’m not hoping to change either of them.
At the same time, I sometimes joke the “Objectivism is a philosophy in search of practices, while Buddhism is a set of practices in search of a coherent philosophy” — which summarizes (a little too glibly) the strengths and weaknesses I see in each of them.
Regarding Kant
Your observation that Kant was a great advocate of treating people as ends rather than means is an interesting one, and I’ll try to take that up in a future post.
However, I don’t think Rand would agree at all with Kant’s observation above. Kant’s formulation is that you should never treat people as a means to your own ends. Rand’s observation is that you should never treat people as only or merely a means to your ends.
In other words, Rand’s formulation acknowledges that someone can be both a means and an end, so long as you do not reduce someone to being merely a means to your ends.
Kant’s formulation that you cite above does not acknowledge this fact. Perhaps he acknowledges it elsewhere; I don’t know.
Joshua,
I was just catching up on my Mudita Journal reading and I came across this post.
I recently wrote something on narcissism in our society today along the same sentiments as your post: “Epidemic Narcissism Among The Younger Generation” ( http://www.topgunfp.com/epidemic-narcissism-among-the-younger-generation/ ).
I totally agree with the slant you put on things here.
Kant: Kant does acknowledge that you can treat a person as both an and a means. The best formulation of his categorical imperative, the foundation of his moral philosophy, is:
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means” (Scroll down to “The second formulation” in this Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative ).