Rand's Polemical, Negative Approach to Virtue (2003)


Roger Bissell

Recommended Posts

The Polemical Nature of Rand’s Discussion of Virtue in “The Objectivist Ethics”

by Roger E. Bissell

August 14, 2003

In studying Rand's "The Objectivist Ethics," I was struck by the negative, polemical manner in which she characterized the virtue of Pride:

The virtue of Pride is the recognition of the fact 'that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining – that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul.' (Atlas Shrugged) The virtue of Pride can best be described by the term 'moral ambitiousness.' It means that one must earn the right to hold oneself as one's own highest value by achieving one's own moral perfection – which one achieves [here comes the negative part] by
never
accepting any code of irrational virtues impossible to practice and by
never
failing to practice the virtues one knows to be rational – by
never
accepting an unearned guilt and
never
earning any, or, if one has earned it,
never
leaving it uncorrected – by
never
resigning oneself passively to any flaws in one's character – by
never
placing any concern, wish, fear or mood of the moment above the reality of one's own self-esteem. And, above all, it means one's
rejection
of the role of a sacrificial animal, the
rejection
of any doctrine that preaches self-immolation as a moral virtue or duty. (VOS, pp. 29-30)

I count seven uses of "never" and two of "rejection." Also, not secondarily or tangentially, but "above all," pride aka moral ambitiousness amounts to "rejection."

That's pretty negative, if you ask me. In a similar manner, but to a much lesser degree, Rand uses negative terms in characterizing the virtues of Integrity, Honesty, and Justice (while – somewhat surprisingly – using positive terms in characterizing Rationality and Independence).

Now, there is nothing wrong with polemics per se. But in laying out her positive case and, particularly, in characterizing the virtues, it would seem most helpful to stick to the high ground, to point toward what one aspires to, rather than focusing so relentlessly on what one rejects.

If I had written the last half of that paragraph (or been asked by Rand for comments :-), I would have written something like:

[beginning with Rand's original wording] The virtue of Pride can best be described by the term 'moral ambitiousness.' It means that one must earn the right to hold oneself as one's own highest value by achieving one's own moral perfection – which one achieves.... [here I would break off from Rand's verbiage and suggest instead the following] ....
by scrupulously adopting a code of rational virtues that are possible to practice and by scrupulously practicing those virtues – by scrupulously correcting any guilt that one has earned – by scrupulously correcting any flaws in one's character – by scrupulously holding the reality of one's own self-esteem above any concern, wish, fear or mood of the moment. And, above all, it means one's scrupulous adherence to the principle that one is, like every other human being, an end in oneself, not a means to the ends of others
.

Then, if she were so moved, Rand could have more appropriately trotted in all the negative stuff. But I think that, in the interest of putting her constructive, life-affirming approach in the foreground, she should first have given a nice, clean positive statement of what pride and "moral ambitiousness" entail, before galloping off into "never"-"never" land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

That's a pretty scrupulous style criticism you did there. I agree with you.

On your rewrite, I would even take out all those "scrupulously's." See how this reads:

... by adopting a code of rational virtues that are possible to practice and by practicing those virtues – by correcting any guilt that one has earned – by correcting any flaws in one's character – by holding the reality of one's own self-esteem above any concern, wish, fear or mood of the moment. And, above all, it means one's adherence to the principle that one is, like every other human being, an end in oneself, not a means to the ends of others.

That reads forceful and means "always" to me. I don't get the feeling of something like: "by adopting a code of rational virtues that are possible to practice and by practicing those virtues most of the time – by correcting almost all of the guilt that one has earned..."

:)

I think you are on to something important with counting negative words. It's something to think about when reading her and something to think about in my own writing. (And there just went three "somethings" and that's a lot of something!)

Incidentally, I remember Rand's 1964 Playboy interview where she said the following:

PLAYBOY: You are a declared anticommunist, antisocialist and antiliberal. Yet you reject the notion that you are a conservative. In fact, you have reserved some of your angriest criticism for conservatives. Where do you stand politically?

RAND: Correction. I never describe my position in terms of negatives. I am an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, of individual rights -- there are no others -- of individual freedom.

I also remember one of her TV interviews, I think it was the Mike Wallace one, where she said her philosophy was not based on denying the existence of God because that would be basing it on a negative. She considered that as there was no evidence for the existence of God, belief was arbitrary, but that was a secondary issue, not a fundamental one.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Words like "always" and "never" in terms of future conduct-- no matter the best effort-- is just going to be frustrating and exhausting. By following the first line-- "never" accepting any irrational virtues that's impossible to do, the person reading this would have to wonder about the impossibility of "never" doing the rest of the paragraph, and wonder about how rational it is to set up all these "never"'s in the first place. There's too much contradiction with human nature from one line to the next in the original format; I like the re-write better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now