On Rand and Altruism: A Defense of Christian Self-Interest

Wow… absolutely excellent article! I’m just finishing my second reading of Atlas Shrugged and have been thinking a lot about this very topic. Extremely well written and articulated.

When we trade Christ for religion, we receive legalism with the attendant pains and burdens. Christians should be the happiest people on earth. Unfortunately most of us were sold the wrong gospel hence our lives have not been transformed by the Holy Spirit nor do we have the joy of the Lord.

Well written and excellent article.

Here’s a great book on the subject: Without a Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System.

http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?products_id=58

Excellent, excellent article. I’m currently about 1/3 through Atlas Shrugged (and I’m really irked that I didn’t read this in HS or college–would have been a nuclear arsenal for economic policy debates!)

It seems I’d been “thinking/feeling” something very similar to this article the whole time I’ve been reading this book, but had not taken the time to put it into words.

As a Christian, I kept having this thought that although Rand was an atheist, and criticized the “altruism” of Christianity–her argument was a sound one. BUT, it was based on a false premise–a false understanding of Christianity

Rand falsely equated what Christ taught us to practice in our relations with others — altruism to our fellow man in charity and kindness(our private lives) — with altruism in the context of economics(public interactions, exchanges of goods and services).

Rand failed to separate or distinguish between personal and economic altruism–government-coerced altruism: A state-sanctioned centralization of power justified by a purported knowledge of the “public good” through a “fair” distribution of income.

It seems to me that true “altruism” for our fellow man is not pompously thinking that we can use the fruits of their labor–hard-earned tax dollars–to redistribute (among the less productive or less successful) according to some arbitrary notion of “fairness”.

True altruism is freeing individuals from the constraints of burdensome taxes and regulations–which frustrate risk and investment–to compete in the free market and earn profits by producing FOR OUR FELLOW MAN the highest quality good/service at the lowest possible price.

When individuals are free to pursue their own “selfish” self interest in a free market economy, the standard of living FOR ALL citizens is increased.

I think all Christians can agree that when *individuals* exercise the Godly-virtues of hard work, dedication and sacrifice to generate wealth, it is in fact selfish for others to confiscate that wealth– NOT to pay for needed, limited government administration–but to flush down the drain of bureaucratic redistribution of wealth into a sewer of government economic reorganization…under the guise of “altruism”.

Paying taxes necessary for the administration of government IS godly; a collectivist government centralizing its power under the guise of “altruism” which eliminates the incentive to work by punishing risk and investment IS NOT.

I enjoyed the article. Good work. It leaves me with a few questions but little time to figure out if they make sense. I’ll throw some out knowing that, realistically, I probably won’t end up developing my own thoughts that arise from these questions:

Is it accurate/appropriate to to define “selfishness” as “the pursuit of one’s self-interest”? Isn’t this how your article defines it?

What do we mean by self interest? I guess it’s “what is best for you.” Does Rand believe that “what is best for you” is subjective to the individual?

How does the concept of “contentment” fit in with all of this?

Thanks everyone for the great comments.

Jaired, Usually, selfishness has negative connotations. I found this gem online:

“Selfishness,- a vice utterly at variance with the happiness of him who harbors it, and, as such, condemned by self-love.” –Sir J. Mackintosh.

I find this comical, in a sense, because he is essentially saying that your happiness is at variance with your happiness! Of course, the point probably is that appearing overly selfish is not in your self-interest. This I agree with.

You’re right that in Randian terminology selfishness is “the pursuit of one’s self-interest.” She even has a book “The Virtue of Selfishness” of which the title seems meant to be startling to the reader who has been taught that all selfishness is evil.

I believe, for Rand, self-interest is seen as a natural product of our existence. In order to live man must remain interested in himself and use his reason to stay alive.

My view on “contentment” is in line with Von Mises who says that people act to remove “felt uneasiness”. If you are fully content, I suppose you wouldn’t move at all.

First, Christianity *is* altruistic. Paul said explicitly to consider others as better than yourself (Phil. 2:3), and to “not seek your own good, but the good of the other person.” (1 Cor. 10:23-24). Unless you are prepared to suggest that Paul contradicts Jesus (which I have no problem with), it must be concede that these explicitly promote altruism. Further, Jesus’s sacrifice is considered significant precisely because he sacrificed himself for people who were unworthy, so Christ himself is the ultimate altruist. Remember also that Rand did not believe for a moment that priests and ministers speak for god, so any call to sacrifice oneself for god is ultimately a call to sacrifice oneself for the common good, or the collective (the church, the starving people in Africa, the community, whatever).

Second, Rand’s attack on Christianity does not rest solely on the ethical conflict of altruism versus egoism — she attacks any system that establishes faith as its means of epistemology, which Christianity undoubtedly does. When Rand states that “man has to choose to be man”, she is not talking about metaphysical being, she is talking about the application of reason by means of will. Man is the only being we know of that is self-aware. Our individuality is not a factor of genetics, but of the application of our minds in the (hopefully appropriate) epistemological method, so that *who* we are as rational beings is fully realized.

Third, *nowhere* does Rand ever argue that “[r]eason… come[s] from unreason, consciousness from unconsciousness, … free will from determinism.” The structure and organization of the universe does not come from nothing, it simply *is*. It is the Christian view of the non-entity deity that attempts to step outside of existence and invent “a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive–a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence.”

Finally, Rand never denounces charity as evil, because charity, in its proper form, is a selfish act. When I give money or time or effort to a cause *that I think is worthy*, I am acting on my values, without compulsion, and that is morally praiseworthy. Says Rand, “The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.”

@ncloud – the context of the Phillipians Biblical passage referenced is speaking to the church as an entity, not to a specific person. The Corinthians reference is regarding the freedom from law that Christ has given the believer. It is not that Christians and non-Christians have any less freedom, but the fact that some actions are not beneficial, whereas acting altruistic is beneficial. Subtle difference.

Christianity has as its core the law for the love of fellow man. But this is not a love for many, but the love for each individual. Altruism makes no such distinction – those who are altruistic will try to do good for as many people as possible, but the Christian understands that each individual is a unique and fallen creature and must be loved as an individual.

Its the individualistic nature of the Christian’s attitude which I think is central to the message of Christianity. As the article states, it is the characteristic of Christianity that our Lord considers us each unique and worthy of His friendship. His sacrifice may be altruistic in one sense where He died so that we may live, but in another sense it was selfish so that we could have some way to have fellowship with Him despite our fallen nature.

The structure and organization of the universe does not simply exist with no purpose for existence, at least to a Christian. But maybe I am misunderstanding your argument here – are you stating that Rand didnt believe in anything other than the simple existence of the universe? Granted – she was an atheist after all. Or are you trying to argue about the actual creation of the universe or purpose of the universe on its own terms? This was a confusing paragraph for me to read since it seems to be not even tangentially related to the article.

Finally, charity by definition is not related to causes that are worthy of your alms. It is given to those who are simply unfortunate than oneself. Thus the comment that Rand makes at the end of your sentence makes alot more sense as seen in the proper context and meaning of charity. That is, it is not immoral to give or receive non-sacrificial assistance, where it is immoral if the recipient of charity simply demands assistance because it is a duty or seen as a right.

Oh and if I may quote the Bible as well -

Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.
- 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12

Thanks for the comments, ncloud. I can tell that you are well-versed on Rand. Probably far beyond the few books of hers I’ve read. However, here are some points to consider:

Applying “altruistic” to Christianity is anachronistic; the term altruism having been coined by Auguste Comte in the 1850’s. In fact Comte was an Atheist who hoped that finding innate altruism in man would prove wrong the Christian doctrine of original sin, that all men are sinful from birth (Psalm 51:5). Altruism is an Atheistic philosophy, not Christian one.

The full verse of Phil 2:3 states, “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.” This is not a command to be altruistic, but one to be humble.

Again, the entirety of 1 Cor 10:23-24 states, “Everything is permissible” – but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible – but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.” We seek the good of others not for its own sake, but because it is beneficial to us.

Regarding Jesus on the cross, “Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” Hebrews 12:2 He had his own “self-interested” joy in dying on the cross.

Excellent article, Doug, and I enjoyed the discussion in the comments.

I think this view of Christianity not only preserves the concept of God-given love that is at its core, but also illustrates how practical and realistic Christianity is. Christianity is the only religion I know of that harmonizes an unwavering recognition of mankind’s nature as evil and selfish, with a solution that doesn’t involve us doing anything contradictory to our nature. We merely accept a gift that promises eternal joy – something clearly in our best interest. It just so happens that with this gift comes the love of God which inspires a desire to serve others. But here again it’s a trick – our own reason for serving others (whether we recognize/admit it or not) is because it gives us a sense of happiness and fulfillment. Which is essentially God’s way of getting us to act in a way contrary to our nature, without actually contradicting it. No other religion accepts humanity’s fallen nature as fact while providing a solution that isn’t contradictory to that fact. Most other philosophies either conclude that man is a bit of good and bad, and that he just has to try to be “more good,” or they accept that man is evil, but that his only way out is by not being evil – which contradicts his very nature and is therefore a hopeless endeavor.

I actually wrote a blog post on a similar topic recently: http://piqued.brianfrantz.com/?p=55.

Ayn Rand makes the fundamental assumption that God does not exist; in fact, her entire objectivist point of view depends on it. If there ia a being out there with limitless power, nothing is really objective in the first place, it’s at the whim of that being.

So I don’t think it makes much sense to critique her philosophy by ignoring one of its fundamental precepts.

@Douglas — I fail to see how Comte’s identification of the philosophical idea of altruism in the 1850s is relevant. Identification is not invention. People preached and practiced altruism long before Comte identified it. Also, it is important to note that we are discussing Rand’s definition of altruism as used in her works, not Comte’s (see: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html).

As for “lov[ing] they neighbor”, I refer you to Rand’s letter to Rose Wilder Lane on Nov. 3, 1946, in which she wrote:

“But whatever meaning we attempt to attach to this slogan ["love thy neighbor as thyself"]—it still remains a tenet of collectivism. If ‘love’ here means self-preservation, as you say, or the protection of one’s interests—well, it still means that you must preserve and protect others *as much* as yourself. Since your chief activity of self-preservation on earth is work to obtain food, the slogan means that you must work for others just as much as for yourself. If so—collectivism is the proper social system for men. (A slogan or precept should be applied and observed literally, concretely, consistently, in every instance which it covers—or not at all.) … Now when you say ‘my interests require that I do not jeopardize (and that if and when necessary, I protect) my neighbor’s'—this is quite another matter, and not at all within the meaning or intention of that slogan. ‘Not to jeopardize’ is not the same thing as ‘actively to preserve.’ What you owe yourself is to work for your living; what you owe your neighbor is not to interfere with his work. This is not loving (or preserving) ‘as much as yourself.’ Every moral duty you owe to yourself requires a positive action; everything you *owe* your neighbor is negative—to abstain from action that would infringe his rights.”

(For purposes of space and copyright limitations, I cannot reprint the entirety of the letter, bit it is worth reading. It can be found in the book “The Letters of Ayn Rand”.)

As for the other Bible verses previously quoted, the immediate justification for Paul’s admonitions are irrelevant. The fact remains, he clearly teaches that individuals should *put the interest of others before their own* and to consider others *as better* than oneself. The excerpt from Rand’s letter above applies equally well to these verses.

@Phil, my statement that “[t]he structure and organization of the universe does not come from nothing, it simply *is*” was aimed at Douglas’s false dichotomy: “If man did not choose reason, he must have been created with it.” Not only does Douglas misunderstand Rand’s philosophy of the “self-made man”, he also takes the standard Creationist position that ordered reality, in this case, a reasonable human being, must have been created because order cannot come from non-order. This is incorrect however, because an unordered reality is, itself, a contradiction in terms. Christians, however, believe on faith in an *ordered reality that had no designer*, and they call this reality “god”. Rand believed that the universe and its laws are an ordered reality with no designer, and man, being part of that universe, has an ordered nature which includes his reason. Man does not choose to have the epistemological capacity for reason — he chooses whether to exercise his reason correctly or not.

Tremendous article Doug. It’s good to see the nuance and deep thought that clearly went into it. The topic itself is so unique and under-explored. Just opening this discussion is important and fascinating to me.

I like how in the comments, you busted out Comte on ncloud. You buried his “Christianity is pro-altruism” argument so hard — and in so many ways — EPIC retort! Well played, sir.

…

That said, I still thought the most interesting comment was something else ncloud said.

ncloud: “”"It is the Christian view of the non-entity deity that attempts to step outside of existence and invent “a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive–a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence.” “”"

My reading of that is that if you allow your philosophical framework to contain a supreme being who is defined as being beyond reason, that leads to an annihilation of man’s reason. It isn’t even a slippery-slope. It’s a total undermining of all reason.

If you create a system in which reason applies everywhere, all the time, in every situation, and man should follow it, that would be objectivism. But coupled with Christianity, reason gets to be undermined any time a man in a robe says that God has “gone beyond” reason. You can try and wiggle out of that one by saying that’s just the institution of religion, not God. But even in a personal relationship with God… you only get to use reason to a point, then you just abandon reason whenever it contradicts the Bible or whatever non-reason based judgments you have in your understanding of God. It’s the same thing except self-reinforcing versus authoritarian control.

…..

I also thought some about Brian Frantz’s comments. I think it’s a tad imprecise to say Christianity sees men as evil and selfish. The Bible may mention that man is evil a couple times, but overall, it really portrays man as more weak, than evil. Again, it’s hard to see how Christianity and Objectivism get knit together on this seam. Christianity (as contained in the Bible) continuously portrays individuals, humanity as a whole, and everything else on Earth as hopelessly flawed, corrupted, and broken. There are numerous references to the idea that man cannot and should not trust himself or his own judgments. It portrays the world as one that is Ultimately subject to God’s Will, not reason. I would stop short of saying Christianity is the anti-thesis of reason, but it would certainly be easier to argue that men are corrupt and their reasoning unsound/unusable using biblical backing versus trying to show that man’s reason is strengthened by biblical teachings. It seems to me that relying on your own self-judgments and decisions — reason — is the opposite of submitting your will to a creature who lives outside of reason.

And forgive me for the impetuous nature of my comments. I’m quite flawed.

….

Also, in a totally unrelated note,

Doug – I find it interesting that you would add a CS Lewis quote in one of your responses that trashes Kant. You should read a Critique of Pure Reason. I would argue that your reasoning style in this article, and also in your life is very Kantian. More than anyone I know. Kant popularized the idea of universalizing precepts of systems to see if you could find contradictions and then disregarding those precepts as illogical if the universalization created any inherent contradictions.

So your views on economics and politics are entirely Kantian.

Kant (Economics) = Mises
Kant (Poltics) = Libertarianism
Kant (Science) = Western Science
Kant (Philosophy) = Western Philosophy

…

Sorry if my comments were all over the place. Your article was so well formulated. It honestly deserved better than the stream of consciousness ramble I gave you in response.

I look forward to future your next article!

Also, I posted pictures of my new condo in Phuket:
http://www.couchsurfing.org/people/louie_helm/

Excellent article. Thanks for pointing out and correcting the misunderstanding that people have of Rand’s view of altruism. Thanks also for pointing out her misunderstanding of Christianity.

You have done a great service to many by clearing up these matters.