I just finished reading Atlas Shrugged and I am starting to discover the wonderful world of objectivist thinking. I like most of the ideas and premises about self reliance and rational thought, but there are a few issues that I have trouble understanding. One of them is Rand’s assertions of good and evil, and more specifically that one example of an evil person is someone who gives out charity to the undeserving (I can find the page number if needed). Under this assumption then, would Ayn Rand have considered Mother Theresa evil?
Ayn would have definitely had a problem with her choice. The choice would have definitely been condemned as “wrong.” As for MT herself?-- I think there is evidence that Ayn would have respected her wishes to do something AR considered stupid and irrational, so long as MT didn’t force her brand of altruism on anyone through, I dunno, taxation based welfare programs? 
AR would have certianly had some pointed things to say, but were she world dictator (now THERE’S a thought!) MT wouldn’t be sent to prison or anything.
What you have to realize is that helping others is not evil. What makes an action evil is the reasons behind that action. So if she was helping people because she enjoyed helping people then there is nothing in that that Ayn Rand could describe as evil. If her actions instead were based on a percieved need from others and she got no personal pleasure then her actions could be described as Evil as explained by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that Rand wasn’t too fond of Mother Theresa, but perhaps it’s a memory fart.
It seems to me that alot of Rand’s assertions of a person being good or evil are made with the premise that everyone’s motives are clearly visible all the time. Would she have had a problem with a millionare who secretly was very unhappy about being rich and yet kept it a secret?
I’d second Eldramar’s post, and add a couple of things. My reading of Rand suggests its very much the motive or reason that offended, more than the act. I think Rand was offended by the notion that poor people are deserving of charity simply because they are poor - that their poverty creates obligations to other people. I also thought, though, that she created a character, I think in Atlas Shrugged, who started volunteering with “noble” motives, but became uglier as the book progressed. She began to feel that the people she helped were obligated to thank her. In this sense, I think its far to say that Rand portrayed charity in a negative light.
It was always my reading of Rand that she was offended by notions that wealth created obligations on people who had the gumption to become rich. I think that Rand would dislike most charity, since it tends to reinforce the idea of wealth creating obligations
Probably Rand would have called Mother Theresa evil, not because of MT’s charity, but because of the religious motivation behind it. Rand didn’t have a problem with charity in general (everybody in her literature, whether hero or villain, is remarkably free-giving to beggars and vagrants). But she had a major problem with the Christian ethic of self-sacrifice, and she would surely have attributed that to Mother Theresa.
I don’t have a problem with Mother Theresa; though she might have called what she did “self-sacrifice,” I bet she was happy doing it. Most religious do-gooders I’ve met seem to be quite happy people. But I don’t think Rand herself would have reached the same conclusion I do.
In The Virtue of Selfishness, Rand quotes Barbara Branden on charity in an Objectivist world: “If you want to help [the poor], you will not be stopped.”
In The Fountainhead, Austen Heller is said to be noted for giving large quantities of money to support victims of oppression. He is also a friend of the novel’s hero, Howard Roark.
However, Rand was noted for tossing the epithet “evil” about to pretty much anyone who was less vigorously Objectivist than she.
She would’ve sent in Ragnar Dannaskjold [sp?] with his cannons blazing. Take that, you naughty nun!
This was touched on in other posts, but I think it comes down to Rand’s distaste for the illusion of altruism. In short, that even outwardly selfless acts have selfish motives. So, as others have said, if the underlying selfish motive was that it made one feel good to help others, then I think Rand would be fine with it. What she hated was when the selfish motive was fear of reprisal because of the idea that it was one’s duty to be charitable. There is of course one other motive that is prevalent, that of helping others in order to look good in the eyes of others. This seems to be the motive behind a lot of high-profile liberals today(ahem…hollywood), so I’m not certain how Rand would view this motive.
JustPlainBryan
Ah, memories. I am an objectivist, and I remember when I had just finished Atlas Shrugged. Indeed, it was a life-changing book. I’ll offer you some unsolicited advice in the hopes of helping you to avoid some of the mudholes I stepped in.
Ayn Rand is not a god, even though she thought she was. I corresponded for a bit with some of her worshippers, including Harry Binswanger, self-proclaimed leader of the cult. Every one of them was an asshole. Arrogant and oddly Borg-like.
It is easy to be impressed by Rand. Indeed, she was one of the 20th century’s greatest intellectuals. Who can ever forget her standing on one foot and almost singing, “Metaphysic - objective reality, Ethic - self-interest, Epistemology - reason!” Unfortunately, Rand’s temperament was so melancholy that she even eventually declared an “official” objectivist art form: classical realism. So, if you liked say, impressionism, you were on the outs. That and other clues caused me to re-examine the philosophy.
Eventually, I cherry picked the parts I liked and discarded the rest. Do yourself a favor and do your due diligence now, before you commit too much spirit and energy to a person who invalidated her own ethic by betraying it.
Libertarian wrote:
“Classical”? Horrors! What would Howard Roark say?!
I figured picking out the parts I liked and discarding the rest would be the best way to go about it, but I didn’t know if what I chose would still be considered objectivism. For the record, I don’t consider Mother Theresa evil and I do believe that there are people who would be happiest in a life of self sacrifice (Not many though). Self interest and rational thought make up the core of objectivist thinking in my opinion(this is also the part that I try to apply to my life). To think that whoever has motives different from this as automatically evil is wrong.
Slightly off topic: I know physicists are trying to understand the nature of reality, and that there are some theories, such as quantum theory, that hint at objective reality being not so objective (I refer specifically to quarks not having any particular charge or spin until actually observed. There are other examples I can’t remember.) Would this affect objectivism in any way?
Ayn Rand wouldn’t have considered Mother Theresa evil - she saw a big difference between ‘charity’ and ‘altruism’. In her world, charity was okay - defined as the voluntary helping of people because it made you feel good, or because you thought they had qualities that you wanted to help bring out, or whatever. Altruism, on the other hand, is defined by her as the belief that you are obligated to help others, or that others’ needs are always more important than your own so long as they are poorer or more needy.
I haven’t read Atlas Shrugged for about a decade now, but at the end didn’t John Galt’s little Utopia have a number of charity cases? I seem to recall at least one artist and one writer who were supported by the group because the values of that group recognized the value of letting those people create art and literature.
In an interview with Phil Donohue, Ayn Rand asked, “If someone was about to shoot your husband, would you jump in front of him and take the bullet?” When she answered yes, she was immediately challenged that this violated her disagreement with altruism. “Not at all,” she replied, “I would not wish to live if my husband were dead, so therefore sacrificing my own life for his is the greater good and part of my value system.” Or something like that.
Of course, she didn’t tell Phil that she was banging Nathanial Branden at the time, and that that affair was slowly killing her husband with alcohol consumption… But Ayn never let hypocrisy get in the way of saying what she thought was ‘right’.
That is a perfect summation of her characer, in my opinion. Despite the fact that I have rejected a fairly significant portion of Objectivist philosophy that she would consider crucial, I am still intrigued by her personality. I cannot fault her for not being able to live up to the standards she set for herself. Hence for me, she sits on the fence between hypocrisy and simple human weakness. What makes me more uncomfortable is her peculiar malevolence.
Wasn’t there some thought that she showed all the signs of classic Narcisstic Personality Disorder?
There is also a theory that the speed in her diet pills that she was taking for decades made her paranoid and insane. Ultimately it doesn’t make a difference whatsoever. What we are left with are her writings and the testimony of the people who knew her.
It’s interesting, and FAR from coincidental, that Ayn Rand’s husband was a weak-willed alcoholic.
When Ayn Rand created powerful, self-assured, swaggering, confident heroes like Howard Roark, it’s very likely that she was merely fantasizing about the kind of man she WANTED her husband to be.
If that’s so, an entire political/philosophical movement may have been built around the sexual daydreams of a frustrated wife.
Sorry, guys, but I still have a soft spot in my heart for Ayn Rand and I would appreciate not trying to draw correlations without facts about her.
I mean, hell-- Jesus showed all the signs of schizophrenia :rolleyes: Let’s just stick to the topic.
As far as Mother Theresa goes, I am not aware what sort of value system she preached, or if she preached one at all. However, as she was obviously an active Christian, I think it is safe to assume that she did in fact hold some form of altruism close to her heart. As such, Ayn would definitely have a problem with her. It is really that simple. Mother Theresa wasn’t just some philanthropist, you know?
tracer, hilarious. Roark would slap that unoriginal bitch upside the head, blow up her paintings, and sue her for misrepresentation. Or something.
Maeg, are you suggesting some brand of amphetamine psychosis?
astorian
She loved her husband very much. The interview Sam mentions is the one where she makes it very clear. Sam, I believe the question was what she would do if there was a heaven and her husband died… and she quickly responded she would commit suicide to be with him. Now, some may call it hogwash, or claptrap, or bullshit, but Ayn’s feelings about everything were strong. She would have left her husband if she didn’t love the shit out of him. Any comments to the contrary will be responded by me asking for citations, something that I admittedly hate to do (and actually never have).
What I am suggesting is that it actually doesn’t matter. Amphetamine psychosis is an old theory, and one that I have seen batted around quite a bit. I believe the first place I read about it was in Branden’s “unauthorized” biography. Since it was essentially three hundred pages of self-justifying snot, I took the allegation with a grain of salt. However, it cropped up in several other places, and was espoused, IIRC, by people less hostile to Rand.
But like I said, it doesn’t really matter as far as I am concerned.