Ethical Egoism does not support Libertarianism
Ayn Rand’s work (Atlas Shrugged) is famous for supporting the doctrine of ethical egoism, which claims that people should always act only in self interest. Several prominent politicians have endorsed Rand’s philosophies, notably Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan.
In Atlas Shrugged, Rand praises the wealthiest in society and looks down on the working class, especially those who use government forms of assistance. She argued that the rich would be best off by refusing to cooperate with the poor and the government, and going “Galt”. Galt is the hero of Atlas Shrugged, who completely frees himself of all burdens related to dealing with others/government.
It’s fairly obvious why most people would abhor this philosophy. However, the argument is prevalent enough in politics that it needs to be addressed. The argument is as following:
1. People have no moral obligations whatsoever (Ethical Egoism)
2. There are no moral obligations for the rich to help the poor in any way (derived from premise 1)
Therefore,
3. The government shouldn’t tax the rich to help the poor at all (libertarianism).
The above argument isn’t logically valid, and I want to show why. The problem with this argument is that it contradicts itself. The conclusion is a normative claim, about what certain people should, or ought, to do. The first premise, however, is a direct rejection of any and all normative claims that go against self interest. It isn’t logically possible to derive a normative claim that is against self interest from a claim that there are no normative claims that go against self interest.
So, what can the argument validly claim based off of the ethical egoist premise? The only thing that can be derived is that the rich are not obligated to help the poor at all (premise 2). However, consider how the egoist’s premise affects the poor. It is in their rational self interest to take absolutely everything from the rich. Combined with the egoist’s premise, this means that the poor should do whatever it takes to take absolutely everything from the rich. If this takes the form of a government that enforces taxation through force, then so be it. The poor have no moral obligations to not take from the rich without justification, as there are no moral obligations.
The libertarian philosophy can only be supported by those who are both rich and ethical egoists. However, they cannot make the claim that those who are not rich should support libertarianism as well. If you are poor or have any need whatsoever for government services (like public education, subsidized healthcare, police, firemen, national security), then the ethical egoist’s premise demands that you do whatever possible to ensure that the government keeps giving you aid.
Let me be even clearer: libertarianism can only be supported by ethical egoism if the rich are successful in convincing the poor of two contradictory views: no morality exists, but moral restraints exist on what you can take from others.
What this ultimately means: there is very little chance of libertarianism being justified. If there is no morality, then the non-rich majority should use whatever means necessary to take from the rich without the need for any justifications. If there is some morality, then the non-rich majority is justified in expecting the rich to contribute to help out (a claim not supported in this post, but one which I could defend in the comments if asked).
Either way (based on the law of the excluded middle, these are the only two logically possible options), libertarianism will not be justified. It makes no sense to claim that there are no actions that are immoral, but that certain actions need moral justification (such as taxing and redistributing money).
Hey John,
Let me preface this by saying that I think it would be safe to say that I despise the worldview of Ayn Rand at least as much as you do, but nevertheless, I want her to be despised accurately.
I think that if you spent much time with Rand’s work, specifically with regard to moral obligations vis-a-vis libertarianism, you would find that her version of egoism doesn’t look quite like the portrayal of ethical egoism you’ve made in this post. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that the flesh-and-blood Rand’s view of moral obligations is more like Korsgaard’s view than that of the Rand portrayed in this post.
Further, while I can’t speak for Paul Ryan’s view of Ayn Rand (all I know about Ryan on Rand I got from John Stewart, whose comedy is very insightful but agenda-driven), I definitely think there’s a great deal more distance between Ron Paul and Ayn Rand than this post could lead an an unfamiliar reader to imagine. Setting aside whether he is deriving it correctly, Ron Paul rests his brand of libertarianism on Christianity. Ayn Rand’s epistemological foundation is expressly hostile to Christianity. The different ways they reach a generally free-market outlook results in some very important differences between the two: Randians, for example, have a history of being pro-war in the neo-conservative sense of the term, while Paulites can be so openly anti-war that they are (sometimes justifiably) mocked as being naively pacifistic. I would be comfortable with Paul in the office of President — at least, far more comfortable than I would be with any of the other major contenders. But I would much prefer even Barack Obama to Rand. Though Obama is too much a warmonger for my tastes, at least his warmongering is to some degree constrained and even driven by humanitarian ideals. Randian warmongering, from what little experience I have of it, does not appear to have the same levels of restraint.
Finally, I need to apologize for not getting back to you on the debate yet. It’s been a wild week. Is there any chance that I could have till, say, Friday to come up with something?
Regards,
Mitchell.
Ayn Rand’s version of egoism is, I would still argue, consistent with what I wrote. She rejects all normative claims that require people to go against self-interest (the fundamental doctrine of ethical egoism). From what little I know about Rand (I know some, but have not studied her in depth like I likely will do eventually), she is very much focused on the idea of mutual benefit (the core concept of free trade). She argues for libertarianism based on this idea of mutual benefit, where everyone acting egoistically can be for everyone’s benefit (this is overly-simplified).
What she wouldn’t deny, however, is that there are no moral constraints on people, even if mutually beneficial trades are acknowledged. If I can get more from you by stealing instead of trading (and I can get away with it), Rand has no normative objection to me stealing from you.
Rand’s philosophy, as far as my understanding goes, is that it is in rational self interest to maintain a peaceful society (a Hobbesian idea). However, the post was aimed at showing how ethical egoism cannot lead to the claim “government shouldn’t tax the rich to help the poor” because that claim is normative. What can be derived, if Rand is correct, is that libertarianism is the “best” government because it achieves what is individually rational for everyone (a hard argument to make, but one that is consistent with egoism).
The big difference between Korsgaard and Rand is that Korsgaard thinks normative obligations that are contrary to self-interest can exist. Korsgaard uses a ridiculous argument, in my opinion, to make the jump from the obligation to value yourself to the obligation to value others. She does, however, think that these obligations exist. Rand would be more similar to an ethical social contractarian, who thinks “ethics” can/should be the result of everyone sacrificing some self-interest by signing the contract in the name of achieving greater self-interest through mutual cooperation (the key note here is that these types of ethicists don’t claim that there are normative moral obligations that go against self interest, only obligations that arise out of self interest).
Finally, I would agree that Ron Paul is the least like Rand of the three I mentioned. He has, however, endorsed a few of her views.
About the debate-don’t worry about being late, take whatever time you need.
Ayn Rand’s version of egoism is, I would still argue, consistent with what I wrote. She rejects all normative claims that require people to go against self-interest (the fundamental doctrine of ethical egoism).
I suppose that the two of us will simply have to agree to disagree about what Ayn Rand is, unless you’re willing to accompany your charges against her with quotes that demonstrate the truth of those charges. Then we will have something to argue about. For now, here’s a link to a video of Ayn Rand applying her belief in the existence of normative claims to something she calls “altruism”.
http://fontwords.com/2012/05/09/for-whatever-its-worth
Given that neither of us has offered any documentation regarding Rand, I think that should serve as prima facie evidence that she didn’t reject the possibility of normative claims.
The ball’s in your court now.
Mitchell-
I actually want to stick to that interview, because I think she outlines her views pretty well in it. I have to admit, though, I don’t actually see what you’re referring to as the difference between my description of her and what she says in that video.
About normative claims:
If this is what you are referring to, then my mistake in describing Rand is more in bad phrasing than content. When I say “normative claims” above, I should have said “normative claims that go against self-interest”. Rand is very adamant in the video that these types of normative claims don’t exist.
So going back to the core argument of this post: my claim is that nothing in Rand’s view can lead to:
“Government should not tax the rich to give to the poor”
To make the above claim, Rand would need one of two arguments:
1. Every single person is individually better off if the government does not tax the rich to give to the poor. (The argument I allowed for in my previous comment)
2. The poor should not take from the rich through government.
The second claim is impossible with Rand’s philosophy, and I see nothing in the video that would claim otherwise.
Here’s the problem. Rand’s definition of self-interest is a broad one, which in her mind includes the need for honesty and not stealing, because each of these “lower” a person in certain ways. In Rand’s mind, to steal is always (or nearly always) opposed to one’s self-interest because, as she sees it, it is better for a person to be honest than rich. A person who does otherwise, in her mind, is not really acting in their own self-interest. Similarly, lying is (at least generally) not in one’s self-interest because it is better to be honest than to get whatever it is that a lie might get one. And so she’s working with a very wide definition of self-interest, which brings us to Korsgaard. This shows when she uses words like “evil,” and when she uses arguments suspiciously similar to that of the categorical imperative to promote her philosophy of government.
Korsgaard, similarly, believes that as rational beings, we obligate ourselves to do certain things that are not in our most narrowly defined “self-interest.” Nevertheless, maintaining one’s integrity as a rational being — and that, basically, is what the notion of moral obligation is about for Korsgaard — falls well within the bounds of broader definitions of self-interest, including both Rand’s and Korsgaard. In short, the problem is one of terminology, in this case the terminology of self-interest. In terms of the content of their worldviews, I would place Rand closer to Korsgaard than to the Marquis de Sade, who is the only highly consistent ethical egoist (if we’re talking about self-interest in a narrow sense) that I have ever heard of.
Both Korsgaard and Rand share an essentially humanist outlook, and more specifically, they share a humanist outlook which requires respect for the rights of others on the basis of one’s own rationality. Ryan and Paul and Obama, on the other hand, ultimately place their respect for human dignity on a religious foundation.
I’d like to see a source where she outlines her views of lying and stealing, because I didn’t see any of that in the video.
Regardless, the problem with those explanations is that they are simply dodging the question. The question being: if it is in the self interest of the poor to take from the rich through government, should they do so?
Claiming that “it is not in the self interest of the poor to take from the rich” is both a hard argument to make, as well as one that doesn’t answer the question. The question is a conditional, asking if the proposition “If P, then Q” is true. Arguing that “P” is false doesn’t answer the question.
So, in cases where stealing actually is in self-interest, what can Rand claim? As I noted earlier, she is currently stuck with the “every single person is better off when government does not redistribute”. This is a trap she can’t get out of.
The definition of self-interest is important, and what I think distinguishes Korsgaard and Rand. Korsgaard can only be thought of as working within self-interest in the widest sense that applies to everybody: an action is made in self-interest if the person decided to do that action, (or, phrased differently, if the person valued that action the most). The narrow definition of self-interest involves values that directly help the individual him/herself.
Rand seems to be between those two definitions, whereas Korsgaard is definitely at the wide end. Rand doesn’t reach the same extent because, even if I grant her the most ethical interpretation of her work possible, she still argues that we have reasons to not value certain people. These reasons are necessarily reasons that promote the narrow definition of self interest, not the wide one.