I read it because, like most things I did back then, my friend Brett recommended it. That, and the art on the cover was ballin':
Seriously, that is some simple, elegant cover art.
Anyway, the book drew me in with its awesome characters. In the years and books since, I've only come across a couple characters I've liked more than Atlas's Francisco d'Anconia or Ragnar Danneskjöld. The former is a brilliant industrialist pretending to be a brainless playboy (sort of like Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins), and the latter is a pirate. Yeah, a pirate.
Anyway, while the book is packed with Objectivism, Rand's personal philosphy of "rational self-interest," I mainly just wanted to see what would happen to the characters, and figure out who the heck John Galt was. But later I would take more of an interest in ethics and morality and would realize the significance of Rand's thoughts.
And, from a Christian perspective, some of Rand's quotations about these topics can seem... well, literally the exact opposite of the Christian perspective.
Objectivism
Objectivism, or at least my understanding of it, rests entirely on the assertion that in every area of life, people should pursue their self-interest. In determining what is, in fact, in their best interest, they should trust their rationality alone. And thus, articles on this school of thought are always throwing around "rational self-interest."
In politics, Objectivism calls for an extremely small government and laissez-faire economic system. [This best allows each individual to pursue shis rational self-interest.]
In religion, Objectivism calls for atheism, because God "isn't needed" to explain or decide things, only one's rational mind is.
And in ethics, Objectivism calls for selfishness. Because self-interest is a person's greatest goal, selfishness is the best course of action and is, ironically, the Objectivist's greatest "virtue."
Ayn and Jesus
Christian ethics seems pretty distant from Rand's. The greatest goal for the Christian isn't self-interest, but God's glory and comformity to His desires.
In terms of lifestyle, what brings God glory? What are His desires for us? According to Jesus: giving our possessions to those in need (Matthew 19), giving liberty to the oppressed (Luke 4), befriending the destitute (Luke 14), reconciling with those we've hurt (Matthew 5), praying for our enemies (Matthew 5), the Golden Rule (Matthew 7), etc. In summary, we glorify God and live the way he wants largely by what we do for others. The virtues of Objectivism, you'll recall, are those things we do for ourselves.
To make the contrast as stark as possible, I'll give a remark from each important figure:
"Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life." Ayn Rand
"This is my commandment: Love each other in the same way I have loved you. There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends." Jesus
From one side, "Don't sacrifice for others. Seek your own happiness at all costs." From the other, "Seek to help and better others' lives, even if this comes at great cost to you. Were you to give up your very life for others, it would be the greatest possible act of love."
Pondering such extremes
I will mainly let you ponder these two polarities. What's interesting to me is how two ideas of morality that function so oppositely could both have somewhat sizeable followings. Usually when two people disagree on a moral issue, they agree on the values but differ on how to best preserve those values (e.g., pro-life and pro-choice supporters both agree on the value of human life and the freedom to decide about one's body).
But the Christian and the Objectivist seem completely at odds about the very basic values that should guide our ethics. Paul, one of the most important figures in the history of Christianity, wrote: "Consider others as more important than yourselves."
Yet, I recently listened to a Christian who specializes in Objectivism and he suggested that Rand was on the right track -- that we should naturally pursue our self-interest, but that the error lies in trusting our rational thought alone, to the exclusion of God, to determine what's in our interest. In fact, this author contended, our greatest happiness, joy, and self-interest can be found only in relationship with God. This is similar to John Piper's teachings on Christian hedonism.
Anyway, how do you think two opposite views of morality could both gain so much popularity?
Any other relevant thoughts, stories, ideas, jokes, video clips, memories, or questions?
Jon
I agree that Rand's moralistic philosophy contradicts what we are called to as Christians.
ReplyDeleteBut what if you limit objectivism only to economics? Rand argues that if we are all left to pursue our own self interest, we will generate more wealth as a whole. Then as Christians we could say that if there was more wealth in general, we now all have that much more to give to the poor, help the unfortunate, look after our neighbor, etc. So would the two contradict then?
As Christians, I think an underlying question is should we be selfish in business (to earn more money) so we can then be more generous with our giving? Or should we always look out for the weak even when doing business? Rand would say one is capitalism and the other naturally trends towards socialism. I think that's the underlying contrast in Atlas Shrugged. When the government stepped in and leveled the playing field for businesses, there was less total wealth in the system (and as a Christian I would say less wealth for people to give away).
So I take Ayn Rand's view of economics and politics and substitute in my own moralistic values on the back end. I read this book to be more of a political statement than a moralistic one anyhow, so I don't see piecing them together as too big of an issue. I think you can separate economic objectivism from moralistic objectivism. I think you can look out for yourself (without sinning) while making money, but remember God and others after you have made it.
First, Ayn Rand’s following proves that just because a lot of people follow something, that doesn’t make it valid. Her arguments can be found throughout philosophy, often refuted, but she doesn’t address them. So what is most appealing about her might be that she keeps is simple. Too bad she also gets it wrong most of the time.
ReplyDeleteInteresting twist there with the John Piper reference, wasn’t expecting that. Part of the appeal of Jesus is that he is the King, but he is also the servant. This is the balance of considering others while knowing your needs. How else can we understand the needs of others if we don’t understand our own?
Jon, I can't believe this post slipped by me!
ReplyDeleteAs one with both a strong interest in politics/economics and libertarian-leaning political beliefs, I constantly come across Ayn Rand. However, I have to reject her views of morality on both Christian grounds and political economy grounds.
As for the Christian grounds, it is fairly obvious, as Ayn Rand promoted acting in your own self interest with no God in the picture. As a believer in Christ, this is not a logical option.
As for political economy reasons, there is a very interesting and convincing literature in economics that makes Objectivism undesirable in pragmatic terms. In fact, societies that have higher levels of social cohesion, egalitarian ethics, and trust are those where free markets flourish most (think Denmark or Canada, which actually have freer markets than America).
Places where you have citizens who act in their own self interest without regard for the well-being of their fellow citizens (think Russia), free markets function less well. (Time for a story that I always love sharing when Russia comes up: On the Russian version of "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire", when contestants use the "Ask the Audience" lifeline, the audience will intentionally give the wrong answer, because they want the contestant to fail. True story.)
In addition, private corporations thrive in cultures where people are more cooperative. Places where people don't trust others outside of their family, private corporations are less successful and are more likely to be run by the (less-efficient) state.
While many consider Ayn Rand one of the faces of "capitalist thought", it is doubtful that a country of Ayn Rands would even have a successful capitalist system.
Hey, REALLY like this post! I agree with your friend, who pointed out that the Bible also calls us to act in our self-interest. The Bible's pathway to the best life possible isn't "rational" though...I think it's "supra-rational." Because love isn't rational, I don't think, and to call it irrational is to rob it of justice. Does that make sense?
ReplyDeleteNice writing bro!