To be Selfish is to be Ethical as Oil is to Water!

A discussion on the “conflicts” between ethics and selfishness

based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand

Queinnise Miller
PhD Student in Educational Leadership
College of Education
Prairie View A&M University
Teacher/Department Chair
Alief Independent School District
Houston, Texas

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

Professor
PhD Program in Educational Leadership
Hall of Honor (2008)
William H. Parker Leadership Academy
The Whitlowe R. Green College of Education
Prairie View A&M University
Member of the Texas A&M University System
Frairie View, Texas
Visiting Lecturer (2005)
Oxford Round Table
University of Oxford, Oxford England
Distinguished Alumnus (2004)
College of Education and Professional Studies
Central Washington University

ABSTRACT

To be selfish is good. To be ethical is good. Yet what happens when one desires to
be good by being selfish, and consequently is “bad” ethically, or vice versa? Ideally,
a person should be able to be true to self while obtaining the ethical morals of
society. Unfortunately, there comes a time when one must choose to be selfish or
ethical, to be true to ones logical desires, wants, or needs or to look after the good of
what is right or wrong for the greater good of man kind.
 Introduction

According to the teachings of Ayn Rand (1961) in her book The Virtue of
Selfishness, to be genuinely selfish is a moral achievement for man kind. Yet, what
occurs when the selfishness of man kind conflicts with what the Ways of Knowing
Through the Realms of Meaning defines as, the moral knowledge, right deliberate
actions, or what a person ought voluntarily do, human ethics? While selfishness may be a
virtue, unfortunately there will always come a time in one’s life where a choice of self or
ethics must be made. By what is man motivated: Selfishness or Ethics?

Purpose of the Article

The purpose of this article is to discuss certain situations where being ethical and
being selfish cannot occupy the same space. At times being selfish and being concerned
with the desires of ones individual wants will not coincide with ethical morals. At the
same time making ethical decisions based on the universal and societal moral norms
often take no consideration of what would be best for the individual. Sacrificing the
needs of the individual for the good of other people is seen as being the ethical thing to
do. This article will answer the question for the rational man, is the virtue of selfishness
or ones moral and ethical responsibility to society more important?

The Virtue of Selfishness

When one hears the word “selfish” a negative connotation is most times
automatically associated with it. The word “selfish” is pregnant with meaning. Merriam-
Webster’s dictionary defines selfish as the idea of being concerned excessively or
exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or
well-being without regard for others. According to the Atlas Society (J.R., n.d.), many
people use the adjective "selfish" to describe regard for one's own welfare to the
disregard of the well-being of others. Many people would be willing to characterize any
instance of desire-satisfaction in these circumstances as "selfish," no matter what its
content. Many people arrive at the following composite image: selfish people are brutish
people who are oblivious to the negative consequences of their actions for their friends
and loved ones and who abuse the patience, trust, and good will of all comers to satisfy
their petty whims.
To be selfless is having or showing no concern for self. In her book The Virtue
of Selfishness (1961), Ayn Rand challenges this definition of selfishness with the idea that
to be rationally selfish is a moral achievement for man kind. She believes that selfishness
is serious, rational, principled concern with one's own well-being; it turns out to be a
prerequisite for the attainment of the ultimate moral value. For this reason, Rand believes
that “selfishness” is a virtue. For her, the truly selfish person is a self-respecting, self-
supporting human being who neither sacrifices others to himself nor sacrifices himself to
others (J.R., n.d.). Nathaniel Branden (as cited in Rand, 1961) asks the question “Isn’t
Everyone Selfish?” He feels that everyone does what he really wants to do-otherwise, he
wouldn’t do it. “No one ever really sacrifices himself. Since every purposeful action is
motivated by some value or goal that the actor desires, one always acts selfishly, whether
one knows it or not”, stated Nathaniel Branden. Selfishness entails: (a) a hierarchy of
values set by the standard of one’s self-interest, and (b) the refusal to sacrifice a higher
value to a lower one or to a non value (as cited in Rand, 1961).

A genuine selfishness – that is: a genuine concern with discovering

what is to one’s self-interest, and acceptance of the responsibility
of achieving it a refusal ever to betray it by acting on the blind whim,
mood, impulse or feeling of the moment, and uncompromising loyalty
to ones judgment convictions and values-represents a profound moral
achievement…… (Rand, 1961, p.70).

In other words, to be selfish merely means to be true to ones owns beliefs,

feelings, needs, desires, and interests. There are some people who are genuinely just self
center, self absorbed, and self involved who are not interested in the art of self
improvement. There are a select group of people who know that if they can not take
value in there own live, then taking value in the life anyone else would be impossible. A
person who evades the ability to place oneself as a priority in his own life, cannot be
effectively productive in the lives of others.

Ethical Responsibility

The issue of “selfishness” versus “self-sacrifice” arises in an ethical context.

Ethics is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions – the choices and actions
that determine the purpose and course of his life (Rand, 1967). Merriam-Webster’s
dictionary defines ethics as “a branch of philosophy dealing with what is good and bad
with moral duty and obligation (p. 819)”. Ethics are the principles of moral conduct
governing an individual or a group. Ethics is the fifth realm in the realms of meaning
from the ways of knowing. According to the Ways of Knowing Through the Realms of
Meaning ethics can also be referred to as moral knowledge. Ways of Knowing through
the Realms of Meaning discusses certain truths concerning ethics such as: The essence of
ethical meanings is right deliberate action, that is, what a person ought voluntarily to do.
Every one is obligated to do right and if one fails to do so, he incurs guilt. The realm of
ethics is right action. Moral conduct is the source of the common good, for which
everyone is responsible. Ethics can be seen from various vantage points.
There are five main areas of moral concern dealing with ethics: Human rights, sex
and family relations, relationships among and within class, ethnic, racial, religious, and
vocational groups, economic life and political life (Kritsonis, 2007, p. 454-446). While
ideally ethics should be clear concise universal principles understood and practiced by all
individuals, metaphysically ethics are subjective because not everyone has equal
conceptions of good and right. Depending on the theory of ethics in which one practices,
will heavily depend on that persons axiological view point of right and wrong.
There are three types of ethical theory “Subjective”, “Formalist”, and
“Teleological”. Subjective ethical theory deals with the idea that good and right is
defined by subjective feeling-state. That which produces the most pleasure or satisfaction
will define the right choice. The idea of right is absorbed into an idea of fact, namely,
what pleases or satisfies wants (Kritsonis, 2007). Formalistic ethical theory suggests that
the criteria of rightness are certain formal principles of action. According to this theory,
there are universal standards of conduct by which decision should be made (Kritsonis,
2007). Finally, the teleological ethical method has the position that the rightness of an act
is judged according to the consequences of doing it. If the consequences are good, the act
is right; if they are evil, the act is wrong (Kritsonis, 2007). Each of these theories yields
a different level of ethical responsibility. Ethical responsibility is expected of everyone
and those who do not live there lives based on some ethical theory are viewed as “evil”
individuals.

Selfishly Unethical

What does it mean to be “selfishly unethical”? Ayn Rand believes under the
Objectivist principle that there are no conflicts of interests among rational men. This
theory does not prove true in all circumstances. Lets consider three different situations
where being selfish and choosing ones own personal interest does in fact conflict with the
more ethical and moral choice.
Consider a young couple with a new baby, the father on a dead end job, and
mother working on advancing in her career. They have been married for almost 5 years.
Their marriage has faced many difficulties and they have gone through a separation
recently. Financially they struggle to get all bills paid and often times must borrow
money to get by. Unexpectedly the mother becomes pregnant again despite her birth
control regimen. Both parents know that another baby is not in there best interest and
neither of them have personal desires to have another baby. Being selfishly unethical
they decide to get an abortion. By doing this, they both feel guilt, yet relief, because they
put themselves before what many people in society view as the ethical choice of having a
second child.

Consider Hank Rearden and his relationship with Dagny Taggard in Atlas
Shurgged. Hank has been married to Lillian Rearden for years, yet lives in a state of
misery. Lillian is generally regarded as a beautiful woman, yet produces no pleasure or
happiness in the life of Hank Rearden. Hank is a man of self-esteem who regards the
universe as open to his effort, is the profound pleasure he experiences in the productive
work of his mind; his enjoyment of life is fed by his unceasing concern to grow in
knowledge and ability to think, to achieve, to move forward, to meet new challenges and
overcome them – to earn the pride of a constantly expanding efficacy (Rand, 1964).
Lillian is of a different soul, one deficient in self esteem, to whom the universe appears as
unknowable and vaguely threatening, whose central motivating impulse is a longing for
safety, not the safety that is won by efficacy, but the safety of a world in which efficacy is
not demanded. She is a person who finds pleasure in not being conscious, whose only
form of relief and only notion of enjoyment is the dim flicker of undemanding sensations.
She takes pleasure, not in achievement, but in destruction, whose action is aimed, not at
attaining efficacy, but at ruling those who have attained it. The two of them are definitely
as oil and water, a perfect mixture impossible. Hank desires something more, something
different. He then selfishly but unethically gives in to his desires and begins his affair
with Dagny Taggart, a woman with whom he is equally yoked with intellectually,
physically, and emotionally. “He dropped back on the pillow and lay still, his eyes
closed. His face seemed young, at peace. Seeing it for a moment without the reins of
tension, she realized suddenly the extent of the unhappiness he had borne; but it’s past
now, she thought, it’s over (Rand, 1957).” Hank Rearden was very conscious of his
decision. He rationally decided to no longer sacrifice himself for the good of Lillian yet
he doesn’t escape the guilt or contempt he feels. “I had never broken my word. Now I’ve
broken an oath I gave for life……” (Rand, 1957, p.254) Eventually he divorced Lillian.
Consider the plight of the care giver who understands that most single parents or
financially struggling parent have special situations, but recognize their need for stable
and reliable child care. This care giver unlike many commercial care giving institutions
offers extended hours understands a late payment every now and then, and will care for
each child as if he were her own. Suddenly the care givers financial situation changes
with the loss of employment from her spouse. She is now the sole provider for her
family. Her clients, increase but many of them knowing that she is normally
understanding of their situations are late with payments more frequently. Finally, she
faced with her mortgage behind and the needs of her own family becoming difficult to
handle due to the behind payments of her clients. What is she to do? Her choices are to
replace those who are behind on their payments with more reliable clients, or to continue
to help out those with special situations. To replace her clients would be in her best
interest, yet to no longer offer them a stable place for their children forcing them to find a
different source of child care or not work at all, which becomes a snowball effect of their
bills being affected and their children placed in unsuitable places for childcare. The
caregiver decides to selfishly yet unethically deny care for those with situations and
replaces them with reliable clients. Her mortgage is paid but the heaviness from the
guilt, makes her wonder was it worth it. Yes. No. Yes!

Selflessly Ethical

Each individual in the above situation dealt in a “selfishly unethical” manner

some would argue. Had they did the opposite and behaved in a “selflessly ethical”
manner sacrificing their personal and individual needs, wants, and desires what would be
the consequences of that behavior?
In the case of the young couple, ethically an abortion is wrong on many levels.
The majority of society and religious affiliates deem abortion as murder. If the couple
against their own individual interest, wants, and desires decided to have the baby that
they did not desire and could not afford, ultimately what good could come out of it? One
would argue that many good things could be produced from a selfless act as such. The
first baby will have a sibling with whom to grow old with, the immediate financial
struggle could breed more ambition for both parents, along with many more positive
possibilities. This same ethical decision could result in bitter parents, children living in
poverty, or a marriage destroyed by the pressure that comes with financial difficulty and
raising children.
In the case of Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart, an affair was the most unethical
decision in which he could have made. Ethically, he should have sacrificed his wants and
desires and stayed true to the commitment and vow that he had made to his wife and to
God. After all, his misery with his wife was possibly self-inflicted. By choosing ethics,
would that have made his marriage better? Would Hank become a better husband or
business man?

In the plight of the caregiver, ethically, how could one deny services to those in
need of charitable assistance? The best decision ethically would not be to turn them
away, but continue to help them, and try and devise a compromise in which both parties
will benefit. Having full awareness of the consequences of denying care to clients with
complicated situations which could result in the hardship of the child is not an act of
ethics at all. Some would even label the act as heartless.
One of the best examples of selfless ethical behavior is that of Dagny Taggart in
Rand’s book Atlas Shurgged. When almost every intellectual had vanished and ran away
from the lunacy of societies attempt to level the playing field and diminishing the efforts
of those who profited from their businesses by putting into effect laws against the
productive man, Dagny although angry and frustrated decided to continue working for
the good of Transcontinental Railways although she did as a slave. A slave that that in
which was considered “ethical” she sacrificed her beliefs, her talents, and desires for the
“well being” of society. She selflessly and ethically gave her all.

Ethics vs. Selfishness

Ayn Rand (1961) believes that before one can value the life of others, one must
first value his or her own life. Depending on the premises selected by an individual, his
or her values differ making subjective the choice between self and ethics. Ideally
following the “objectivist” principle, self and ethics should naturally coexist with one
another. “I want it because it is right” (Rand, 1961, p.58). Metaphysically it is
impossible for this statement to hold true in all situations even for the most rational man.
If man has a limited epistemological grasp on societies axiological foundations, they
most often then not selfishness will naturally prevail, because ethics will not hold much
ground. The choice between ethics and selfishness is most often made from a state of
emotion rather than logic. It is often time the evasion of logic that makes this choice
between ethics and selfishness a difficult task.

Concluding Remarks

In conclusion the choice of self over ethics or vice versa could be a very difficult
but necessary choice to make. While it is unfortunate that a choice of such must be made
at times, it is believed that such a choice will ultimately lead to a life of fulfillment. What
is right and good for self and what is right and good for society sometimes are not
parallel entities. This choice should not be made merely based on whims and emotions,
but on logic and genuine consideration of all parties involved, but first to thou own self
be true.
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for mine. (Atlas Shrugged)

References

J.R. N.D. Virtue of Selfishness. The Atlas Society. Retrieved February 19, 2009 from
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx

Kritsonis, W. (2007). Ways of knowing through the realms of meaning. Oxford,

England: National Forum Journals.

Rand, A. (1957). Atlas shrugged. New York: Penguin Putnam, Incorporated.

Rand, A. (1961). The Virtue of selfishness. New York: Penguin Putnam, Incorporated.

Webster, Merriam. (1999). School Dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-

Webster, Incorporated.