It’s time to get stupid. I’ll be smart in the morning.

1. Everyone should take the course of action they prefer over all the alternatives, with moral and other-regarding considerations included in preference.

2. The Kantian/Puritan claim that an action is only virtuous if you would rather not do it is false.

3. The most virtuous life is also the life that will (in the end) make you happiest, even if it involves taking actions one would not take if one excluded moral and other-regarding considerations.

4. There are no legitimate considerations in taking action other than one’s own personal gratification.

The problem with #1 is that it is hard to see how anyone could act otherwise, so it can’t be a guide to action. #2 is reasonable (although Rand clearly did not take the time to understand Kant before she criticized him). #3 is a venerable claim of the Western philosophical tradition, but it seems empirically false. #4 is what Rand is popularly taken to be saying, but I take it Objectivists don’t really defend.

I decided that the main take-home message of Objectivism is that it’s okay to live for yourself, to pursue what makes you happy. Lots of philosophies argue that you can do that, but there’s no moral merit to it and you’re only moral insofar as you live for others. No need to feel guilty about living for yourself, or enjoying life.

As for the conditions Rand put on when you can help others in TVOS–I think those are mainly illustrations of when it’s not altruistic/purely self-sacrificial. If you’re not losing much by helping other people, it’s not much of a sacrifice; as Peter said, having to eat at home a couple of extra nights a month isn’t really a substantial cost. Her point is that you shouldn’t feel obligated to put substantial costs on yourself and make yourself miserable for the benefit of others.

On a related note, I’ve noticed that the sanest and most reasonable Christians among my friends, and the ones most tolerant of atheism, are the ones who believe that Christianity and following God’s Word is the way to make themselves happy. The most balanced version of Christian ethics is that God gives men rules because he wants them to be happy, and following his guidelines is the best way to be happy. These Christians don’t feel like they’re making sacrifices by being religious and hewing to a code of ethics; they feel like I’m hurting myself by not following these ethics, since they’re the way to be happy. For that matter, in some cases they have a point–I’m not religious, but some of the advice the Bible gives is just generally a good idea (being generally nice to people, don’t get upset by others’ good fortune, etc).

Sorry for rambling. I guess the upshot is Rand was a little nuts, but had some good ideas; one of the most important (though not necessarily original) was the idea that it’s okay to live yourself, and you have no generalized obligation to live for others; and that fewer people realize that last than you might think.

I went back and re-read the relevant essay in TVOS, and her position is actually closer to your description than I remember. She says it’s ok to help others, but only if you can afford it and only for emergencies (i.e. not to alleviate poverty or other non-emergency conditions).

I also don’t think you’re being fair to Rand.

She explicitly said that she wasn’t just talking about life, but about the life of man qua man; which she took to mean using reason to choose and pursue values.

Yes, one may not maximize his happiness by being super-rational all the time, but I think she was right that flourishing human lives require freedom to creatively solve their problems, and coercion hurts them.

The race doesn’t always go to the swiftest, nor the battle to the strongest, and the use of reason doesn’t always lead to the most happiness.

But…that’s the way to bet.

Good reply but I have to disagree once again. I don’t think Rand would tell me it’s immoral to give to the tsunami victims (but for the life of me I can’t find my copy of The Virtue of Selfishness to quote her directly).

However, I’ve got a copy of George Reisman’s Capitalism right in front of me. He was a student of Rand (and actually of Mises as well) and considers himself an Objectivist. He clearly states that giving to complete strangers is in fact moral as by helping them out “we see a confirmation that we can be successful and happy, and so we feel better as a result.” He references the VOS in a footnote at the end of this paragraph and throughout the discussion goes into much more detail.. If you have time head over to his website (www.capitalism.net) where you can access his entire book in pdf format. This discussion on charity is on page 334.

As for the definition of altruism, and Will can correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s my understanding that Kant, who Rand viewed as her nemesis in philosophy, believed that all moral acts were dictated by duty (sacrifice). Yet if an act was performed out of duty but the person performing the act received any kind of pleasure from it, then there would be no moral credit given to the action. That is what Rand was fighting. It’s absolutely true that people “rarely make themselves miserable on purpose” and her message was don’t feel guilty about that fact. Sacrafice is not the source of virtue.

Of course most of my knowledge on Kant’s ethics comes from third party sources as I have not read his work myself, so let me know if I am misrepresenting his views.

I got the impression that motive, rather than action was the important thing. For Rand, a philanthropist motivated to be altrustic because he likes doing it is A-Ok. A philanthropist motivated to be altrustic because he believes he has a duty to be or because he doesn’t believe he is the rightful owner of his money is not ok.

No?