How Does One Resolve the Differences Between Catholicism and Ayn Rand's Objectivism?

[bmw8901]

Here is a brief paragraph from the above linked Slate.com article:

“Rand had become addicted to amphetamines while writing The Fountainhead, and her natural paranoia and aggression were becoming more extreme as they pumped though her veins. Anybody in her circle who disagreed with her was subjected to a show trial in front of the whole group in which they would be required to repent or face expulsion. Her secretary, Barbara Weiss, said: “I came to look on her as a killer of people.” The workings of her cult exposed the hollowness of Rand’s claims to venerate free thinking and individualism. Her message was, think freely, as long as it leads you into total agreement with me.”

Not that we should necessarily judge a philosophy from it’s abuses, it seems objectivism did not work for Rand.

 

[lothariorowe]

Why does altruism have to be a form of servitude? Many people have seen altruism as a way of giving of themselves, as serving others without being in service to others. There is a fine distinction between the two. One requires a free decision to help and the other you are forced to help whether you like it or not.

But you see, I would have no problem if altruism were a choice. Nothing should be required or demanded of man without his consent - he should always be allowed to choose based on his own convictions. The reality however, is that altruism has been made a requirement for the salvation of the soul, and a moral requirement that the whole of society has levied on every member with ruthless efficiency.

Is this quote from Rand? To love a neighbor who you don’t know takes a great commitment and acknowledges their humanity without having judged their character. The Bible says that it is easier to love somebody who has done nice things for you. What good does it do you to love the person that gives you gifts? Are you loving the person because they give you nice things?

No, you should love a person because of their personal value to you, because of the impact their character has on you. Loving a person regardless of their value necessarily strips every person of their individual value. If all of mankind loved one another without regard to who or what any person was, the ironic result would be a society without any true love for anyone.

As humans our highest goal in life should be to love and serve God with all of our hearts

How could God create us so lovingly and demand our highest goal in life be servitude to him? How could he not place our happiness over all else?

How could a husband in true love to his wife not desire happiness above all else, above even her service to him?

It doesn’t make sense, and yet its been an idea so consistently spoken that it is accepted without question.

 

[lothariorowe]

tell me, would it be so insanely horrible if Roark were to teach his trade to another out of generosity. I don’t even mean that it has to be a free lesson/apprenticeship. He can get his fair value for it. But it would be a sacrifice to take time away from doing what he loves (building) to teach the skill to someone else. Indeed, it may very well make him devalued below the other person as you so fear, although I think a rational person would disagree with that. If taking that time to teach someone else is a violation of Objectivism (I think probably it is), then that has serious consequences for Roark who presumably had to learn architecture from someone previously. Roark must have been lucky to find a teacher whose self esteem was so low that he was able to give of his own time to teach Roark. One has to wonder if Roark would have pitied the poor fool who was teaching him, although I’d imagine he may have felt disgust at him for being such a fool.

Not it wouldn’t be so “insanely horrible,” however it should be his free choice, and he should face no judgment as a result of his decision whatsoever.

As I’m sure is obvious however, “fair value” means nothing to a person like Roark or myself. Money cannot buy my disloyalty to my convictions. The choice to teach would be strictly based on the personal fulfillment it produced, and no amount of money could affect the fulfillment of the action.

Also, you mistakenly assume that objectivism condemns those who don’t appreciate the same things. Absolutely not. It is most certainly possible for someone to love the act of teaching with equal passion to Roark’s love for architecture.

No, the above situation provides no consequences. Ultimately, objectivism simply requires that man is honest to himself about his convictions. Most people lie to themselves, and willingly commit 30 years of their life to an employer that demands unfulfilling work, and they do it because it pays them money. This is a travesty, but everybody does it, and I will take advantage of the fruits of their unfortunate labor if they choose to provide it, and I will not demand it of them, but I will accept it because they offer it.

Also, I do feel (whether or not Ayn Rand would agree) that it is very important what things make you feel fulfilled. There are people in the world who really do take pleasure in the misfortune of others. I’m not suggesting that that’s a consequence of the Objectivism worldview, I’m just saying that there are a lot of losers out there. Does Objectivism place any stock in the merit of that which causes one pleasure? For instance, Roark takes pleasure in designing beautiful buildings. Nothing wrong with that. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that he took pleasure in building terrible-looking buildings. Perhaps he had no training and his innate judgment of beauty were sorely lacking. Does his happiness lie entirely in what he is doing (i.e. building buildings the way he wants), or does the quality of the buildings matter?

His happiness lies in the work, the design, the action of bringing it into existence. Quality is irrelevant, however society would refuse to reward poor quality.

I haven’t read Rand except for a few excerpts, so I’m not sure, but that is a supremely important question that needs to be answered. If not, then a baby that throws its food is just as happy as is Roark. For that matter, so is the thug who happens to like to slash car tires in parking lots just to screw with people. I’m assuming Rand had the foresight to see that what people do matters, so I’ll progress the argument from there. If she didn’t, then her arguments can be dismissed far too easily.

Objectivism is rooted in rationality. The desire to slash tires or throw food is irrational. Rand differentiates between “whim-fulfillment” and the fulfillment of rational psychological and physiological needs.

I will close on this thought. Even Objectivism requires sacrifice, if by sacrifice is meant a great exertion or heroic effort. Roark must have given great sacrifice (in the sense described above) to learn to be such an excellent architect and to put those skills into practice. The difference is that he immediately felt fulfilled by what he had accomplished. I ask you, what is more satisfying objectively: to build a building or to build up a man? I propose that Roark’s worldview is childish and poorly formed if he cannot see more worth in improving a man. If he is capable of seeing the primacy of true charity, which builds men up, then perhaps his Objectivism is not only salvageable, but potentially even compatible with Catholicism. If not, he is a fool.

The issue is not with sacrifice, but rather the sacrificing for the interests of others. Sure Roark sacrificed, however it was for his own personal happiness and fulfillent - not for the happiness of another.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Just a few comments:

The character Roark’s architectural structures which he labors to design and build give him happiness in that labor. But he does in fact sacrifice in selling his works to others. Note here that it would be impossible for him to be happy without others who are willing and able to fund his labor of love. Note too that Roark’s buildings outlive him - but ultimately being temporal they must decay and fall just like his corporeal existence must decay and fall. Where’s the joy gone?

Note that it is impossible to exist without sacrificing one thing for another. The very act of being born required the sufferage of one’s mother and her labor to bring one forth - and labor done there was joy for her in that.

Sacrifice is always paired in some way and ultimately touches or changes for greater or worse. If we are to suffer anyway as a condition of life then we should elect to suffer in a postive sense for the benefit of others or ourselves.

The gravity of mortality is TIME. Giving and trading time is the same thing as giving and taking one’s life to greater or lesser degree for others (no man is a complete island). Time is quite independent of joy or motive and as a necessary aspect of life it can not be circumvented.That said, in the eternity of Beatitude time is irrelevant and one can see that to gain the greatest joy is to extend it past time and mortality. But to gain that greatest joy everyone must die to self in accord to the Christian conventions we hold as true (Charity - love of God and neighbor). The alternative is to attain the greatest sorrow - failure to attain the opportunity for eternal joy and beatitude. It is faulty to assume that the depth of beatitude in the hereafter is independent of sacrifice. There is a notion of capacity - and the more we grow (generally through sacrifice) the deeper into the beatitude we can go to know God as He fully knows Himself - the greatest unreachable joy to us created creatures and can be known only to God, that is The Trinity, Himself.

Note too that a Divine Justice would necessitate an over abundance of payment for time given, that is life, in service to Divine Will. After all 'no greater love has any man than to lay down his life for a friend". The most we can give is to return with dividends our own gift of Life. That means we should spend our life in service to Divine Will if we desire to express love to the greatest degree we can. Ergo, with only one life to give who we give it for becomes relevant and we can only give to our highest degree by giving to He who has given to all - Christ.

The error in the OP is not recognizing that we are all debtors and can not pay back our debts by anything we do. At best we can return our gift with value added (helping others to do the same). What we most hope for is benevolence & tolerance - not a temporal happiness that we know must yield to the disappointment of death in the here and now. And while it is true that an unauthentic and self-motivated forced charity (by the compulsion of a disordered and scrupulous conscience or civil tax etc.) merits no one we trust that God finds a way to give us true supernatural charity that transcends our self-serving human motives so we can genuinely serve Him in spite of any imperfect and selfish motives. We trust that God imparts his grace in ways that will bring us a supernatural and genuine joy that no man can take away. But its fairly axiomatic that raw human intellect without benefit of illumined faith can not discern of its own accord how to do this.

The saints have told us that there is great joy both now and in eternity in being called to suffer for God. It goes against the natural desire but we really should suffer each other to lift each other up to be all we can be and to attain our highest possible joy - a joy that outlives a mere 70 years or whatever the extent of our corporeal existence.

James

 

[ChadS]

But you see, I would have no problem if altruism were a choice. Nothing should be required or demanded of man without his consent - he should always be allowed to choose based on his own convictions. The reality however, is that altruism has been made a requirement for the salvation of the soul, and a moral requirement that the whole of society has levied on every member with ruthless efficiency.

The way you practice altruism for a large part is a choice. Some people are more comfortable working directly with the homeless while others choose to give money or donate time in other ways. There is more than one way to be altruistic without giving up free will.

No, you should love a person because of their personal value to you, because of the impact their character has on you. Loving a person regardless of their value necessarily strips every person of their individual value. If all of mankind loved one another without regard to who or what any person was, the ironic result would be a society without any true love for anyone.

I still don’t see how loving somebody strips them of their worth. There are obviously different ways to love people and different degrees of love that you can have. But, if you decide you won’t love somebody until they prove their value to you, you’ve reduced that person to a mere commodity where their value to you and your affection for them is based upon what you can get out of the relationship. It also allows you to justify all sorts of horrible treatment for the people you don’t love and haven’t demonstrated their value to you.

How could God create us so lovingly and demand our highest goal in life be servitude to him? How could he not place our happiness over all else?

How could a husband in true love to his wife not desire happiness above all else, above even her service to him?

It doesn’t make sense, and yet its been an idea so consistently spoken that it is accepted without question.

Why do you keep equating service to others with servitude. They are two distinct things. Serving others can be done freely while servitude is compunction.

Again, if these are truly Rand’s views on objectivism and if this is really its definition then I don’t see this being compatible with Christianity in the least.

ChadS

 

[lothariorowe]

The character Roark’s architectural structures which he labors to design and build give him happiness in that labor. But he does in fact sacrifice in selling his works to others. Note here that it would be impossible for him to be happy without others who are willing and able to fund his labor of love. Note too that Roark’s buildings outlive him - but ultimately being temporal they must decay and fall just like his corporeal existence must decay and fall. Where’s the joy gone?

I just have a minute, but, perhaps you have never read The Fountainhead? Roark refuses to sacrifice even an ounce of what he is for the sale of his buildings. He designs buildings the best way he knows how, and will not compromise that design for anyone, not for the tabloids, and not even for his paying clients. If a paying customer is unhappy with the design, they can find what they’re looking for from another architect.

Also, the joy is in the design and building of the structure. He is willing to personally destroy any of his structures if he feels they’ve been compromised in some way. Their temporal nature means nothing and takes nothing from his joy.

Its a fascinating book that I would encourage anyone to read and form their own unbiased opinion. Its not some cult book, it was written in 1943 and has been a best seller every year since.

I’ve gotta jet, but I’ll look at the rest of it later.

 

[antunesaa]

I think it is fairly obvious that a world grounded in Objectivism would suck. Even for people like Rand’s hero, Roark. The man does what he loves precisely because he loves it. There is nothing wrong with that. But tell me, would it be so insanely horrible if Roark were to teach his trade to another out of generosity. I don’t even mean that it has to be a free lesson/apprenticeship. He can get his fair value for it. But it would be a sacrifice to take time away from doing what he loves (building) to teach the skill to someone else. Indeed, it may very well make him devalued below the other person as you so fear, although I think a rational person would disagree with that. If taking that time to teach someone else is a violation of Objectivism (I think probably it is), then that has serious consequences for Roark who presumably had to learn architecture from someone previously. Roark must have been lucky to find a teacher whose self esteem was so low that he was able to give of his own time to teach Roark. One has to wonder if Roark would have pitied the poor fool who was teaching him, although I’d imagine he may have felt disgust at him for being such a fool.

Also, I do feel (whether or not Ayn Rand would agree) that it is very important what things make you feel fulfilled. There are people in the world who really do take pleasure in the misfortune of others. I’m not suggesting that that’s a consequence of the Objectivism worldview, I’m just saying that there are a lot of losers out there. Does Objectivism place any stock in the merit of that which causes one pleasure? For instance, Roark takes pleasure in designing beautiful buildings. Nothing wrong with that. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that he took pleasure in building terrible-looking buildings. Perhaps he had no training and his innate judgment of beauty were sorely lacking. Does his happiness lie entirely in what he is doing (i.e. building buildings the way he wants), or does the quality of the buildings matter? I haven’t read Rand except for a few excerpts, so I’m not sure, but that is a supremely important question that needs to be answered. If not, then a baby that throws its food is just as happy as is Roark. For that matter, so is the thug who happens to like to slash car tires in parking lots just to screw with people. I’m assuming Rand had the foresight to see that what people do matters, so I’ll progress the argument from there. If she didn’t, then her arguments can be dismissed far too easily.

If the quality of what one loves to do matters, then all of a sudden we have room for charity again. There are multiple ways to do charity. One can steal from the rich for having the audacity to be successful, and then give that money to the poor in a very impersonal manner. I think that sucks. But you can also give charity personally, especially charity of the sort that builds up. I end up sacrificing some of my time in medical school to help out some of the other students. Does this make me less valuable than them? Well, it does make my ego smaller than if I selfishly clung to all of my time for myself, or than if I resented them the whole time for taking up my time. But in helping them I am building up other people. It’s really a small price to pay to help others out. I am no fan of utilitarianism, which strips people of their individual worth. But it is entirely different to help out an individual person for the sake of their worth. Now do all have the same worth? In as much as we are all in the image and likeness of God: yes. Do all have the same level of talent or excellence: no. There are people out there who simply did not receive many gifts from God in the talent department. Worse yet, there are people who did receive gifts but are incredibly lazy. Does Catholicism require that we wear ourselves to the ground to help people whether they are willing or not? No. Even the apostles were told (Matthew 10) that if someone were not receptive to their word, that they should shake the dust off their feet and move on. But many people are out there who would be receptive, they just need someone to go to them.

I will close on this thought. Even Objectivism requires sacrifice, if by sacrifice is meant a great exertion or heroic effort. Roark must have given great sacrifice (in the sense described above) to learn to be such an excellent architect and to put those skills into practice. The difference is that he immediately felt fulfilled by what he had accomplished. I ask you, what is more satisfying objectively: to build a building or to build up a man? I propose that Roark’s worldview is childish and poorly formed if he cannot see more worth in improving a man. If he is capable of seeing the primacy of true charity, which builds men up, then perhaps his Objectivism is not only salvageable, but potentially even compatible with Catholicism. If not, he is a fool.

I completely agree with you. Objectivism sucks.

 

[antunesaa]

The ultimate objection I have with altruism is the placing of another’s interests above your own.

The immediate consequence is that you then have to place your interests above the others’ interests. But is your self that interesting? Are you so valuable to the cosmic order that you deserve more attention from you than the others? Probably not. You are probably just an average person. There are probably millions of people more talented than you in every dimension you can think of (although you might not know who they are). So, again, why stick to yourself instead of looking outwardly? Realizing this requires some humbleness, which is ultimately connected to altruism.

 

[ChadS]

It seems to me that Rand’s philosophy of objectivism, as portrayed here, has more in common with the philosophies of the likes of Aleister Crowley (Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law) and Anton LaVey (similar to Crowley but not as catchy, plus he adds the caveat that it shouldn’t hurt others). They are all anthrocentric and glorify the person and their desires over the good of their relationships to the community, others and most of all their Creator. After all we’ve seen here what matters most to Roark? Only his happiness. We’ve seen altruism and service of God and loving others unconditionally described here as “servitude” and something forced upon man and society. The slate.com article I linked to in a previous post (#20) described Roark as some sort of Nietzschean superman (if you remember Nietzsche described supermen as people who have complete control over their will and have little or no use for the slave morality as embodied in Christianity).

Any philosophy that exalts the created over the creator contains nothing but a recipe for destruction of not only the body but also the soul.

ChadS

 

[m134e5]

Objectivism has one’s self as the end as the object, as the one served.

But this is false. We are not the end. We are not the one served. We do not exist for our own sake. God is our end, God is our object, and God is the one served.

From the Baltimore Catechism: Who made you? God made me. Why did God make you? To know him, love him, and** serve him **in this world and to be happy with him in the next.

Union with God is our end. Happiness *with *him in the Beatific Vision is our destiny. Happiness here on earth is not our end. Serving God is our end. Doing God’s will comes from the great commandment to love God and neighbor. This centers around the theological and cardinal virtues.

Rand’s philosophy is built upon the conviction that there is nothing beyond ourselves. That there is nothing greater than we. That man is his own end, an end unto itself. Ayn Rand’s philosophy cannot be reconciled with Catholicism. It is incompatible with it because it is a false notion of who man is and what he is made for.

Our happiness is not irrelevant. We were not created “to know, love, and serve God in this life, and whatever happens to us in the next is irrelevant.” We’re not Sadducees. We were created to know, love, and serve God- so that we could be with him- happy- forever. The last part of that tells us that our purpose is our own happiness- of course, we should love God- because that’s what we were made to do. God made us to do that, and we will be truly happy doing what we were ultimately made to do. We should remember that God didn’t make mankind because He needed more love, He made mankind because He IS love. We should love God because He is the ultimate good- the ultimate happiness. Mankind’s end truly is his own happiness- and the ultimate happiness comes from God. Seen in this way, Ayn Rand’s philosophy is more acceptable.

 

[FCEGM]

Our happiness is not irrelevant. We were not created “to know, love, and serve God in this life, and whatever happens to us in the next is irrelevant.” We’re not Sadducees. We were created to know, love, and serve God- so that we could be with him- happy- forever. The last part of that tells us that our purpose is our own happiness- of course, we should love God- because that’s what we were made to do. God made us to do that, and we will be truly happy doing what we were ultimately made to do. We should remember that God didn’t make mankind because He needed more love, He made mankind because He IS love. We should love God because He is the ultimate good- the ultimate happiness. Mankind’s end truly is his own happiness- and the ultimate happiness comes from God. Seen in this way, Ayn Rand’s philosophy is more acceptable.

Except that seeking one’s happiness in God involves dying to self, so such insights as offered by St. John of the Cross on the process is antithetical to her philosophy:

In order to arrive at having pleasure in everything, Desire to have pleasure in nothing.
In order to arrive at possessing everything, Desire to possess nothing.
In order to arrive at being everything, Desire to be nothing.
In order to arrive at knowing everything, Desire to know nothing.

In order to arrive at that point where you take no pleasure, you must go by a way that gives no pleasure.
In order to arrive at that point where you know nothing, you must go by a way you do not know.
In order to arrive at that point where you are free of possessing, you must go by a way you do not possess.
In order to arrive at that point at which you are nothing, you must go through that which you are not. The Ascent of Mount Carmel, Bk. I, chapter, 13, sec. 11.

St. John helps make Saints - images of their Lord; Rand, only images of her shrivelled self.

 

[Contarini]

Having said that, I have recently read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, and was greatly moved. I have now begun Atlas Shrugged (voted the 2nd most influential book for americans, only behind the Bible), as well as other Ayn Rand philosophy. Its no secret that she was a self-professing atheist, and with that I disagree, but I find myself in complete agreement with her denouncement of altruism.

Could you explain just what you find so convincing about this? Nothing I have read about Ayn Rand has inclined me to read her or to like her ideas, but I keep running into people who find her very impressive, so probably I should inform myself better at some point. But there are so many other things higher up on my reading list!

People take offense at her endorsement of selfish motivation above all else, but she explicitly states, and anyone who reads her material would see, that she uses these words in an entirely different context than the definition society generally applies. How can one disagree with the purity of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead?

Perhaps you could explain in what this “purity” consists?

So to wrap it up for now - I have found myself at an apparent impasse. I have practiced and defended Catholicism for most my life from a purely intellectual standpoint, but I’m finding myself in complete disagreement lately with Altruism, also from a purely intellectual standpoint. How can this be reconciled while remaining Christian?

Well, depending on what you mean by altruism, I’m not sure altruism is the traditional Christian view. St. Thomas Aquinas–and I’d say most patristic and medieval theologians–agreed with the “eudaimonism” of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. According to this position, everyone naturally desires happiness, and it is and always will be our basic motivation. To act virtuously means to find our fulfillment in virtue. The more joy you take in acts of virtue, the more virtuous you are (because it means that you have acquired the “habit” of virtue).

In contrast, some late medieval and modern philosophers seem to think that virtue and happiness are completely disconnected from each other (the primary example is Kant, but some folks “blame” Duns Scotus for starting the ball rolling–myself, I put a lot of blame on the Protestant Reformers, but that’s another story, and they were certainly influenced by late medieval philosophy and theology). And popular ideas about virtue in the modern world seem to reflect this. People seem to think that if something is unpleasant that automatically makes it more virtuous. (Obviously there’s some sense in which this is true–one must have a very great love of virtue if one is going to do something very unpleasant just because it’s virtuous.) You often hear people claim that if you are motivated to help someone because it makes you feel good, then what you are doing is really just “selfish” and thus not virtuous. (Note: it’s certainly true that if you focus on your feelings and not on the needs of the person you are helping, then you will wind up acting selfishly.) If this is “altruism,” then I would agree that it’s a deeply flawed philosophy.

However, I don’t think that was the main thrust of Rand’s criticism of altruism.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Serving others is fine, but when self-sacrifice is required to gain any personal merit, it develops some major problems.

It depends what you mean by “self-sacrifice.” I would say the conflict between Rand’s ethics and that of traditional Christianity (by which I mean pre-Reformation Christianity broadly, with particular emphasis on the earlier and more universal manifestations thereof), is less about “altruism” than about the concept of the “common good.” It isn’t that you sacrifice your happiness for someone else’s, but that you find your happiness in pursuing good together with others in community rather than in a way that competes with the good of others. Granted, Rand seems to envision a world where goods can be pursued in a purely individualistic manner without hurting others. I don’t think that’s the world we live in. And I don’t just mean “world” as in 21st-century Western society. I mean “world” as in this universe created by God.

Second, if a person does truly and genuinely serve others in a self sacrificial way, without any hidden desire or goal beyond the pure act of simple self sacrificial service,

I don’t think that’s possible or desirable, although there’s no need for goals to be hidden. We should desire the good of others *as *our happiness, and we should tell them so (when appropriate). That’s what love is.

then it naturally devalues you below the person being served. Or in other words, what makes them more valuable than you, to the point that it is better for you to sacrifice yourself in servitude to them, rather then to yourself? Why are they more deserving of your time than your own self?

Well, actually the problem with altruism as I see it is that on altruistic principles, the person doing the “self-sacrificial serving” is putting him or herself above everyone else. Think about what happens when two people “fight” over their mutual desire to give the other person a bigger slice of cake, or whatever other advantage there might be. The person offering to take the smaller piece is in fact staking a claim to superiority, and that’s why the other person resists it. The virtuous course of behavior, in contrast, is to take the cake joyfully and without fuss if it is appropriate and just and the other person offers it to you, but to make sure that the good of the other person is also being promoted.

Also, what merits such a universal necessity to sacrifice and to serve everyone else - anyone else besides oneself? Unconditional love for everybody, regardless of the person, naturally devalues everybody.

I agree that that’s a bad way of putting it.

We should be able to give love to people precisely because of who and what they are deserves it - not just because they exist.

The first part is right, the second part wrong. By existing as God’s creatures, all humans deserve our love. Indeed, God’s nonhuman creation does as well.

It’s not an issue of whether God exists or not. Rather, its with regard to his teachings. It doesn’t make sense that he would be the creator of you, love you more than any known love, view you as a special creation unlike any other, and not want your happiness as your utmost priority, but rather put the happiness of others as a priority over your own happiness.

I don’t follow this argument. Christian proponents of altruism aren’t talking about whether God desires our happiness, but about whether we should. And obviously if God views you as special, He views His other creatures as special as well–and similarly if God wants you to sacrifice yourself, He wants others to do so as well. One could of course argue that certain people’s happiness is more valued by God than that of others, or conversely that God asks some to sacrifice more than others (generally, in Christianity, these two groups would be identical–one reason Christianity can never be truly altruistic). But you haven’t given any reason why we should agree either that God loves you more than others or that He expects more sacrifice of you than of others (or both).

A good book on this subject is Fr. Servais Pinckaers, O.P., *The Sources of Christian Ethics. *

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[lothariorowe]

Could you explain just what you find so convincing about this? Nothing I have read about Ayn Rand has inclined me to read her or to like her ideas, but I keep running into people who find her very impressive, so probably I should inform myself better at some point. But there are so many other things higher up on my reading list!

Realistically, it takes all of the 700+ pages to properly convey the message, and I would never choose to commit the injustice of trying to summarize it. Its one of the best selling books in history for a reason. I took the leap off of a recommendation not knowing what to expect, and was completely immersed in the reading, which is pretty impressive for a guy that has previously read almost exclusively non-fiction.

Its a truly profound story and message to any person with wisdom and a clear conscience. Its not some cultist novel set out to convert people to debauchery and sin, or designed to sell off blasphemy a la Dan Brown novels - its philosophically sound, and expertly written. Ayn Rand is a superb writer. I genuinely recommend that you treat yourself to this reading.

Perhaps you could explain in what this “purity” consists?

No, for the same reasons above. You must read it for yourself.

Well, depending on what you mean by altruism, I’m not sure altruism is the traditional Christian view. St. Thomas Aquinas–and I’d say most patristic and medieval theologians–agreed with the “eudaimonism” of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. According to this position, everyone naturally desires happiness, and it is and always will be our basic motivation. To act virtuously means to find our fulfillment in virtue. The more joy you take in acts of virtue, the more virtuous you are (because it means that you have acquired the “habit” of virtue).

I like that. I happen to find artists as some of the greatest purveyors of virtuous acts - which is why I was able to connect with Roark and his pure artistic view of Architecture, as opposed to the business view that the others hold which turns architecture into a tool for money, prestige, and press.

You often hear people claim that if you are motivated to help someone because it makes you feel good, then what you are doing is really just “selfish” and thus not virtuous. (Note: it’s certainly true that if you focus on your feelings and not on the needs of the person you are helping, then you will wind up acting selfishly.) If this is “altruism,” then I would agree that it’s a deeply flawed philosophy.

There’s much truth in this. Nobody continually does what does not please them. If a certain altruistic action doesn’t bring joy, it will be discontinued eventually.

 

[lothariorowe]

It depends what you mean by “self-sacrifice.” I would say the conflict between Rand’s ethics and that of traditional Christianity (by which I mean pre-Reformation Christianity broadly, with particular emphasis on the earlier and more universal manifestations thereof), is less about “altruism” than about the concept of the “common good.” It isn’t that you sacrifice your happiness for someone else’s, but that you find your happiness in pursuing good together with others in community rather than in a way that competes with the good of others. Granted, Rand seems to envision a world where goods can be pursued in a purely individualistic manner without hurting others. I don’t think that’s the world we live in. And I don’t just mean “world” as in 21st-century Western society. I mean “world” as in this universe created by God.

We live in a society infatuated by collectivism - that’s why Obama is our president. Just look to the slogan, “Yes we can.” An interesting read is Ayn Rand’s small novella Anthem - which depicts a world in the future where the word “I” has been removed from society, and by law. Everything must be done for the good of society, and a person must perform in the position dictated by society as being the most beneficial to their fellow brethren. Anthem is inferior to her masterpieces The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, but it is still an interesting and rudimentary sketch of her philosophies.

Well, actually the problem with altruism as I see it is that on altruistic principles, the person doing the “self-sacrificial serving” is putting him or herself above everyone else. Think about what happens when two people “fight” over their mutual desire to give the other person a bigger slice of cake, or whatever other advantage there might be. The person offering to take the smaller piece is in fact staking a claim to superiority, and that’s why the other person resists it. The virtuous course of behavior, in contrast, is to take the cake joyfully and without fuss if it is appropriate and just and the other person offers it to you, but to make sure that the good of the other person is also being promoted.

This example is not of true sacrifice, its merely an elaboration on altruistic tendencies. It places the focus on the individual’s position in society - taking a smaller piece to look better - to feel better because it makes you look better. The objectivist would have no concern over how he is viewed, and would likely take whatever piece is left after the other person has made their choice.

The first part is right, the second part wrong. By existing as God’s creatures, all humans deserve our love. Indeed, God’s nonhuman creation does as well.

Ya, but that still levels the playing field. When teams are tied 10-10, or 27-27, it’s said the game is back to 0-0. Sure, I’ll run with the whole “we are all God’s creation and therefore all immediately deserving of love before we commit our first action,” but the consequence is that it is an equal love demanded of everyone and for everyone, so it is of no concern. It is demanded, and assumed. At least in a perfect society where everyone loved everyone immediately and equally as they should, then that particular love would necessarily become irrelevant and unimportant - the only concern would be for the love people gave one another in addition to the love that always existed everywhere and for everyone.

 

[lothariorowe]

The immediate consequence is that you then have to place your interests above the others’ interests. But is your self that interesting? Are you so valuable to the cosmic order that you deserve more attention from you than the others?

But you are not thinking clearly - this whole proposition is posed through an extremely altruistic lens, don’t you see?!

I have no care whatsoever about my value to the cosmos!

“I think therefore I am” - I am the only person that has my soul, and therefore only my own happiness is of interest to me, not anyone else’s. Please don’t myopically assume this means it should be pursued to the detriment of others. I impose on no one, and refused to be imposed on by others. True happiness comes from the soul, and I only own my soul, therefore it is the only thing of interest to me.

Ironically, the altruist ultimately has only concern for his own soul as well - which is the purpose for concerning himself with others.

Probably not. You are probably just an average person. There are probably millions of people more talented than you in every dimension you can think of (although you might not know who they are). So, again, why stick to yourself instead of looking outwardly? Realizing this requires some humbleness, which is ultimately connected to altruism.

I think realizing this comes from either a lack of understanding or wisdom. I suggest reading The Fountainhead to understand where I’m coming from.

FYI, when confirming Catholicism as the 1 true Christian faith, I read many anti-catholic and non-catholic books with an open mind, which is what produced a truly genuine belief. Only when approaching this material with an open mind can someone have a clear conscience about their resulting convictions.

 

[antunesaa]

But you are not thinking clearly - this whole proposition is posed through an extremely altruistic lens, don’t you see?!

I have no care whatsoever about my value to the cosmos!

“I think therefore I am” - I am the only person that has my soul, and therefore only my own happiness is of interest to me, not anyone else’s. Please don’t myopically assume this means it should be pursued to the detriment of others.

It might very well be the case that your true happiness is something that has to be pursued in detriment of others. This can be rational. What can you do then?

I think objectivism as you stated it has very sharp edges. It seems to work from the perspective of the individual, but any kind of aggregation of individuals looks very problematic. It just doesn’t seem to have the mechanisms for human interaction, like a deal where the ask price is higher than the bid price.

 

[MarkInOregon]

But you see, I would have no problem if altruism were a choice. Nothing should be required or demanded of man without his consent - he should always be allowed to choose based on his own convictions. The reality however, is that altruism has been made a requirement for the salvation of the soul, and a moral requirement that the whole of society has levied on every member with ruthless efficiency. So God has to seek our consent before demanding that we follow his commands?

No, you should love a person because of their personal value to you, because of the impact their character has on you. Loving a person regardless of their value necessarily strips every person of their individual value. If all of mankind loved one another without regard to who or what any person was, the ironic result would be a society without any true love for anyone. I could not disagree with you more. This is not a Christian understanding of love but a secular one. You say: “regardless of their value” which indicates that you fail to understand the human person. CCC 1700 says: :The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God" As such every person has value and is worthy of being loved–just because you can’t see it or get something from them does not strip them of their dignity and value.
CCC 1822: “Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.”
CCC 1823: “Jesus make charity the new commandment. By loving his own ‘to the end,’ he makes manifest the Father’s love which he receives…”
CCC 1825: “Christ died out of his love for us, while we were still ‘enemies.’ The Lord asks us to love as he does, even our enemies, to make ourselves the neighbor of those farthest away, and to love children and the poor as Christ himself.”
CCC 1828: “The practice of the moral life animated by charity gives to the Christian the spiritual freedom of the children of God. He no longer stands before God as a slave, in servile fear, or as a mercenary looking for wages, but as a son responding to the love of him who ‘first loved us.’ If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages,…we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands…we are in the position of children.”
CCC1829: "The fruits of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; the demands beneficence and fraternal correction; it is benevolence; it fosters reciprosity and remains disinterested and generous; it is friendship and communion: Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works. There is the goal; that is why we run; we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we shall find rest."

---

I think that if we all loved one another because of our inate dignity as children of God the world would be a wonderful place where the fruits of joy. peace and mercy would reign supreme. The world we live in is a world where most people think of love as you describe love (which I would suggest is not really love) as what value does that person have for me–and I don’t think that is working out too well–do you? I think today we live in world with very little true love. I think you description of love is of a counterfit love.

How could God create us so lovingly and demand our highest goal in life be servitude to him? How could he not place our happiness over all else? Look around you at all the people embracing this counterfit ideal you propose–do you see a lot of true happiness? You have the wrong idea about servitude. When you love you wife or your parents–and they are sick and dying and you take care of them and nurse them and do all kinds of “unpleasant chores”–is that really the servitude that you describe–or it it something else? I think it is something else precisely because we do it out of love and it brings us joy to do it–even though there is “nothing in it for us” The philosophy you describe–cannot bring true happiness. I say look around and you will see all the proof you need.

Peace,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

How could God create us so lovingly and demand our highest goal in life be servitude to him? How could he not place our happiness over all else?

.

Could the problem be that we don’t know and understand what true happiness is? What will make us truly happy?

My younger children think eating all their halloween candy at once is going to make them supremely happy–yet I know better–that what it will really do is make them sick.

Often my children believe that such and such toy will give them all the happiness they will ever desire–yet I know better–and it isn’t long before that toy to end all toys is burried in the bottom of the toy box and long forgotten about and the desire for the next bigger better brighter toy is all that they think they need to be happy.

I am guessing that to God we are a lot like my children are to me. Oh God just let me get the new car then I’ll be happy. God can I just get that bigger better house then I know I’ll be happy. God just please let me win the lottery then I’ll truly be happy!

Perhaps as the song says we are looking for love (in this case happiness) in all the wrong places. And perhaps God knows better than we do what will bring us true happiness–if we will just submit to his will.

Peace,
Mark

 

[edwest2]

The Mike Wallace interview was great. Jesus told us to love our neighbor, followed by being asked who is our neighbor. He then tells us about the Good Samaritan.

If we ask God for guidance, He will give it to us. The Bible tells us He will guide our steps. In the vast spectrum of people, some seem to be born with some talent or gift that will propel them through life. Others select something that suits them, whether it’s a 9 to 5 job or something a bit more risky. Others might become priests or nuns, or wander a bit until they find their calling.

Jesus called us to be servants, as he demonstrated by being a servant to our Father. He told the people not to worry or be anxious, saying how our Father knows our needs. But we have to ask: “You have not because you ask not.”

Each one of us is called to help our neighbor to the degree we can. Sometimes, we may find ourselves in a position of needing help. Love is the glue of the human race and our relationship with God.

It would be great if love and compassion were talked about a bit more often. I found little of value in Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

Peace,
Ed