Objections to Objectivism
Epilogue
Copyright © 2001 by John Ku

Conclusion

Finally, there are some who seem to call themselves Objectivists but who do not accept Rand's ethical egoism. In fact, there is a certain tendency among Objectivists to resist classification of Ayn Rand into any of the academic schools of philosophy especially once it has been shown that her philosophy diverges from classical egoism. Roughly in the words of one Objectivist philosophy major I spoke to, "She's not an egoist; she's not a Kantian; she's not a utilitarian; she's not a virtue ethicist; she's just completely original and breaks down all the traditional philosophical distinctions." In case I have not already made this clear, I think we ought to be careful not to mistake her confusion for originality.

Although she may get some things right by borrowing from various altruist moralities, I think it is misleading to rely on Rand's writings regarding important ethical issues. Nor is it purely a matter of integrity of theory, for in practice, there will be many subtle (and some not so subtle) differences in one's actions and values based upon which of various competing methodologies of ethics one adopts. Given that Rand confounds these often conflicting theories of morality as all aspects of one theory, egoism, it is likely merely to increase confusion on any sufficiently complex moral dilemma.

On the other hand, one of the main beliefs that I found I could no longer hold as an indirect result of realizing the numerous objections to Objectivism was Rand's view of the role of philosophy in the good life that I had enthusiastically accepted. She held that, "In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values. . . which means: philosophy. He cannot escape from this need; his only alternative is whether the philosophy guiding him is to be chosen by his mind or by chance." (Romantic Manifesto, p. 30)

I do, of course, believe that we must act on some implicit philosophy, but requiring an explicit formulation of an entire system of philosophy for oneself seems too much to demand even of a philosopher! I suppose this position is made considerably easier to hold if one thinks as Rand did that, for instance, the fundamental epistemological questions that have plagued mankind for 2500 years can be solved within half an hour without even any formal study of the subject. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 307) Rand seemed to think that anyone could examine the perennial questions of philosophy and within a reasonable amount of time, actually come out with certainty in one's conclusions as opposed to simply being swamped and overwhelmed by the immense complexity of the discipline. I'm devoting my entire lifetime to just one subset of a field in philosophy and I'm still not sure I can accomplish that except in a few select problems! Ultimately, I think philosophy is no different from other fields as far as the ever-increasing specialization within it goes.

If, then, extensive study of philosophy is not for everyone and it requires quite a bit of philosophy to recognize the inadequacy of Objectivism, then perhaps, depending on how it compares with other popular philosophies, its popularity is not necessarily something to be regretted as much, despite its flaws. It's an odd evaluation to make I admit, and I am not quite sure what to think, but it seems that especially for some of the more liberal interpretations of Rand that avoid the negative aspects, her emphasis on reason and independence put it ahead of many religious moralities or the rampant relativism present today.