"The Virtue of Selfishness" - читать интересную книгу автора (Rand Ayn)
Is the concept of value, of Уgood or evilФ an arbitrary human invention, unrelated to, underived from and unsupported by any facts of realityЧor is it based on a metaphysical fact, on an unalterable condition of manТs existence? (I use the word УmetaphysicalФ to mean: that which pertains to reality, to the nature of things, to existence.) Does an arbitrary human convention, a mere custom, decree that man must guide his actions by a set of principlesЧor is there a fact of reality that demands it? Is ethics the province of whims: of personal emotions, social edicts and mystic revelationsЧor is it the province of reason? Is ethics a subjective luxuryЧor an objective necessity?
In the sorry record of the history of mankindТs ethicsЧwith a few rare, and unsuccessful, exceptionsЧmoralists have regarded ethics as the province of whims, that is: of the irrational. Some of them did so explicitly, by intentionЧothers implicitly, by default. A УwhimФ is a desire experienced by a person who does not know and does not care to discover its cause.
No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values. So long as that question remained unanswered, no rational, scientific, objective code of ethics could be discovered or defined. The greatest of all philosophers, Aristotle, did not regard ethics as an exact science; he based his ethical system on observations of what the noble and wise men of his time chose to do, leaving unanswered the questions of: why they chose to do it and why he evaluated them as noble and wise.
Most philosophers took the existence of ethics for granted, as the given, as a historical fact, and were not concerned with discovering its metaphysical cause or objective validation. Many of them attempted to break the traditional monopoly of mysticism in the field of ethics and, allegedly, to define a rational, scientific, nonreligious morality. But their attempts consisted of trying to justify them on social grounds, merely substituting society for God.
The avowed mystics held the arbitrary, unaccountable Уwill of GodФ as the standard of the good and as the validation of their ethics. The neomystics replaced it with Уthe good of society,Ф thus collapsing into the circularity of a definition such as Уthe standard of the good is that which is good for society.Ф This meant, in logicЧand, today, in worldwide practiceЧthat УsocietyФ stands above any principles of ethics, since it is the source, standard and criterion of ethics, since Уthe goodФ is whatever it wills, whatever it happens to assert as its own welfare and pleasure. This meant that УsocietyФ may do anything it pleases, since Уthe goodФ is whatever it chooses to do because it chooses to do it. AndЧsince there is no such entity as Уsociety,Ф since society is only a number of individual menЧthis meant that some men (the majority or any gang that claims to be its spokesman) are ethically entitled to pursue any whims (or any atrocities) they desire to pursue, while other men are ethically obliged to spend their lives in the service of that gangТs desires.
This could hardly be called rational, yet most philosophers have now decided to declare that reason has failed, that ethics is outside the power of reason, that no rational ethics can ever be defined, and that in the field of ethicsЧin the choice of his values, of his actions, of his pursuits, of his lifeТs goalsЧman must be guided by something other than reason. By what? FaithЧinstinctЧintuitionЧrevelationЧfeelingЧtasteЧurgeЧwishЧwhim. Today, as in the past, most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is whim (they call it Уarbitrary postulateФ or Уsubjective choiceФ or Уemotional commitmentФ)Чand the battle is only over the question or whose whim: oneТs own or societyТs or the dictatorТs or GodТs. Whatever else they may disagree about, todayТs moralists agree that ethics is a subjective issue and that the three things barred from its field are: reasonЧmindЧreality.
If you wonder why the world is now collapsing to a lower and ever lower rung of hell, this is the reason.
If you want to save civilization, it is this premise of modern ethicsЧand of all ethical historyЧthat you must challenge.
To challenge the basic premise of any discipline, one must begin at the beginning. In ethics, one must begin by asking: What are values? Why does man need them?
УValueФ is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept УvalueФ is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.
I quote from GaltТs speech: УThere is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistenceЧand it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of СLifeТ that makes the concept of СValueТ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.Ф
To make this point fully clear, try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals.
Only a living entity can have goals or can originate them. And it is only a living organism that has the capacity for self-generated, goal-directed action. On the physical level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complexЧfrom the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a manЧare actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organismТs life.2
An organismТs life depends on two factors: the material or fuel which it needs from the outside, from its physical background, and the action of its own body, the action of using that fuel properly. What standard determines what is proper in this context? The standard is the organismТs life, or: that which is required for the organismТs survival.
No choice is open to an organism in this issue: that which is required for its survival is determined by its nature, by the kind of entity it is. Many variations, many forms of adaptation to its background are possible to an organism, including the possibility of existing for a while in a crippled, disabled or diseased condition, but the fundamental alternative of its existence remains the same: if an organism fails in the basic functions required by its natureЧif an amoebaТs protoplasm stops assimilating food, or if a manТs heart stops beatingЧthe organism dies. In a fundamental sense, stillness is the antithesis of life. Life can be kept in existence only by a constant process of self-sustaining action. The goal of that action, the ultimate value which, to be kept, must be gained through its every moment, is the organismТs life.
An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the meansЧand it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organismТs life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.
Without an ultimate goal or end, there can be no lesser goals or means: a series of means going off into an infinite progression toward a nonexistent end is a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility. It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of УvalueФ is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of Уlife.Ф To speak of УvalueФ as apart from УlifeФ is worse than a contradiction in terms. УIt is only the concept of СLifeТ that makes the concept of СValueТ possible.Ф
In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between УisФ and Уought.Ф
Now in what manner does a human being discover the concept of УvalueФ? By what means does he first become aware of the issue of Уgood or evilФ in its simplest form? By means of the physical sensations of pleasure or pain. Just as sensations are the first step of the development of a human consciousness in the realm of cognition, so they are its first step in the realm of evaluation.
The capacity to experience pleasure or pain is innate in a manТs body; it is part of his nature, part of the kind of entity he is. He has no choice about it, and he has no choice about the standard that determines what will make him experience the physical sensation of pleasure or of pain. What is that standard? His life.
The pleasure-pain mechanism in the body of manЧand in the bodies of all the living organisms that possess the faculty of consciousnessЧserves as an automatic guardian of the organismТs life. The physical sensation of pleasure is a signal indicating that the organism is pursuing the right course of action. The physical sensation of pain is a warning signal of danger, indicating that the organism is pursuing the wrong course of action, that something is impairing the proper function of its body, which requires action to correct it. The best illustration of this can be seen in the rare, freak cases of children who are born without the capacity to experience physical pain; such children do not survive for long; they have no means of discovering what can injure them, no warning signals, and thus a minor cut can develop into a deadly infection, or a major illness can remain undetected until it is too late to fight it.
ConsciousnessЧfor those living organisms which possess itЧis the basic means of survival.
The simpler organisms, such as plants, can survive by means of their automatic physical functions. The higher organisms, such as animals and man, cannot: their needs are more complex and the range of their actions is wider. The physical functions of their bodies can perform automatically only the task of using fuel, but cannot obtain that fuel. To obtain it, the higher organisms need the faculty of consciousness. A plant can obtain its food from the soil in which it grows. An animal has to hunt for it. Man has to produce it.
A plant has no choice of action; the goals it pursues are automatic and innate, determined by its nature. Nourishment, water, sunlight are the values its nature has set it to seek. Its life is the standard of value directing its actions. There are alternatives in the conditions it encounters in its physical backgroundЧsuch as heat or frost, drought or floodЧand there are certain actions which it is able to perform to combat adverse conditions, such as the ability of some plants to grow and crawl from under a rock to reach the sunlight. But whatever the conditions, there is no alternative in a plantТs function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.
The higher organisms possess a much more potent form of consciousness: they possess the faculty of retaining sensations, which is the faculty of perception. A УperceptionФ is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism, which gives it the ability to be aware, not of single stimuli, but of entities, of things. An animal is guided, not merely by immediate sensations, but by percepts. Its actions are not single, discrete responses to single, separate stimuli, but are directed by an integrated awareness of the perceptual reality confronting it. It is able to grasp the perceptual concretes immediately present and it is able to form automatic perceptual associations, but it can go no further. It is able to learn certain skills to deal with specific situations, such as hunting or hiding, which the parents of the higher animals teach their young. But an animal has no choice in the knowledge and the skills that it acquires; it can only repeat them generation after generation. And an animal has no choice in the standard of value directing its actions: its senses provide it with an automatic code of values, an automatic knowledge of what is good for it or evil, what benefits or endangers its life. An animal has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. In situations for which its knowledge is inadequate, it perishesЧas, for instance, an animal that stands paralyzed on the track of a railroad in the path of a speeding train. But so long as it lives, an animal acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice: it cannot suspend its own consciousnessЧit cannot choose not to perceiveЧit cannot evade its own perceptionsЧit cannot ignore its own good, it cannot decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer.
Man has no automatic code of survival. He has no automatic course of action, no automatic set of values. His senses do not tell him automatically what is good for him or evil, what will benefit his life or endanger it, what goals he should pursue and what means will achieve them, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. His own consciousness has to discover the answers to all these questionsЧbut his consciousness will not function automatically. Man, the highest living species on this earthЧthe being whose consciousness has a limitless capacity for gaining knowledgeЧman is the only living entity born without any guarantee of remaining conscious at all. ManТs particular distinction from all other living species is the fact that his consciousness is volitional.
Just as the automatic values directing the functions of a plantТs body are sufficient for its survival, but are not sufficient for an animalТsЧso the automatic values provided by the sensory-perceptual mechanism of its consciousness are sufficient to guide an animal, but are not sufficient for man. ManТs actions and survival require the guidance of conceptual values derived from conceptual knowledge. But conceptual knowledge cannot be acquired automatically.
A УconceptФ is a mental integration of two or more perceptual concretes, which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by means of a specific definition. Every word of manТs language, with the exception of proper names, denotes a concept, an abstraction that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a specific kind. It is by organizing his perceptual material into concepts, and his concepts into wider and still wider concepts that man is able to grasp and retain, to identify and integrate an unlimited amount of knowledge, a knowledge extending beyond the immediate perceptions of any given, immediate moment. ManТs sense organs function automatically; manТs brain integrates his sense data into percepts automatically; but the process of integrating percepts into conceptsЧthe process of abstraction and of concept-formationЧis not automatic.
The process of concept-formation does not consist merely of grasping a few simple abstractions, such as Уchair,Ф Уtable,Ф Уhot,Ф Уcold,Ф and of learning to speak. It consists of a method of using oneТs consciousness, best designated by the term Уconceptualizing.Ф It is not a passive state of registering random impressions. It is an actively sustained process of identifying oneТs impressions in conceptual terms, of integrating every event and every observation into a conceptual context, of grasping relationships, differences, similarities in oneТs perceptual material and of abstracting them into new concepts, of drawing inferences, of making deductions, of reaching conclusions, of asking new questions and discovering new answers and expanding oneТs knowledge into an ever-growing sum. The faculty that directs this process, the faculty that works by means of concepts, is: reason. The process is thinking.
Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by manТs senses. It is a faculty that man has to exercise by choice. Thinking is not an automatic function. In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort. Thinking requires a state of full, focused awareness. The act of focusing oneТs consciousness is volitional. Man can focus his mind to a full, active, purposefully directed awareness of realityЧor he can unfocus it and let himself drift in a semiconscious daze, merely reacting to any chance stimulus of the immediate moment, at the mercy of his undirected sensory-perceptual mechanism and of any random, associational connections it might happen to make.
When man unfocuses his mind, he may be said to be conscious in a subhuman sense of the word, since he experiences sensations and perceptions. But in the sense of the word applicable to manЧin the sense of a consciousness which is aware of reality and able to deal with it, a consciousness able to direct the actions and provide for the survival of a human beingЧan unfocused mind is not conscious.
Psychologically, the choice Уto think or notФ is the choice Уto focus or not.Ф Existentially, the choice Уto focus or notФ is the choice Уto be conscious or not.Ф Metaphysically, the choice Уto be conscious or notФ is the choice of life or death.
ConsciousnessЧfor those living organisms which possess itЧis the basic means of survival. For man, the basic means of survival is reason. Man cannot survive, as animals do, by the guidance of mere percepts. A sensation of hunger will tell him that he needs food (if he has learned to identify it as УhungerФ), but it will not tell him how to obtain his food and it will not tell him what food is good for him or poisonous. He cannot provide for his simplest physical needs without a process of thought. He needs a process of thought to discover how to plant and grow his food or how to make weapons for hunting. His percepts might lead him to a cave, if one is availableЧbut to build the simplest shelter, he needs a process of thought. No percepts and no УinstinctsФ will tell him how to light a fire, how to weave cloth, how to forge tools, how to make a wheel, how to make an airplane, how to perform an appendectomy, how to produce an electric light bulb or an electronic tube or a cyclotron or a box of matches. Yet his life depends on such knowledgeЧand only a volitional act of his consciousness, a process of thought, can provide it.
But manТs responsibility goes still further: a process of thought is not automatic nor УinstinctiveФ nor involuntaryЧnor infallible. Man has to initiate it, to sustain it and to bear responsibility for its results. He has to discover how to tell what is true or false and how to correct his own errors; he has to discover how to validate his concepts, his conclusions, his knowledge; he has to discover the rules of thought, the laws of logic, to direct his thinking. Nature gives him no automatic guarantee of the efficacy of his mental effort.
Nothing is given to man on earth except a potential and the material on which to actualize it. The potential is a superlative machine: his consciousness; but it is a machine without a spark plug, a machine of which his own will has to be the spark plug, the self-starter and the driver; he has to discover how to use it and he has to keep it in constant action. The material is the whole of the universe, with no limits set to the knowledge he can acquire and to the enjoyment of life he can achieve. But everything he needs or desires has to be learned, discovered and produced by himЧby his own choice, by his own effort, by his own mind.
A being who does not know automatically what is true or false, cannot know automatically what is right or wrong, what is good for him or evil. Yet he needs that knowledge in order to live. He is not exempt from the laws of reality, he is a specific organism of a specific nature that requires specific actions to sustain his life. He cannot achieve his survival by arbitrary means nor by random motions nor by blind urges nor by chance nor by whim. That which his survival requires is set by his nature and is not open to his choice. What is open to his choice is only whether he will discover it or not, whether he will choose the right goals and values or not. He is free to make the wrong choice, but not free to succeed with it. He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see. Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every УisФ implies an Уought.Ф Man is free to choose not to be conscious, but not free to escape the penalty of unconsciousness: destruction. Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyerЧand that is the way he has acted through most of his history.
What, then, are the right goals for man to pursue? What are the values his survival requires? That is the question to be answered by the science of ethics. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why man needs a code of ethics.
Now you can assess the meaning of the doctrines which tell you that ethics is the province of the irrational, that reason cannot guide manТs life, that his goals and values should be chosen by vote or by whimЧthat ethics has nothing to do with reality, with existence, with oneТs practical actions and concernsЧor that the goal of ethics is beyond the grave, that the dead need ethics, not the living.
Ethics is not a mystic fantasyЧnor a social conventionЧnor a dispensable, subjective luxury, to be switched or discarded in any emergency. Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of manТs survivalЧnot by the grace of the supernatural nor of your neighbors nor of your whims, but by the grace of reality and the nature of life.
I quote from GaltТs speech: УMan has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choiceЧand the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be manЧby choice; he has to hold his life as a valueЧby choice; he has to learn to sustain itЧby choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtuesЧby choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.Ф
The standard of value of the Objectivist ethicsЧthe standard by which one judges what is good or evilЧis manТs life, or: that which is required for manТs survival qua man.
Since reason is manТs basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.
Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work.
If some men do not choose to think, but survive by imitating and repeating, like trained animals, the routine of sounds and motions they learned from others, never making an effort to understand their own work, it still remains true that their survival is made possible only by those who did choose to think and to discover the motions they are repeating. The survival of such mental parasites depends on blind chance; their unfocused minds are unable to know whom to imitate, whose motions it is safe to follow. They are the men who march into the abyss, trailing after any destroyer who promises them to assume the responsibility they evade: the responsibility of being conscious.
If some men attempt to survive by means of brute force or fraud, by looting, robbing, cheating or enslaving the men who produce, it still remains true that their survival is made possible only by their victims, only by the men who choose to think and to produce the goods which they, the looters, are seizing. Such looters are parasites incapable of survival, who exist by destroying those who are capable, those who are pursuing a course of action proper to man.
The men who attempt to survive, not by means of reason, but by means of force, are attempting to survive by the method of animals. But just as animals would not be able to survive by attempting the method of plants, by rejecting locomotion and waiting for the soil to feed themЧso men cannot survive by attempting the method of animals, by rejecting reason and counting on productive men to serve as their prey. Such looters may achieve their goals for the range of a moment, at the price of destruction: the destruction of their victims and their own. As evidence, I offer you any criminal or any dictatorship.
Man cannot survive, like an animal, by acting on the range of the moment. An animalТs life consists of a series of separate cycles, repeated over and over again, such as the cycle of breeding its young, or of storing food for the winter; an animalТs consciousness cannot integrate its entire lifespan; it can carry just so far, then the animal has to begin the cycle all over again, with no connection to the past. ManТs life is a continuous whole: for good or evil, every day, year and decade of his life holds the sum of all the days behind him. He can alter his choices, he is free to change the direction of his course, he is even free, in many cases, to atone for the consequences of his pastЧbut he is not free to escape them, nor to live his life with impunity on the range of the moment, like an animal, a playboy or a thug. If he is to succeed at the task of survival, if his actions are not to be aimed at his own destruction, man has to choose his course, his goals, his values in the context and terms of a lifetime. No sensations, percepts, urges or УinstinctsФ can do it; only a mind can.
Such is the meaning of the definition: that which is required for manТs survival qua man. It does not mean a momentary or a merely physical survival. It does not mean the momentary physical survival of a mindless brute, waiting for another brute to crush his skull. It does not mean the momentary physical survival of a crawling aggregate of muscles who is willing to accept any terms, obey any thug and surrender any values, for the sake of what is known as Уsurvival at any price,Ф which may or may not last a week or a year. УManТs survival qua manФ means the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespanЧin all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice.
| © 2025 Библиотека RealLib.org (support [a t] reallib.org) |