Rand Rant: skip if you value your brain

"A selfless man cannot be ethical."

This is from Ayn Rand's notes on her novel The Fountainhead, which I have been reading lately without the ability to determine whether it's the biggest crock of shit I've ever read, or one of the most insightful commentaries about American society (yes, American specifically, though Rand intended a more global subject) written in the 20th century.

The way I understand it, both through the novel and fail proof Wikipedia, Rand's philosophy of Objectivism celebrates exceptionality, capitalism, complete love of one's self, and rejects altruism, mediocrity, and collectivism (Rand ran for her life from the Soviet Union, so who can blame her?). It seems to boil down to the idea that there are only men of genius and those who feed off them and try to destroy them. Fine.

It doesn't take exceptional intellect to see where Rand probably fell in the American political spectrum, and honestly, who gives a shit? She's dead, and so is her following, for the most part. And anyway, anyone who paints humanity in such broad brush strokes and without any shades of gray has lost their claim to a valid argument. But I suppose that would support her point: that the essence of man (not of woman, by the way) is to be one extreme or the other, and to think there are exceptions is admitting that you're a pansy who is trying to excuse his own triviality.

Despite all this, I can't help but think that she may have a reasonable argument or two hidden in a pile of senseless, egotistical drivel.

Can a selfless man be truly ethical? Let's assume that ethics or morality are not relative to any one society, but are actually universal to all people. We will define "being ethical" as "doing the right thing" or "being good" (where "good" is doing the best to promote the highest quality of life for yourself and your fellow humans). The Fountainhead implies that a selfless man has no desire and no respect of self, thus no self at all. When one has no self, one isn't really making a "moral" sacrifice because there is no sacrifice. For a man to be truly good, he has to value himself first and know his own worth; he can help his fellow men by being the best that he can be.

I can't help but see the reason in that argument. After all, socialism bases itself on the faith that our fellow humans are all by nature selfless and loving creatures who deserve an equal slice of the collective pie -- total crap, unfortunately. There is value in the exceptional. The idea that all men are created equal is crap, too, though it may sound cynical. A shitty doctor is of less use than a great doctor, and thus should not make as much money. It is true, however, that all men (and women!) deserve an equal opportunity to reach the height of their potential and not be downtrodden or manipulated by other people.

I don't even know why I decided to write about this book, or start to argue for or against anything this woman has to say. Also, as I exhibited very plainly, I'm a fourth-rate philosopher. Maybe this is just my way of flexing my atrophied writing muscles. If so, I'm sorry. Next time, I'll give a third-rate account of the embroidery I started. I would certainly have more authority on that than on the definition of morality.