The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand



“Ethics is not a mystic fantasy—nor a social convention—nor a dispensable, subjective luxury. … Ethics is an objective necessity of man’s survival—not 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.”

“The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man’s sur­vival qua man—which means: the values re­quired for human survival—not the values produced by the desires, the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices.”

Ever since their first publication, Ayn Rand’s works have had a major impact on the intellectual scene. Her new morality—the ethics of rational self-interest—chal­lenges the altruist-collectivist fashions of our day. Known as Objectivism, her unique phi­losophy is the underlying theme of her fa­mous novels.





A New Concept of Egoism

by Ayn Rand




1. The Objectivist Ethics

2. Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice

3. The Ethics of Emergencies

4. The “Conflicts” of Men’s interests

5. Isn’t Everyone Selfish?

6. The Psychology of Pleasure

7. Doesn’t Life Require Compromise?

8. How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an irrational Society?

9. The Cult of Moral Grayness

10. Collectivized Ethics

11. The Monument Builders

12. Man’s Rights

13. Collectivized “Rights”

14. The Nature of Government

15. Government Financing in a Free Society

16. The Divine Right of Stagnation

17. Racism

18. Counterfeit individualism

19. The Argument from intimidation


The title of this book may evoke the kind of question that I hear once in a while: “Why do you use the word ‘selfish­ness’ to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?”

To those who ask it, my answer is: “For the reason that makes you afraid of it.”

But there are others, who would not ask that question, sensing the moral cowardice it implies, yet who are unable to formulate my actual reason or to identify the profound moral issue involved. It is to them that I will give a more explicit answer.

It is not a mere semantic issue nor a matter of arbitrary choice. The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastat­ing intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral develop­ment of mankind.

In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratifi­cation of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.

Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.

This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.

The ethics of altruism has created the image of the brute, as its answer, in order to make men accept two inhuman tenets: (a) that any concern with one’s own interests is evil, regardless of what these interests might be, and (b) that the brute’s activities are in fact to one’s own interest (which altruism enjoins man to renounce for the sake of his neighbors).

For a view of the nature of altruism, its consequences and the enormity of the moral corruption it perpetrates, I shall refer you to Atlas Shrugged—or to any of today’s newspaper headlines. What concerns us here is altruism’s default in the field of ethical theory.

There are two moral questions which altruism lumps to­gether into one “package-deal”: (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substi­tutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance.

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.

Hence the appalling immorality, the chronic injustice, the grotesque double standards, the insoluble conflicts and con­tradictions that have characterized human relationships and human societies throughout history, under all the variants of the altruist ethics.

Observe the indecency of what passes for moral judg­ments today. An industrialist who produces a fortune, and a gangster who robs a bank are regarded as equally im­moral, since they both sought wealth for their own “selfish” benefit. A young man who gives up his career in order to support his parents and never rises beyond the rank of gro­cery clerk is regarded as morally superior to the young man who endures an excruciating struggle and achieves his per­sonal ambition. A dictator is regarded as moral, since the unspeakable atrocities he committed were intended to bene­fit “the people,” not himself.

Observe what this beneficiary-criterion of morality does to a man’s life. The first thing he learns is that morality is his enemy; he has nothing to gain from it, he can only lose; self-inflicted loss, self-inflicted pain and the gray, debilitat­ing pall of an incomprehensible duty is all that he can ex­pect. He may hope that others might occasionally sacrifice themselves for his benefit, as he grudgingly sacrifices him­self for theirs, but he knows that the relationship will bring mutual resentment, not pleasure—and that, morally, their pursuit of values will be like an exchange of unwanted, unchosen Christmas presents, which neither is morally permit­ted to buy for himself. Apart from such times as he manages to perform some act of self-sacrifice, he possesses no moral significance: morality takes no cognizance of him and has nothing to say to him for guidance in the crucial issues of his life; it is only his own personal, private, “selfish” life and, as such, it is regarded either as evil or, at best, amoral.

Since nature does not provide man with an automatic form of survival, since he has to support his life by his own effort, the doctrine that concern with one’s own interests is evil means that man’s desire to live is evil—that man’s life, as such, is evil. No doctrine could be more evil than that.

Yet that is the meaning of altruism, implicit in such exam­ples as the equation of an industrialist with a robber. There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level (see “The Objectivist Ethics”).

If it is true that what I mean by “selfishness” is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indict­ments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who sup­ports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites—that it permits no concept of a benev­olent co-existence among men—that it permits no concept of justice.

If you wonder about the reasons behind the ugly mixture of cynicism and guilt in which most men spend their lives, these are the reasons: cynicism, because they neither prac­tice nor accept the altruist morality—guilt, because they dare not reject it.

To rebel against so devastating an evil, one has to rebel against its basic premise. To redeem both man and morality, it is the concept of “selfishness” that one has to redeem.

The first step is to assert man’s right to a moral exis­tence—that is: to recognize his need of a moral code to guide the course and the fulfillment of his own life.

For a brief outline of the nature and the validation of a rational morality, see my lecture on “The Objectivist Eth­ics” which follows. The reasons why man needs a moral code will tell you that the purpose of morality is to define man’s proper values and interests, that concern with his own interests is the essence of a moral existence, and that man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions.

Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men’s actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessi­tates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors, of the moral to the immoral. Nothing could ever justify such a breach, and no one ever has.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Categories: Rand, Ayn