This post is the first in a series where I will be learning out loud, or learning in public (although I don’t think too many people are going to randomly stumble on my blog). I am going to be reading and writing my notes on the book, Objectivism the Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR for short) by Leonard Peikoff.
I first became interested in reading Rand’s work as I was churning through the excellent fantasy series, Sword of Truth, by Terry Goodkind. I remember saying to myself that the sense I got from his books was a sense of “Libertarianism with a backbone.” Since then, my appreciation for Rand’s work has greatly increased, as I’ve been able to enjoy real, tangible benefits from applying her philosophy and, in particular, her ethics. And now I want to pursue a more formal and serious consideration of her philosophy.
Why Philosophy?
The book opens with the question of why anyone should care about philosophy. It seems appropriate because if I shouldn’t care about philosophy, then I shouldn’t care about this book. The answer that Peikoff posits is that everyone, every individual, forms abstract principles. We have no choice in the matter, and that our only choice is whether our principles are true or false, rational or irrational, consistent with each other or contradictory.
I as I see it, people frequently adopt contradictory principles. This is what leads to the entire issue of so called morale dilemmas. After all, what is a moral dilemma other than finding yourself stuck in a situation where your morales are in conflict? Do you follow moral A and go against moral B? Or do you follow moral B and go against moral A?
A Failure of Morality
But if my moral principles make it possible to find myself in a moral dilemma, then that is a failure of my morality. Let me put that another way, and I know I’m borrowing from some of Rand’s work which comes later in the book.
What is the purpose of morality? The purpose is to guide human action. The purpose is to bring clarity around which course of action we should choose in a given situation. So, if I can find myself in a situation where my principles conflict with each other, then I have no clarity around my choice. I’m left in a dilemma with no way to proceed forward. Thus, my moral principles can offer me no guidance, and they have failed in their purpose.
The Role of Philosophy
Peikoff posits that the role of philosophy is to integrate the abstract principles that we form. This concept of integration is recurrent through Objectivism. Here, I take it to mean that the various moral principles I form all operate in concert with each other, and that there is no possibility of conflict.
If I hold such principles, then no matter what situation I find myself in, my principles offer clear, non-contradictory guidance. No dilemmas to worry about! That is quite a promise, and it’s something that I think anyone would be interested in.
Ryan Sawatzky 