Problems with Ayn Rand's Derivation of Ought from Is
One of the features of Ayn RandŐs writing that first interested me was its claim to overcome David HumeŐs argument that one cannot deduce ought from is, reach normative results based only on the objective facts of reality. Looking over her argument as presented in John GaltŐs speech in Atlas Shrugged, I found it rhetorically impressive but logically mistaken. To show why, I will go through the argument step by step.
1. Existence as the value sought by
living things:
"There is only one fundamental alternative in
the universe: existence or non-existence--and it pertains to a single class of
entities: to living organisms. ... But a plant has no choice of action; ... :
it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own
destruction.
An animal ... . But so long as it lives, ... it is
unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as
its own destroyer."
The claim here is that living things other than human
beings automatically act for their own survival. That claim is false. A male
mantis, for example, mates, even though the final step of the process consists
of being eaten by the female. Female mammals get pregnant even though doing so
substantially reduces their chances of survival. If one is going to ascribe
values to non-human living things, the purpose of those values, on both
empirical and theoretical grounds, is not survival but reproductive success.
Of course, survival is usually a means to
reproductive success, so most living things most of the time are trying to
survive. But a living being that put survival above everything else would not
reproduce, so its descendants would not be around for Rand to use as evidence
in deriving oughts.
Some philosophies might dismiss the facts of
evolutionary biology as irrelevant to metaphysical argument. But Objectivism
claims to base its conclusions on the facts of reality, and the purported fact
with which Rand starts her argument is false.
2. Life or death as the fundamental
value choice:
"Since life requires a specific course of
action, any other course will destroy it. A being who does not hold his own
life as the motive and goal of his actions, is acting on the motive and
standard of death."
Consider someone following a value other than
Rand's--a utilitarian, say, or a nationalist. His life is not the motive and
goal of his actions, but it is usually a means to the achievement of his goal.
If he is not alive he can neither have utility himself nor act to increase the
utility of others, and similarly if his goal is the triumph of his nation. So
such people usually take the actions required by their own survival. But their
life is not their goal, as becomes apparent when they have an opportunity to
achieve their goal at the cost of their life—assassinate Hitler, say,
with the knowledge that they will die in the process.
It is not true that there is a specific course of
action required for life and any other course will destroy it. There are a
great many different courses of action which preserve life with varying degrees
of success. Rand's statement, taken literally, is contradicted by the facts of
reality. If such people were acting on the motive and standard of death they
would commit suicide at the first convenient opportunity and there would be
nobody but Objectivists left. That has not happened.
A more charitable interpretation is that Rand means
that if you do not take your life as your goal, you are choosing a little
death--a slightly higher probability of death, a somewhat shorter life
expectancy. That is a true statement, but the equivalent is equally true for
any value one might propose. The utilitarian could argue that a
non-utilitarian, by not acting in the way that maximizes human happiness, is
choosing a little misery. A utilitarian Galt could go on to assert that "A
being who does not hold the happiness of all men as the motive and goal of his
actions is acting on the motive and standard of human misery." His
argument would be as good, which is to say as bad, as Rand's.
3. The shift from life to life as
man qua man:
"Man's life is the standard of morality, but
your life is its purpose. If existence on earth is your goal, you must choose
your actions and values by the standard of that which is proper to man—for
the purpose of preserving, fulfilling and enjoying the irreplaceable value
which is your life."
(this passage actually precedes the one I quoted for
point 2)
This seems fairly clear. My life is the purpose of my
morality, so the reason that I must choose a certain sort of morality is that
that sort of morality is the best way of preserving, fulfilling and enjoying my
life. The puzzle is where "fulfilling and enjoying" come from, given
that the previous step hinged on the choice of existence or non-existence. By
the logic so far, "fulfilling and enjoying" belong in the argument
only as means to the goal of preserving. If I can show that your physical
survival is enhanced by an act that makes your life less fulfilling and less
enjoyable then, according to the argument up to this point, you should do it. A
means cannot trump the end it is a means to.
"No, you do not have to live as a man ... . But
you cannot live as anything else--and the alternative is ... the state of a
thing unfit for existence, no longer human and less than animal, a thing that
knows nothing but pain and drags itself through its span of years in the agony
of unthinking self-destruction."
At this point, Rand is using passionate oratory to
obscure a shift in the argument. She is claiming that someone who lives a full
lifespan "in the agony of unthinking self-destruction" is not really
acting for his life. But the fact that he lives a full span of life is evidence
that he is not in fact destroying himself. Somehow, something extra has been slipped
into the argument to convert "life" into "the kind of life Rand
thinks you should live," where the latter is not deducible from the
former.
4. The shift from surviving by
reason to Objectivist ethics:
"Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the
unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is
a value if obtained by fraud--that an attempt to gain a value by deceiving the
mind of others is an act of raising your victims to a position higher than
reality, where you become a pawn of their blindness, a slave of their
non-thinking and their evasions, while their intelligence, their rationality,
become the enemies you have to dread and flee ... ."
According to Rand, values are things you act to get
and keep; in that sense cash obtained by fraud is obviously a value for some
people. If we interpret "value" in this passage as meaning
"value for your life," hence "value of the sort Rand is arguing
you should seek," it is still puzzling. Money obtained by fraud will pay
for just as much food or medical service as money obtained honestly.
The rest of the quoted passage is a highly colored
exposition of a true point--that if you defraud people, you have to worry about
being detected. The problem is that Rand is drawing an absolute conclusion that
her argument does not justify. Different opportunities to defraud people have
different risks of detection, and victims vary in their ability to retaliate
against fraud if they detect it. The implication of the argument is not that
one should always be honest but that one should be prudent in one's
dishonesty--which is not, of course, the result Rand wants.
"To interpose the threat of physical destruction
between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his
means of survival; to force him to act against his own judgement, is like
forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or
extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death
... .
To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept
your will as a substitute, with a gun ... is to attempt to exist in defiance of
reality."
Using force against someone reduces his ability to
use his reason to preserve his life. Reality implies that the victim is less
likely to have a long and healthy life. But the coercer is not trying to defy
that reality--his objective is not his victim's life but his own.
I have pointed out what appear to me to be gaping
holes in the chain of reasoning by which Rand starts with the facts of reality
and ends with a specific set of ethical prescriptions banning force or fraud.
Over many years of argument, I have not yet found anyone able to fill them in.
My conclusion is that it cannot be done.
For the nearest approximation I can offer, an
argument that explains moral behavior but does not, philosophically speaking,
justify it, see the next chapter.