Objectivism 101 14th Annual Summer Seminar of The Objectivist Center Diana Mertz Hsieh Lecture Three: Life and Happiness Tuesday, July 1, 2003 Welcome Objectivism 101 Objectivism 101, 2002

Objectivism 101 Schedule Sunday Ayn Rand and Philosophy Monday Reality and Reason Tuesday Life and Happiness Wednesday The Virtues Thursday Individual Rights and Capitalism Friday Art as Spiritual Fuel Yesterday Metaphysics and epistemology Particularly PofE, God, reason, volition, perception, and logic Today Foundations of ethics. Ultimate values. Happiness. The role of moral principles. Exciting topic. Rereading “TOE” last night. Gripping. Personal revolution for me in college. Raised atheist. Consciously searching for ethics. Unsatisfied with secular humanism, with watered-down Christianity of altruism. AR novels were new and exciting. But power of ideas in “TOE” was almost overwhelming. Felt again last night. Hope to convey some of that feeling of excitement today. Focus on “TOE.” Foundational essay. Objectivism 101, 2002

Ethics Ethics is the branch of philosophy defining the values and virtues that guide choices and action. The central questions of ethics: What should I pursue in life? How should I pursue it? The What: A value is “that which one acts to gain and/or keep” The How: A virtue is “the act by which one gains and/or keeps [the value]” Is ethics amenable to rational demonstration? Ethics Start with some groundwork. Ethics is branch of philosophy that defines the values and virtues that guide choices and action. Answers third question of astronaut: What should I do? Two central questions of ethics: What should I pursue in life? How should I pursue it? Values are “the what.” Our ends. What act to gain and/or keep. Like food, shelter, scientific knowledge, concert tickets, skills of carpentry, friendship, and so on. Virtues are “the how.” Our means. The acts by which we gain and/or keep those values. Like honesty, courage, loyalty, alertness, rationality, and so on. The how and the what are central questions of ethics. The meat. What most interested in. But not AR’s first questions. Not starting points, as will see in moment. The Problem In opening pages of “TOE,” AR notes problem. Morality often thought of as exception to demands of objectivity. Not amenable to rational demonstration. Common view. Dr. Laura arguing that morality not possible without God, without commands from supreme being. If that true, then all metaphysics and epistemology from yesterday useless. No practical difference in everyday life. Throw away. But AR not budging inch on supremacy of reality and reason. Argues that morality can be based upon and lived by rational principles… and then proceeds to derive them. Let’s see how done. Objectivism 101, 2002

Why Do We Need Ethics? The most fundamental questions of ethics: What are values? Why does man need them? Values are “that which one acts to gain and/or keep” Values presuppose a “to whom?” and “for what?” All living creatures face a fundamental alternative of life versus death The sustenance of life requires constant action in accordance with the organism’s nature An organism’s life is its ultimate value Value AR says that ethics must begin with questions “What are values?” and “Why does man need them?” Already mentioned definition of value: that which one acts to gain and/or keep. Notes that concept value presupposes answer to two questions: To Whom? Who does the value benefit? Who is it for? For What? What is purpose of value? What’s the point? AR says that “to whom” is always living organism and “for what” is its life. Why? Life Versus Death Basic reason is that all living creatures – and only living creatures – face fundamental alternative of life or death. If alive, then have all manner of choices. Drinking strawberry or chocolate milkshake. Attending Harvard or Yale. Adopting a dog or cat. Working for money or going on welfare. But if dead, then game over. No alternatives. No choices. No values to pursue. No virtues needed to pursue them. And so no need for ethics. Ethics is for the living. Sustaining Life But sustaining life not easy task. Requires constant action in accordance with organism’s nature. If stop eating, die in few weeks, after fuel from body used up. Not bear, so can’t hibernate. If stop drinking, just few days before death by dehydration. Not camel, so can’t store water. If go underwater without equipment, just few minutes before drown. Not fish, lungs not gills. Don’t mean to be morbid. Want to focus attention on fact that death can be only moments away, if fail to do what necessary to sustain life given own human biological nature. Ultimate Value Given this background of deep connection between value and life, AR argues that life is ultimate value. Means that what out to pursue above all else. Should be goal of all actions. After all, what makes goals and values even possible. Another way of thinking is that all plans and goals subordinate to the pursuit of own life because must be alive to pursue anything at all. Must be alive to eat donuts, contribute to charity, study philosophy, buy a house, and so on. So life is the ultimate value. Own life what we should pursue above all else because can’t pursue anything else without being alive. Objectivism 101, 2002

Ayn Rand on Life and Value “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 every moment, is the organism’s life. “An ultimate value is the final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means—and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.” — Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics” AR encapsulated this argument in writing in “TOE”: “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 every moment, is the organism’s life.” Then drew critical inference that life is standard of value: “An ultimate value is the final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means—and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil. (AR VOS 16-17). Practical Implications Life as standard of value is critical point of Objectivist ethics. Critical for theoretical structure. But also critical to everyday choices. Say that aunt dies. Inherit $5000. All sorts of options of how to spend. Could buy lots of heroin and get really, really high. Could buy cool new stereo system. Could invest money for retirement. Could donate to local church, soup kitchen, or Democratic Party. Could use as seed money for small business. Could use for tuition for school. Life as standard helps us choose between those options. Asks us: Which of these will most promote my life? Which of these will destroy it? More details about practical applications later today – and tomorrow too. Objectivism 101, 2002

The Challenge for Humans Non-conscious organisms (plants and lower animals) “survive by means of their automatic physical functions” Non-rational organisms (higher animals) survive on the basis of perception, association, the pleasure/pain mechanism, learned skills, and so on Humans must use reason to discover how to sustain their lives in the short and long terms The life we pursue must be consonant with our distinct human needs, including those of the body and the mind Non Conceptual So far, mostly just talked about organisms in general, not humans. But humans do pose unique challenge because operate on conceptual level of awareness. Knowledge not automatic, as discussed yesterday. Organisms without consciousness (lower animals and plants) “survive by means of their automatic physical functions.” Plants turn leaves towards light by simple chemical process. If conditions change too radically, become inhospitable, little action possible. Likely will die. Organisms with consciousness but not reason (higher animals like dogs) survive by means of perception, association, the pleasure/pain mechanism, learned skills, and so on. Dogs were trained to use doggie door. Not innate. But know that path to freedom to great outdoors or comfort of indoors. Still very limited. Haven’t figured out how to open fridge yet. If not there to feed, likely wouldn’t survive long by chasing rabbits. With both plants and non-human animals, point is that values pretty much built in. In normal circumstances, automatically guided towards actions conductive to survival. If weren’t, species would have died out ages ago. Conceptual Humans completely different story. Conceptual level of awareness. No automatic knowledge of how to sustain life. Merely being cold from rain won’t tell us how to build a house with a nice big furnace. But reason will, if used properly, as discussed yesterday. If exert effort of focus, ground in facts, and apply method of logic can learn how to sustain life in long and short term. Some don’t bother. Some do badly. So means that act self-destructively. Become addicted to heroin, treat friends badly, stay in abusive relationships, fail to study for midterms, and so on. To live moral life, must use reason to discover our human needs – and how to meet them. Those needs ill include needs of body, like food, shelter, and government. And needs of mind, like education, visibility, and art. Basic purpose of ethics. A “how-to manual” for life. Guidance on how to be successful in our pursuit of life. Objectivism 101, 2002

The Nature of Happiness “Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values” “Happiness is the successful state of life, suffering is the warning signal of failure, of death” Emotions and Happiness In last lecture, presented Objectivist view of emotions. Not tools of cognition. Don’t give us facts about world. But tell us about own values, about what regard as for us and what regard as against us. Bullet holes in flesh bad. Donuts good. Because connected to values, emotions have special role to play in ethics. Happiness is particular focus. Happiness and Suffering Happiness is emotion that results from achieving values. Perhaps from accomplishment. Think of happiness of finishing major project at work or crossing off whole list of weekend chores on Sunday night. Done! Also more in-the-moment happiness of walk in woods, of taking time to enjoy sights and sounds. Enjoying what life has to offer. This happiness is end-in-itself. Needs no further justification. Doesn’t need to serve society as a whole or the kingdom of God or Mother Earth or whatnot. Simply to be enjoyed! Happiness has counterpart: suffering. Way that experience loss of values in life. As AR said: “Happiness is the successful state of life, suffering is the warning signal of failure, of death” Doesn’t mean that if suffering, then done something wrong. Suffer with death of loved ones. As should be. Life has been diminished, harmed by loss. Broader point is that happiness is natural state of affairs for moral person, because that person will be successful in pursuit of rational life and supporting values. Living in accordance with the facts about the world and about human nature. All actions integrated to ultimate end of life. Naturally a happy life overall. Death, disaster, and misfortune will still happen. But not cause of own suffering in way that drug abuser is. Objectivism 101, 2002

Life and Happiness “The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value and one’s own happiness as one’s highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement. Existentially, the activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one’s life; psychologically, its result, reward and concomitant is an emotional state of happiness. It is by experiencing happiness that one lives ones life, in any hour, year or the whole of it. And when one experiences the kind of pure happiness that is an end in itself—the kind that makes one think: “This is worth living for”—what is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself.” — Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics” Happiness and Life So for AR, life and happiness intricately linked in ethics. Basic view is that really part of single package. Life is ultimate value and standard of value. Happiness is purpose and reward of moral life. She writes: “The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value and one’s own happiness as one’s highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement. Existentially [in reality], the activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one’s life; psychologically [in the mind], its result, reward and concomitant is an emotional state of happiness. It is by experiencing happiness that one lives ones life, in any hour, year or the whole of it. And when one experiences the kind of pure happiness that is an end in itself—the kind that makes one think: “This is worth living for”—what is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself [that ultimate values].” (AR VOS 29) Might ask why happiness itself can’t be standard. Easier. Basic reason goes back to Objectivist view of emotions, that not tools of cognition. Happiness and suffering tell us what we value. But don’t tell us whether those values are rational or not, whether really promote life or not. Purpose of moral life, why keep going, why life worth living. But can’t serve as standard. Not objective. Objectivism 101, 2002

From Life to Egoism Life is the ultimate value and thus the standard of value Happiness is the reward for a moral life and the purpose of life The Objectivist ethics is a form of egoism Review So far, know that: Life is the ultimate value and the standard of value in ethics. Happiness is the reward for a moral life and an end-in-itself. Egoism Means that Objectivist ethics is egoistic theory. Regards self as proper beneficiary of moral action. That ought to act in own self-interest. Just what egoism means. Objectivism 101, 2002

Self-Interest We always ought to pursue our long-term self-interest How do we determine what is in our self-interest? What values and virtues will promote our life and happiness? Three answers: Authority: “Follow the tried and true” Emotion: “Do whatever makes you happy” Reason: “Just the facts, ma’am” We ought to determine our values and virtues through a rational investigation of human nature and the world Self-Interest All egoists, Objectivists included, concerned with pursuing self-interest. Questions is: How discover what is self-interest and what not? How can we know what will promote our life and happiness and what will destroy it? Three possible answers: Authority, Emotion, and Reason. Discussed yesterday. Authoritarian Egoism Some people say: You should follow the lead of tradition, of what is tried and true. Look to past as guidance to present. Seek advice of experts. So young man becomes Baptist despite reservations because everyone in family is Baptist. Yielding to family pressure to follow tradition. Even some Objectivists just follow party line. Just need to know what LP or AR thought on issue. On this view, others more wise and knowledgeable than us, so should follow their lead. But as noted yesterday, authorities just as fallible as we are. AR got much right, but not God. So authorities not good guide to self-interest. Emotional Egoism More common than appeals to authority are appeals to emotion. People say: Do whatever makes you happy. Follow your heart. No real right and wrong, no facts to consult. So heed your desires. So if smoking makes you happy, then smoke. If not, then don’t smoke. If religion is comfort in troubled times, then keep the faith. If not, then don’t. Following emotions reliable, as if have special insight. But as mentioned with happiness, only tell us what already value. Don’t tell us what actually good and bad for us. So emotions not reliable guide to self-interest either. Rational Egoists Obvious choice here is reason. We need to look at the facts of reality and use reason determine what promotes our lives and happiness. Not relying upon emotions or authorities, but on our own independent and rational judgment of facts about human nature and world we live in. Reason is only source of knowledge, including knowledge about our self-interest. So central task of Objectivist ethics is rationally determining our values (goals) and virtues (means). Need to look at facts about human nature and facts about world. Let’s start with rational values. Objectivism 101, 2002

Values of Life and Happiness Rational values are the things that act to gain and/or keep consistent with life as ultimate value Material values Food, shelter, medicine, wealth, water Spiritual values Art, philosophy, self-confidence, knowledge, creativity Social values Friendship, dissemination of knowledge, trade, love Rational Values Remember that defined values in beginning of lecture as things that we act to gain and/or keep. So rational values are the things that act to gain and/or keep consistent with life as ultimate value. Rational values can take many forms. Material values like food, shelter, medicine, wealth, water. Values that will die without. Very clear connection to life and happiness. But these material values don’t just grow on trees for us to gather whenever we like. Need to use faculty of reason to achieve them. That fact necessitates whole second order of values: spiritual values. (Spiritual doesn’t have supernatural meaning in Objectivism. Just means related to consciousness.) Spiritual values include knowledge, skills, art, philosophy, and self-confidence. These values help us pursue material values. After all, can’t build shelter if don’t have knowledge of suitable materials or skills required for construction. And these spiritual values also help our faculty of reason function well. If don’t have self-confidence, then unlikely to rely upon own judgments. And without knowledge of logic, will likely make all sorts of errors in reasoning. So need spiritual values. And also have social values like friendship, dissemination of knowledge, trade, romantic love. Values that gained from interactions with other people. These values might be material or spiritual in nature. If a value promotes life and happiness in the usual circumstances of life, then worth pursuing! Objectivism 101, 2002

Virtues of Life and Happiness Rational virtues are the characteristic means by which we achieve values that promote life The eight major Objectivist virtues: Rationality Productiveness Independence Honesty Justice Benevolence Integrity Pride The Eight Major Virtues But how do we achieve those values? Through the virtues! Virtues are acts by which we gain and/or keep values. Looking long-term, are characteristic means by which we achieve the values that promote life and happiness. Eight major virtues in Objectivism. These are major virtues because apply very broadly to daily life. Have to use them all the time, every day to achieve those rational values. These virtues are: Rationality Productiveness Independence Honesty Justice Benevolence Integrity Pride Will discuss meaning and application of each of these virtues tomorrow. Objectivism 101, 2002

Moral Principles We determine self-interest through reason Moral principles are general ethical truths We need moral principles in order to make ethical choices quickly and accurately Moral principles identify the long-range goals and means of achieving them that promote life and happiness in the usual circumstances of life Reason and Moral Principles In thinking about ethics, often conceptually separate out values and virtues. But deeply connected. Values are ends, virtues are means. So in Objectivism, also talk about moral principles. Unite both in single idea. Key to everyday guidance as to how to promote life and happiness. So a moral principle might be: “Honesty with a friend promotes trust in the relationship.” Or: “Courage is necessary to overcome dangers.” Such moral principles summarize and encapsulate what is in self-interest over course of lifetime – and what is not. Why We Need Moral Principles Some people say: Life is too complex and varied for moral absolutes or moral principles. Have to make determinations of self-interest based on particulars of the moment. Do cost-benefit analysis right then and there. But need moral principles precisely because life is so complex and varied. Can’t possibly weigh all relevant factors impacting life and happiness in both short and long term in the few seconds that usually have to make a decision. Just think of trying to figure out all potential consequences of choice between honesty and dishonesty with friend in 2 seconds that have to answer question. Impossible! But can do some of that thinking in advance by forming moral principles. Then don’t have to labor through all those costs and benefits with every major and minor decision. Can get on with the business of living life! Egoistic Principles Looking more deeply at nature of moral principles in Objectivism, we say that moral principles identify the long-range goals and means of achieving them that promote life and happiness in the usual circumstances of life. That’s complex, so let’s unpack it. First: Principles need to identify both values and virtues, both goals and means of achieving those goals. So principle “Honesty with a friend promotes trust in the relationship” identifies trust in friendships as the value and honesty as the virtue. Second: Principles need to be consistent with standard of life and happiness. Don’t want moral principles that tell us how to achieve suffering and death, after all! Principle about honesty with friends consistent with that standard because friendships do promote life and happiness. Third: Principles need to identify the important values and virtues over the long-term, not just at this moment. If want to live a long-life, then need to be planning over course of that life. So might sometimes be difficult in short run to be honest with friends, to give them bad news or whatnot. But only good long-term policy if want to have friends at all. Fourth: Principles to be used everyday need to be formed from everyday circumstances of life. So wouldn’t want to say that because might be in self-interest to lie to friend about Jews hidden in attic during Third Reich that therefore okay to lie to friend anytime. Life under totalitarian dictatorship is not “normal life.” Perpetual emergency. So good moral principles identify the long-range goals and means of achieving them that promote life and happiness in the usual circumstances of life. Objectivism 101, 2002

Integration in Ethics The Objectivist ethics unifies… The moral and the practical Theory and practice Reason and emotion More generally, Objectivism rejects the “mind-body dichotomy” Peikoff Story In first lecture, used story of LP asking AR question about TF to highlight her qualities as philosopher. Question he asked was: Was Roark a moral or a practical person? Now that discussed basic ethics, will be able to see why question confused, why not either-or situation in Objectivism. Common divide in philosophy and religion between mind and body. Says that mind totally different from and inherently opposed to matter. And mind superior. In ethics, generates three common dichotomies: between moral and practical, between theory and practice, and between reason and emotion. Moral, theory, and reason associated with mind. And practical, practice and emotion associated with body. So idea is that ethic can be either one or other of pair but not both. Objectivism rejects that idea. Ethics does integrate these apparent opposites. Moral and Practical First: People typically view morality as belonging to a higher, spiritual realm. So not likely to bring happiness here on this earth. Think of Christian idea that easier for camel to pass through eye of needle than for rich man to go to heaven. Morality just what we must do, even if doesn’t work in practice. But in Objectivism, say that “the moral is the practical.” Moral and practical really just two perspectives on same basic fact that need to act in certain way to lead long and happy life. So if moral principles not working in practice, time to rethink moral principles! Moral and practical integrated. Reason and Emotion Second: People also typically view reason and emotion as naturally opposed to each other. Reason requires being unemotional. Emotion pushes out reason. Like clashes between logical Mr. Spock and emotional Dr. McCoy on Star Trek. Always butting heads. But in Objectivist ethics, reason tells us that life is standard of value – and whether actions meeting that standard. Emotion of happiness also registers that success or failure. So if reason and emotion misaligned, if in conflict, then sign that something wrong that needs fixing. So reason and emotion integrated. Theory and Practice Third: People often make hard distinction between theory and practice. Say that moral ideal like communism might be all well and good in theory, but not work in practice in Soviet Union. Means that theories really don’t have much to do with facts. In Objectivism, values, virtues, and moral principles grounded in fact about human nature, about how to live life successfully. Theory must match practice or theory bad. Theory and practice integrated. Summary So Objectivist ethics integrates these apparently opposing forces. Best of both worlds – or rather one world: reality. Objectivism 101, 2002

Social Ethics Social ethics concerns our interactions with other people How should we interact with other people? Social Ethics So would like to turn attention now to social ethics, to ethics as pertains to our interactions with other people. The major question here is: How should we interact with other people? Objectivism 101, 2002

The Necessity of Sacrifice? Option One Sacrifice others to yourself “Might makes right” Mastery over others Egoism?!? Inherent conflicts of interest Option Two Sacrifice yourself to others “Service to others” Servitude to others Altruism Inherent conflicts of interest Two Ways of Interacting Far too many people see only two ways of interacting with others. Either sacrifice others to self or sacrifice self to others. Sacrifice Others to Self Option one is sacrificing others to yourself. So step on necks. Do whatever you have to do survive and get ahead. So the strong will and ought to rule the weak because might makes right. Ethical ideal of mastery over others. Examples from history include Genghis Khan, Stalin, Hitler. Even GW from TF exemplified this ethic in attempting to manipulate and gain control over the masses through The Banner. Form of eogism. Irrational egoism. Sacrifice Self to Others Option two is sacrificing yourself to others. Devote yourself to the welfare of other people. The meek shall inherit the earth. Ethical ideal of servitude to others. Some examples found in Jesus, Mother Theresa, and martyrs of Christianity. Or CH, ET’s niece in TF, serving social causes greater than her small and insignificant self. Straightforward altruism. The Only Options Problem is that these two views presented as only options. AR saw as false dichotomy. Described both as “moral cannibalism.” Only difference that outside pot in Option 1 and inside pot in Option 2. Argued that both presumed “the happiness of one man necessitates the injury of another.” Idea of inherent conflicts of interest. Conflicts of Interest To say that people have inherent conflicts of interest means that if you pursue own interests, then frustrating mine. And if I pursue my interests, then frustrating yours. Life is zero sum game where someone has to win and someone has to lose. There has to be sacrifice, the only question is who to sacrifice. See example of this idea of inherent conflicts of interest all the time. Parents who put young kids in highly competitive sports because as adults, will be in that dog-eat-dog, win or lose world. In argument that businesses ought to “give back to the community.” Presumption there that businesses prospered by taking so much from community, not fair exchange. Or in view of “robber barons.” Those big industrialists of decades past were getting rich by stealing from the poor. On this view, values (particularly wealth) like physical matter, never created or destroyed. Just change forms, just changes hands. But this whole idea of conflicts of interest is totally wrong! And so choice between Option One and Option Two is false alternative! Objectivism 101, 2002

Option Three: Trade Values (including wealth) can be created and destroyed There are no necessary conflicts of interest for those who live by production and trade Trade is voluntary exchange to mutual benefit Trades can be material and/or spiritual Destroying and Creating Values Values and wealth not like matter in universe. Can be created and destroyed. Think of building a log cabin out of trees of forest. Have created shelter to protect you from elements. Trees weren’t doing you much good in original form. So have created a value that will contribute positive benefit your life in building shelter. But then think of forest fire destroying that log cabin. Reduced to ash. The value that was your shelter is gone! Kaput! Destroyed! So values needed for life and happiness can be and are created and destroyed. Living by Production and Trade Recognizing this fact, Objectivism says that for people who live life by producing and creating values, there is no need for sacrifice. Can interact by trading those created values, so that everyone better off. So when I buy bagel at local bagel shop, no one is sacrificed to anyone else. And I want the bagel more than the dollar in my wallet. And bagel store owner wants my dollar more than wants to keep bagel. So we trade. And both better off. So through production and trade, one person’s benefit doesn’t come at anyone else’s expense. That’s the essence of trade: voluntary exchange of values to mutual benefit. So no necessary conflicts of interest. For people who live by production and trade, there is instead a general harmony of interests. Trades as Material and Spiritual Of course, normally think of trades as something that do in business relationships, like with bagel shop. But also trade in personal, spiritual matters too. In friendship, might be trading time, attention, information, advice, and emotional support over the course of years. Make this point clear in negative: Think of friendship where one friend does all taking and other friend does all giving. That isn’t genuine friendship. Relationship of using and manipulation precisely because not based on trade. So can trade in both material and spiritual relationships. Rational Egoism So this is Option Three. Rational egoism in social setting. Called “The Trader Principle.” Such production and trade is only method of interacting with others that consistent with standard of life and happiness. Objectivism 101, 2002

The Ethic of the Trader “A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. He does not treat men as masters or slaves, but as independent equals. He deals with men by means of a free, voluntary, unforced, uncoerced exchange - an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgment. A trader does not expect to be paid for his defaults, only for his achievements. He does not switch to others the burden of his failures, and he does not mortgage his life into bondage to the failures of others.” — Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics” The Ethic of the Trader AR described mentality of trader in “TOE” as follows: “A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. He does not treat men as masters or slaves, but as independent equals. He deals with men by means of a free, voluntary, unforced, uncoerced exchange - an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgment. A trader does not expect to be paid for his defaults, only for his achievements. He does not switch to others the burden of his failures, and he does not mortgage his life into bondage to the failures of others.” This is social ideal found in AS… in Galt’s Gulch. Really encapsulated in oath required to stay in valley. Objectivism 101, 2002

John Galt’s Oath The Oath of Galt’s Gulch: “I swear—by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” In social ethics, Objectivism advocates… Not sacrificing of others to oneself Not sacrificing of oneself to others But creating and trading values John Galt’s Oath It says: “I swear—by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” So trade is model of human interaction in Objectivism. Not sacrificing of others to oneself. Not sacrificing of oneself to others. But creating values through productive work and voluntarily trading those values to mutual advantage. Win-win ethic. Objectivism 101, 2002

The Summary of Ethics “The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.” — Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged Looking Back Best summary of what discussed today found in simple quote from Galt’s Speech in AS. “The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.” Pretty radical idea, given history of ethics, particularly religious ethics! Objectivism 101, 2002

Today’s Topics Ethics The purpose of ethics Life as the ultimate value and standard of value Happiness as the reward for a moral life and purpose of life Rational self-interest Values, virtues, and moral principles Integration (of mind and body) in ethics Sacrifice versus production and trade Questions Open floor up for questions. On screen have listing of topics that covered today, but can ask about just about anything! Objectivism 101, 2002