Rachels's Argument Against Ethical Egoism

[PRN 0]

James Rachels, Ph.D. (1941-2003) was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. His book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003) is being used as a text in one of my philosophy classes.

In this book he discusses ethical egoism, and even includes a section on Ayn Rand. His final analysis is that egoism fails as a moral theory, and this conclusion is based on an argument which, he claims, "comes closest to an outright refutation of Ethical Egoism." The argument is as follows:

" The Argument That Ethical Egoism is Unacceptably Arbitrary. Ethical Egoism [...] advocates that each of us divide the world into two categories of people—ourselves and all the rest—and that we regard the interests of those in the first group as more important than the interests of those in the second group. But each of us can ask, what is the difference between me and everyone else that justifies placing myself in this special category? Am I more intelligent? Do I enjoy my life more? [...] In short, what makes me so special? Failing an answer, it turns out that Ethical Egoism is an arbitrary doctrine in the same way that racism is arbitrary. [...] It is this realization, that we are on a par with one another, that is the deepest reason why our morality must include some recognition of the needs of others, and why, then, Ethical Egoism fails as a moral theory." (89)

The first thing that struck me was that Rachels's argument contradicted a primary fact which I was aware of, and no amount of words on paper can refute the metaphysically given. In any clash between directly perceived reality and a chain of reasoning, one ought to conclude the chain of reasoning flawed, and choose reality. My reply to an argument like this would be as follows:

What makes me so special? A primary, metaphysically given fact about the relationship between existence and consciousness does. This relationship, which can be expressed as a principle, is a corollary of existence and consciousness, and is true of all conscious beings. The principle is this: for each and every individual conscious organism, it is only through that organism’s own consciousness that it can be aware of existence. Thus existence is fundamentally tied, for that organism, to its own consciousness, and for that organism cannot be separated from it.

This fact is so fundamental and so simple that every person has always experienced it, and perceives it directly with every act of awareness. I cannot separate existence from my consciousness—for me being as such is permanently tied to my own awareness. For me, the world can only be perceived by me. Only through my own eyes can I see and only through my own mind can I think. To put it wider, it is only through my consciousness that I am aware of existence. If my consciousness ceases to be, the rest of existence will go on without me, but for me it will be as if existence itself had ceased to exist. For any conscious organism the oblivion of its own consciousness equates—in consequence—to the oblivion of all existence. This makes me very special indeed.

This is also why my interests should more important to me than the interests of others. And so it should be for each individual person. I value my own life above all else while simultaneously understanding that other individuals should attach the same value to their own lives. Because it is only through each individual's own consciousness that existence can be experienced, each individual should value their own life above all else.

Therefore, far from being “unacceptably arbitrary” ethical egoism is necessitated by one of the most fundamental facts of reality. And this is why, then, Rachel’s argument fails as an objection to ethical egoism.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Rachels argument involves a stolen concept.

An arbitrary argument is a bad argument? By what standard? "Egoism" fails to give a reason why the egoist is better than other people? Better by what standard? Rachels never specifies what his standard of value is. He just smuggles it in.

The answer to Rachels is Ayn Rand's "It is only the concept of life that makes the concept of value possible." Any other ethical standard, implicit or explicit, upfront or "stolen," IS arbitrary.

As Patrick points out, the life of an organism is sustained by IT'S OWN actions. Life is a process of SELF-sustaining, SELF-generated actions. Living things, by their nature, require egoism.

[DavidOdden 0]

I haven't seen this book or argument apart from your post, but it strikes me as so bizarre and silly that I'm surprised anyone would make it. Perhaps his mother never taught him that it's rude to answer a question with a question. It is psychologically well justified, and what better reason is there for making that distinction? I am self aware -- I am not you-aware, or him-aware, or them-aware. Do I enjoy my life more? Of course! I don't enjoy or in any way experience his life, or your life, I can only enjoy and experience my life. His invocation of racism was an academic tantrum, and it's a really sloppy use of analogy. Racism isn't arbitrary, it is wrong: it asserts factual untruths. He hasn't even tried to make any factual claims about egoism.

You've said it well.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

" The Argument That Ethical Egoism is Unacceptably Arbitrary. Ethical Egoism [...] advocates that each of us divide the world into two categories of people—ourselves and all the rest—and that we regard the interests of those in the first group as more important than the interests of those in the second group. But each of us can ask, what is the difference between me and everyone else that justifies placing myself in this special category? Am I more intelligent? Do I enjoy my life more? [...] In short, what makes me so special? Failing an answer, it turns out that Ethical Egoism is an arbitrary doctrine in the same way that racism is arbitrary. [...]

←

Patrick, in addition to your own original and solid argument, plus Betsy and David's comments, I would suggest the following possible leads (not solutions) for critiquing his argument, if you need more:

1. There is a hint of his own subjectivism in his initial approach of assuming that the egoist would "divide the world" rather than look at the world, recognize his own existence and the existence of others, and then proceed to value both himself and others (for what they can trade). (Note too Rachel's talk of needs, not trade -- thus suggesting that he is assuming altruism and thus is arguing in a circle.) This hint might deserve further philosophical detection if you are critiquing a longer passage than what you have shown.

2. There is more than a hint of the fallacy of self-reference (an example of which is: "Don't tell other people what to do!"). Who is he to think he is so special as to offer an argument against others' views?

3. Beware of rhetorical tricks. Note that when he says -- "Failing an answer, it turns out that Ethical Egoism is an arbitrary doctrine ..." -- my response must be: Of course. "Failing [that is, not supplying] an answer" when asked is what "arbitrary" means. That is like saying: "When a statement is not true it is false." I note also that his reference to racism suggests a possible argument by intimidation: egoists and racists are in the same group: The Politically Incorrect.

From the excerpt you have provided, I would also suspect that the historical and philosophical roots of Rachel's position go back through John Rawls, Theory of Justice, to Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. (For Rawls, see Ayn Rand, "An Untitled Letter," Philosophy: Who Needs It, pp. 123-144.

[tdonadio 0]

" The Argument That Ethical Egoism is Unacceptably Arbitrary. Ethical Egoism [...] advocates that each of us divide the world into two categories of people—ourselves and all the rest—and that we regard the interests of those in the first group as more important than the interests of those in the second group. But each of us can ask, what is the difference between me and everyone else that justifies placing myself in this special category? Am I more intelligent? Do I enjoy my life more? [...] In short, what makes me so special?

One of the things that makes this "argument" so strange is that there is a very simple and obvious answer to it -- but one that requires an objective, as opposed to intrinsic, approach to values. "What's makes me so special" -- to whom? Rachels assumes an intrinsicist approach to value -- that what makes one "special" (valuable) has to be a intrinsically so, apart from any answer to the question "to whom and for what?" Once one recognizes the crucial roles of valuer and purpose in ethics, the answer to Rachels' objection becomes absurdly obvious. What makes me so special to me is the fact that I'm me. Life is the standard of value, and it is a characteristic of individual living organisms.

[PRN 0]

Rachels thinks that to apply reason to morality requires impartiality. This is a theme which operates throughout Rachels’s entire book. He makes this explicit in the first chapter, calling it the “Requirement of Impartiality.” He states:

“Almost every important theory of morality includes the idea of impartiality. The basic idea is that each individual’s interests are equally important; from within the moral point of view, there are no privileged persons. Therefore, each of us must acknowledge that other people’s welfare is just as important as our own.” (13)

A single question wipes this whole argument out: “Just as important” to whom? Since Rachels apparently has no understanding of where the concept of “value” comes from, his concept of “important” is a floating abstraction, detached from importance to anyone in particular.

He does recognize that, “Our lives are important to us. We are creatures with desires, needs, plans, and hopes.” (192) It is strange that he is aware of this, yet does not attempt to square it with his demand for “impartiality.” He holds onto his demand for “impartiality” in spite of this recognition.

This moral “impartiality” leads Rachels to all kinds of bizarre conclusions:

“Nonhuman animals must be given weight in our moral calculations […] excluding creatures from moral consideration because of their species is no more justified than excluding them because of race, nationality, or sex. Impartiality requires the expansion of the moral community […] across the boundaries of species.”(200)

“A satisfactory theory would […] be appropriately modest about the place of human beings in the scheme of things.”(192)

He then goes on to talk about such morally irrelevant things as the age of the universe, the biological history of the earth and how in geological time humans “arrived only yesterday.” None of this has anything to do with morality, apart from the bizarre demand for moral “impartiality.” By separating values from anyone to whom anything can be of value, Rachels is lead by logical necessity to a moral view which is so sweeping in its impartiality that it does not even value human life any more than any other part of existence. This is a cold, blank view of morality devoid of values altogether.

[DavidOdden 0]

Rachels thinks that to apply reason to morality requires impartiality.

....

“Almost every important theory of morality includes the idea of impartiality. The basic idea is that each individual’s interests are equally important; from within the moral point of view, there are no privileged persons.

Heh! Known as begging the question (combined with argumentum ad vericundiam, from a social perspective). This is kind of frightening, given how ethics is supposed to be one of the strengths of the department. What does "impartial" mean? Does he define the term? (Is the instructor open to such a challenge?)

[PRN 0]

Heh! Known as begging the question (combined with argumentum ad vericundiam, from a social perspective). This is kind of frightening, given how ethics is supposed to be one of the strengths of the department.    What does "impartial" mean? Does he define the term? (Is the instructor open to such a challenge?)

←

Rachels never defines the term. I suppose it couldn't hurt to ask for a definition in class.

One thing that I find hard to believe is my instructor's own lack of understanding on the subject of egoism. He actually said today that a successful marriage requires unselfishness, because a selfish person would never care about the interests of his spouse! Amazing.

I pointed out that a person who truly valued his spouse would be morally required by the standards of ethical egoism to care deeply about her. The spouse's well being is obviously in his self interest...

To my instructor's credit his only response was: "Well, that's true."

I feel like an anthropologist from some future civilization coming to 21st century America to study the backward, primitive state of philosophy there.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

One thing that I find hard to believe is my instructor's own lack of understanding on the subject of egoism. He actually said today that a successful marriage requires unselfishness, because a selfish person would never care about the interests of his spouse! Amazing.

Patrick, you should not assume that what he means by "selfish" is the same as your own meaning. Perhaps by "selfish" your instructor means a thoughtless person with no concern for the interests and values of others. (This is close to standard dictionary meaning.) Rational self-interest is not what most people understand by "selfish."

I pointed out that a person who truly valued his spouse would be morally required by the standards of ethical egoism to care deeply about her. The spouse's well being is obviously in his self interest...

To my instructor's credit his only response was: "Well, that's true."

Sounds like he may have been agreeing with what he thought was your agreement with him.

I feel like an anthropologist from some future civilization coming to 21st century America to study the backward, primitive state of philosophy there.

←

That may be true, but when we use words with non-standard meanings (meanings contrary to standard dictionary usage), it is encumbent upon us to make our meaning clear. I am not at all sure that your instructor actually thinks differently about marriage than you do.

[PRN 0]

I've been thinking in terms of selfishness as rational self-interest for so many years I sometimes forget that other people use the term differently.

I'll ask the instructor if he uses "self-interest" and "selfishness" to mean the same thing, or not.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I'll ask the instructor if he uses "self-interest" and "selfishness" to mean the same thing, or not.

←

Be careful, though. He may not have a clear understanding of what self-interest really is. Sometimes professors can be half-decent in identifying what is wrong (as yours may possibly have done in the marriage example), but not be very good in grasping what is right.

[Dufresne 0]

" The Argument That Ethical Egoism is Unacceptably Arbitrary. Ethical Egoism [...] advocates that each of us divide the world into two categories of people—ourselves and all the rest—and that we regard the interests of those in the first group as more important than the interests of those in the second group. But each of us can ask, what is the difference between me and everyone else that justifies placing myself in this special category? Am I more intelligent? Do I enjoy my life more? [...] In short, what makes me so special? Failing an answer, it turns out that Ethical Egoism is an arbitrary doctrine in the same way that racism is arbitrary. [...] It is this realization, that we are on a par with one another, that is the deepest reason why our morality must include some recognition of the needs of others, and why, then, Ethical Egoism fails as a moral theory." (89)

James Rachels asks his readers to ask themselves what makes them "special". As examples for being "special" he uses greater intelligence and higher enjoyment of life. Would Rachels advocate ethical egoism for individuals who are in fact "special" according to his definition of the term? Would he say that the most intelligent individual on earth should be an egoist? Or the individual who enjoys life the most?

I believe it is no accident that he mentioned racism in this context. Don't racists believe that their own race is better than other races and justify their subjugation of other races with it? I think he rejects ethical egoism because he fears that as soon as an individual or a race is considered "special" by the individual or the members of the given race, this would justify that the individual/race sacrifices other individuals/races to himself.

But why should the more intelligent person, the person who enjoys life more than others want to sacrifice others to himself?

[SteveGrossman 0]

One of the things that makes this "argument" so strange is that there is a very simple and obvious answer to it -- but one that requires an objective, as opposed to intrinsic, approach to values. "What's makes me so special" -- to whom? Rachels assumes an intrinsicist approach to value -- that what makes one "special" (valuable) has to be a intrinsically so, apart from any answer to the question "to whom and for what?" Once one recognizes the crucial roles of valuer and purpose in ethics, the answer to Rachels' objection becomes absurdly obvious. What makes me so special to me is the fact that I'm me. Life is the standard of value, and it is a characteristic of individual living organisms.

←

Rand, in the Introduction (pb, viii, x), says, "Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil....Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men's actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice..."

As I said yesterday, in a thread (I forgot exactly where) about Objectivist students in philosophy classes, recent ethics texts which include a discussion of Rand are dishonest in claiming that Rand's selfishness has been refuted. There was no honest justification for Rachels to ignore the Introduction. Further, the point about a beneficiary is not some obscure, scholarly part of Rand's ethics but one of its main parts, often restated in many ways. Typically, however, these ethics text writers appeal to emotion and/or popularity in claiming Rand is refuted. I spent four years debating selfishness w/my philosophy profs and heard not one argument that even came close to refuting selfishnesss and proving selflessness. Not one! These profs are intellectual and professional frauds and, more to the point, intellectual killers. They should be hated and despised, tarred and feathered, run out of town backwards on a donkey...

[Betsy Speicher 0]

These profs are intellectual and professional frauds and, more to the point, intellectual killers. They should be hated and despised, tarred and feathered, run out of town backwards on a donkey...

←

... or used as bad examples or comic relief.

[Bill Bucko 0]

There's an important sense in which we aren't special.

I recall either Miss Rand or Dr Peikoff saying, "The same argument that proves egoism is valid for you, proves it valid for everyone else."

In the broadest sense, rational egoists claim absolutely no special privileges for themselves. We do not divide the human race into 2 opposing camps. (In fact, that's a sin committed by altruists -- as shown in Atlas Shrugged.) On the contrary: we extend the same exalted status to every member of the human race: each person is an end in himself.

In a narrower sense, a rational egoist does have a special position, in that he directs his actions toward maintaining his own life, and is his own highest value. That's a necessary consequence of life being the standard. Life exists only in the form of individuals.

Professor Rachels was a fool.

[PRN 0]

The entire class today was a debate between me and literally everyone else over ethical egoism. I had planned to lie low, but the professor directly asked me what I thought.

The whole argument centered on whether or not it actually is in one's self-interest to hurt others.

Nobody could accept my arguments because they think it's in one's self interest to hurt others, and since it is wrong to hurt others, to act only in one's self interest cannot be morally right.

No matter how hard I tried, I could not shake this conviction the other students and the professor had. Most of them could not believe that I actually thought it was not in one's self interest to be a murderous thug. They were shocked that I would be, in their opinion, so naive.

After class the professor and I talked. He told me that based on what he had heard me say in class I must be, "Just another person corrupted by Ayn Rand." I didn't say anything in response, but I'm sure her knows I'm an Objectivist.

The professor asked me if I can prove, using inductive evidence, that it is not in one's self-interest to harm others, at least most of the time. I argued that it is not in one's self-interest to live life constantly looking over one's shoulder, always worried about being killed, put in jail, etc. because of something you had done. It is better and happier to live and let live. I mentioned Hitler and Caesar as examples of how harming others will lead to self-destruction.

He then asked me, "Ok, but what if is was in your self-interest to hurt others? Then would you do it? If you are honest about this then you would have to say yes."

I told him that this is not the way the real world works. It really is not in my self-interest to be a Genghis Khan or a Caesar. He replied: "Well, what if someday you found out that you were mistaken about this? What if you found out it actually was in your self-interest to hurt others? If you are truly an egoist, then you would have to decide that it was ok to harm others."

I told him if his hypothetical example were true, then I would have to conclude that it's ok to hurt others. But the fact is, the hypothetical example is not true, and so the conclusion does not follow. He said, "Ok."

I’m pretty sure I walked right into a trap. I’m not so sure if I should care, or what it all means.

So much for my attempt to lie low...

[Gideon Reich 0]

The entire class today was a debate between me and literally everyone else over ethical egoism. I had planned to lie low, but the professor directly asked me what I thought.

The whole argument centered on whether or not it actually is in one's self-interest to hurt others.

Nobody could accept my arguments because they think it's in one's self interest to hurt others, and since it is wrong to hurt others, to act only in one's self interest cannot be morally right.

No matter how hard I tried, I could not shake this conviction the other students and the professor had. Most of them could not believe that I actually thought it was not in one's self interest to be a murderous thug. They were shocked that I would be, in their opinion, so naive.

After class the professor and I talked. He told me that based on what he had heard me say in class I must be, "Just another person corrupted by Ayn Rand." I didn't say anything in response, but I'm sure her knows I'm an Objectivist.

The professor asked me if I can prove, using inductive evidence, that it is not in one's self-interest to harm others, at least most of the time. I argued that it is not in one's self-interest to live life constantly looking over one's shoulder, always worried about being killed, put in jail, etc. because of something you had done. It is better and happier to live and let live. I mentioned Hitler and Caesar as examples of how harming others will lead to self-destruction.

He then asked me, "Ok, but what if is was in your self-interest to hurt others? Then would you do it? If you are honest about this then you would have to say yes."

I told him that this is not the way the real world works. It really is not in my self-interest to be a Genghis Khan or a Caesar. He replied: "Well, what if someday you found out that you were mistaken about this? What if you found out it actually was in your self-interest to hurt others? If you are truly an egoist, then you would have to decide that it was ok to harm others."

I told him if his hypothetical example were true, then I would have to conclude that it's ok to hurt others. But the fact is, the hypothetical example is not true, and so the conclusion does not follow. He said, "Ok."

I’m pretty sure I walked right into a trap. I’m not so sure if I should care, or what it all means.

So much for my attempt to lie low...

←

You have my sympathy -- that sounds like a terrible experience. The key to your opponent's error lies, I think, in their refusal to consider principled behavior essential to rational egoism. I suspect the students and teacher simply treat egoism as a kind of pragmatic out-of context case by case decision making. The kind of decision making that a potential bankrobber would use when deciding whether to rob a particular bank. Will I get caught? How much time might I serve? How much money is in the bank? Add it all up and it's either yay or nay. No principles, no possibility of rational egoism. In fact, people will claim that rational egoism means anything goes as long as you can rationalize it. But ethics cannot start midstream with the beneficiary. That is a conclusion that is preceded by the fundamental value (reason) and virtue (rationality) and principles are an integral part of the development, yet they rely on a long development in epistemology (observe how the professor relied on his own epistemology when he asked you to consider an arbitrary hypothetical example). I think you did what you could in the hostile context you faced. You stood up for your beliefs when you were directly challenged and defended them to the best of your knowledge. I think that's something you should be quite proud of.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

The entire class today was a debate between me and literally everyone else over ethical egoism. I had planned to lie low, but the professor directly asked me what I thought.[...]

I’m pretty sure I walked right into a trap. I’m not so sure if I should care, or what it all means.

So much for my attempt to lie low...

←

I have several observations to offer that might be pieces of the puzzle you are trying to put together.

First, what you experienced today is about as bad as it gets, short of the professor becoming vindicative personally and taking it out on you in future classes or, worse, in his grading of your work. (Do you have reason to believe that he will retaliate against you?)

Second, you have now had the valuable esperience of seeing the enormous power that one person can have in a group. It doesn't matter if you "lost" by not being able to change the views of the others. The fact is that your presence shifted the debate. They had to deal with your arguments. Without your presence there would have been no debate. And that is the way history changes. Please note I am not saying you should adopt that role; I am only observing the consequences on an historical scale (which is my interest -- intellectual and philosophical history, that is, the history of what intellectuals and philosophers actually did).

Third, you can see again, as Gideon pointed out, that the undelying issue is epistemological: cognitive pragmatism. That is philosophical hierarchy at work. The others in the class will never change their ethical views until they improve their epistemology.

Fourth, based on my limited experience and on reports from philosophy students I have talked to, "theme" classes are the worst in philosophy departments. The best ones are the history classes, that is, the philosophy classes that look at a particular philosopher in the past and answer one main question: What did he propose as a solution to problem X?

Sixth, you can see that if an Objectivist student chooses to lie low, he must do so from the very beginning. Your professor called on you for a reason. Did he have an idea beforehand that you support Objectivism? Some professors I have had welcome radical disagreement because it stirs the class up. In my experience they did not hold it against me personally -- as I long as I was scrupulously polite and respectful to the professor and classmates (no matter how much I despised their ideas -- and some of the individuals too!)

Seventh, you seem already to realize that there is absolutely nothing you can do to change the situation you were in. My first response to similar situations was stomach pain -- for the first time since I was a child -- but as time passed, I gradually developed an ability to distance myself and watch the drama of classroom conflict unroll without becoming a physical victim of stress.

Your questions and commentary in this thread have been, I suspect, very helpful in showing others outside the academic environment what philosophy courses can be like. I want to end with a compliment. Your narration of your experience is very clear and moving. I know you will have no problem with the writing side of your philosophy curriculum.

Best!

[Tom Rexton 0]

...

After class the professor and I talked. He told me that based on what he had heard me say in class I must be, "Just another person corrupted by Ayn Rand." I didn't say anything in response, but I'm sure her knows I'm an Objectivist.

...

←

Aside from the professor's contempt, his comment only makes me more optimistic: it indicates the persistent and growing penetration of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

[PRN 0]

You have my sympathy -- that sounds like a terrible experience.

Thank you. I was stressed at first but after a few hours I felt fine.

The key to your opponent's error lies, I think, in their refusal to consider principled behavior essential to rational egoism. I suspect the students and teacher simply treat egoism as a kind of pragmatic out-of context case by case decision making. The kind of decision making that a potential bankrobber would use when deciding whether to rob a particular bank. [...]

This is interesting. I never thought of that.

I think you did what you could in the hostile context you faced. You stood up for your beliefs when you were directly challenged and defended them to the best of your knowledge. I think that's something you should be quite proud of. 

←

Thank you again. Although this is by no means the first time I have done something like this. I have debated with entire rooms of people as far back as 16 years old when I took my first philosophy classes. I'm trying to learn to lie low.

[PRN 0]

First, what you experienced today is about as bad as it gets, short of the professor becoming vindicative personally and taking it out on you in future classes or, worse, in his grading of your work. (Do you have reason to believe that he will retaliate against you?)

I directly asked him after class if he would hold anything against me. He said he does not care what I believe as long as I do well on my assignments. I shall see if he means it.

Second, you have now had the valuable esperience of seeing the enormous power that one person can have in a group. It doesn't matter if you "lost" by not being able to change the views of the others. The fact is that your presence shifted the debate. They had to deal with your arguments. Without your presence there would have been no debate. And that is the way history changes. Please note I am not saying you should adopt that role; I am only observing the consequences on an historical scale (which is my interest -- intellectual and philosophical history, that is, the history of what intellectuals and philosophers actually did).

I only wish I had already mastered Rational Egoism. I clearly have not yet. I had no answer to some the arguments used against me today. There was much I was only able to figure out later in the day, while on the way to work. If I had truly mastered the subject I would have know the answers already. But, I’m learning, and sharpening my understanding almost daily.

Sixth, you can see that if an Objectivist student chooses to lie low, he must do so from the very beginning. Your professor called on you for a reason. Did he have an idea beforehand that you support Objectivism? Some professors I have had welcome radical disagreement because it stirs the class up. In my experience they did not hold it against me personally -- as I long as I was scrupulously polite and respectful to the professor and classmates (no matter how much I despised their ideas -- and some of the individuals too!)

I suspect he has known I was an Egoist since last class when I challenged his claims about self-interest and marriage. He must have figured out I was an Objectivist today by recognizing some of my arguments as Ayn Rand’s. He apparently knows something about Objectivism, even if he is hostile to it.

Seventh, you seem already to realize that there is absolutely nothing you can do to change the situation you were in. My first response to similar situations was stomach pain -- for the first time since I was a child -- but as time passed, I gradually developed an ability to distance myself and watch the drama of classroom conflict unroll without becoming a physical victim of stress.

I never felt physical stomach pain, but I did feel psychological stress which I would rather do without. I recovered in a few hours.

Your questions and commentary in this thread have been, I suspect, very helpful in showing others outside the academic environment what philosophy courses can be like. I want to end with a compliment. Your narration of your experience is very clear and moving. I know you will have no problem with the writing side of your philosophy curriculum.

Best!

←

Thanks, Burgess.

[PRN 0]

Aside from the professor's contempt, his comment only makes me more optimistic: it indicates the persistent and growing penetration of Ayn Rand's philosophy. 

←

I thought the same thing.

I wanted to ask him:

"So, if I'm 'just another person,' how many people have you run into who were 'corrupted' by Ayn Rand? I suppose your encounters with us must be growing in frequency. You don't like that, do you?"

But I kept my mouth shut.

[SCS 0]

I have had very similar experiences in my philosophy classes. In fact, in my first college philosophy class - Introductory Ethics - we read James Rachel’s same book (though, perhaps an earlier addition, because I took the class in 2000). When we got to Ayn Rand, the professor said, “I don’t know what in the hell she is saying, so we’re just going to skip this part.” I was not prepared at that time to speak up and defend egoism, especially not against a professor who has altruism so engrained in his mind, that he literally could not understand the egoist position.

As far as my other 14 philosophy classes went, I did speak up when appropriate, and I was never penalized for it. Ayn Rand was never brought up specifically in any of my other courses, but I was always vocal in support of egoism and capitalism. I had several classes where it would be me against the class. However, I actually gained the respect of some of my classmates and professors. In at least three different classes, I had students wait after class to speak with me, and in one instance I received an email from a classmate thanking me for my arguments supporting the war in Iraq. She said that she agreed with everything I said in class, but she just didn’t feel comfortable speaking up in class.

One of my professors would start class by bringing up a topic and asking students for their initial response. If no one said anything, he would say, “Okay, I want to know what Sarah thinks.” And that would always lead to debate. This same professor, a thorough Rawlsian, was also one of my thesis advisors and in general very helpful in advising me for grad school.

Another professor declared in class that anyone who agreed with Aristotle’s egoism had to be schizophrenic (while I had spent the semester vocally defending egoism). And yet, I had this professor for 3 different courses, and I never received less than an A from him.

In class, I always kept in mind that it was not my job to convince anyone. My primary job is to understand the material, poking holes when necessary. When appropriate, I was also sure to make it clear that the dominant philosophic position was not universally accepted.

All this said, I don’t think it is a good idea to bring up Ayn Rand specifically in class. If you want to promote Objectivism on campus, then that is what the campus clubs are for. The one time I ever footnoted Ayn Rand was on my senior thesis. During my oral defense of my thesis, I was criticized harshly by the panel of professors - though not a single one had ever read a page by her. The Chair of the department called her a hack, and insisted that she must have been paid by General Motors.

So, while I definitely recommend speaking up in class to defend your values, that doesn’t mean you need to advocate Objectivism explicitly during class - especially if you intend to go to graduate school for philosophy.

[SteveGrossman 0]

James Rachels...The Elements of Moral Philosophy....what makes me so special?

←

Special to whom? If _you_ want to live, _you_ must hold _your own_ life as _your_ basic value. A code of values to guide _your_ life is morality. Anything else is merely self-destruction, not morality.

[SteveGrossman 0]

During my oral defense of my thesis, I was criticized harshly by the panel of professors - though not a single one had ever read a page by her. The Chair of the department called her a hack, and insisted that she must have been paid by General Motors. 

←

Did they accept your thesis and did you get into grad school?