Ayn Rand\'s Objectivist Philosophy Guilt

¶ … AYN RAND'S OBJECTIVIST PHILOSOPHY

Guilt and Original Sin:

I completely agree with Rand's position on the futility and destructiveness of the entire concept of Original Sin in human life and society. It is an obnoxious and factually ridiculous belief that human beings could possibly be morally "flawed" at birth in the first place. However, adding the element that the entire basis of this supposed "sin" is that another two individuals (i.e. Adam and Eve) once defied the will of a supreme being or "God" is insulting to the intelligence. Certainly, human beings are morally responsible for their actions, but the measure of moral guilt and responsibility must have some logical basis in factual reality, such as the effects of one's choices and actions on other human beings (or other living, feeling creatures more generally).

The belief in Original Sin is possibly one of the most destructive ideas ever introduced to human society. It undermines self-esteem by teaching that we are defined more by factors totally outside of our control than by our actions in life. Adding the belief that allegiance to a supernatural "God" defines our moral worth more than our actions and that affirming this allegiance automatically negates any moral responsibility for our behavior makes it almost impossible for people to understand objective moral concepts at all.

Purpose in Human Life:

I do not necessarily agree with Rand's position on the value of purpose and I completely disagree that lacking purpose is a moral failing; likewise, I absolutely disagree that lacking purpose in life is morally worse than any behavior that is harmful to others. In my view, Rand's position would be much stronger if she qualified her position and maintained that lacking a benevolent purpose or a purpose that is beneficial to others is selfish and somewhat immoral. Rand merely suggests that lacking any purpose in life is a moral failing of the individual. According to this view, a person who contributes nothing to others but lives very "purposefully" to satisfy an arbitrary personal interest in gardening, or cooking, or classic comic book collecting is living a life that is morally and spiritually superior to one who maintains no highly motivated purpose but happens to improve the lives of others through his profession.

This failure to distinguish between life purposes with a worthwhile effect and life purposes that are both harmless and useless to others implies that the comic book collector is necessarily a more fulfilling and moral life than that of the person who simply enjoys life and lives humbly and peacefully with others. In my opinion, the individual who lives for any unexamined purpose (or one that actually accomplishes nothing but self-fulfilment) may be lower on the moral or spiritual scale than someone who recognizes his own insignificance and the purely subjective valuation of human activities.

Black and White: