This is a well-read book. Millions of opinions have been formed about it and millions of high school essays have been written on it. The sheer volume of opinions formed naturally indicates that at least some of them are bad, perhaps most of them. The novel is often characterized, by detractors and proponents alike, as an ode to greed and a condemnation of altruism. That’s not quite right. At its best, Atlas Shrugged is an ode to production and a condemnation of self-deception.
In brief, the fictional work is set in something like an American dystopian post-industrial revolution. The story follows the lives and decisions of the Producers, the Looters, and the Moochers, specifically exploring the moral imperative of self-interest. What happens when everybody acts in their own self-interest?
In my mind, Rand’s greatest contribution is laying out a cogent argument for the reality and the value of Producers. There are a few people in the world who produce almost everything. This is explored vibrantly and perhaps convincingly in her fiction. In fact, the fictional principle is robustly backed up in empirical observations including the Pareto Principle and Price’s Law. She coherently shows how producers can’t be “helped” by moochers and looters, but that all are best served when others “get out of the way” of producers.
On the surface, the book feels counterintuitive and off-putting. There are chapter-long impassioned haranguings from the heroes of the book about the evils of altruism and the good of self-interest. When viewed dispasionatly, the philosophy isn’t so different than that expressed by Bilbo at the beginning of the Lord of The Rings. “Bilbo – I’m very selfish you know, yes I am, very selfish. I don’t know why I took you in after your mother and father died, but it wasn’t out of charity. I think it was because of all my numerous relations, you were the one Baggins that showed real spirit.”
Rand goes to great lengths to separate her philosophy from “normal” western thinking, but I didn’t find the distinction convincing. At the heart of her philosophy is the moral principle of self-interest, that all people should act in their own interest. Why? Because it is moral. This is the axiom of the argument perhaps adequately summed up in the creed of the Producers. “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.”
The apparent shallowness of the statement melts away when you consider that Rand considers the emotional reward of helping others part of living for oneself. Still, this is different than the psychological principle of self-interest. Rand is not simply stating that everything a person does is in his own interest. To sin against Rand’s moral code is to act to one’s detriment: in gluttony as well as in virtue-signaling charity. This is actually quite a sophisticated argument; it has two weak points. Rand attempts to address one, but as far as I can tell, overlooks the other.
The first is “who defines self-interest?”. Rand answers this question with venom. “The most depraved sentence you can now utter is to ask: Whose reason? The answer is: Yours. Philosophically, this is a clever way out. The immoral then are those who do not reason out shat is in their own self-interest and then act on it. Unfortunately, it’s not very practical. I’ve been teaching my 2-year-old to reason, he’s getting better but he often still thinks that skipping a nap is in his own self-interest; despite his reasoning, he’s wrong, he end’s up agreeing with that conclusion only after he’s had the benefit of the experience of the poor decision. Similarly, I’ve ignored advice in favor of my own reasoning; sometimes, that has turned out to be contrary to my self-interest. Reason is awesome, but without omniscience, flawless logic and infinite time, we should all be able to see, it’s not enough to yield a personally optimal outcome. Rand’s myopic “self” view seems to discount the value of trusting others to know better on topics than you.
This brings us to the core problem with the philosophy. Rand never defines who this “self” is in who’s interest I’m supposed to be acting. I’m not being coy, seriously, does she mean the “self” that wanted to hit snooze on the alarm this morning or the “self” that wanted to get an early start on the day last night? Does she mean the “self” that wants to have a massively successful career in the next 30-40 years or the “self” that wants to have a massively successful family in the next 50-60 years?
You might answer “all of them” but if you put that into practice even given the prerequisite of infinite time, omniscience, and capacity for reason, you’ll quickly realize that multivariate optimization is not a problem that can be solved using mathematics or reasons. The answer is invariably “infinite solutions”. Still, I’ll acquiesce that the model is useful at a practical level if you don’t take it too literally (which rand clearly does).
My greatest problem with the book is its demonization of alternative philosophies. I enjoy a well-structured rebuttal, even against something I value, but this is not what Rand is doing. Either deliberately or through malice, she repeatedly misunderstands the core tenets of the philosophies she would tear down.
Sacrifice is perhaps the most demonized principle in the book. In Galt’s famous radio speech it’s mentioned 86 times in the most negative of terms. In a few paragraphs, he tries to explain what he means.
“The word that has destroyed you is ‘sacrifice.’ Use the last of your strength to understand its meaning. You’re still alive. You have a chance.
” ‘Sacrifice’ does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. ‘Sacrifice’ does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. ‘Sacrifice’ is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t.
“If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and gave it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is.
“If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.
This is a bizarre take on sacrifice. Those familiar with the Judeo Christian concept of sacrifice will recognize the following definition “To sacrifice is to give up something valuable or precious, often with the intent of accomplishing a greater purpose or goal.” Clearly, Rand and her western audience are not using the same definition. Under the definition I’ve given (and have used since childhood); all the positive things Galt just listed, your alarm this morning, and galt’s own existence as an outcast; constitute a sacrifice. Who decides if the purpose of the sacrifice is greater than the sacrifice itself? According to Galt, you do, with your own reason; just don’t discount good advice and don’t be so certain of knowledge you don’t have.