Ayn Rand and War: Natural Bedfellows?
By Jonathan Bean • Thursday March 6, 2008 7:18 PM PDT • 17 Comments
In recent years, many young followers of Ayn Rand track me down and engage in discussions, which I enjoy, even if I find her philosophy abhorrent and illiberal. These young people have read Rand’s novels, but none of her nonfiction, and nothing of her movement. This makes for “interesting” debates on the relationship between liberty and religion and the basis of “morality.” (Like postmodern Leftists, Rand’s followers frequently put many words in “quotation marks.”)
The Iraq war has revealed the sad ignorance of young objectivists. They are often anti-war AND crazy about Rand, even as they write essays for an Ayn Rand Institute (www.aynrand.org) that urges total war and dismisses “just war” as suicidal milquetoast morality. More generally, it has shown the uglier side of the movement and its objective “truths.” The following citations are indicative:
“While Objectivism’s ethical branch extols a moral code based on rational self-interest, individualism, and happiness according to objective values and virtues, its political branch harbors the ideas of collectivism and statism. Thus, we witness attempts by ARI’s fellows and their supporters to justify actions of people in government by appealing to absurd abstractions such as national “self-interest.” Instead of noticing their essential conflict in these matters, they continue to sanction and promote the coercive behavior of those working for the State—and thereby drop the context of self-interest, individualism, and happiness, in addition to reason and objective reality.
“Instead of strictly denouncing taxation and the welfare/warfare State, and by extension its ridiculous military structure, based on Objectivism’s principles of reason and individualism—and individualism’s historical and societal roots in America—the fellows at ARI utilize the currently hegemonic, neoconned political climate and the psychological aftermath of 9/11....”
“Directly targeting civilians is perfectly legitimate,” Brook said. “If it’s possible to isolate the truly innocent—such as children and freedom fighters—at no military cost, then do so. But insofar as the innocent cannot be isolated ... they should be killed without any moral hesitation.”
Brook said that if the use of nuclear and chemical weapons was necessary to stop the insurgency, “then it is morally necessary to do so.”
He argued that ego-rationalism is a better way of fighting the war on terrorism. “This means we go to war whenever, wherever if the rights of our citizens are threatened,” he said.
Tsunami victims? Helping them is disgusting “charity.”Valentine’s Day? Romantic humbug. (Earth to ARI: College campuses celebrate Vagina Day in lieu of Valentine’s Day? WWAD? What Would Ayn Do about delivering a “vagina monologue?” Do we even want to know?
Of course, don’t believe these writers, read it straight from the Objectivists. Or watch UberObjectivist Peikoff on video (WGBH)
Tags: Civil Liberties, Iraq, Middle East, Natural Law, Personal Liberty, Religion, The State, Utilitarianism, War 
Any truely innocents who die in a moral war of self defense against an agressor are properly the victims of the agressor. The obsene opposite is to allow innocents in the nation attacked by the agressor to suffer continuing injuries and death. War is destruction. The important distinction to be made is whether the destruction of innocents continues or the agressors are destroyed. It is a matter of justice.
Ralph C Whaley MD | Mar 8, 2008 | Reply
Dr. Whaley, if an aggressive regime is invading a nation, do you really believe “any” innocents killed is the fault of the aggressive regime alone?
Do you believe the US government has ever launched an aggressive war?
If so, do you believe the people living in the nation with which the US had started that war would be justified in targeting American civilians?
It seems to me that terrorism could be easily defended given your moral standard here.
Anthony Gregory | Mar 10, 2008 | Reply
I agree with Anthony Gregory. “Kill ‘em all” cannot be justified on Christian grounds (e.g., “just war” theory). Even by objectivist standards, this approach to justice is neither “rational” nor “egoist” (in the self-interest of a nation on the warpath). Irrational because it equates people with the governments that rule them — and in most of the world, governments DO rule people. Even in democracies, people are kept in the dark.
As for the egoist side, total war without any qualifications fails the utilitarian test. No one will ever give quarter to such an enemy and any “Pax _____” will last only for a short time. Those who live ruthlessly by the sword, die by the sword.
Jonathan Bean | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Hi,
I’m looking for a good book about the freedom & security dichotomy.
That is, a book that explains in detail exactly how it’s possible to fight terrorists and ‘evildoers’ without giving up civil liberties.
I’m not looking for a book that just outlines how our civil liberties have been infringed but doesn’t show how the ‘freedom’ alternative would work.
If anyone can help, would appreciate it.
Thanks
Sukrit Sabhlok | Mar 16, 2008 | Reply
From the Independent Institute, you might check out the works of Pena and Eland:
http://tinyurl.com/2t88ck
http://tinyurl.com/3xes2x
They urge less war and more fighting terrorism.
Jonathan Bean | Mar 16, 2008 | Reply
This is all too true as I was reading The Atlas Society’s The New Individualist magazine. Their January/February 08 issue was entitled, “The Abominable Dr. Paul”, where they criticized Dr. Paul even though his philosophy of libertarianism was very close to Objectivism. Hell, he named his son Rand!
I didn’t read the article, so I don’t know what was said. But I do have this March 08 issue they had 2 letter to the editors published about the article, both negative to the cover art and the content itself. TNI had an article in the back saying that they basically stand by it and criticized Paul for, what else, foreign policy.
They called him a “Utopian” for believing in non-interventionism, that his philosophy was not consistent because of it. He is implied to be a “Blame America First Lefty”. To them, he was what (hah, you’re right, they do like to use quotes) Rand would call, “a neo isolationist”. Forget the fact that he is for free market and diplomacy, he’s an isolationist they write.
Now, I have yet to read any of Rand’s work or about the philosophy of objectivism. Though, if these are her disciples then I am becoming less and less interested with their brand of libertarianism.
Brent | Mar 18, 2008 | Reply
Uh, I don’t know who you have been talking to, but the ARI was against invading Iraq, not war itself. And it most definitely does not advocate “national self-interest” in the sense you are using it (collectivism). That would be neocon philosophy, which they oppose. This was explained thoroughly in their essay, “Neoconservative Foreign Policy: An Autopsy.” It can be found on their web site.
The author of the tsunami piece later issued a correction saying that there is no obligation on our part to continue tsunami aid after the emergency passed. I don’t see anything wrong with that position.
They are also pro-Valentine’s Day/romantic love. Don’t know how you interpreted otherwise.
Come on now, let’s be a little more rigorous in our research.
Anon | Apr 1, 2008 | Reply
Well, I did do my research and if you look at my hyperlinks (including ARI war raving of Peikoff), you will see that whatever scruples they had about war are clearly out the window.
As for the Valentine’s Day gaffe, the link notes that there was a retraction–apparently ARI is better than feminists at appreciating the PR downside of attacking love.
Jonathan | Apr 1, 2008 | Reply
Your fault is equating ARI with Objectivism. Not the same thing.
The only thing that is “abhorrent and illiberal” is ARI and many of its positions (and too many of those of the Atlas Society).
Objectivism, however, probably understood, neither supports war in the Middle East nor ARI’s sick applications of it.
I’ve published extensively on the proper Objectivist approach to the war as have other folks sympathetic to Objectivism. See the link to my site.
Russ | Mar 23, 2009 | Reply
Wow. Where to begin?
Asserting that Ron Paul is somehow connected to Objectivism is a dead giveaway that the author has virtually no clue of what he is talking about. People like Ron Paul are actually Objectivism’s greatest enemy because they purport to admire Rand and use many of the same terms but hold completely different philosophical premises. It is like the difference between a mystical, medieval alchemist and Marie Curie. Both could be observed mixed things in bowls to cause reactions. But how they view reality and thus the conclusions they draw from their work would be very different.
Libertarians believe that “liberty” is a concept that comes out of thin air and can be apprehended perceptually. But philosophy is built on a hierarchical understanding of ideas and principles about the nature of our universe, the nature of man, how man is able to understand the world through conceptual thought, etc. The basic layers of philosophy are: metaphysics (What is so?), epistemology (How do I know it?), ethics (What should I do to live?), and only then, politics (What should we do together to live?). Libertarians try to build a political penthouse without any of the lower floors. They read Rand and ape the words but it is literally impossible for them to make contextual interpretations because they are not able to grasp the principles behind the choices.
When you read a Christian critiquing the ethics or politics that arise from Objectivism, you should not be surprised. That is because they fundamentally disagree with Objectivism’s metaphysics and epistemology. Political disagreement is built-in. Christian scholars know that their Achilles heel is in their view that truth has to come from God through the Bible. But if they were to deal with that issue directly and try to rationally defend a faith-based view of the world, they know that discussion leads to intractable contradictions. So they go after Objectivist in the realm of politics.
If you are seriously concerned with ideas, take the time to carefully consider the most fundamental premises of your thinking. Consider: there is no moral assessment where there is no capacity for volitional choice. A lion is neither good nor evil when it kills a man. Thus the notion of original sin is a logical contradiction, a way to make you guilty just for being alive. Imbuing you with guilt is necessary to get you to buy into self-sacrifice and to abrogate your life and your happiness as your standard of value. Guilt is history’s most effective means of social control.
Ukexpat | Mar 24, 2009 | Reply
Ukexpat,
Your claim that Christian scholars are uninterested in seriously addressing epistemology, metaphysics, and moral ethics is simply mistaken. Indeed, such Christian philosophers as Alvin Plantinga are providing the cutting edge of such fields in analytic philosophy. Unfortunately, most objectivists are utterly unaware of such work, including Plantinga’s devastating refutation of the metaphysical naturalism upon which their entire worldview rests. As a result, here are some sample articles you might examine:
In addition, here is a sampling of books I would suggest as a start:
David Theroux | Mar 24, 2009 | Reply
Russ — Russell Madden — is right: ARI is not the same thing as Objectivism! In fact, regarding practical affairs, especially politics and foreign policy, ARI’s positions are pretty much the opposite of Objectivism.
“Anon” — reply of April 1, 2008 above — writes: “... ARI was against invading Iraq ... .” and urges us to “be a little more rigorous in our research.” He might reflect on his own admonition. See “Relentless Propaganda.”
“Ukexpat” — reply of March 24, 2009 above — writes: “Libertarians believe that ‘liberty’ is a concept that comes out of thin air and can be apprehended perceptually.” Ukexpat is writing about Ron Paul and thus claims that Ron Paul thinks liberty is a physical, material thing that you can see with your eyes and feel with your hands. What a fool he must be! It is ridiculous.
All the official Objectivist verbiage that ARI can muster can’t hide the fact that the exceptionally good is not the enemy of the best. Our situation is desperate. If Ayn Rand herself supported Barry Goldwater candidacy in the 1964 election (see here), surely Objectivists ought to support Ron Paul, who is far closer to Objectivism than Goldwater ever was, today.
Ron Paul is not your typical libertarian. In fact there is no typical libertarian. The term “libertarian” is meaningless without qualification. It’s based, of course, on the word “liberty” — and that’s a good word. Ayn Rand was a kind of libertarian when it comes to that. As for the Libertarian Party — Libertarian with a capital L — it’s always been a mixed bag, and changing drastically from election to election. The last one was a new low. Ron Paul severed his relation with it long ago.
We need to reclaim the dignity of man from the muck of contemporary intellectuals, including those at ARI, who despite their noisy protests hardly differ from neoconservatives when it comes to the most important issues of the day. This includes their promotion of government institutionalized torture — again see here.
To repeat, this muck has nothing to do with Ayn Rand’s philosophy. As a reader of ARI Watch once more or less commented: ARI, under the leadership of Leonard Peikoff, committed the biggest intellectual heist in history by taking the ideas of Ayn Rand which she had entrusted to him and twisting them to support their direct antithesis.
Mark | Jul 28, 2009 | Reply
To the best of my knowledge the United States of America has never initiated a war against an innocent nation. It is not only proper but imperative to respond to threats of war against America with a massive preemptive attack to make it clear that we value our citizens and will not wait for an attack to protect ourselves.
Ralph C. Whaley MD | Oct 2, 2009 | Reply
@Ralph C. Whaley MD: I don’t know what constitutes an “innocent nation,” but do you think the US is one? I would say practically every US war has been an unjust one, and practically no one has ever attacked the US unprovoked.
Anthony Gregory | Oct 2, 2009 | Reply
True. An example. In July 1988, a US Naval ship shot down an Iranian civilian airliner on a scheduled flight in Iranian airspace over Iran’s territorial waters, killing 290 civilians, including 66 children (Iran Air Flight 655). The US has admitted that the Navy crew panicked, and wrongly & negligently identified the airliner as an attack aircraft. Shortly after, an ARI member friend showed me a copy of “The Intellectual Activist”, the main ARI journal of the day, in which AIR spokesman Leonard S. Peikoff argued venamently that even *apologizing* for killing all those innocent civilians was a “moral cave-in.” The Iranian government had collectively wronged the US, so now individual Iranian civilians were less than ants you might step on! (Never mind that the US had collectively wronged Iran prior to that — the logic was non-commutative.) How is this consistent with Individualist ethics?
Ken Nahigian | Feb 22, 2013 | Reply