God, Man, and Philosophy
It’s become popular in conservative circles to cite Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged as a proper response to the current Obama unpleasantness. For those of you unfamiliar with this seminal novel, it’s the story of what happens when all the productive people of the world stop working. (It’s actually far goofier than that. The productive people all leave and live on an island run by a magic engine that’s pretty much cold fusion without all the scientific muss.) I’m passingly familiar with the works of Ayn Rand, having read The Fountainhead back in college of my own free will and choice. I tried to read Atlas Shrugged three or four years ago, and I slogged about halfway through before skimming the rest. Believe me, it doesn’t take long to get her point.
And her point, near as I can tell, is simply this: achievement is its own reward, and it should be celebrated, not punished.
That’s a point I heartily agree with, and she makes an airtight case on that score. But that’s not her only point. Just as militantly, she argues that there is no God, and that a human being’s intrinsic value can be measured solely by what they produce.
That’s where it all falls apart for me.
Despite her belligerent godlessness, Rand is often seen as a philosophical hero among the conservative movement. What’s ironic is that she’s not very far off from the views of Peter Singer, an atheistic left-wing “ethicist” who sees man as little more than a precocious mammal, and that it is no more immoral to kill a human being who is inconvenient to himself or others than it is to put down a horse with a broken leg.
“Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person,” Singer has opined on more than one occasion. “Very often it is not wrong at all.”
Rand never openly addresses this kind of depravity in her books, which are relentlessly didactic and maddeningly devoid of even a whiff of humor. But what would happen if The Fountainhead’s Howard Rourke were hit in the head by a steel beam at a construction site, leaving him severely disabled? He would no longer be the brilliant architect who produces masterworks – he’d produce nothing and be a burden on those around him. A horse with a broken leg? An architect with a broken head? It make no difference. Put him down.
Or what about when he gets old and feeble? Put him out to pasture? Starve him to death? Throw him out in the snow? The possibilities are endless – and endlessly monstrous.
My point, to counter both Rand and Singer, is that it is impossible to morally defend a human life’s inherent value without a belief in God.
To illustrate, I bring in another philosopher, one perhaps not as credentialed as Singer or Rand, but one who provides the proper perspective. I quote talk show host Dennis Prager from page 77 of his book Think a Second Time:
Prager poses a form of this question to high school students all across the country: “If your dog and a person you didn’t know were drowning, which would you first try to save?” He maintains that over the course of 15 years, no more than a third of the students ever voted to first save the person.
Prager sums up the problem thusly:
So that’s why I get nervous when Rand becomes a hero of conservatives. I admire her commitment to capitalism, but without God, she’s little more than Peter Singer in drag.
And her point, near as I can tell, is simply this: achievement is its own reward, and it should be celebrated, not punished.
That’s a point I heartily agree with, and she makes an airtight case on that score. But that’s not her only point. Just as militantly, she argues that there is no God, and that a human being’s intrinsic value can be measured solely by what they produce.
That’s where it all falls apart for me.
Despite her belligerent godlessness, Rand is often seen as a philosophical hero among the conservative movement. What’s ironic is that she’s not very far off from the views of Peter Singer, an atheistic left-wing “ethicist” who sees man as little more than a precocious mammal, and that it is no more immoral to kill a human being who is inconvenient to himself or others than it is to put down a horse with a broken leg.
“Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person,” Singer has opined on more than one occasion. “Very often it is not wrong at all.”
Rand never openly addresses this kind of depravity in her books, which are relentlessly didactic and maddeningly devoid of even a whiff of humor. But what would happen if The Fountainhead’s Howard Rourke were hit in the head by a steel beam at a construction site, leaving him severely disabled? He would no longer be the brilliant architect who produces masterworks – he’d produce nothing and be a burden on those around him. A horse with a broken leg? An architect with a broken head? It make no difference. Put him down.
Or what about when he gets old and feeble? Put him out to pasture? Starve him to death? Throw him out in the snow? The possibilities are endless – and endlessly monstrous.
My point, to counter both Rand and Singer, is that it is impossible to morally defend a human life’s inherent value without a belief in God.
To illustrate, I bring in another philosopher, one perhaps not as credentialed as Singer or Rand, but one who provides the proper perspective. I quote talk show host Dennis Prager from page 77 of his book Think a Second Time:
It was mealtime on a flight somewhere over the United States: I noticed that both the middle-aged woman next to me and I had ordered special meals. I had a kosher meal, she a vegetarian one.
“Are you a vegetarian?” I asked the woman.
“Yes,” she responded.
“Why?”
“Because we have no right to kill animals. After all, who are we to claim that we are no valuable than animals?”
I vividly recall my thoughts. When she said that we have no right to kill animals, I felt a certain sympathy for her and her position. After all, I thought, her I am eating a kosher meal, and I have always understood kashrut to be Judaism’s compromise with vegetarianism.
But when she delivered the second part of her explanation, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. In fact, I was so certain that she was engaging in hyperbole that I said, “I certainly understand your opposition to killing animals, but you can’t really mean what you said about people not being more valuable than animals. After all, if an animal and a person were both drowning, which would you save first?”
I was sure I had posed a rhetorical question. So, when I received no response from the woman, I asked her if she had heard me. “Yes,” she responded, “I’m thinking.”
Prager poses a form of this question to high school students all across the country: “If your dog and a person you didn’t know were drowning, which would you first try to save?” He maintains that over the course of 15 years, no more than a third of the students ever voted to first save the person.
Prager sums up the problem thusly:
With the breakdown of religion, the belief that human beings are created in the image of God is no longer taught. From where, then, does the belief in human sanctity derive? What nonreligious reason could be offered for regarding people as more valuable than animals?
So that’s why I get nervous when Rand becomes a hero of conservatives. I admire her commitment to capitalism, but without God, she’s little more than Peter Singer in drag.
posted by Elder Samuel Bennett | 10:18 AM
11 Comments:
well done.
First time I've ever agreed with a conservative's take on Atlas Shrugged.
I don't know. I'm not an atheist, but I have met many atheists who are really solid, gentle, moral folk. There are atheists who are not, but then again, there are so many religious folk who are not either, so can we really draw a line in the sand over this? And is the example of saving a human over a dog really proof that the human is more valuable, absolutely at least? If mice were in charge, they'd probably save mice over humans. This probably stems from some sort of affinity to one's kind. I do think that there is dignity in being a human being. But I don't think it would be theologically disastrous either to posit some sort of divine spark in other creatures as well, even if they don't share that special capacity of rational thought to the extent that we do. No absolutes here in my argument, but I do think there's some room for thoughtful difference.
There's plenty of room for thoughtful difference, and I certainly appreciate that which you have provided.
For me, I think the difference is you're focusing on behavior rather than ideology. That is to say, there are plenty of atheists who behave morally, even though there's nothing in their worldview that requires them to do so. Conversely, religious people can do atrocious things, either through a perverse ideology or a misapplied one. That's all true, but it's not the argument I'm trying to make.
I'm also not trying to posit that animals have no "divine spark;" but I do think that humanity stands unique, in that we were the only beings created in God's image, which takes on additionally anthropomorphical implications in Mormon theology.
It means, however, that a human is more important and more valued in God's eyes than an animal.
That's a moral position, one with which you're welcome to disagree, but to be consistent with my position, one would always have to rescue the person before the dog. The fact that someone who agreed with my worldview doesn't always apply it, or vice versa, is essentially an argument about hypocrisy, not the initial moral principle.
You just don't get the pet analogy because you hate your cats.
Animals are for eating and betting on. Just ask Pounds.
Very thoughtful and reminded me a great deal about Ben Stein's "Expelled."
It's interesting, though. He posed the question of a world without theology and brought us to focus on the Third Reich and the extermination of disabled people, which was somewhat inspired and fueled by Darwinism. But I believe that, whether or not people consciously believe in God, the Light of Christ would touch on their minds the eternal truth that life, particularly human life, is to be valued. I really don't think the young people who claim that they'd save the dog before the human would actually follow through with that in a real emergency. It's an eternal truth that would inherently motivate them to save the human.
Why then did soldiers and medical workers comply with such exterminations? Fear, self-loathing, anti-social disorder maybe. Something, but not belief or a lack of belief. Even terrorists who fly planes into skyscrapers aren't doing it because of belief. They are choosing to embrace blackness. A basically good human being who wants to do good in the world will act in accordance with their divine nature.
Just an opinion.
Actually - Buddhist don’t believe in a Judaeo-Christian idea of Deity and seem to value human life.
Maybe you just don’t know enough people who value human life and who have no specific belief in God. You do live in a sort of secluded world.
Rand's writing also demonstrates the same constraints of "lived experience" which is why the novel is so anti-god. She was Russian who adopted wholeheartedly the selfish egocentric atheism of communism while rejecting the economic strategy. She was a product of her time and geography.
I personally, hate the book and think it is piffle. Rand's interpretation of "value” and "productive people" is limited to a classically neoliberal perception. Her idealism in itself is a critique of the value of humans. Her economic premise is also laughable - as reduced to its minimum all financial value is perception. Bankers don’t make money! Stockbrokers make illusionary value which is NOT productive.
A teacher or a mother is NOT a productive person in Rand's view.
In 2009 in America, yes, teachers are not productive people.
Atlas Shrugged is on DH's nightstand as we speak.
Atlas Shrugged deserves every barb thrown its way when it comes to style. In a way, it's sort of a "Left Behind" for libertarians. All the good people are raptured off to Galt's Gulch while the sinning masses must face the apocalypse. It gets silly and repetitive, and the dialogue is painfully stilted.
Still, on substance, there is something there. Why else would this doorstop keep selling tens of thousands of copies yearly? The chapter on the fall of the XXth Century Motor Company is a great standalone read. Her take on corporatism is quite prescient. She coined some great terms, like "the aristocracy of pull", which describes perfectly how government programs often function.
The chapter I mentioned slightly touches on the problems you raise, Stallion. Under a welfare state, those who have children or get sick are resented for imposing burdens on their neighbors, so the pressure to "deal" with them becomes greater.
A teacher or a mother is NOT a productive person in Rand's view.
How do you gather that? I grant that Rand was not a family woman, to put it mildly, but she did feature a mother in her paradise. I don't see where she would have a problem with a teacher qua teacher.
Now, as for Buddhists, well, Ayn hated them like poison. The most evil character in the novel was a practitioner of eastern religion.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home