A Journal for Western Man-- Issue V
Don Watkins III
Political freedom, then, can have only one meaning: to be free from coercion initiated by both other men and the government.
Capitalism, then, is the only social system that secures for man the ability to survive. By leaving him free of (and protecting him from) coercion, capitalism allows a man to be free to think, to create - free to dispose of his life, his effort, and the products of his effort.
Under a system of capitalism, men are free to think and produce and they are free not to. But, as in nature, they are forced to bear the full consequences of their choice, and - if they fail to think, or make a mistake in their thinking - they will be the only victim.
That is why, as I said, capitalism is a system of justice. Each man is rewarded in direct proportion to his ability and effort.
Interestingly enough, this is the root of much of the antagonism towards capitalism. "What about those who don't want to think, or don't want to work?" As if their laziness is license to punish those who do think. "What about those who can't think, or can't work?" As if their need is a claim on the lives of those who aren't needy. "What about those of little ability who can't produce much?" As if that entitles them to the products of the men who are able.
Capitalism, then, is essential to man's survival. It is the only social system that leaves men free to think, to act on his conclusions, and keep the products of such effort - thus, enabling man to live.
But, I have not yet addressed explicitly why capitalism is moral. My answer to that question is an extension of my previous discussion: capitalism is moral because it is the only social system consistent with man's survival needs.
***Morality***
Taking a step back, we must ask ourselves - what is morality?
Contrary to popular belief, morality is not synonymous with the ethics of Christianity or altruism. Those are types of morality - codes of morality. Morality, as such, is any code of values to guide men's choices, goals, and actions.
The ethics of Christianity tells man that God determines these values. Altruism tells man that sacrifice to others is the proper standard of value. Ayn Rand demonstrated, though, that nature determines the proper code of values for man -- that there is an objective standard of what is truly valuable.
Rand did not begin, as other philosophers had, by observing that human beings pursue certain ends and by then asking which ends should they pursue. Instead, she began at the most fundamental level by asking, "what are values and why does man need them?"
A value, she observed, is anything that an entity acts to gain and/or keep. She then observed that it is only life that makes the concept of value possible and necessary.
Can things be good or bad to a rock? Or a building? Or a piece of paper? Does it matter to a slab of marble whether it is smashed to pieces are cut into the form of a Greek statue? Obviously, no. For inanimate objects, their form can change shapes, but they cannot cease to exist.
Life, on the other hand, is a process of self-generated, self-sustaining action. A living entity can cease to exist if it does not succeed in meeting certain needs. As Rand said, "There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence - and it pertains to a single class of entities: living beings" (Rand, For The New Intellectual 121).
Thus, for a plant, or an ant, or a man, things can be good and bad, the good being that which sustains an organism's life and the bad, the evil, that which destroys it.
Rand's conclusion: it is life that makes the concept of value, the idea of good and evil, possible. Not only that, life makes the concept of value necessary. Living organisms must achieve certain ends - certain values - determined by their nature, in order to remain alive. A dog must eat. A plant must photosynthesize. A man must work - in order to live. Living beings must differentiate between that which is good for their life and that which is evil or they will die.
The only proper standard of morality, then, can be life, because it is only life that makes the concept of value tenable.
For plants and animals, this process is automatic. They have no choice but to seek their own good. A plant cannot choose to mangle its roots; a bird cannot choose to break its wings. For them, the pursuit of values is given - they do not need (nor do they have the capacity to grasp) the guidance morality offers.
For man, however, seeking the values that will sustain his life is not automatic. Man's basic means of survival, as we have seen, is reason and reason is volitional. Man does not know - instantly, automatically, or by instinct - what is to his benefit. Thus, if a man chooses to live, he must determine which values to gain and keep by a process of thought. He needs guidance as to which values to pursue in order to sustain his life across the whole of his life span. Morality offers him this guidance.
A proper code of morality offers man a standard of value by which to gauge his actions as life furthering or life hindering.
The moral standard he must adhere to, if he chooses to live, is what Rand called: man's survival qua man, or simply, man's life. This means, "the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan - in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice" (Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness 26). This is an extension of the fact that life must be the moral standard, and that the life proper to a bug is not the life proper to a man.
From this abstract standard, specific values are defined. Rand identified three fundamental values that serve the ultimate value, one's life: reason, purpose, self-esteem.
Ethics also tells man how to go about pursuing these values. It proscribes certain principles, or virtues, according to which a man must consistently act in order to achieve his values. Here, Rand identified six crowning virtues: rationality, independence, justice, productiveness, honesty, and pride.
Implicit in this discussion of the standard and purpose of morality is that morality - properly - is egoistic, or, selfish. In other words, the proper beneficiary of one's own actions is oneself.
"The life that is pivotal," writes associate professor of philosophy, Tara Smith, "is not life per se, the life of mankind or all of flora and fauna. Rather, value is contingent on the aim of serving one's own life. The fact that life makes values necessary means that the person who seeks his life must act morally in order to achieve values to sustain his life. That is the foundation for moral obligation. As such, morality is egoistic through and through" (Smith 155).