Transhumanism and the philosophy of Ayn Rand
Marc Geddes This article is a brief explanation and critique of the philosophy of Ayn Rand from a transhumanist perspective. The focus will be on several key points of differences between transhumanism and objectivism… It is argued that Objectivism holds rigid, limited views on certain points, and these conflict with transhumanism. But it is also argued that Objectivism helped to play a role in the development of transhumanist thought and that the defense of liberty and individualism is a key part of the transhumanist philosophy known as Extropianism…
Marc Geddes, September 1, 2002
Introduction
This article is a brief explanation and critique of the philosophy of Ayn
Rand from a transhumanist perspective. The focus will be on several
key points of differences between transhumanism and objectivism. A
brief biography of Ayn Rand is given, along with some of the history of the
Objectivist movement. Some general similarities and differences between
transhumanism and objectivism are pointed out, along with a brief sketch
of transhumanist ideas. This is followed by a description of the key
ideas of Objectivism and a critique which will explain the central points
of difference with transhumanism. It is argued that Objectivism holds
rigid, limited views on certain points, and these conflict with transhumanism.
But it is also argued that Objectivism helped to play a role in the development
of transhumanist thought and that the defense of liberty and individualism
is a key part of the transhumanist philosophy known as Extropianism.
Ayn Rand and the history of Objectivism
Ayn Rand's birth name was Alissa Rosenbaum. She was born in St Pertersburg,
Russia on 2nd February 1905. She witnessed the civil war and the transition
of her country to communism, during which time her father's business was
nationalized, leaving the family destitute. During the war the family
had sought safety in the Crimea. There, Alissa was taken by the novels
of Victor Hugo, stories with individualist heroes fighting against great
odds. She also declared herself an atheist, believing that the idea
of God was degrading to man. In 1921 she returned to her home city.
At the University of Petrograd she studied history and read a great deal
of philosophy. Aristotle impressed her because of his rationalist views.
In 1925 she was invited by relatives to visit the United States and she grasped
the opportunity to escape the system she hated. She changed her name
and left Russia for good. In the U.S she worked as a screenwriter and
movie extra in Hollywood for some years, during which time she married Frank
O'Conner.
In 1936 she published her first novel 'We the Living', loosely based on her
own experiences under the Soviet system during her university years.
In 1943 she published the novel which would make her famous - 'The Fountainhead'.
It told the tale of a brilliant architect, Howard Roark, an individualist
who refused to compromise his principles to the 'masses', and how he was
able to overcome opposition from a hostile world to ultimately triumph.
Rand wanted to use the novel to portray her 'ideal man'. Through Roark
and his protagonists, Rand advanced a philosophy based on the individual
as an end in himself, extolling talent and independence and ridiculing mediocrity
and all forms of 'collectivism'. The style of writing was essentially
romantic, with archetypal heroes and heroines. Many found the book
inspirational.
Rand continued work as a screenwriter, also turning 'The Fountainhead' into
a movie script. Although the movie was a flop, by 1948 the book had
proved to be a huge success, exceeding half a million copies in sales.
In 1950 Rand met a man who became her closest confidante. He was Nathan
Blumenthal, a psychology student.
'Atlas Shrugged' was the novel which Rand considered her masterpiece.
Published in 1957, it told the story of an America in which the most talented
people decided to go on strike, and the resulting collapse of society.
The theme was reason and productive work versus non-reason and statism.
The hero of book was a 'John Galt', who at one point in the story gives a
35, 000 word 'radio address', which Rand uses as a vehicle for explaining
her philosophy of the world. The address covered metaphysics, epistemology,
human nature, ethics, politics and art. In it Rand advocates an extreme
individualistic, rationalistic philosophy of life. The book received
mostly negative reviews, but was very successful, with 125, 000 copies sold
in the first year.
Nathan and his wife Barbara set up the 'Nathaniel Branden Institute', through
which lectures on Rand's philosophy were given. A movement had begun,
and Rand decided to term the new philosophy 'Objectivism'. Rand became
a public figure, and throughout the 60's she lectured and wrote philosophy
essays and non-fiction books. She spoke on university campuses such
as Columbia, Harvard and MIT. In 1963 she was granted a Doctor of Humane
Letters degree from Lewis and Clark College in Oregon. A journal (originally
termed 'The Objectivist Newsletter') was launched for the purposes of exploring
Objectivist ideas. At its height in 1967, the journal had a subscription
exceeding 21,000. But despite the immense interest in Rand's work, she was
operating entirely outside academia and professional philosophers did not
take her ideas seriously.
In 1968 Rand had a bitter fall-out with her major associate Nathan Branden,
and she publicity repudiated both Nathan and his wife from the movement.
This was apparently the result of a failed love affair between Nathan and
Rand. There were accusations that Objectivism was a cult, and that
Rand was becoming increasingly intolerant and eccentric. Disenchanted
members of the movement contended that Rand demanded absolute agreement with
her ideas, and anyone expressing dissent was subjected to severe chastisement.
Then Branden closed the institute and dissociated themselves from Rand, and
interest in the movement declined. But Rand continued to lecture and
write essays up to her death in 1982 at the age of 78. Her husband
Frank had died in 1979.
A close associate of Rand, Leonard Peikoff, had been declared by her to be
her intellectual successor, becoming executor of her estate. Peikoff
continued to give lectures on Objectivism, write books and publish collections
of Rand's notes and essays. In 1985 he founded the Ayn Rand Institute
to continue the study and dissemination of Objectivist philosophy.
Despite Rand's intention to publish a detailed systematic account of her
whole philosophy, she never did so. This task was finally undertaken
by Peikoff, who in 1991 published 'Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand'.
Aside from Peikoff and the ARI, the other major player in the movement is
the 'Objectivist Center', which was formed by David Kelley. Kelly had
been associated with the ARI but had a falling out with Peikoff. Objectivism
is seemingly characterized by frequent bitter disputes between those holding
different variations of the philosophy.
As of 2002, interest in Ayn Rand and her works continues unabated.
All her books are still in print and she has sold more than 20 million copies.
In a recent library of congress poll, American students listed 'Atlas Shrugged'
as their 2nd most popular book of all time (behind only the bible).
She was credited with having a substantial influence on American politics.
Her staunch defense of unfettered Capitalism influenced British Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher and chairman of the US Federal reserve Alan Greenspan,
and was a factor in the development of the libertarian movement. She
also made an impact in the field of psychology. Nathan Branden wrote
a number of best selling self-improvement books advocating ideas developed
with Rand.
Objectivism and Transhumanism
There is evidence that Ayn Rand has had an influence on the development of
transhumanist thought. Extropianism was the first attempt to clearly
define a philosophy of 'transhumanism'. Max More, beginning in the
late 1980's developed this. He established the 'Extropy Institute'
in order to provide forums and support to explore his ideas.
The Extropian principles are currently defined as consisting of 7 points:
(1) Perpetual Progress, (2) Self Transformation, (3) Practical Optimism,
(4) Intelligent Technology, (5) Open Society, (6) Self-Direction and (7)
Rational Thinking. Extropianism is summarized thusly;
'Like humanists, transhumanists favor reason, progress and values centered
on our well being rather than on external religious authority. Transhumanists
take humanism further by challenging human limits by means of science and
technology combined with critical and creative thinking. We challenge
the inevitability of aging and death and we seek continuing enhancements
to our intellectual abilities, our physical conceptions and our emotional
development. We see humanity as a transitory stage in the evolutionary
development of intelligence. We advocate using science to accelerate
our move from human to a transhuman or posthuman condition' [1]
Extropianism places a high value on individuality and liberty, as explained in principles (5) and (6).
'(5) Open society. Supporting social orders that foster freedom of
speech, freedom of action and experimentation. Opposing authoritarian
social control and favoring the rule of law and decentralization of power'
[1]
'(6) Self-direction. Seeking independent thinking, individual freedom,
personal responsibility, self-direction, self-esteem and respect for others...Extropians
are rational individualists, living by their own judgment' [1]
These points give Extropians a libertarian lean. The descriptions are
clearly linked to the Objectivist ethics of 'rational self-interest'.
They are closely related to the self-improvement psychology developed by
people such as Nathan Brandon, who were Objectivists. Many extropians
state that they admire Ayn Rand, while books by Nathan Brandon are cited
on the Extropian web-site.
Objectivism and Transhumanism have a number of general ideas in common.
They both are rationalistic world-views. In both movements, science
and reason are regarded as the prime tools to seek knowledge and appeals
to supernatural forces are unacceptable. Of course, many schools of
thoughts share this view. But both Objectivism and Transhumanism appear
to share a broadly pro-technology stance. Rand admired the use of technology
to improve upon nature. For instance, in 'The Fountainhead' we are
told that the hero of the story was thrilled by the thought of what he could
do with new materials for architecture. In 'Atlas Shrugged' we find
the heroes developing such things as 'Rearden metal' and a machine to extract
a new source of energy. Rand wrote several essays expressing admiration
for the manned space program as an example of the power of science and technology.
In other essays she disparages the environmental movement as a threat to
progress.
Both Objectivism and Transhumanism have a strong Nietzchean flavor.
Objectivism advances the idea of the 'ideal man' as a hero - a person living
life 'fully self-fulfilled'. In later prefaces to her novel 'The Fountainhead',
Rand acknowledges the inspiration provided by Nietzsche for her conception
of the ideal man. There is even a reference in her story to the hero
as a 'Superman' (Neitzche's 'Ubermench' is German for 'superman').
Both the Ubermench and Rand's ideal man strove to achieve heroic deeds through
sheer force of will.
Rand's heroes are archetypes expressing transcendent themes. For instance,
at the climax of 'The Fountainhead' Roark is poetically described as the
embodiment of a building which soars above all other human structures.
Economic, political and religious institutions are all transcended by Roark's
ego. And in 'Atlas Shrugged' we learn of a human 'symphony of triumph:
'The notes flashed up, they spoke of rising and they were the rising itself,
they were the essence and the form of upward motion, they seemed to embody
every human act and thought that had ascent as its motive' [2]
Transhumanism advances the central idea of the 'post-human', a human that
has been radically improved through the application of reason. Clearly
post-humans are considered to have super-human abilities in at least some
areas.
Despite the similarities there is no evidence that Rand believed that human
nature could be radically improved upon through technology. In fact
she seems to have had a conception of human nature as being ultimately fixed.
('Man is an end in himself'). I shall now examine the main ideas of
Objectivism and contrast them in more detail with transhumanism.
Objectivist Metaphysics
In 'The essence of Objectivism' [3], the following summary of objectivist metaphysics is given:
'Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness,
independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears.
This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are
and that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create
or invent it'
In 'The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand', all of the philosophers contributing
essays complain that Rand's metaphysics and epistemology is too vague.
All have different interpretations as to her meaning. Rand says that
she is advocating the basic principles of Aristotelian metaphysics.
In fact, the three parts of 'Atlas Shrugged' are named after Aristotle's
laws of logic.
By 'existence exists', Rand appears to mean that existence is not an attribute
but the very essence of each thing. Each thing that 'exists' must have
certain properties which define that thing. This is why Rand states
that 'Existence is identity'. Since all things possess specific attributes,
all things are limited. A thing cannot possess all possible properties
at once because this would be logically contradictory. This is a principle
of logical non-contradiction. Rand is also advancing the arguments
of the Thomist philosophers. She explains that in order for consciousness
to exist, there must also exist something for it to be conscious of.
So consciousness is identification - the means of perceiving reality.
Rand also argues for a monic view of reality - the idea that there is only
one substance, which can manifest itself in many different ways. She
rails against the Cartesian division between mind and matter and all the
philosophers in that tradition - Hume, Descartes and Kant. Kant's ideas
are her pet hate. She is strongly opposed to Kant's view that there
is an unbridgeable separation between our conception of things and the things
themselves. Rands explains that the mind is capable of knowing reality
and as a result reality must be wholly rational (natural) and have an objective
existence (Reality cannot be created or altered by the mind). Another
key point is that Rand does not believe in the objective existence of 'abstract
universals'. In her view, only individual things have objective reality.
Thus Rand rejects any Platonic theories postulating the existence of a world
of 'abstract forms' - she regards this as simply another form of mysticism.
Rand takes Aristotelian laws of logic as the basis for her Metaphysics.
She holds a monic conception of reality, rejecting any Cartesian division
between mind and matter. And she denies the objective existence of
abstract universals. This establishes her as a moderate realist who
rejects the supernatural and believes that reason can grasp reality.
Unfortunately, Rand does not make clear what she means by 'the rational mind'.
From a transhumanist perspective, there is no reason why the human mind should
be capable of comprehending all aspects of reality. The idea that humanity
can be radically improved includes the idea that there are possible modes
of rational thought above the human level. For instance an artificial
intelligence could be developed with superhuman reasoning abilities.
As human beings we are products of evolution, which
occurred through natural selection. The structures in
our minds were selected for their ability to help us
survive, and so we can argue that they are capable of
allowing reasonably accurate models of some aspects of
reality. But Kant came to the conclusion that all the
information our minds receive has to be processed by
human mental concepts that are limited. He identified
two different modes of consciousness : direct
awareness of something (which he called 'intuition')
and conceptual reasoning ('thought'). He argued that
humans are limited by our innate intuitions of basic
concepts such as space and time. Hence Kant thinks
that there must be fundamental limit to what human
beings are capable of understanding.
Kant divided metaphysics into two parts. The first
part of metaphysics, he called general metaphysics.
This deals with questions referring to entities that a
finite mind is capable of experiencing directly. He
regarded these questions as being answerable. However
the second part of metaphysics dealt with questions
about reality as a whole. He believed that these
sorts of questions couldn�t be answered by a finite
reasoning process, since a mind capable of an
intuition of reality as a whole (e.g. God) is
required.
The question of whether the human mind is capable of
comprehending all aspects of reality may depend on the
complexity of the universe. If all aspects of the
universe are simpler than our minds then the human
mind will be able to fully understand them. But if
some aspects of the universe have a complexity
exceeding that of the human mind then a superhuman
intelligence will be required to understand them.
Since human beings are simply another step in the
evolutionary chain, I put forward as an empirical
conjecture the claim that there are aspects of reality
beyond the power of the human mind to understand.
Although I have proposed that the human mind cannot
comprehend certain aspects of reality, I would still
argue that any aspect of reality (including properties
of reality as a whole) should be comprehensible to
some finite mind of sufficient power (Even though this
mind will not be human). By this, I am not suggesting
that the complexity of the universe is finite, or that
we will ever run out of new things to discover. I am
simply claiming that any meaningful question about the
universe can be answered through finite conceptual
reasoning. If we allowed that some questions about
reality couldn�t be answered logically, we would seem
to be slipping into a supernatural view of the world.
Since transhumanism claims that we can strive for
perfection through naturalistic means (science,
technology and rational thought), it would seem that
it should be possible to fully close the gap between
the conception of a thing and the thing in itself.
Thus, I also put forward as an empirical conjecture
the claim that any aspect of the universe is capable
of being completely understood.
Objectivist epistemology
In 'The essence of Objectivism' [3], the following summary of objectivist epistemology is given:
'Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason,
the conceptual faculty, is the faulty that identifies and integrates the
material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring
knowledge'
Rand was advocating an inductive theory of knowledge, which she said had
its roots in the ideas of Aristotle. In her theory of concepts, she
explains that each person's mind is 'tabula rasa' ('a blank slate') at birth,
and knowledge is built-up through 'concepts':
'A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated
according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition'
[4]
In other words, we formulate knowledge by generalizing from specific examples of concrete things.
Conceptualists view concepts as 'universals'. Nominalists view
concepts as subjective groupings of individual entities based on general
resemblances. Since Rand rejects the objective existence of abstract
universals, it may appear that she is a nominalist. But she claims
to be neither a conceptualist nor a nominalist.
Rand regards entities as existing in certain relationships to one another.
These relationships form 'units'. But a unit is not a thing in itself,
nor it is a part of thing. It is not an objectively existing abstract
universal. Nevertheless, Rand argues that the 'unit' can still have
a non-arbitrary basis. She says that we should simply take the identities
of different entities in a relationship and look for the same characteristics
possessed in different degrees or measures.
'If a child considers a match, a pencil and a stick, he observes that length
is the attribute they have in common but their specific lengths differ.
The difference is one of measurement. In order to form the concept
of 'length' the child retains that attribute and omits its particular measurements
' [5]
According to Douglas Uyl and Douglas Rasmusson, Rand's view of concepts is
similar to Aquinas's theory of relations. The category of quantity
is used as the foundation for concept formation.
Rand also argues that a concept signifies more than is contained in a current
definition. This means that any number of units can be consistent with
a given definition:
'It is important to remember that a definition implies all the characteristics
of the units, since it identifies the essentials, not their isolated properties;
and since it is a condensation of, not a substitute for, a wider knowledge
of the existents involved' [6]
Unfortunately any inductive theory of knowledge has problems.
According to the philosophy of science advanced by the physicist David Deutsch
in his book 'The Fabric of Reality', scientific knowledge is not justified
through induction. The building up of a knowledge base takes place
according to Karl Popper's theory of knowledge, which Deutsch argues is not
inductive. Induction suffers from 'the problem of induction' (also
called 'the fallacy of the consequent') - how can one be sure that the future
will be the same as the past regarding laws of nature?
It will shortly be explained why Rand's theory of knowledge is of relevance
for a possible transhumanist ethics. But there is another very serious
problem with Objectivist epistemology, which places it in conflict with transhumanist
ideas. That is her belief that 'reason' (defined to be the gathering
of knowledge both through conscious deliberation and through the senses)
is the only road to truth.
Rand believed that what is in one's rational self-interest can conflict with
one's desires. For Rand, desires are termed irrational if they prompt
actions that conflict with a person's rational self-interest. What
is in a person's self-interest is an objective matter, which can only be
determined through the use of reason. Thus desires are not accurate
guides to truth.
Rand believed this because she believed that most desires are actually the
products of either conscious or unconscious value judgements. This
follows from her inductive theory of knowledge. Since she believed
that the mind was 'tabula rasa' ('a blank slate') at birth, this implies
that desires such as emotional responses are programmed by value judgements
that we made about experiences. She claimed that we should not trust
desires which have not been 'consciously programmed' to reflect our values.
This is an extremely limiting and psychologically dangerous view of reason
and desire. It is simply not the case that all of our desires have
to be programmed by reason. The human mind is capable of a wide range
of different conscious experiences - physical, emotional, intellectual and
spiritual. There is no good reason why we should discount all of these
other experiences if they are contributing to our well being.
Transhumanism is a rationalistic world-view, but all that is required
to be 'rational' is that we subject our desires to critical analysis to determine
whether acting on a desire might harm us. There is no reason to reject
desires simply because we cannot find a logical explanation for them.
As the editors of this article pointed out, transhumanists are exploring
religious ideas - for instance a Buddhist transhumanism. There are
many different cognitive tools that can be used to explore reality and we
should not limit ourselves to conscious reasoning processes. In fact,
Rand sets up a false dichotomy between reason and desire.
Objectivist ethics
In 'The essence of Objectivism' [3], the following summary of objectivist ethics is given:
'Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to
action. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man -
i.e. that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational
being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute).
Rationality is man's basic virtue and his three fundamental values are reason,
purpose, and self-esteem. Man - every man - is an end in himself, not
a means to the end's of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing
himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his
rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the
highest moral purpose of his life' [7]
The crux of Objectivist ethics is the idea of 'rational self interest' and the conception of 'man as an end in himself'.
Rand asks what makes values possible and points out that the continued existence
of a rational living person is required. If we take life as the ultimate
end then we need to use reason to determine how we should act to continue
our survival. Many transhumanists do place a high priority on the long-term
continuation of their lives. The quest for radical life extension in
order to allow indefinite individual life extension thus seems very Randian.
Transhumanists seek to overcome the aging process through such means as drugs
and genetic engineering.
Rand wants to establish life as the ultimate value. She explains:
'It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue
of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated
action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical
elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the
concept of 'Life' that means the concept of 'Value' possible.
It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.' [8]
But it is not enough to simply point that life continues only if certain
plans or actions are formed and carried out. Rand needs to show that
the very concept of a 'value' incorporates or presupposes the concept of
life. In 'The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand' the contributors agree
that Rand did not clearly establish this.
Rand claims that life as an abstract thing is not terribly meaningful.
It is each individual life form that should regard its specific life as its
highest value. In other words, it is the nature of each specific life
form that determines what it needs to do to continue its existence.
Rand tries to switch from a definition of life as continued survival, to
a definition of life as: 'a way of living according to the nature of each
individual'. Then a man's life (way of living) becomes an end in itself.
This enables her to argue that some facts imply values - the way a living
rational being is, implies what it ought to do. If this works, then
an objective basis for morality is established. The 'rational self
interest' imperative follows. We need to use reason to try to determine
the essential nature of our being, and since our highest value is to continue
life as this being, we need to take the actions necessary to do so - to act
in our self-interest.
Clearly, the argument requires that we determine just what our essential
nature is. Rand's ideas have their roots in the ideas of Aristotle.
In the 'Nicomachean Ethics' the concept of 'Eudamonia' seems to be very similar
to the Randian idea of 'self actualization' - living life according to one's
own nature as an end in itself. 'Eudamonia' appears to mean activity
relating to the true nature of each individual. In addition Aristotle
equates this with 'agatha' - the highest good for each individual - life
as an end in itself.
Rand takes a crack at what she believes the essential nature of human beings
to be. She names three virtues - rationality, productive work, and
pride. And of these she regards productive work as the central purpose
of a rational man's life.
Pride is justified by arguing that self-esteem for one's life seems to be
a necessary condition for being motivated to continue it. And since
rationality is taken to be the main means of obtaining knowledge, and knowledge
is required for determining correct courses of action, rationality is also
justified. Rationality and pride do seem to be needed attributes for
continued survival, but Rand has difficulty establishing why 'productive
work' should be the central purpose of mans life. For sure, some productive
work is required for each persons continued existence, but only when resources
are scarce. In a possible future world of plentiful resources it is
not clear that people will need to spend much time on productive work.
It is important to understand that Rand gave no credence to concepts such
as 'social well-being'. For Rand, happiness can only be assessed at
the level of individuals. Her argument for this is that minds are properties
of individuals (there is no such thing as a 'group mind'). It is only
individual minds that make value judgements. Since the nature of each
individual is different, the precise meaning of concepts such as 'happiness'
will be different for each individual.
Rand claims that this follows from her theories of metaphysics and epistemology.
Recall that she did not regard 'abstract universals' as meaningful.
She held an inductive theory of knowledge. For her abstract concepts
such as 'whiteness' are simply words referring to the set containing each
individual object that is white.
From this comes the most radical part of her ethics - the idea of 'Randian
selfishness' - Rand did not believe that any individual should sacrifice
themselves for another. This is because this would entail violating
what is 'good' as defined for each individual for a non-existent 'social
good'. An insistence on Randian selfishness leads to a 'trader' type ethics
- we should only give someone something when they are giving something of
equal value back. Rand's arguments provide support for libertarian
leaning viewpoints (such as Extropianism).
Many other transhumanists would take strong exception to Rand's claims.
It can be argued that what is good for individuals can be good for society
as well, so Rand has set up a false dichotomy between the individual and
society.
But the major problem with Randian ethics is this: it fails to take into
account human potential. Human nature is not fixed. For instance
consider a newborn baby. This is not an entity capable of productive
work. Its value, then, can only consist of its long-term potential
- the fact that it has the potential to grow into a rational, productive
adult. And of course, parenthood does not sit comfortably with the
Objectivist claim that we should never sacrifice ourselves for others.
Most parents would certainly claim that raising a child involved quite substantial
sacrifice.
The Randian concept of 'man as an end in himself' runs into difficulties
because the definition of 'man' is unclear due to the potential for change.
The words 'baby', 'child', 'teenager' and 'adult' could all refer to the
same person for instance, but the definition of that person's nature is each
case is different. Failure to take into account a person's potential
for change results in a conception of ethics which has no place for compassion.
(Indeed, all of Rand's writing appear to be devoid of compassion and in several
places she seems to imply that she regards compassion as a character weakness!).
Mark Walker has proposed a rather different suggestion for an ethical imperative.
In 'What is Transhumanism? Why is a Transhumanist' [9] the following
definition of transhumanism is proposed:
1. The Technology Thesis: Within a hundred years humanity will possess the technology to re engineer Homo sapiens.
2. The Ideal Thesis: The goal in the reengineering is to perfect ourselves.
3. The Ethical Thesis: We ought to employ technology to realize this ideal.
This seems a very reasonable definition because it takes as a central point
the fact that human nature is not fixed and that any ethical system needs
to be based on this fact. Supporters of Rand could try to use this
definition as the basis for an individualistic ethic. Instead of regarding
productive work as man's central virtue they could take the idea of 'drive
to perfect oneself' as the central virtue. That is, they could argue
that each individual should strive to perfect himself.
However, as Walker has pointed out, a broader than individualistic view of
matters would still not be consistent with Rand. For instance the goal
could be defined as 'maximization of a societies self-actualization (striving
for perfection)'.
Objectivist politics
In 'The essence of Objectivism' [3], the following summary of objectivist politics is given:
'The basic social principles of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has
the right to seek values from others by means of physical force - i.e. no
man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against
others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only
against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another
as traders, giving value for value, by free mutual consent to mutual benefit.
The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships
is laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on the recognition
of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function
of the government is to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical
force.
Rand claims that her political theory follows directly from her theory of
ethics. After arguing for rational self-interest, she attempts to establish
individual rights by arguing as follows:
'Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper
survival. If a man is to live on Earth, it is right for him to use
his mind, it is right to act on own free judgement, it is right to work for
his values and to keep the product of his work. If life of Earth is
his purpose he has a right to live as a rational being; nature forbids him
the irrational' [10]
Rand is arguing that the required condition of existence is maximization
of liberty. The three virtues of man were argued to be pride, rationality
and productive work. Firstly, it is argued that rationality requires
creativity, and creativity requires freedom of thought. Secondly, pride
is related to self-esteem, and self-esteem arguably requires freedom of choice.
Thirdly, productive work requires economic freedom because man has to be
free to receive the fruits of his labors. Since Rand chose productive
work as the central virtue, she regards economic freedom as the most important.
And full economic freedom requires laissez faire capitalism.
'The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim
that it represents the best way to achieve "the common good". The moral
justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consistent
with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival qua man, and
that its ruling principle is justice' [11]
The weakness in the argument is that it is only the freedom of some individuals,
which is required. It is not clear how to move from 'maximization of
human freedom in general' to 'maximization of each individual's liberties'.
The way Rand tries to deal with this is to propose that: 'conflicts of rational
interest' need never occur in a truly rational society. But this
is a claim that is very difficult to justify. It is certainly possible
to imagine some situations in which conflicts of rational interest will occur.
For instance emergency lifeboat scenarios in which some people are required
to sacrifice themselves to ensure the survival of others. It would
take a lot more work to determine to what extent rational conflicts of interests
may occur in laissez faire capitalism. The only alternative to anarchy
in the case of conflicts of interest is to enable government interference
to the degree required to resolve them.
In short, the political system Rand appears to be advocating is a form of
libertarian politics. In this view, the only legitimate role of the
government is law and order and defense, and the result is laissez faire
capitalism. But as was seen, transhumanism does not regard 'productive work'
as man's central virtue. A better candidate was suggested: 'striving
for perfection'. This does not necessarily require laissez faire capitalism.
In 'Democratic Transhumanism' [12] James Hughes takes a crack at explaining
why transhumanism may be incompatible with laissez faire capitalism.
One major reason is the power of technology required for the goal of enabling
a post-human existence. The development of technologies such as genetic
engineering and artificial intelligence poses threats. Misuse or accidents
could result in global disaster or even the extinction of humanity.
This seems to be a good argument and it requires that the government play
a larger role than Rand would argue for. At the very least, the government
needs to regulate technology to the extent required to alleviate existential
threats.
Conclusion
The fiction and non-fiction works of Ayn Rand are immensely popular and have
had an impact on American culture, helping to launch the libertarian movement
and contributing to self-improvement psychology. Objectivist arguments
had an influence on the development of Extropianism, which was the first
transhumanist philosophy developed. Objectivism is rationalistic, pro-science
and technology and has a heroic Neiztschean flavor. All of these are
key aspects of transhumanist thought.
The Objectivist metaphysics emphasized the objective nature of reality and
insisted that a rational mind was fully capable of understanding it.
There is only one single monic substance, which can manifest itself in many
different ways, and there is no supernatural aspect of reality beyond the
reach of reason. These arguments seemed reasonable but Rand failed
to take into account the fact that the human mind is limited, as pointed
out by Kant. In transhumanism, one of the goals is to increase the
reasoning abilities of the human mind through technologies such as artificial
intelligence or genetic engineering. Only in this way might it prove
possible for minds to fully understanding the universe.
The Objectivist epistemology proposed an inductive theory of knowledge, with
the mind a blank slate at birth and the knowledge base being built up by
generalizing from specific examples of concrete objects. Rand believed
that conscious reasoning and empirical observation is the only way of determining
truth. She believed that all one's desires must be programmed by making
rational value judgements about experiences. But this seemed to be
an extremely limiting way of understanding reason. The mind could have innate
desires and not all desires need to be programmed by reason to be useful.
Physical sensations, emotions and spiritual experiences can all be valid
cognitive tools. All that is required for rationality is that we subject
our desires to critical analysis and not act on desires which conflict with
our values.
The Objectivist ethics proposed that we take our lives as rational beings
as the ultimate value, and base ethics upon objective reasoning, using the
essence of our nature to determine what we ought to do. Anything that
furthers our survival as individual rational beings is good, anything that
harms our survival chances is bad. This seems like a reasonable way to place
ethics on an objective footing. Rand suggests three central virtues of human
nature that are his essence: rationality, pride and productive work.
Each individual should act in his own 'rational self interest' to develop
these virtues and never sacrifice himself for others. But Rand failed to
establish why productive work should be a central virtue. A better virtue
consistent with transhumanism was given: 'drive for self-perfection'.
A major problem with rational self-interest is that it fails to take into
account the fact that human nature is not fixed. The concept of the
'self' is fluid, and this means that we need to consider social goals as
well as individual ones. Nevertheless, the Objectivist ethics is a
healthy defense of individualism, and provides arguments in support of the
transhumanist philosophy of Extropianism.
The Objectivist politics is libertarian, considering maximization of individual
liberties the highest good, and regarding the only valid functions of the
government to be defense and law and order. The problem was that this is
based on the idea of productive work as a central virtue, which was not established.
'Drive for perfection' was considered a better virtue consistent with transhumanism.
However, it can still be argued that a drive for perfection requires individual
liberties, so Objectivism can help to provide support for libertarian leaning
forms of transhumanism. One major problem with the Objectivist politics
was the growing power of technologies required to carry out the transhumanist
program. These technologies require some degree of regulation to protect
us from existential threats. Another major problem with libertarian politics
is that it fails to take into account rational conflicts of interest.
In summary there are some important similarities between Objectivism and
transhumanism, and the Objectivist defense of liberty and individuality is
of value. However Objectivism takes a limited view of human nature
as ultimately fixed, and simplistic absolutist conceptions of 'rationality'.
My goal here was not to shoot down Objectivism. It
was instead to briefly explore the connections between
Objectivism and Transhumanism. My hope is that this
introductory look will encourage others to investigate
in more detail the ideas of Ayn Rand and how they may
be related to Transhumanist thinking.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to Mark Walker for helping me to greatly improve this article.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Key writings of Ayn Rand
Novels
'Atlas Shrugged' (1957, Random House)
'The Fountainhead' (1943, Bobbs-Merrill Co)
'Anthem' (1938, Cassell)
'We the Living' (1936, Macmillan)
Philosophy
'The Virtue of Selfishness' (1964, New American Library)
'For the New Intellectual' (1961, Random House)
'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal' (1967, New American Library)
'Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology' (1967, New American Library)
Key books about Ayn Rand and Objectivism
Biographical
'Ayn Rand' by James T Baker (1987, Twayne Publishers)
'Letters of Ayn Rand' edited by Michael Berliner (1995, Dutton)
'The Passion of Ayn Rand' by Barbara Brandon (1986, Double Day)
Philosophy
'Objectvisim: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand', by Leonard Peikoff (1991)
'The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z', edited by Harry Biswinger (1986)
'The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand', edited by Uyl & Rasmussen (1984, University of Illinois Press)
Anti-Objectivist
'Is Objectivism a Religion?', by Lyle Stuart (1968, Albert-Ellis)
'With Charity Toward None: An analysis of Ayn Rand's Philosophy', by William O' Neill (1971, Philosophical library)
Web Resources
Extropy Institue: http://www.extropy.org
Ayn Rand Institute: http://www.aynrand.org/
Objectivist Center: http://www.objectivistcenter.org
Ayn Rand and Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.objectivism.addr.com/
REFERENCES
[1] 'Extropian Principles 3.0',
http://www.extropy.org/ideas/principles.html
[2] 'Atlas Shrugged', Signet paperback, Ch.1, Pg. 20
[3] 'Atlas Shrugged', Signet paperback, Pgs 1074-1075
[4] 'Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology', Pg 75
[5] 'Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology', Pg. 16
[6] 'Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology', Pgs 41-42
[7] 'Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology', Pgs 15-16
[8] 'Atlas Shrugged', 'This is John Galt speaking'
[9] 'What is Transhumanism? Why is a Transhumanist?', Transhumanity,
http://www.transhumanism.com/2002/walker0201.shtml
[10] 'The Virtue of Selfishness', Pg. 9
[11] 'What is Capitalism?', Pg. 20
[12] 'Democratic Transhumanism', Transhumanity, http://www.transhumanism.com/2002/hughes0201.shtml
AUTHOR DETAILS
Name: Marc Geddes
E-mail: marc_geddes@yahoo.co.nz
Web-site: http://www.geocities.com/marc_geddes
