Altruism - The Zero in Morality

This material is taken from a chapter in my book, "The Logical Fallacy of Altruism" which is published on Amazon. You can find it at: https://amzn.to/3QZT0lY

Altruism is essentially three false premises. The first is that productive and egoistic man is a zero. The second that re-distribution of man’s product is good and the third is that the values taken from productive man actually help the needy.

The truth is that the producer, the working individual, is not a zero. His adherence to the evidence of his senses and to reason is a strength and his individualism means he has rights that should not be violated.

Re-distribution harms the producer by making life harder for him. There is no moral justification for the re-distributor, the moral authority, to steal his product.

Finally, altruism forces the receiver into dependence. This fact of dependence is what makes the receiver incapable of surviving on his own. In other words, making a man a dependent on the products of others destroys him and any prospect he has of a better future.

The key to the damage done by altruism is the propaganda invented by Plato, Hume, and Kant that the individual is incapable of knowing reality and his mind is incompetent to learn and use knowledge. This is the lie (the Big Lie) of altruism that must be challenged with vigor and reason.

Once we discover that altruism is both a falsehood and an arbitrary demand, we can establish a society that liberates man’s ego and gives it a proper respect in society. This means recognizing that the production of values is good and that values have the role of improving man’s life – all men’s lives. Values can only be produced by the mind which means the key feature of the ego is the mind’s ability to engage in reason. Men should never be made to feel guilty for wanting to use their minds. In fact, the ego and reason are the sources of all good in life.

Another way of making the argument for the ego is to recognize the economic fallacy called the “zero/sum” transaction. The zero/sum transaction implies that in every trade there is a winner and a loser. This fallacy is a mainstay of socialism and communism. Altruists hold that capitalism is evil because there are so many losers in society, and this is because of capitalist exploitation. Capitalism (or freedom) is seen, as an opportunity for the “victor” to take from the “loser” by swindling him out of his values or property. The “zero/sum” argument is itself a fallacy. There is no connection between capitalism and losing in life. Capitalism, by leaving men free to decide for themselves, is the catalyst for success in life because men are creatures of reason possessing volition. This means all men are able to correct their errors and move on to succeed. Making mistakes in life is the catalyst for success.

There are no winners and losers in capitalism; there are only winners who think and produce, and to the extent that individuals choose not to think and produce, they make themselves losers. Yet, as self-correcting individuals, even men who make wrong decisions are still left free to move forward to success by adopting the principles that make them stronger – production and reason.

This zero/sum anti-capitalist premise lies at the heart of the exploitation theory of socialism and communism and represents a main argument for the destruction of capitalism. Yet, the truth is that, in a true trade, each party seeks his own self-interest based upon what benefits his life. This makes every transaction into a win/win. Each partner to a transaction sees a different benefit and, generally, does not enter into a trade unless he obtains a value. There is no loser in a transaction in which every party clearly knows what is to his self-interest. If he knows that a trade is not in his self-interest, he declines it. This is how reason works in a capitalist society. No socialist, communist, or fascist society brings this win/win perspective to trades because the social justice they seek causes zero/sum transactions to permeate and sabotage free trade and violates the rights of individuals.

In a free society, the specific product that each person possesses (money or goods) is equal to the product the other trader possesses. For instance, one trader rents a home and is safer against the weather – so paying the rent is worth it. He buys a television set and can enjoy his time watching stories or keeping up with the news. He buys a lobster and enjoys a good meal. One party receives the value inherent in the product while the other party receives the value inherent in money which enables him to save or trade that money for other products. To assert that all trades are zero/sum, then, means that the social critic preaching altruism is lying about mutual trade to mutual advantage.

Certainly, not every trade is beneficial to both parties. There are sometimes bad trades in which one party deceives another – but, in truth, the deceiver in these bad trades eventually loses trust among other traders while the loser gains a better understanding that will aid him in future transactions. Yet, in the vast number of trades, in a free-trade society, millions upon millions of win/win trades are consummated hourly. Over time, honesty in capitalism tends to overwhelmingly benefit product quality and human thriving.

The large number of win/win trades prove why capitalism and freedom are far superior to socialism, communism, and fascism. These isms are based upon the altruist lie that government should control the economy and turn the tables on capitalism by regulating who is a winner and loser. Yet, we have learned that a proper moral society should never be based upon forced sacrifice. The zero/sum trade occurs most often in socialism, not capitalism. There are too many examples in history about the devastating consequences of forced altruism. Capitalism enables the production of values while socialism destroys values, consumes them, and then throws them away, never to be invested again.

Altruists have lied about individualism and egoism for centuries. They have portrayed individualists as thieves when, throughout all of human history, it is the altruists who have stolen values and justified that theft through religious arguments (the word of God) and the vicious materialist (anti-capitalist) ideologies that distort history and existence.

There is no inductive process, no use of reason, that can find valid arguments to justify altruism. Because altruism is a moral philosophy that is both arbitrary and untrue, the only thing a rational man, or a rational society, can do is conclude that man can only survive by using his mind and that he should be free to do so if he is to live in a good society and thrive. He arrives at this egoistic morality by looking at facts, seeking truth and developing principles of action based upon his own survival.

Altruism should be dismissed “without thought”^[1] Indeed, the acceptance of the logical fallacy of altruism can lead to a devastating intellectual and moral trap for the individual. Whenever you accept the unreal as valid, you are trapped in the realm non-existence, non-facts and the zero.

The first mistake most people make is thinking in a concrete-bound way. This means they pursue values as things that have little value for them in a human sense. They pursue things without looking at the conceptual nature of thinking and knowing. Altruism wipes out all logical deliberation and puts the individual in the position of a frightened animal seeking anything (any act or any thought) that will help him escape the guilt and hatred inflicted on him by the moralists of altruism. He becomes an animal trapped in the process of deductive reasoning from floating abstractions (God, sin, the spiritual, the unreal and the unprovable).

Inductive reasoning would have you look at facts and interpret them through a process of validation or verification – checking the facts of reality to determine the truth in reality; whereas deductive reasoning would have you seeking answers from already accepted false notions that do not correspond to reality – which means that altruism is based upon false, unchecked premises and puts man in the position of acting without thinking; of acting to sacrifice one’s values without judging whether the sacrifice brings about a good or moral result.

This also means that the demand for altruism (self-sacrifice) cannot be reduced. There must always be more sacrificing. It must always grow – because there is no connection to reality with altruism. The false premises of altruism are: 1) that taking values from the productive individual is a good act. 2) that re-distributing values is fair and 3) that the recipient of those values is an innocent victim. Altruism is a false moral concept that requires the individual to shut his mind (through prejudice) before he acts. Altruism is not only an anti-concept (morally), it is anti-syllogism (faulty deductive thinking).

Because altruism is based upon faulty deduction, it is total sacrifice, and can only be total sacrifice. Once you get on that wagon, it keeps rolling and never stops; you will always be sacrificing. They may ask for a small amount from you at first, and claim that nothing more is required but that is not true. Once they ask for a small amount, they will always ask for more because they will never admit that their solution is false. If a small amount does not work, for the altruist, he will never admit that his premises are false; he will always insist that he needs more sacrificing, more theft in order to make altruism work. The fact that altruists will never stop asking for sacrifice, that it never solves the so-called problem, should be proof to you that altruism does not work to solve the problems of the so-called victim.

The result of this faulty reasoning always leads to their assertion that the amount of giving you do is only based upon the amount of guilt they impose upon you, and there is no stopping that guilt from growing ad infinitum. Guilt is not quantifiable when it comes to the realm of morality. Once you accept unearned guilt, then there is no stopping the wagon; the guilt will grow and the demand for sacrifice will grow. Altruism does not function without guilt.

This brings up the importance of egoism. Egoism is the opposite of altruism and in order to bring about the victory of altruism, egoism must be destroyed completely, the egoist must be accosted by so much guilt that he must be led to believe that egoism is evil. The altruist must convince the egoist that he is guilty and worthless if he deigns to hold on to his values. Remember, altruism is the idea that others are superior to the individual which means the individual must come to believe that he is worthless when compared to others.

Yet, egoism is truly the answer to the plight of the so-called needy. Love of the ego is a moral inducement for the needy to solve his own problems out of love for himself and those he or she loves. A healthy ego will keep the individual from becoming needy. If altruists truly cared for the needy, if they truly cared to solve the problems of the needy, they would encourage and teach men to be self-sufficient and scream to high heaven about the value of capitalism and egoism. They would insist that capitalism replace collectivism and altruism. But they do not do this, and this should inform you about their illogical thinking when it comes to moral action.

So, if they ask for only a small amount of sacrifice, that is the beginning of your eventual intellectual and physical destruction – altruism is total and complete, and altruism can only succeed by destroying your ego – your self-respect and self-love.^[2]

Next comes the false notion that the good (altruism) is intrinsically good. This destroys the mind’s understanding of both reality and morality, and it makes any act of sacrifice into a false goodness. If you take altruism as a serious, validated concept, you have to obliterate all concepts in your mind (such as your ego, your love of self) as altruism’s intrinsically evil opposite.

In the realm of fundamental moral principles, altruism cannot exist within the same moral context as egoism – the two principles are diametric opposites. One principle confronted by its opposite must wipe out the other. This is why altruism cannot be accepted piecemeal or part of the way – eventually it will wipe out all other moral principles and take over all human valuing.

In reality, altruism wipes out all principles, not just egoism. Principles such as justice, rationality, independence, productivity, integrity, pride, and honesty must be sacrificed piecemeal until they are also destroyed by altruism. This is because all the above are virtues of egoism and based on objective reasoning.

Altruism doesn’t want your goods; it wants all of your values including your mind which is the source of knowledge and virtues. It asks you the following pointedly:

·       Who are you to claim that you do not want justice for the poor?

·       Who are you to claim that the poor should think rationally and produce for themselves?

·       Who are you to think that using your own independent judgment makes you better than a mentally addled individual who needs help?

·       How vicious is it to feel pride for what you have accomplished when someone else has not accomplished it?

·       What makes you think that honesty and integrity matter when it comes to people who are poor because they have made a mistake in life and/or violated positive moral principles?

·       Who the hell do you think you are to compare yourself to other people?

·       How can you deny yourself the need to feel moral for helping others?

For altruists, the only true virtue is giving. Which means that, for altruism, your only goal should be to die.

Needless to say, if you accept giving as virtue, how can you live when these virtues are the source of life? When you give, it is never enough if you keep some for yourself. In fact, if you don’t give everything you should be punished and ostracized for withholding something from your gift. How could you be so selfish to not being totally selfish?

Altruism is false as a metaphysical concept. It has no function in reality; it violates the principle of teleology because it has no end in mind except the end of absconding with the productive man’s values. As an arbitrary demand, it has no conceptual foundation in the real world. The arbitrary is the anti-reality; it has no real purpose in life except to replace the reasonable and the real.

Altruism is thus based upon rationalism, the use of concepts that have no foundation in reality. The source of rationalism is the misuse of the process of deduction – which falsely consists of drawing conclusions from faulty premises. Such false premises cannot be connected to reality and this makes the injustice of taking from the productive person an arbitrary act with no justification.

“If you have one instance of unreason, you destroy reason across the board.”^[3]

“Only reality, which includes other peoples’ rational statements, can properly lead to any cognitive quest.”^[4]

“Any civilization ruled by the arbitrary, and usually, the arbitrary starts with what letter: “f” for faith, which is just a religious variant for the arbitrary. Wherever there is widespread faith, that is the acceptance of absence of evidence, there is widespread poverty and misery as against the few (examples) of logic and abundance. And to equate with egoism, the epistemological absence of the arbitrary is pure selfishness. If I don’t have evidence, I throw it out of my mind. I won’t spend one second of my precious life on the whole world’s babbling. In other words, I come first in epistemology too.”^[5] (Parenthesis mine)

If we are to understand the fallacy of altruism, we must look at the syllogism (using valid premises) that is the anti-thesis of altruism. If we understand that the “taking” aspect of altruism is what makes it evil, we can validate the idea of altruism’s evil through the following false syllogism:

Premise 1: Altruism is the taking of rightfully own property. (The establishment of this truth requires only observation. The false premise is that the producer does not own his own product)

Premise 2: Theft of privately owned property is morally justified by God. (This is a commonly known moral false premise based in rationalism.)

Conclusions: Altruism is good. (The acceptance of this conclusion is accomplished when we justify lives being harmed or destroyed by the taking of values from productive people. We can look at the failures of socialist states, the poverty into which they descend and, we can also look at the numerous examples of genocide and mass murders that are done in the name of sacrificing people and we conclude that it is altruism that causes poverty and needfulness. It causes the poverty of the productive individual whose property is stolen from him.

This improperly premised syllogism is no small matter. As with all false statements, there is much harm that will come from holding altruism to be moral or good.

On the other hand, egoism is your demand that men treat you with respect and you expect that they do not covet your values. Egoism is your expectation of reason from others; your expectation that men give you credit where credit is due, that they love the good in you so you can love the good in them.

You get none of this with altruism. Altruists tell you that you have evil within you – when, in reality, the evil is in the actions of those men who would use altruism to steamroll your moral standards by making you question your value and making you hate yourself.

There is no justification for assuming the worst in men and for assuming that men deserve cruelty and mistreatment when they have done nothing wrong. To fight altruism and its theft of values, you should fight for your love of yourself and your right to live in a world where you fear no man especially charlatans and fraudsters.

Most people are embarrassed over seeking self-interest. They flinch and crouch when they are accused of being selfish. Altruism has so permeated our culture that many take for granted the idea that sacrifice is moral. And as a means of their self-defence, they crouch even lower and admit that profit is evil. They keep giving and giving and giving.

Yet, I do not agree. Self-interest is no vice. It is a moral value derived from man's nature as a being who survives by reasoning. If a man is to survive, he must be free to take those actions that are necessary for that survival and he should never feel guilty for his love of self. If a man survives well, that is no cause for punishment or guilt. It is no crime to act for one's self-interest so long as one does not impede the actions of others who are seeking their self-interest. This is the essence of reason applied to action.

Man is not a cell in a larger organism, not an ant, nor a wretch in a universe of scarcity. He is an independent entity with an independent thought process and with needs that he is free to discover and fulfill. There is no universal law that states he is morally responsible for the well-being of all other human beings. There is only a moral law that states he is responsible for his own interests and all other acts are optional.

The altruist, of both left and right, would be appalled at such statements as my last few. To this individual, man is a beast, a zero mentality, who must be kept from destroying himself and others. For the altruist, brow-beating man with guilt-inducing statements, making man feel guilty for being man, offering punishment and commanding man to serve, is the only way to keep man from going back to the jungle. This is their version of law and order.

But man is not a mindless brute. The altruist's view of man as a sacrificial animal is inapplicable to man. No pet-keeper would think of applying such methods to his domesticated animals. Yet, man, the most advanced creature on this earth, the being capable of reason, and characterized by volition, is to be treated like a wild animal and ruled by fear and bluff. A doctrine of love altruism is not. More appropriately, altruism is a whiplash to the back.

A morality of self-interest is not a morality for the loner. It is a philosophy for a normal healthy person who seeks to survive on earth. It is a philosophy of life, and man's societies are worth living in only to the extent that egoism is translated by law into the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Copyright Robert Villegas 2021

---

[1] Leonard Piekoff – “a situation in which thought is not possible”

[2] For an excellent discussion of altruism and its war against egoism, see Objectivism through Induction lecture course by Dr. Leonard Piekoff

[3] Objectivism through Induction by Leonard Piekoff (lecture course).

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

Being Rationally Selfish - What Does It Mean?

This post will present a narrative about how man survives when left to his own devices. My goal here is to identify the principles that a person must accept in order to survive. Later, we will use this knowledge to understand how to build a proper society.

I had originally written this chapter in the third person and past tense. However, after reviewing it, I decided that it would read better written in the first person present tense. I want the reader to speak for himself in a direct way rather than read about an abstract theoretical other man. I suggest that, as you read this, you put yourself in the place of the person telling the story.

I start with a massive storm in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. My ship has broken to pieces and gone down. After a few hours of clinging to the rope of a capsized life boat, I find myself on the beach of a small island. The storm is over and I can finally rest. Tired of struggling against the sea, I collapse on the beach before eventually recovering my senses. When I look around, I notice the pieces of my broken ship that have washed up with me. I survey my situation and wonder if I will ever return home. After a few minutes, I realize that I must learn how to survive in my new circumstances.

Before I can begin working on my survival, I must hold some fundamental ideas that are related to every thought and decision I make. First, I must hold that absolutes exist, that reality is predictable; secondly, I must hold that my mind is capable of identifying reality; and thirdly, I must hold that only I can choose the values that will preserve my life. I am, after all, alone in the world. Only I live in this body and only I think with this mind. No one can do this for me, especially on this lonely island.

These fundamental ideas are of major importance for me. If I hold that reality is not bound by absolute laws, I cannot count on a predictable environment. If I think my mind is inefficacious, I will have no confidence in my conclusions. And if I don’t use my mind, I will not know what to do.

How do I get from the need to survive to a knowledge of how to survive? This is the question at the heart of morality. The answer is that I need to identify the values I will pursue while on the island. And these values must secure my survival in an absolute sense; they must actually achieve my survival.

Ayn Rand identifies values as the foundation of the moral life:

“Value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep—virtue is the act by which one gains and/or keeps it. The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics—the three values which, together, are the means to and the realization of one’s ultimate value, one’s own life—are: Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride”[1]

Reason	Purpose	Self-esteem
Rationality	Productiveness	Pride

Reason is a wide abstraction that includes all the principles necessary for correct thinking. The process of reasoning is a formal process that makes up what is called rational thinking. The virtue that helps me achieve my purpose is called productiveness which is the practice of “making” or creating the things needed for survival. Self-esteem is both the cause of and the consequence of successful thinking while pride is the result of achieving my purpose through production.

"A process of reason is a process of constant choice in answer to the question: True or False?—Right or Wrong?"[2]

“Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man’s life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive work—pride is the result.”[3]

Of prime importance for me on the island is my development and use of concepts. “A ‘concept’ is a mental integration of two or more perceptual concretes, which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by means of a specific definition. Every word in man’s language, with the exception of proper names, denotes a concept, an abstraction that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a specific kind. It is by organizing his perceptual material into concepts, and his concepts into wider and still wider concepts that man is able to grasp and retain, to identify and integrate an unlimited amount of knowledge, a knowledge extending beyond the immediate perceptions of any given, immediate moment.”[4]

Rand elaborates on an important type of concept which she identifies as value:

“Is the concept of value, of “good or evil” an arbitrary human invention, unrelated to, underived from and unsupported by any facts of reality—or is it based on a metaphysical fact, on an unalterable condition of man’s existence? (I use the word “metaphysical” to mean: that which pertains to reality, to the nature of things, to existence.) Does an arbitrary human convention, a mere custom, decree that man must guide his actions by a set of principles—or is there a fact of reality that demands it? Is ethics the province of whims; of personal emotions, social edicts and mystic revelations—or is it the province of reason? Is ethics a subjective luxury—or an objective necessity?”[5]

My values are derived from and supported by the facts on the island. I experience this need for values most urgently in my hunger pangs and in the discomfort I feel in the heat (weather) on the island. I realize that I must act now before these discomforts become insurmountable.

My discovery of this need to act is a rational judgment. I conclude that “I must act in order to survive” and “I need values in order to act” and “I must create my values as soon as possible.” I ask, “What are those values?” This leads to my discovery that I must satisfy my body’s basic needs first. I consider this and determine that my immediate values are food, clothing and shelter.

My next step is to identify as many facts as possible on the island. A fact is an aspect of reality expressed by a statement or proposition. “This is the sand” and “This is a coconut” are examples of some of the facts I discover. I look around the island and identify every fact on the island; the trees, jungle, land, shore, water, food sources, climate and shelter possibilities. I consider the nature of each item and identify which ones will most directly influence my survival. I accomplish this by isolating each item mentally and breaking it down into specific characteristics. Those items with similar characteristics, I give a specific name which helps me hold them in memory as a single mental "unit". Then I relate those named concepts’ characteristics to their usefulness as food, clothing and/or shelter.

How do I accomplish this? How do I determine whether a particular item is useful? How will I connect fact and value? How will I grasp, retain, identify and integrate each item into my purpose? For this I define principles about how each item can be used and compare it to the standard of “what will help me survive?” For instance, “a coconut contains liquid that can quench my thirst” or “fish in the ocean are edible” are examples of some principles I identify.

Notice that these principles are cognitive in nature. A principle helps me “see” facts of reality mentally. It helps me identify the characteristics of different entities and relate those characteristics to the accomplishment of a goal or value. It is a fact that I can eat fish and nourish my body. It is a fact that there is food in this environment. It is a fact that I can use a rock to kill a bird or other animal. These facts can only be “seen” conceptually but they are critical to the process of understanding reality; they exist and they help me “see” the way to success in life. The only thing left is to act in a fashion that will secure those entities for me.

Some principles can be framed as “if/then” propositions. “If I catch fish, then I can eat” and “If I build a house, then I can protect myself” are examples of some “if/then” principles I identify.

Additionally, the “code of values” I have defined (food, clothing, shelter) is based upon real facts in reality that directly relate to my real needs. They exist on the island but only I must convert them into values. There is nothing arbitrary or subjective about it. I know that I want to live; I know that I value my life and I know that in order to live I must pursue values. These are truthful statements. “’Value’ is that which one acts to gain and or keep.”[6]

And:

“There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities; to living organisms.”[7]

As I look around, I discover that some canned goods from the ship have landed on the beach. These will tide me over until I am able to process my own food supplies from the island. I need to think about what I will do once those supplies run out; but in the meantime, these items provide me with the luxury of not having to worry about food for a few days. 

With my food needs temporarily met, I decide to address the values of shelter and clothing. I notice that some luggage items from the ship have reached the shore. I also find my own luggage that contained clothes and toiletries I can use. Among the other pieces of luggage I find boots, heavy coats and other items. By evaluating these items against the standard of what it takes for protection from the elements, I narrow them down to those most effective against current weather conditions. Clothing items that don’t fit my body are set aside for possible other uses later.

For shelter, I could select a large tree to sleep under but I see that a tree won’t repel high winds, rain or hail.  In fact, my clothes are insufficient against harsher weather so I need to think long-range about how to get more protection against the elements. Again, I need to use my mind. I notice that the process of thinking, learning, inventing and planning for my own survival is highly pleasurable and I’m beginning to feel the pride that comes from production. In fact, the pleasure I find is so enjoyable that I want to engage in reasoning as much as possible. I realize that my learning has made it possible for me to successfully survive; I am experiencing the tangible success that reason makes possible and it is exhilarating.

The same types of observations I made during my fact-finding mission will help me gain additional important knowledge. But now, I must go beyond perception and sensation to create a new concept that I must make with my own hands. This means I must find materials that are useful in the creation of a home. Using a process of induction or trial and error, I can gain knowledge about other items on the island. I examine the more solid, more durable materials and evaluate their specific qualities. This requires observation, testing and planning.

During my analysis, I notice that the trees have large flat leaves. By dipping them into the ocean, I learn they can repel water and they might be useful on the roof of my soon to be home. I look at the sand on the beach and decide it is not suitable for anything because it is made up of tiny particles that do not adhere to each other. I may decide later, by combining sand with other substances such as water and mud, that I can work the sand into a more durable composition, but this will take time and research that I decide to reserve for later.

I look at the trees and test one with my hands.  I pound on it with my fist, then with a rock, I strike it to see if it breaks. I try to estimate its weight. I learn that it has some of the qualities I seek but I will have to find a way to transform it for my own use. I need something that will help me cut the tree and mold it into a frame. I look around for a tool that would do the job. I settle on a flat sharp rock. In handling the tree, I discover I can use branches of larger circumference to support my structure and smaller branches to make the walls. I realize I will need fewer stronger branches for the structural points and more of the smaller branches for the walls. I get to work making my vision into a reality.

Throughout this process, I have invented several new concepts that I had merely taken for granted back in England; a self-made home, a wooden structure, tree branch walls and a rock-tool. Each of these concepts is identified according to its “defining” characteristics and found suitable for a specific purpose. Other concepts I discovered were judged to be useless for my purposes while others had promise for other purposes. I hold each of these concepts in memory by means of a specific name that I apply to each of them.

I have discovered the importance of defining my concepts accurately. In philosophy, this is called the correspondence theory of truth. I know that my concepts must correspond to their actual natures in reality. Additionally, I not only discover them, but in the case of new concepts, I invent them – all by means of a thought process that connects my values to their actual accomplishment. The correspondence theory is reason’s way of making sure I understand reality and that my concepts function as effective cognitive tools. Only by ensuring that my concepts are “realistic” am I able to achieve my purpose.

Using this thought process, I can project how my home will look, how strong it will be and how well it will stand up to the elements. Since I have no paper or writing implements, I use a thin stick (another tool) to draw an image of my home in the sand. This is my architectural drawing and building plan. I incorporate into this drawing all the principles that will help me build the home, all the “if/thens”. It is a matter of “seeing” with my mind’s eye.

Since I had no experience in house-building back in the world, I am inventing a new field for myself (home building). And my invention of this new concept is totally liberating for me. It will make so much possible for me and even give me rest and peace of mind once it is built. I stop when I realize that I am being totally selfish about my needs and survival. My actions are, indeed, all about me and I realize there is nothing wrong about this; it is good that I survive. Indeed, my self-sufficiency, my resilience and ability to think are necessary. I understand now that there is no other moral standard to apply except my selfish need for survival. My selfishness is based upon my rational choices and only my rational choices. It is true that knowledge, principles and facts are necessary for me to live and enjoy my life. I smile when I realize this important principle. If I love my life, I must build this structure and only rational thinking will make it possible. Rational selfishness is good and the more of it I have, the better. I am energized by this and hurry to improve my circumstances.

The principle of selfishness (holding my own rational values as top priority) is an important one for me. Alone on this island, there is no question that I am living morally and that only I am the beneficiary of my actions. Properly, morality can only focus on what I, the individual, must think and do “for myself”. This will be an important discussion when it comes to identifying the principles of a proper society and it will help me answer the question of what is moral for me to do in society.

As Ayn Rand writes: “Consciousness—for those living organisms which possess it—is the basic means of survival.”[8] For me, the decision to think, the decision to use my conscious mind, is the key to my survival.

As I am deep into the process of building my new home, I stop and ask myself what would have happened if I had decided not to use my mind once I woke up on the island? This question gets to the core of the connection between facts and values and between reality and morality. What would that choice not to think have meant for my self-esteem and especially for my values? What would it have meant for my ability to produce the values necessary for my survival? Who would have provided those values for me without my singular participation? Certainly, a choice not to think would have meant that I had no desire to live or to return home. It truly is an either/or proposition; either I use my mind or I die.

The lessons in the above example point out some important facts. In order to live, it is a fact that I must use my mind. It is a fact that I must observe reality. It is a fact, that I must use concepts. I (and you) cannot survive without first thinking, working, doing, inventing and improving. The better use you make of your mind, the better survivor you will be.

---

[1] The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics” ebook

[2] Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

[3] The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics” ebook

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

[7] Ibid

[8] Ibid