The Congruity Among Ayn Rand's Metaphysics, Epistemology, Value Theory, and Ethics
Metaphysics
Metaphysics is the first philosophical branch of knowledge. At
the metaphysical level, Rand’s Objectivism begins with axioms –
fundamental truths or irreducible primaries that are self-evident by means
of direct perception, the basis for all further knowledge, and undeniable
without self-contradiction. Axioms cannot be reduced to other facts or
broken down into component parts. They require no proofs or explanations.
Objectivism’s three basic philosophical axioms are existence,
consciousness, and identity – presuppositions of every concept and every
statement.
Existence exists and encompasses everything including all states
of consciousness. The world exists independently of the mind and is there
to be discovered by the mind. In order to be conscious, we must be
conscious of something. There can be no consciousness if nothing exists.
Consciousness, the faculty of perceiving that which exists, is the ability
to discover, rather than to create, objects. Consciousness, a relational
concept, presupposes the existence of something external to consciousness,
something to be aware of. Initially, we become aware of something outside
of our consciousness and then we become aware of our consciousness by
contemplating on the process through which we became aware.
Rand explains that the metaphysically given (i.e., any fact
inherent in existence apart from the human action) is absolute and simply
is. The metaphysically given includes scientific laws and events taking
place outside of the control of men. The metaphysically given must be
accepted and cannot be changed. She explains, however, that man has the
ability to adapt nature to meet his requirements. Man can creatively
rearrange the combination of nature’s elements by enacting the required
cause, the one necessitated by the immutable laws of existence. The
man-made includes any object, institution, procedure, or rule of conduct
created by man. Man-made facts are products of choice and can be evaluated
and judged and then accepted or rejected and changed when necessary.
Epistemology
Epistemology deals with the nature and starting point of
knowledge, with the nature and correct exercise of reason, with reason’s
connection to the senses and perception, with the possibility of other
sources of knowledge, and with the nature and attainability of certainty.
Rand explains that reason is man’s cognitive faculty for organizing
perceptual data in conceptual terms through the use of the principles of
logic. Knowledge exists when a person approaches the facts of reality
through either perceptual observation or conceptualization.
Epistemology exists because man is a limited fallible being who
learns in disjointed incremental steps and who therefore requires a proper
procedure to acquire the knowledge necessary to act, survive, and
flourish. A man does not have innate knowledge or instincts that will
automatically and unerringly promote his well-being. He does not
inevitably know what will help or hinder his life. He therefore needs to
know how to acquire reliable and objective knowledge of reality. A man has
to gain such knowledge in order to live. A person can only know from
within the context of a human way of knowing. Because human beings are
neither omniscient nor infallible, all knowledge is contextual in nature.
Whereas concepts are abstractions (i.e., universals), everything
that man apprehends is specific and concrete. Concept-formation is based
on the recognition of similarity among the existents being conceptualized.
Rand explains that an individual perceptually discriminates and
distinguishes specific entities from their background and from one
another. A person then groups objects according to their similarities
regarding each of them as a unit. He then integrates a grouping of units
into a single mental entity called a concept. The ability to perceive
entities or units is man’s distinctive method of cognition and the gateway
to the conceptual level of man’s consciousness. According to Rand, a
concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated
according to one or more characteristics and united by a specific
definition. A definition is the condensation of a large body of
observations. A concept is kept in mind by referring to it by a perceptual
concrete (i.e., a word). A word transfers a concept into a mental entity
whenever a definition gives it identity.
The essential characteristics of a concept are epistemological
rather than metaphysical. Rand explains that concepts are neither
intrinsic abstract entities existing independently of a person’s mind nor
are they nominal products of a person’s consciousness, unrelated to
reality. Concepts are epistemologically objective in that they are
produced by man’s consciousness in accordance with the facts of reality.
Concepts are mental integrations of factual data. They are the products of
a cognitive method of classification whose processes must be performed by
a human being, but whose content is determined by reality. For Rand,
essences are epistemological rather than metaphysical.
Rand contends that, although concepts and definitions are in
one’s mind, they are not arbitrary because they reflect reality, which is
objective. Both consciousness in metaphysics and concepts in epistemology
are real and part of ordinary existence – the mind is part of reality. She
views concepts as open-ended constructs which subsume all information
about their referents, including the information not yet discerned. New
facts and discoveries expand or extend a person’s concepts, but they do
not overthrow or invalidate them. Concepts must conform to the facts of
reality.
In order to be objective in one’s conceptual endeavors, a human
being must fully adhere to reality by applying certain methodological
rules based on facts and proper for man’s form of cognition. For man, a
being with rational consciousness, the appropriate method for conforming
to objective reality is reason and logic. In order to survive man needs
knowledge and reason is his tool of knowledge.
For Rand, the designation, objective, refers to both the
functioning of the concept-formation process and to the output of that
process when it is properly performed. A man’s consciousness can acquire
objective knowledge of reality by employing the proper means of reason in
accordance with the rules of logic. When a correct cognitive process has
been followed it can be said that the output of that process is objective.
In turn, when the mind conforms to mind-independent reality, the theory of
conceptual functioning being followed can be termed objective. The term
objective thus applies to both method and to content.
Value
Theory
According to Rand, all concepts are derived from facts including
the concept “value.” All concepts, including the concept of value, are
aspects of reality in relationship to individual men. Values are
epistemologically objective when they are discovered through objective
conceptual processes and are metaphysically objective when their
achievement requires conformity to reality.
Rand asks what fact or facts of reality give rise to the concept
of value. She reasons that there must be something in perceptual reality
that results in the concept value. She argues that it is only from
observing other living things (and oneself introspectively) in the pursuit
of their own lives that a person can perceive the referents of the term
value. For example, people act to attain various material and other goods
and determine their choices by reference to various goals, ends,
standards, or principles. For Rand, the concept of value depends upon and
is derived from the antecedent concept of life. It is life that entails
the possibility of something being good or bad for it. The normative
aspect of reality arises with the appearance of life.
Ayn Rand defined value as that which one acts to gain and/or
keep. A value is an object of action. In this sense we can say that
everyone pursues values. This includes any goal-directed behavior. The
term, value, thus can refer in a general, neutral, or descriptive sense to
what is observable. We see people going after things. Initially, we do not
consider whether or not people are properly employing their free will when
they pursue their values. As children, we first get the idea of value
implicity from observation and introspection. We then move from an initial
descriptive idea of value toward a normative definition of value that
includes the notion that a legitimate value serves one’s life. Because
reality is the source and standard of rational values, exposure to reality
is the means by which we discover them.
The first generic and descriptive idea of value ties value to
reality and is a precondition to an objective and normative perspective on
value. The second, narrower way of looking at value adds the words “which
furthers one’s life” and the idea of the proper and rational use of a
person’s free will. The second definition or Objectivist concept of value
is a derivative or inference from the first. The first view of value comes
before the knowledge of life as the standard of value. The second view of
value gives normative guidance and provides an objective standard to
evaluate the use of one’s free will.
Each
derivative value exists in a value chain or network in which every value
(except for the ultimate value) leads to other values and thus serves both
as an end and as a means to other values. A biological ends-means process
leads to the ultimate end of the chain which, for a living entity, is its
life. For a human individual, the end is survival and happiness and the
means are values and virtues that serve that end. Values and virtues are
common to, and necessary for, the flourishing of every human person.
However, each individual will require them to a different degree. Each man
employs his individual judgments to determine the amount of time and
effort that should go into the pursuit of various values and virtues.
Finding the proper combination and proportion is the task for each person
in view of his own talents, potentialities, and circumstances. Values and
virtues are necessary for a flourishing life and are objectively
discernable, but the exact weighting of them for a specific person is
highly individualized.
In order for a chain of values to make sense, there must be some
end in itself and ultimate value for which all other values are means. An
end in itself is something that we pursue for its own sake rather than
pursuing it for the sake of something else. An ultimate value is sought
for its own sake and for the sake of which we pursue everything else. An
infinite progression or chain of ends and means toward a non-existent end
is a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility. All must converge on
an ultimate value.
There are some values that we pursue both for their own sake and
for the sake of something further. Such a value is an end in itself but is
not an ultimate value. A value in a chain or hierarchy can at once be a
whole and at the same time a part. Life, one’s ultimate value, is a
process of action that has certain requirements such as productive work,
friendship, love, art, and so on. A person’s work life, love life, home
life, social life, etc., are necessary components of the action of one’s
life. Each part or ingredient is a means to the end of life while, at the
same time, being part of what living is. The process of life subsumes each
of its components. It follows that all elements of one’s life are both
means and ends in themselves but they are not the ultimate value. They are
means to the whole of one’s life. Every aspect of a person’s life is an
end in itself that also serves the further end of maintaining the overall
process of which it is a component. One’s life itself in total is the
ultimate and regulatory value of all of a person’s other values.
An ultimate value is necessary if a person is to make rational
choices. One ultimate value is required for a person to decide how to act.
Evaluation necessitates teleological measurement in order to make our
potential values commensurable. An ultimate value is needed by which a
person can decide to apportion his time and effort and to judge the
relevant amounts and proportions of each. Teleological measurement is
required in order to establish a graded or ordinal relationship of means
to ends. A person must be able to make various values, in the form of
means and ends, comparable in order to decide what to do in inevitable
cases of conflicts. When different values come into conflict a person
refers to a higher value in order to resolve the conflict.
An individual’s task is to choose from among numerous values to
find the most appropriate for himself. A person must make specific choices
with respect to his career, his relationships, and so on. A hierarchy of
values helps people make judgments regarding what to do or to pursue. To
do this, an individual must assign a weight, either explicitly or
implicitly, to his values. Values need to be weighted or ranked in terms
of ordinal numbers. A man requires a prioritized enumeration of values. He
must judge the ultimate contribution to the value of his life that exists
at the apex of his hierarchy.
A man needs ideas regarding what to pursue in life and ideas
with respect to the required means to get what he is seeking. Each person
must form values, hierarchize them, and pursue them. A man must expose
himself to many aspects of reality in order to discover the things that he
loves (i.e., his values). After a man immerses himself in observational
reality he must then choose to delimit them to those that most excite and
interest him and ignite his soul. He needs to identify the crucial
indispensable values to his life and distinguish them from lesser values
and non-values. He requires an explicit value hierarchy and should
organize his time, effort, and lifestyle around that hierarchy. A person’s
top values get a disproportionate amount of his attention, the next
highest level of values gets the next call, and so on down his hierarchy.
By eliminating non-values, filling one’s life with things that he loves,
and doing those things in the order in which he loves them, a man is on
track to accomplish what he wants to do with his finite life. Of course,
he should select and pursue values that are rational and metaphysically
appropriate for him. Whether or not the means chosen to achieve one’s
values will be sufficient is determined by objective reality.
A value is an object of goal-directed action. The fact that a
person has values implies the existence of his goal-directed actions.
Values are distinct from goals despite the fact that in general parlance
goals and values are often used interchangeably. One’s goals depend upon
his values and for a rational person values depend upon the judgment of
his mind. A man acts in order to achieve goals that result in his
obtaining values. Actions are performed in response to one’s values and
are undertaken to achieve some goal or end.
To be a value means to be good for someone and for something.
Life is one’s fundamental value because life is conditional and requires a
particular course of action to maintain it. Something can be good or bad
only to a living organism, such as a human being, acting to survive. Man’s
life is the ultimate value and the standard of value for a human being.
A man must make value judgments in order to act. He must choose
in the face of an alternative that having or not having the value makes
some difference to him. The difference it makes is the alternative he
faces. A value exists in a chain of values and must have some ending
point. There must be some fundamental difference or fundamental
alternative that marks the cessation of one’s value chain. There must be
some basic alternative that makes no additional difference or, stated
differently, a fundamental difference that makes all the difference. It is
his life, the process of self-sustaining action, that is the fundamental
alternative at the end of a man’s value chain. One’s life is the
alternative that underpins all of his evaluative judgments. It is his
ultimate value and the proper end of all the valuer does. One’s life is
not pursued for the sake of anything beyond itself. It is gained and
maintained through a constant process of self-sustaining action.
The fundamental fact of reality that gives rise to the concept
of value is that living beings have to attain certain ends in order to
sustain their lives. The facts regarding what enhances or hinders life are
objective, founded on the facts of reality, and grounded in cognition. The
act of valuation is a type of abstraction. It is a product of the process
of concept-formation and use. Objective values are identified by a process
of rational cognition. This should not be surprising because people do
think, argue, and act as if normative issues can be decided by considering
the facts of a situation.
Ethics
Ethics, a code of values to rationally guide man’s choices and
actions, is an objective, metaphysical necessity for a man’s survival. A
proper ethics gives practical guidance to help people think and direct
their lives. Ethics aids a man in defining and attaining his values,
goals, and happiness. A man needs ethics because he requires values to
survive. The telos of ethics is a person’s own survival and
happiness. The realm of ethics includes those matters that are potentially
under a man’s control. A man’s uncoerced volition is necessary to have an
objective theory of morality. He can discover values only through a
volitional process of reason.
Rand’s ethics identifies the good and bad according to the
rational standard of value of man’s life qua man. Her Objectivist
Ethics focuses on what is, in reality, good or best for each unique
individual human being. Such an ethics is rational, objective, and
personal. Accordingly, a man’s goal should be to become the best possible
person in the context of who and what he is and of what is possible for
him.
Rand explains that objective and contextual knowledge, including
ethical knowledge, can be obtained through rational means. A person
requires conceptual knowledge in the form of abstractions to guide his
actions. Moral concepts necessarily come into play when one acts. A man
needs to acquire knowledge of external reality and self-knowledge in order
to discover and choose his values, goals, and actions. He requires
knowledge of what is possible and of the potential means to achieve that
which is possible.
To acquire knowledge, a person needs to function at a certain
level of abstraction. A man subsumes concretes under abstractions and his
hierarchy of abstractions leads to general evaluative principles. A
principle is a proposition that integrates facts, observations,
experiences, and knowledge about subjects and cases. A man needs an
adequate set of principles to provide basic guidance in living well. He
must consciously identify the principles he wants to live by and must
critically evaluate his values and principles.
Rational moral principles guide us toward values and are
essential for achieving moral integrity, character, and happiness. Living
by rational principles tends to make principled thought and actions
habitual. When we habitually act on sound moral principles we develop
virtues and incorporate our moral orientation into our character. Rand
connects virtues to the objective requirements of man’s survival and
flourishing. Moral principles are needed because the standard of survival
and flourishing is too abstract. To act in a concrete situation, a man
needs to have some basic view of what he is acting for and how he should
act. Because actions are subsumed under principles, it is imperative to
adopt and automatize good principles. Acting on principles cultivates
corresponding virtues which, in turn, leads to value attainment,
flourishing, and happiness.
Focus involves a man’s decision to activate his mind. A person
can choose to make a self-starting decision to stay open to the positive
aspects of reality that enable him to gain and keep life-promoting values.
Of course, he will also want to be alert for negative aspects of reality
that should be avoided. It takes effort to stay in focus by using your
free will to mobilize your consciousness and mental resources. Although
focus is not automatic and is demanding, it is rewarding, natural, and
enjoyable. It takes effort, but does not involve pain or suffering. To be
in focus does not involve continuous mental work. Focus, a quality of
alertness, is a precondition of awareness of reality and of cognition. It
is one’s readiness to direct his attention. Focus is immediately available
to each individual and has no correlation with his ability to
conceptualize, to use logic, to be objective, and so on. Focus comes
before any knowledge of methodology. Focus simply means that one is ready
to think and to learn and to use the best approach known to him. Focus
means readiness to proceed and to turn on the mental mechanism. It is
volitional. It is like waking up and saying to yourself that you are alert
and ready for whatever the world has in store for you. You are ready to
call on whatever ability and power you have and are ready to spring into
action. Although mental activity depends upon and presupposes focus, focus
does not necessarily involve mental activity. Naturally, when a person is
in focus, he will discover many reasons to use his cognitive abilities.
The choice to focus enters both in the formation of one’s ideas,
values, and principles, and in keeping his knowledge and values active in
mind so that they can frame his actions. Free will is used in the choice
to focus or not when determining how one will reach factual and value
judgments. A person must be alert for opportunities to form one’s ideas,
values, and principles. When a man uses volition to focus and think before
he decides to accept ideas he is evoking a causal process. A man must also
use his free will to be in focus for his thinking to guide his actions.
Free will and focus are indispensable in both the critical thought process
and in translating thinking into action.
A person uses his free will to determine his focus and how
logical to be. Through the employment of his free will, a man forms and
selects the principles that underlie his actions. Focusing one’s mind,
staying in focus, thinking, and critically assessing one’s principles
includes introspection to identify and assess the principles that one has
automatized.
A man who thinks in principles makes himself aware of the best
means of attaining his ends in the full context of his life. Moral
principles are true in a delimited context. Recognizing the moral context
of a situation precedes one’s chosen actions in that situation. A man
should not evade relevant knowledge nor drop context when he acts. Moral
principles are absolute within the context in which they are defined and
applied. Of course, some cases will fall outside the context in which they
are defined and applicable. It is therefore essential for a person to
validate his principles and to understand the contexts that give rise to
these principles.
Thinking is needed in order to understand the facts of a
situation and to apply appropriate principles to the circumstances. For
example, honesty, as a principle, states that it is immoral to
misrepresent the truth in a context in which a person’s goal is to obtain
values from others. It follows that in a different context in which a
person is attempting to use deceit or force in order to gain values from
an individual, it is appropriate for the wronged individual to select
self-defense as his appropriate principle instead of honesty. The context
is different from one calling for honesty on his part.
Honesty is an essential principle because the proper end of a
man’s actions is his own objective flourishing. The moral appropriateness
of honesty is grounded in metaphysics. A person must focus on what reality
requires if he is to attain his ends. A person should tell the relevant
truth. What the relevant truth is depends on the type of relationship a
person has with the individual with whom he is dealing.
In Rand’s biocentric ethics moral behavior is judged in relation
to achieving specific ends with the final end being an individual’s life
or flourishing. The act of deciding necessitates the investigation of how
an action pertains to what is best for one’s own life. This is not done in
a duty-based ethic that is limited to precepts and rules. In a
duty-oriented ethical system rules or duties are placed between a person
and reality. In a biocentric ethics what is moral is the understood and
the chosen rather than the imposed and the obeyed. Principles are valuable
ethical concepts that do not require imperatives or obligations as their
justification.
Altruist moralities hold that morality is painful and difficult
and involves ideas such as self-abnegation and self-sacrifice.
Contrariwise, an egoist morality, such as the one found in Objectivism,
maintains that morality is natural, attractive, and enjoyable. Of course,
there is work involved in staying in focus, acquiring knowledge,
formulating moral principles, and applying them in the appropriate
contexts. Morality is demanding but it is also indispensable and
rewarding. Remember, the purpose of morality is to enjoy life, flourish,
and be happy.
Unity
in Objectivism
Ayn Rand, a supreme systems-builder, understood that all aspects
of the universe are interconnected. Metaphysically, there is one universe
in which every entity is related in some way to all the others. No aspect
of the total can exist apart from the total. All entities are related
through the inexorable laws of cause and effect. No concrete existent is
totally isolated without cause and effect. Each entity affects and is
affected by the others.
According to Rand, it follows that all true knowledge is
interrelated and interconnected properly reflecting the single totality
that is the universe. The key is Rand’s view that the relationship of a
man’s consciousness to existence is objective. Through the use of reason
and its methods, objective concepts can be formed and brought together
according to objective relationships among the many existents. The gaining
of objective knowledge is a metaphysically grounded process because all
concretes are different and related to every other concrete and to the
total that is the universe. Rand emphasized the need to understand the
nature of knowledge and its unity and the requirement for a man to
interpret and to synthesize knowledge from various specialties and from
various levels of abstraction.
Rand explains the key to understanding ethics is found in the
concept of value – it is thus located in epistemology and metaphysics. Her
revolutionary theory of concepts is what directly led her to innovations
in the fields of value theory and ethics and moral philosophy. She saw
that standards of value and moral goodness are grounded in the facts of
the nature of man and the world objectively understood. Her emphasis on
organic unity is marvelously embodied in Objectivism’s integrated views on
metaphysics, epistemology, value theory and ethics. The reciprocal
interactions and interconnections between these areas are such that each
supports, affects, and mutually implicates the others and the whole and
makes them possible. Rand’s revolutionary philosophy has found a way to
objectively connect consciousness with actual integration in the real
world.
Dr. Edward W. Younkins is a Professor of Accountancy and Business Administration at Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia. He is the author of Capitalism and Commerce: Conceptual Foundations of Free Enterprise.
Click here to return to TRA's Issue XXV Index.
Learn about Mr. Stolyarov's novel, Eden against the Colossus, here.Read Mr. Stolyarov's comprehensive treatise, A Rational Cosmology, explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time, sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, here.