Max Gladwell

In order to bridge the gap between liberals and conservatives on the environment, we should look to Objectivism and frame the issues accordingly.

Who is Max Gladwell? If you’ve answered that question, then you know the name was partly inspired by Ayn Rand’s magnus opus, Atlas Shrugged, and her Objectivist philosophy. It’s fitting on many levels, especially as we consider the many issues associated with green living.

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. –Ayn Rand

We had a similar ideal in mind when we created Max Gladwell, which seeks to champion the idea that our social and environmental problems are solvable, that entrepreneurs will lead the way, and that technological innovation holds the key. Our philosophy also holds that reason is paramount to these ideals.

In further explaining Objectivism, Rand outlines it as follows:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism

She then translates these terms into more familiar language:

1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”
2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it too.”
3. “Man is an end in himself.”
4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

This is the foundation for the following argument that the ideas of saving the planet and caring for the environment are based on faulty reasoning…and ultimately undermine the true spirit and intent of saving the planet and caring for the environment.

On Egoism

First, let’s explore the nature of self-interest and egoism, otherwise known as selfishness. These terms have gotten a bad wrap, in part due to the misguided morality that is religion. Selfishness is generally frowned upon, and we’ve even been lead to believe that acting according to our individual self interest is somehow unethical. When, in fact, the opposite is true. If you explore the different combinations of selfishness vs. selflessness and ethical vs. unethical, only one of them makes any sense.

You can live unethically and claim you’re doing it for selfless reasons. Robyn Hood and eco-terrorists come to mind. Or you can live unethically for selfish reasons. Organized crime and Enron come to mind. When it comes to the person who claims to live ethically and selflessly, it is either that it is not selfless at all or else they are, in fact, living unethically. Because truly selfless behavior implies that you are subjecting yourself as a means to the ends of others rather than as an end to yourself. Therefore, the only virtuous and reasonable way to live is ethically and selfishly. These are not mutually exclusive. In fact, living selfishly follows necessarily from living ethically.

Rand describes ethics as follows:

“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, self-esteem. Man–every man–is an end in himself, not a means to the ends 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. Thus, Objectivism rejects any form of altruism–the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.”

This isn’t to say that one cannot perform acts of kindness or make contributions to charity. What it does say is that you are doing these things for your own selfish reasons, whatever those happen to be, and there’s nothing wrong with that. This key distinction implies that you are the end instead of the means. The fulfillment or reward you may derive from an act of kindness is the end.

This is where many misinterpret Rand’s philosophy. Some Objectivists embrace the rational self-interest part but forget about the ethics. What you get then is Enron, Abramoff, and Libby. You get a person who, contrary to Rand’s philosophy, “sacrifices others to himself.”

On Morality

Though the nature of ethics and morality is a huge topic, for the sake of brevity we’ll limit it to three simple words: do no harm. This is the basic principle. But it should also be noted that morality is entirely a human construct and is the exclusive province of humanity. It cannot be extended to other forms of life or inanimate objects. And no other species shares a moral code because none possesses the reasoning capacity upon which it is based. All other animal species live exclusively by the laws of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Humans are alone in tempering these with ethics and morality i.e. the do-no-harm principle.

What constitutes harm in an organized society is ultimately defined by laws and mediated through a system of justice. But in the vast majority of cases, morality is more about not doing certain things as opposed to our duties to do one thing or another. Which is to say that there are few moral obligations that require us to act. We are not obligated to provide for someone in need. We are not obligated to “make the world a better place” or to sacrifice ourselves to help others. There are exceptions where it is clearly within our capacity to prevent a person from drowning, for example, where society agrees that non-action constitutes harm and one can be held accountable, but these are rare.

To put this into context, morality dictates that we are not obligated to protect endangered species, but rather to not destroy them if it would cause us harm. We are not obligated to develop cures to diseases, only to not willingly cause or spread disease. We are not obligated to feed the hungry but rather to not willingly starve others. We are not obligated to remove pollution from the air but rather to not cause pollution in the first place. We are not obligated to protect the forests or any other type of ecosystem, but we’d be prohibited from destroying them if doing so would cause us harm.

What’s expressly absent from the Objectivist philosophy is the belief that morality is grounded in anything but human thought and reason. According to Rand,

Man is a rational being. Reason, as man’s only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual’s choice. “Man is a being of volitional consciousness.” “That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ‘free will’ is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. [This is] the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is the victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions.)

On Altruism

The notion of altruism is grounded in two types of belief systems. The first is communism, where the individual subjects themselves, willingly or unwillingly, to the State for the sake of the greater good. The second is religious mythology, where one subscribes to a moral code that is handed down by God. Religious faith is a morality not created by man but rather imposed upon him. As with communism, the individual subjects himself to a higher power. In both cases, man serves as a means to some external end.

To be clear, altruism is not defined as simply performing some good or generous act. Being a good neighbor or responsible citizen is not altruistic. Just as our view of egotism and self interest have been distorted, altruism has been presented through religion and communism as both moral and righteous. It’s not. On the contrary, for any free-thinking and reasonable individual, altruism is immoral. Which is to say that subjecting yourself to another person, organization, or being as a means to their ends necessarily does harm…to yourself. It is, therefore, immoral. Again, this does not preclude you from being generous and helping others, so long as it is of your own free will. At which point it cannot be considered altruism but rather generosity vis a vis your own self interest.

As an example, take JFK’s famous line, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” How about neither? How about, “Ask what you can do for yourself that, as a byproduct, might also benefit your country and all mankind without doing harm to others?” Doesn’t have the same ring to it, but that’s how Objectivism works.

Steve Jobs is not an altruist. But that doesn’t mean we haven’t benefited from his tireless efforts to build and rebuild Apple. Jobs acted in his own self interest when he developed the Mac computer, iPod, and iPhone. It wasn’t to provide jobs or make the world a better place. Those were merely the byproducts, for better or worse, of his own motivations and egotism. We don’t know for sure what motivates Jobs. It could be money or fame or personal fulfillment. It doesn’t matter. What does matter is that he didn’t do it for anyone else but himself.

Bill Gates is also not an altruist. Until recently, no one would have accused him of such a thing. But since donating tens of billions of dollars to his foundation, one might be tempted to label him with this supposed quality. Again, we don’t know his motivations. It could be a way to generate very expensive PR for Microsoft. It could be an effort to build his legacy, or it just might make him feel good. It doesn’t matter. Gates has his reasons, none of which are altruistic in any way. Is he one of history’s most generous philanthropists? Yes. But that doesn’t mean he’s altruistic.

This may seem like semantics to some, but the distinctions are rather profound, especially when it comes to environmental issues and policy.

On Environmentalism

Despite having a substantial Christian contingent, which ostensibly believes in altruism by way of religion, political conservatives generally understand and embrace the virtue of rational self interest better than liberals. Objectivism is woven into much of their political belief system, even though its adherents can tend to skirt the part about morality, often justifying it through religion. On the other hand, liberals tend to allow that we’re expressly obligated to serve our “fellow man” or the State itself, when no such duty exists.

We can all agree, however, that the continued health and prosperity of the human race is our single greatest priority. And this is precisely how so-called environmental issues should be framed and presented.

There is a chasmic disconnect when a liberal says to a conservative, “We have to save the planet and preserve the environment.” This seems to imply that we have a moral obligation to save trees, oceans, and animal species for their own sake and that we’re somehow threatening the planet’s wellbeing, as if the planet itself has moral standing. Our obligation to preserve the Earth’s ecosystems stems exclusively from our dependence on them for health and prosperity. We need to utilize the Earth’s resources to sustain us well beyond the foreseeable future. As Rand said, “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” We’ve not obeyed Nature, so we’re having one helluva time commanding it.

Just as liberal tree-huggers need to understand that we cannot make a case for altruism in any sense, least of all when it comes to saving the environment, conservatives need to understand that “saving the planet” is a euphemism for saving ourselves. It’s not the environment we’re actually concerned about. It’s our ego-driven selves, along with the future generations that will carry our DNA. And that’s the only compelling case we can make in taking any and all action to protect and preserve our vital ecosystems e.g. air, freshwater, forests, oceans, and the animals upon which they all depend. We have a moral obligation to preserve the integrity of the environment such that it does no harm to current or future generations of humans.

Related Posts

• The Call for a Green Constitutional Convention
• Stephen Colbert on Atlas Shrugged: Rand Illusion
• The Wiki Philosophy of Jimmy Wales
• Detroit’s Big Three Automakers Go for the Bailout
• Is Virgance on the Verge of Web 3.0?