Onkar Ghate on Adam Smith, Ayn Rand and ethics — VOICES for REASON

My colleague Onkar Ghate has written a guest post for the Division of Labour blog answering a question on the moral views of Adam Smith and of Ayn Rand. The question was prompted by a recent debate between ARI’s Yaron Brook and Prof. James Otteson (a scholar of Smith). That spirited debate took place at the annual conference of the Association of Private Enterprise Education. The question:

Take Smith’s famous thought experiment about — by some fantastic unstated mechanism — you (“a man of humanity in Europe”, in 1759) could prevent an earthquake in China by cutting off your pinky. Smith says that of course you would do so, and then addresses why. Yaron, would you cut off your pinky? Assume that knowledge of the whole affair would necessarily remain entire personal. If yes, and you claim to square that with “selfishness,” aren’t you using words in an opportunistic and unmanageable way?

In response, Dr. Ghate begins his post:

The question’s undertone is that everyone “just knows” it’s right to cut off your finger. Moral theory’s task is to rationalize this incontrovertible conclusion; Rand’s theory can’t, however, because it’s an abuse of language to call the action selfish.

But it’s a mistake to think that Rand’s ethics begins with the moral beliefs that happen to saturate the culture, not with reality. True, it would be an abuse of language to label the action Smith envisions “selfish”: it is self-sacrificial. Precisely for this reason, Rand’s ethics would pronounce the action immoral.

To understand the radical difference between Smith and Rand here, one must grasp the principles at work.

Read the whole thing.

image: wikimedia commons