Objecting to Objectivism

In the midst of a resurgence in the popularity of Ayn Rand, Peter Wehner reminds us of what's objectionable in her "Objectivism":

Ms. Rand may have been a popular novelist, but her philosophy is deeply problematic and morally indefensible.

Ayn Rand was, of course, the founder of Objectivism – whose ethic, she said in a 1964 interview, holds that “man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself.” She has argued that “friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite; whereas, if he places his work first, there is no conflict between his work and his enjoyment of human relationships.” [emphasis added]

Click over to the Corner for her remarks on Christ and the sacrifice of the cross. Unconditional love has no place in her philosophy.

Mr. Wehner gives us some history of conservatism's contemporary response to her novels, quoting WFB as well as Whittaker Chambers, who smelled a "dictatorial tone" throughout Atlas Shrugged (and he ought to know).

Mr. Wehner concludes:

What Rand was peddling is a brittle, arid, mean, and ultimately hollow philosophy. No society could thrive if its tenets were taken seriously and widely accepted. Ayn Rand may have been an interesting figure and a good (if extremely long-winded) novelist; but her views were pernicious, the antithesis of a humane and proper worldview. And conservatives should say so.

Read the rest. It's not very long.

Most recent posts here.