Ayn Rand’s whole philosophy presupposes that:
• A human individual has needs
• A human individual has abilities
• A human individual’s abilities are sufficient to meet their own needs.
I do not presume to know Rand’s philosophy. Let us assume you are correct on the first two. I do not understand why you have come to the conclusion on the third. Has a human individual’s abilities ever been sufficient to meet their own needs? I assume you have in mind death (that is usually the direction one goes with such thoughts). And so? Who has not died in the end? We have gotten it into our heads in the West that a longer life is of greater value than anything else. Of what value is a long, miserable wicked life? Of what value is a beautiful shooting star life, brilliant and fleeting? Life is what we make of it, not how long it is. A poor man can have a much more impactful and meaningful life than a rich man. Riches do not guarantee anything. Why are you envious of the rich? Do you need something from them?
Needs: here again. A human has no needs. But perhaps it is worth walking through the thought again in a different way. Needs are a slippery thing. We all agree we need food and water and shelter. Oh, yes, clothing. But internet? Do we need that? Well, I suppose it depends what you need it for. Strictly speaking you do not need internet but suppose your work requires it. Well, then you need it for that. Do you need a car? Well, in most places in America it’s pretty essential if you want to get around. Again, it is needed for some purpose not needed intrinsically. I need a loan to buy a house because I do not have cash on hand to buy one outright. Again, I do need it but for a purpose. I need a private jet if I am to get around the country whenever I want. Sure. We can go up with needs. But it is always FOR something. It is never detached. And what it’s for is something we WANT! So then what does need really mean? It means we want something. So then we can go back down and figure out what it is we are wanting. It turns out that, surprise, surprise, we want to live. But we do not need to live as such. We can, and will die. We want to live. It is our preference that we live. And the same for everything labeled a need. They are all just wants.
Presumably, if a human individual’s abilities are not sufficient to meet their own needs, then he or she must simply die?
Yes. Nobody is sufficient. Everyone dies. Of course, you mean, cut short by some time. No, there is nothing that says they MUST die. That is up to them and their planning for the future. We will all have to square with that truth one day regardless if it is today or in ten years.
Not if someone else thinks they are worth supporting. Here is John Galt:
“Learn to treat as the mark of a cannibal any man's demand for your help. To demand it is to claim that your life is his property—and loathsome as such claim might be, there's something still more loathsome: your agreement. Do you ask if it's ever proper to help another man? No—if he claims it as his right or as a moral duty that you owe him. Yes—if such is your own desire based on your own selfish pleasure in the value of his person and his struggle. Suffering as such is not a value; only man's fight against suffering, is. If you choose to help a man who suffers, do it only on the ground of his virtues, of his fight to recover, of his rational record, or of the fact that he suffers unjustly; then your action is still a trade, and his virtue is the payment for your help. But to help a man who has no virtues, to help him on the ground of his suffering as such, to accept his faults, his need, as a claim —is to accept the mortgage of a zero on your values. A man who has no virtues is a hater of existence who acts on the premise of death; to help him is to sanction his evil and to support his career of destruction. Be it only a penny you will not miss or a kindly smile he has not earned, a tribute to a zero is treason to life and to all those who struggle to maintain it.” (p. 970-1)
That paragraph is so very interesting in many ways. Being nice to someone who doesn’t deserve it, says Rand, is evil through and through. Why? Because it is not justice, and justice is the only good.
Let us go through it
Learn to treat as the mark of a cannibal any man's demand for your help.
Learn: we must learn this because we do not reflexively do it
Cannibal: A cannibal is one who consumes another
Demand: Not a request
Rand is warning of where demands go. You might be inclined to help but if it is demanded, learn to treat it as though they will consume you. And she clarifies
To demand it is to claim that your life is his property
Yes, true. To request it is to appeal to the goodness of your heart. It is a gift. But to demand it, that is to make you a slave. You do not own your property or your work or your time. It is a claim on your life as his property.
and loathsome as such claim might be, there's something still more loathsome: your agreement.
Your agreement is worse, I think, because you who have squared with the truth, you who has painstakingly developed your skill and capacity, you who makes no excuses and covers for a multitude of sins, in your agreement you fail to recognize the lie and you affirm it. Your agreement stems from your compassion. Perhaps you ought to do something, to help. Perhaps you should, but that is where you are ensnared, that is where the lie hides in the shadow and you have failed to see it. You confuse your compassion, your motivation for helping your fellow man, with justification of his claim on you. No justification exist. He does not have a claim on you. But by your agreement you assent to this falsehood. You agree that those who lack virtue, by virtue of their lack, have a claim on those who are virtuous. You you raise up mistake, sloth, greed, and incompetence above patience, truth, diligence, and care; you let the lie slip in under the guise of compassion. You who have squared with the truth, fail to see this most egregious transgression and put your seal of approval on it. You make virtue a slave. Who can lay a claim? Those who fail. And what reason is cited for this? That they have failed! And you have agreed!
She clarifies
Do you ask if it's ever proper to help another man? No—if he claims it as his right or as a moral duty that you owe him. Yes—if such is your own desire based on your own selfish pleasure in the value of his person and his struggle.
It is not improper to help your fellow man. What is improper is agreeing that he has any claim upon you. If it is your choice, you are free to chose to help your fellow man. But do not be tricked into thinking you owe him by virtue of his need. This is false.
Suffering as such is not a value; only man's fight against suffering, is. If you choose to help a man who suffers, do it only on the ground of his virtues, of his fight to recover, of his rational record, or of the fact that he suffers unjustly; then your action is still a trade, and his virtue is the payment for your help.
She recognizes that, in fact, you can be bullied, and coerced, and tricked into helping your fellow man. It is not that it cannot happen. She is squaring with the truth. The truth is that your motives should be pure. Do not let yourself be bullied or coerced. If this is your motivation for helping your fellow man it is fake. Refuse to help them if you do not want to. This is squaring with the truth. They have no claim over you. Do not act as though they do. Do not let your fellow man bully you into believing he has a claim on you because of his lack.
But to help a man who has no virtues, to help him on the ground of his suffering as such, to accept his faults, his need, as a claim —is to accept the mortgage of a zero on your values.
I’m not sure what a “mortgage of a zero” means. But the way you live your life, the patience, diligence, care, planning, squaring with the truth, these speak of your values. They are what slowly, painfully, raise you up from nothing to having some capacity, having capability, and if you are very diligent perhaps even abundance. You live your life honoring these things as virtuous, as valuable, as essential. And then you shatter them to pieces by accepting, by acknowledging, by signing your name in agreement that faults, lack, poor planning, negligence, laziness, and indifference have a CLAIM on you. By your own actions in your own life you deny this. You do not practice these things or at least you strive to resist them. You chastise yourself for a job poorly done, or a problem ignored until it grows. You knew it was a problem and now you will pay a greater penalty. But in your own life you do not foist this off on another. It is yours to pay and you accept this. It is right that you should be the one to pay for your own mistakes. But, by agreeing that need is somehow a virtue that leads to the right to have a claim on something, you are agreeing to a lie that you do not believe.
A man who has no virtues is a hater of existence who acts on the premise of death; to help him is to sanction his evil and to support his career of destruction. Be it only a penny you will not miss or a kindly smile he has not earned, a tribute to a zero is treason to life and to all those who struggle to maintain it.
This seems too far. Should one really be so harsh? But notice, she specifies “no virtues”. What you drum up in your head is a person down on their luck who otherwise is a fine human being. That is not what she said. Can you conjure up the specter of a man with “no virtues”? Such a person would indeed be a hater of existence who acts on the premise of death. Indeed giving anything to him would only enable him more and work against those who love life and struggle to maintain it.
Being nice to someone who doesn’t deserve it, says Rand, is evil through and through.
Yes, but this is in your own estimation. And she extends deserving to those who can pay nothing but merely the existence of their own virtue. Which is to say that you think it will be valuable, worth it, to help them. What is evil is to pretend that you care when really you are just trying to look virtuous. Or to succumb to the pressure of those around you who say you really ought to give when you don’t think you should. When you give in these cases you are not doing what in your own estimation would be best.
