A (conservative) Christian response to Ayn Rand: Selfishness vs. self-interest

           We looked at Rand’s attitude towards what she called altruism (in a word, she loathed it), and ended on one of my final arguments against her view on the topic. I think she (and her followers) have real trouble distinguishing between selfishness and self-interest.

            I’m using the term “selfishness” the way it’s commonly used: putting your own desires before the needs of others. You see someone in need, and you think “I’d like to help them, but my time is too valuable. It’ll cost me more than I’m willing to pay.” You see a child drowning, and you think “Well, it’s not my child, so I’m going to keep on walking.” The most obvious examples of this attitude are in the story most commonly known as “The Good Samaritan.” Remember, there were a priest and a Levite who saw the man and passed by on the other side. For whatever reason (Jesus doesn’t elaborate), they put their own desires ahead of a man’s life.

            Obviously the Bible repeatedly condemns this way of thinking and acting. If our Lord Jesus had thought this way, we’d be up the proverbial creek without the paddle. And as we saw yesterday, all of us at one time or another are dependent on the compassion of others.

            But there’s such a thing as legitimate self-interest. Paul commands husbands to love their wives (as Christ loved the church), but believe it or not, he introduces self-interest as one of the reasons to do this. Read this carefully:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,  and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

            Did you catch that? For me not to love to my wife the way I’m supposed to is not just wrong, it’s foolish and stupid and self-destructive. My wife and I are one flesh, whether I know it or not, whether I believe it or not, and whether I act like it or not. I don’t hurt my own body, at least not on purpose. A normal person cares about their body. They nourish it and protect it. There’s nothing in this world that affects my wife that doesn’t affect me. Her victories are mine. Her losses are mine. Imagine if I came up to you and my arm was bleeding profusely. You point out the obvious, and my response is “Ah, it’s nothing. It’s just my arm. I’ve got two, after all.” That’s how dumb it’d be for me not to cherish and honor and protect and provide for my wife.

            If I want more pleasant things out of life, there’s nothing wrong with that in and of itself. If I want to make more money than I’m currently making, there’s nothing wrong with that in and of itself. If I exercise physically and eat better because I want to feel better, there’s nothing wrong with that in and of itself.  

            Why do I keep adding that little caveat in italics? Because it’s quite possible that any desire for anything that’s good in life can become an idol. If it’s more important than my relationship with God, then that makes it wrong. Of course the Bible’s filled with warnings about putting too much effort into gaining more money. The love of money or pleasure or sex or anything else can be a snare. But they’re good things which God’s placed in our world, and they’re nothing but tools. They can be good or bad depending on how important they are in my life.

            One way I can measure how important they are to me is how reluctant I am to give them up when someone else’s needs conflict with them. Or if Jesus came up to me and told me to sell all my possessions and give the proceeds to the poor, like he did on one occasion, then the only legitimate response would be to obey with a smile on my face.

            But in Rand’s thought, there’s no distinction between selfishness and legitimate self-interest. Peter Schwartz, the one-time member of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute, defined altruism this way: “Altruism is the doctrine that man has no moral right to exist for his own sake. Taken from the Latin alter (or "other"), it is the doctrine that the sole justification for your life is your willingness to sacrifice it to others.” That may be his definition, and from what I’ve read of her works, it’d certainly agree with Rand, but it fails to make that all-important distinction. We’re supposed to be interested in ourselves, and every person has innate value because of the Imago Dei imprinted upon us. But putting your own self-interest ahead of others’ welfare is selfishness, and it’s wrong.

            As usual, C. S. Lewis really helps me put this in balanced perspective: 

Take the promises of Jesus himself.. . .If we consider the unblushing promises of reward … promised in the Gospels, it would seem that our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at sea. We are far too easily pleased.