What is the root of rational self-interest in man?

[rei ichi]

I recently asked myself a (short series of related) question(s):

(Q): Hank Rearden invented, manufactured, and sold steel. Of the vocations that Hank Rearden could have potentially entertained - industrial or otherwise - why did he find the steel industry so satisfying? Similarly, Ayn Rand apparently decided at a very young age that she wanted to write for a living. Was this decision to write - an important value judgement that would affect the course of her life - an arbitrary one? Was it tantamount to allowing a feeling to 'make' an important decision, as opposed to feelings supplementing reason?

The question(s) itself, on the surface, is simplistic and not apparently problematic. I found, however, that I was not satisfied with my own response to it. It is my response that created problems:

(A): Initial interest of this kind tends to be generated, where untouched by the edict of social conditioning (as an 'interest' in not going to the Christian hell after death), by 'raw' ability; that is, a man who through basic curiosity and/or happenstance discovers that he seems to have 'natural talent' for, let's say, sculpting - perhaps he has a high spatial intelligence - tends to develop an interest therein and, subsequently, an affinity for sculpting. Since the man could apply reason to satisfy his needs and achieve a productive happiness by taking the necessary steps to become a professional sculptor, I posited that the man's enjoyment of (his impetus to pursue) the specific task of sculpting is grounded in valuing success - success being both the product of biological ability (as lent to potential achievement) and of an intellectual adherence to rational practice (as lent to actual achievement). Therefore, it seems, the man's emotional interest is actually the summation of a process of rational deduction ("I can be a successful sculptor, given my talent") from an objective value (success).

But then, I find that I can offer myself reproach in turn:

In response to (A): If the contents of (A) are accurate; if the specificity of the job itself is not centrally relevant to a man's satisfaction therein; if the initial emotional reaction to sculpting or writing or steel-making is instead a derivative of recognizing one's own ability to succeed - then it should not ultimately matter what job the man does, so long as he is capable of succeeding at his task. But wouldn't that reasoning (A) extend such that a man could be dictated a job by some collectivist authority, and achieve a productive happiness in that job so long as he succeeds doing it? This is to specifically contradict Anthem, where Rand has the protagonist unsatisfied with his 'success' at street-sweeping, regardless of the fact that his physical needs are otherwise met by the act (conformance arguably being a requisite of being fed in that scenario). (A) must therefore be incomplete or false. If (A) is indeed false, then what drives the protagonist of Anthem, if not a desire to succeed 'doing something more interesting'; what is the desire to do something 'more interesting' if not arbitrary, as what is 'interesting' is subjective; how, therefore, is following this whim through rational means qualitatively different from following any other whim through rational means? More importantly, it is almost as if the necessity of the arbitrary - as if the objective value of the arbitrary as such - is posited here. This, it seems, undermines what I argue in (A) and goes on to offer some conflict with the idea that the arbitrary should be philosophically subordinate to reason. Is the arbitrary, given this example, essential to proper life on Earth? This response makes it seem like a necessary prerequisite of happiness, and of free action in the first place.

Following these two, I have been likewise going around and around, through several similar points and counterpoints of varying strength and weakness. I am not really satisfied with any of them at the moment. I know no Objectivists with whom I might debate, in person, for the purpose of checking the argument on either side of my internal argument - hence this post.

[Jrose]

I find your post to be unneccessarily convoluted, which might lend (in part) to your difficulty in grappling with this issue. My initial response is to start with the quote, "Happiness is that state which proceeds from the achievement of one's highest values." and combine it with, "Man lives in his mind, and existence is the attempt to bring that life into physical reality."

An individual adopts a particular set of values (subconsciously or consciously) and, either through a process of reason or trial and error, determines that he will be happiest when he consistently achieves and experiences those values during the moments of his waking life. In choosing a profession, an individual takes this conclusion one step further by determining what career path offers him the best (highest amount of) opportunity to accomplish this. There is no whim involved.

Hank Rearden realized very early on that his particular set of values and vision of existence would be best fulfilled by working in the field of metallurgy. Through a process of reasoning, he was able to discover that his unique set of personal values could be best achieved by working with and developing metal.

[Hal]

An individual adopts a particular set of values (subconsciously or consciously) and, either through a process of reason or trial and error, determines that he will be happiest when he consistently achieves and experiences those values during the moments of his waking life. In choosing a profession, an individual takes this conclusion one step further by determining what career path offers him the best (highest amount of) opportunity to accomplish this. There is no whim involved.

I think the question here is "yes, but where do these values come from?" (ie, what causes a person to value a career in metallurgy more than one involving mathematics research or playing the saxaphone). Saying that he accepts the values 'subconsciously or consciously' isnt really an answer - it only moves the analysis one step backwards ("yes, but what causes him to accept those particular values subconsciously?").

We have 2 brothers raised in the same household, yet one becomes a historian and the other becomes a sculptor. Why? There is surely no volition involved in liking statues more than world war 2 novels, nor does it seem that either is more rationally justifiable.

Edited December 1, 2005 by Hal

[Inspector]

I don't think you have a strong case for (A) being false. Two mistakes right off the bat:

1) You aren't factoring in the need of man to live by his own judgment. Even if street sweeping was a fine job, a man could be unhappy because he wasn't allowed to make that judgment for himself. He would be aware, if not consciously then subconsciously (and therefore emotionally) that he was deprived of his means of survival (no matter how comfortable his material existence)

2) Just because he could do well at street sweeping, it doesn't mean he didn't know, or at least suspect, that he could do MUCH BETTER at something MUCH MORE CHALLENGING. It's not enough to merely do well at what you do.... it's about living up to your potential.

[Jrose]

I think the question here is "yes, but where do these values come from?" (ie, what causes a person to value a career in metallurgy more than one involving mathematics research or playing the saxaphone). Saying that he accepts the values 'subconsciously or consciously' isnt really an answer - it only moves the analysis one step backwards ("yes, but what causes him to accept those particular values subconsciously?").

We have 2 brothers raised in the same household, yet one becomes a historian and the other becomes a sculptor. Why? There is surely no volition involved in liking statues more than world war 2 novels, nor does it seem that either is more rationally justifiable.

Maybe I should have mentioned this in my first post, but my answer is only intended to apply if we're discussing how a rational (or semi-rational) thinker comes up with "what I want to do with my life," which is how I understood the question.

I think you're missing something. Values don't "come from" anywhere. Values are chosen by the individual as the standard by which he will think, speak, and act. Perhaps I should not have used the word "accept," because that is not entirely accurate. An individual chooses his particular set of values. I'm sure you'll agree that there is nothing arbitrary about deciding to make "reason" or "my life" a value.

An individual doesn't value a career for the sake of that career. He chooses a career based on the likelihood that "this particular career" will afford him the best opportunity to give physical shape to the values (sense of life) he holds in his consciousness.

The question, as I understood it, was "why do we choose a particular career?" not "how do I determine a set of values?" Both require a process of volition, which can be performed consciously or subconsciously, but a career choice is highly dependent on what an individual's value set consists of.

For example, Ayn Rand held "to present my vision of the ideal man" as a value. The ability to present her concept of "man" was very important to her. Whether consciously or subconsciously, she determined that writing was the best way for her to give physical form to this particular value. And so it goes with all men.

And, to address your two brothers, of course there is volition involved in their choice of professions (even interests). I hope my answer to this is clear already, but, on the fundamental level, each individual chooses a set of values (or accepts some by default) and then determines what profession is best suited to giving physical form to his particular values.