Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Selling your soul

Rate this topic


Eurynomus

Recommended Posts

I was thinking about it, after reading The Fountainhead. Rand characterizes Gail Wynand as the man "who could have been" -- in other words, he mostly had the right idea, save for the fact that he belongs to the group of the worst breed of second-handers, those who seek power over others.

Wynand, in his converstaions with Roark, talks about how people praise sacrifice, but it is only of the physical kind. For example, the monk who sacrifices his physical life, but seeks to gain spiritual enlightenment [so, this actually is a misconception of what sacrifice really is, but regardless...]. Wynand comments that this is nothing, because he actually gives up his soul for the people. Or at least, he appears to give up his soul to the public.

Can a man give up his soul in this manner and still maintain his integrity? How?

And if so, is this ethical by Objectivist standards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's a little difficult to answer this question without a bit more information: what do you mean by integrity? What about selling your soul?

Integrity, in Objectivist terms, is a primary virtue; it means more than just walking the talk (although this is important), it means that, having discovered that the talk is right, based on a rational standard, you devote yourself to walking it; likewise, you say what you mean. (I'm sorry if that's an awkward formulation.)

Integrity isn't a matter of adhering in a principled fashion to any standard, but of adhering to a proper one. So, to answer your question: is selling your soul for power a proper standard? It's a form of second-handedness, no? And second-handedness is improper, correct? So you can't have integrity and sell your soul for power: they are mutually exclusive.

For example, the monk who sacrifices his physical life, but seeks to gain spiritual enlightenment [so, this actually is a misconception of what sacrifice really is, but regardless...].

No, it's not, but that's another topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking about it, after reading The Fountainhead. Rand characterizes Gail Wynand as the man "who could have been" -- in other words, he mostly had the right idea, save for the fact that he belongs to the group of the worst breed of second-handers, those who seek power over others.

Wynand, in his conversations with Roark, talks about how people praise sacrifice, but it is only of the physical kind. For example, the monk who sacrifices his physical life, but seeks to gain spiritual enlightenment [so, this actually is a misconception of what sacrifice really is, but regardless...]. Wynand comments that this is nothing, because he actually gives up his soul for the people. Or at least, he appears to give up his soul to the public.

Can a man give up his soul in this manner and still maintain his integrity? How?

And if so, is this ethical by Objectivist standards?

Definition of integrity from die.net:

1. The state or quality of being entire or complete;

wholeness; entireness; unbroken state; as, the integrity

of an empire or territory. --Sir T. More.

2. Moral soundness; honesty; freedom from corrupting

influence or motive; -- used especially with reference to

the fulfillment of contracts, the discharge of agencies,

trusts, and the like; uprightness; rectitude.

3. Unimpaired, unadulterated, or genuine state; entire

correspondence with an original condition; purity.

Frankly I don't think that any of these definitions is good enough. The closest is one, but there needs to be a reference. "Being entire and complete" in what way? according to what standard? I would say that in ethics this standard is one's moral principles. And the meaning of Integrity would be that there are no contradictions in one's moral principles, and actions.

Gail Wynand is a very interesting character. I think what made Gail Wynand what he is (still having that great potential in him but using it to make ugly things that he despises) is several wrong premises.

  1. One is that he thought justice would be served if he would rule the world instead of cleaning the shoes of despicable people all his life.
  2. Second is that there would be no getting out of the poverty and status he was in unless he outsmarts the dirty rules of men, and play their dirty game to win over superiority in status and wealth. (Malevolent universe premise)
  3. Third premise is that wealth means power, and power means infinite ability to do everything he wants, including shaping people's minds (A premise he was surprised to find out to be wrong when he tried to use his magazine to win public opinion to support Roark in his trial).

He really believed those premises to be true and that's why he never judged himself as bad until he met Roark and realised his premises were wrong, because it was possible to succeed in the world in doing something admirable according to Wynand's standards (something heroic).

As long as a person thinks they are good, they will not self destruct. This is why his potential was still there and existing when he met Roark. But once he learned the harsh truth about his life, he started thinking about himself as bad, and started self-destructing (Boy, that was such a tragic scene).

Up until now I always used to define Integrity as "telling the truth to yourself" and Honesty as "Telling the truth to others". According to this definition, Gail Wynand did have integrity. He never lied to himself, he only lied to others. He justified hypocrisy. He felt that by being Hypocritical he was actually defeating the things he despised.

As for the definition of integrity as moral perfection: I'm stuck at it. I don't think that integrity should mean moral perfection. According to the definition JmeganSnow gave, integrity would mean acting according to the right principles (after making sure they are right, by judging them, while using reason). Which would actually mean moral perfection again, because a man HAS to reach all the right conclusions and develop the right ethical principles before he can be "person of integrity".

Na, there's something wrong with it. I think Integrity should be that man is acting according to his principles (even if they are wrong, but he doesn't notice that error) and that to the best of his knowledge, his principles do not contradict one another.

According to this definition, Gail Wynand did have integrity. He didn't have other qualities though, like honesty, innocence, and maybe other traits that I don't remember now (I was trying to go by the list of traits from John Galt's speech from Atlas shrugged).

Now, as for your question, is this (give up one's soul in this manner [of Wynand] and still maintain one's integrity), ethical? The answer is, duh, no. He was obviously not acting according to principles of Objectivism ethics. If he would then he would have all those traits that I mentioned. However, if a person is not acting according to the right principles, because he has a wrong premise, which is a result of an error in knowledge or in conclusion, then that person should not be condemned either. The only question I have now is, well, if he isn't moral, and he is also not immoral, then what the hell is he?? I probably used two different definitions to examine this question, probably due to the late hour. Anyway, this is it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up until now I always used to define Integrity as "telling the truth to yourself" and Honesty as "Telling the truth to others". According to this definition, Gail Wynand did have integrity. He never lied to himself, he only lied to others. He justified hypocrisy. He felt that by being Hypocritical he was actually defeating the things he despised.

" 'Integrity' is loyalty in action to ones values. As the name suggests, this virtue is one's recognition of the fact that man is an integrated being, a unity made up of matter and conciousness. As such, he may, in Ayn Rand's words, 'permit no breach between body and mind, between action and thought, between his life and his convictions...' " -Leonard Peikoff OPAR pg. 259

I like Peikoff's definition better. I understand having integrity to mean being integrated mentally, physically and emotionally. So not only 'walking the talk' but feeling the talk as well.

Wynand I would describe as being integrated mentally and physically but not emotionally. His thoughts and actions corresponded well as seen by his efficaciousness in regard to work, but his obvious lack of emotional fulfillment as evidenced by his earlier choices in women do not correspond. He wanted Dominique and Mallory statues but spent most of his time, money, and energy promoting drivel with the banner and chasing cheap women. Probably because he did not think better things were possible. When he did later acquire them, he did his best to keep them secret, for himself.

The key difference between Roark and Wynand revolves around this lack of integrity with regard to values. In the same situation, Wynand would not have worked in a quarry. He would have designed what people wanted regardless of what they should want.

So...no...you can't sell your soul and still have integrity. At least not in any meaningful sense of the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...