Altruism And Morality In Ayn Rand's

When Mr. Weidler asks Roark why he must be so “fanatical and selfless” (196) and refuse the Manhattan Bank Building contract on principle, he evinces two fallacious dichotomies within his own mind— two dichotomies that have facilitated the corruption and denigration of morality throughout man’s history: morality versus practicality, and morality versus selfishness. Not only is a rational code of ethics profoundly efficacious and practical in guiding the life of whomever abides by it, but also the implicit conflation of altruism and morality could not be more removed from reality, and therefore harmful to man in general. When Roark praises selfishness and denounces altruism, he is affirming a rational moral code: Ayn Rand’s egoist ethics. Because man’s life must be his standard of value— as that which underlies and engenders all other values— selfishness, or acting for one’s own benefit, for the facilitation and expansion of one’s life, must be the guiding principle of a proper code of ethics. Altruism, on the other hand, demands that man live for the sake of others. Ellsworth Toohey, a major villain …show more content…
This is exemplified in Roark’s description of history’s productive men, in his courtroom speech: “The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power— that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself” (711). Furthermore, Roark explains how the second-hander— an altruist or a tyrant, one who sacrifices himself to others or one who sacrifices others to himself— is different from a creative, selfish man. “The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. Others become his prime motive”