Ayn Rand’s “Objectivism” emphasizes individual achievement and rejection of responsibility to others, a philosophy that aligns rather well with the ideas of many of today’s emerging adults, as described by Christian Smith, but would certainly face significant scrutiny by Robert Bellah for its near-anarchism. While Rand’s proposals are somewhat radical in comparison with modern American society, the similar views of today’s youth may indicate an imminent change, or in the least emphasize the value in considering Rand’s position. Rand’s individualism is largely in agreement with the outlook known as the “American Dream,” that one can work hard to make something of oneself. It is therefore not surprising to find many young Americans in agreement
…show more content…
Put into the context of an ethical dilemma, the choices Rand would make are quite easy to surmise. Putting her own interests before those of any others, she would do no more than Bowen McCoy in his Parable of the Sadhu. It is quite possible she would have done far less, avoiding concern for the Sadhu altogether, and feeling no guilt for his likely death as predicted by Stephen, who would likely scold her far more profusely than he did Bowen. Stephen provided only three circumstances that would have allowed the characters to be free of moral guilt: “One, the sadhu dies in our care; two, the sadhu demonstrates to us that he can undertake the two-day walk down to the village; or three, we carry the sadhu for two days down to the village and persuade someone there to care for him.” While an emerging adult might display compassion approximately equivalent to that of McCoy, as the sadhu’s life-or-death situation is comparable to that of a victim of a fiery car accident, Rand would immediately reject all three of these possibilities. The sadhu had nothing to offer her. It would benefit no one but the sadhu to help him. Although the situation might constitute an emergency, qualifying for a caveat in Rand’s theory, allowing for moral assistance, the risk and detriment to Rand would be too great to warrant action. Rand would unquestionably leave the sadhu to die as the
Put into the context of an ethical dilemma, the choices Rand would make are quite easy to surmise. Putting her own interests before those of any others, she would do no more than Bowen McCoy in his Parable of the Sadhu. It is quite possible she would have done far less, avoiding concern for the Sadhu altogether, and feeling no guilt for his likely death as predicted by Stephen, who would likely scold her far more profusely than he did Bowen. Stephen provided only three circumstances that would have allowed the characters to be free of moral guilt: “One, the sadhu dies in our care; two, the sadhu demonstrates to us that he can undertake the two-day walk down to the village; or three, we carry the sadhu for two days down to the village and persuade someone there to care for him.” While an emerging adult might display compassion approximately equivalent to that of McCoy, as the sadhu’s life-or-death situation is comparable to that of a victim of a fiery car accident, Rand would immediately reject all three of these possibilities. The sadhu had nothing to offer her. It would benefit no one but the sadhu to help him. Although the situation might constitute an emergency, qualifying for a caveat in Rand’s theory, allowing for moral assistance, the risk and detriment to Rand would be too great to warrant action. Rand would unquestionably leave the sadhu to die as the