Monday, April 28, 2008

Do for Self:
The Individual’s Divine Right to Self-Actualization
According to Ayn Rand’s Novel The Virtue of Selfishness

Lavada Walden
PhD Student in Educational Leadership
Prairie View A&M University/The Texas A&M University System

William Allan Kritsonis, Phd
Professor
PhD Program in Educational Leadership
Prairie View A&M University/The Texas A&M University System
Prairie View, Texas


ABSTRACT

This article explores principles of Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy. Acting selfish is a bold and morally imperative act in defiance of the altruistic-collectivist traditions imposed on the individual by government and religion. The author maintains that the individual’s first responsibility is the achievement of her own happiness and the preservation of her life according to her own hierarchy of value and ethics.
________________________________________________________________________


Introduction

Recall your latest airplane travel. As the airplane ascended above terra firma, the flight attendants gave safety instructions and demonstrated to the passengers potentially life saving procedures to take in the event of an emergency. We are told that if we are traveling with small children or other passengers that require assistance, we are to put on our protective masks first, then to assist those who may require our help. So is the premise underlying Rand’s philosophy of The Virtue of Selfishness. The individual must practice reasonable and moral judgment in the pursuit of a livelihood before she can act selflessly, extending goodwill and charity to her neighbor. When human beings disregard their divine ability to think and create, society stagnates and is likely to crumble into a socialist system.

Purpose of Article

The purpose of this article is to discuss how selfishness used as an ethical compass to enrich and empower one’s own life is a moral imperative for every compassionate, reasoning person. Self-actualization can only be achieved through selfishness. Only after one has come into self-realization is she enfranchised into society.


A Majority of One

Rand’s objectivist philosophy called for the individual citizen to examine the constrictions the world’s morality had put on the individual citizen’s conscience. She challenged the individual to first examine her own motives, values and ethics, and to act in an according, reasonable manner in her interchange with fellow humanity. In Rand’s objectivism, the individual’s ethics should never be subjugated for the needs of society because the morals imposed by society are arbitrary and injurious to the divine right of liberty through self-actualization, since society is composed of a select number of powerful men and structured on their whims. By the human’s nature, man alone out of all known creatures, has the ability to think, to reason, and the act on his values. This unique ability, this metaphysical gift of human existence, requires the individual to do so. Rand “stress[ed] that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life” (Rand, 1964, p. 18). Mere existence itself encompasses an innate awareness of affective interaction with other humans and obliges the individual to act on her consciousness.

There has never been a more vehement champion of rugged individualism, laissez-faire economics, the primacy of property rights, or the businessman as cultural hero. In her eyes, America as the founders conceived it was the one moral society in the history of the world, and her appointed task was to save it and the world from the bane of collectivist, altruist, and subjectivist immorality. (Valiunas, 2005, p. 59)


Consciousness and Choice

Awareness is inseparable from the individual’s ability to think. Objectivism holds the individual responsible for the results of her reasoning, or thoughts, and corresponding actions resulting from such reason. However, the individual can choose to live in an apathetic, unfocused state of consciousness, but to do so results in the voluntary surrender of reason, liberty, and ethics. Rand believed that “nothing is given to man on earth except a potential and the material on which to actualize it” (Rand, 1964, p. 23). That potential is only realized by the individual’s choice to learn, to discover, and to produce which are guided by her ethics – the determination of what is good or evil. The insurmountable vice of humankind is choosing not to think. The suspension of her reason and the shirking of her potential is the source of all that is evil in the world. Rand glorified in the power of the human mind. To her, the mind was the creator and destroyer of life.

Causal Explanations for an Objectivist Epistemology

What are the causal explanations for following such ethics? Objectivism encompasses economic, political, ethical, and metaphysical epistemology. It attempts to hold the individual accountable for her own productivity, values and beliefs . “Causal structures are critical for any society: they define what is easy, possible, difficult, or unattainable as societies define social roles, allocate resources, or transfer culture” (Losh, 2003, p. 18). Causal structures represent constructed facts as objective truths. Shades of differences across causal belief systems attempt to articulate what is subjective opinion, what is fantasy, what is disjointed rambling insanity, and what is legitimate, and what is genius. Causal structures also delineate what the acceptable methods to discover truth are. Cultural differences on what are true and how to find truth causes frustrations. Objectivism seeks to see life as it truly is. Unless the individual is free to interpret the world as she sees it, then she is hostage to a forced group-think. The causal structures of society are in contravention with her values and ethics, creating a moral dilemma.
Objectivist philosophy holds reason above diverse causal perspectives of the preceding and present centuries such as:

God (the divine) did it, a fatalistic perspective that places outcomes beyond human control, except for human placation or service as a divine instrument; there are rational laws to be discovered (and people can discover them); citing recognized authorities, whether scripture, famous scientists, Nostradamus, or philosophers; and, proof by anecdote or carefully selected examples, often used in astrology and other magical systems, but also in religious, and even scientific treatises. (Losh, 2003, p. 20)

If an individual refuses to use the ability to think and reason, then the causal explanations offered by the collectivist community will become her values and beliefs. Likewise, in education if the student is not allowed to discover and learn, to inquire, and is not permitted to act on her own values, then the causal explanations that serve the leaders of society supplant her ability to reason and impose a subjective moral code.
A collectivist society’s moral code that forbids and restricts morality is in itself a contradiction. The assignment of “good” or “bad” or “gray” (meaning it could be good or bad depending on the situation at hand and who the judgment will benefit) in the self-serving interest of leaders is unconscionable to the ethical individual. The individual has the divine right to discover what is good and right for herself. One must not evade the issue of moral judgment. Moral “grayness” results in sloppy epistemology, designed to disguise its true meaning. “Some people believe… a restatement as “Nobody is perfect in this world” -- i.e., everybody is a mixture of good and evil, and therefore, morally “gray.” …people accept it as some sort of natural fact, without further thought. They forget that morality deals only with issues open to man’s choice (i.e., to his free will)- and, therefore, no statistical generalizations are valid in this matter (Rand 88).”
The Moral Challenge

In Equality and Proportionality, Knapp troubleshoots Rand’s perspective on the responsibility of the moral individual.

…it can be agreed that in virtue of possessing moral standing that individuals have moral claims on us and deserve our moral concern or respect. The disagreements emerge when we try to specify what exactly the legitimate claims of those with moral standings are…. (Knapp, 2007, p.180)

Even with individuals whose moral standing is questionable (bad or “gray”), the society struggles with the justification for the moral concern and respect the individuals are shown by pointing out descriptive differences between the “good,” “bad,” and “gray”. An over-simplified solution dealing with “gray matter” individuals is to say that those who are not our moral equals lack the rationality we possess.

There is no minute difference that separates those who are rational, possess a conception of the good and a sense of justice, are capable of shaping their lives according to a plan, and so, from those who are not. So no matter where an account of moral standing draws a precise line…it will not be a line that puts everyone who satisfies the criterion on one side and everyone else on the other. (Knapp, 2007, p. 190)

All individuals deserve equitable and moral treatment by virtue of being free rational beings. Freedom is ascribed to others because we have a moral duty to do so as reasoning moral human beings.

The Ethical Individual

On ethics, Rand firmly supported the individual’s right to decide whether or when they wished to help others. Rand rejected the altruistic concept of an individual as her sister’s keeper. The altruistic-collectivist society does not have the right to impose its ethics on the individual. Doing so would usurp the individual’s right to reason in deciding when and if she will contribute to her neighbor’s well-being. The altruistic-collectivist government uses such causal explanations to uphold its international trade agreements, and even to provide vouchers from the public coffers for students to attend private school. Is this the responsibility of society as a whole, or is it the responsibility of concerned parents? Rand eloquently affirmed her disdain for governmental social programs,

nature does not guarantee automatic security, success and survival to any human being, it is only the dictatorial presumptuousness and the moral cannibalism of the altruist-collectivist code that permits man to suppose (or idly to daydream) that he can somehow guarantee such security at the expense of others. (Rand, 1964, p. 94)
A Call to Re-examine Government for the People

It is institutionalized gang-rule, rather than government, that thwarts creativity and productivity of its citizens by attempting to limit the individual’s ability to think independently and logically. The individual’s mind is her basic tool of survival. Liberty requires that she think and act accordingly. Government’s true role in support of the people is to enforce rules of conduct, not to impose mental slavery. Government should be foremost concerned with protecting the individual from mob rule, lynch law and private vendettas by protecting human rights under an objective code of rules. “The proper function of government falls into three categories… the police, to protect men from criminals – the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders – the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws” (Rand, 1964, p. 131). It is an individual’s responsibility as a citizen of a democratic society to demand checks and controls on the governmental bureaucracy. Free, reasoning citizens should constantly monitor the government’s control, less we have a democratic implosion.


The Strongest Link

Rand asserts that the moral concept of “rights” transitions from principles guiding a singular person’s action to the principles guiding interaction with others. “Rights” protect and preserve the individual’s morality in a social situation. They are the connection connection between an individual’s moral code and the legal code of the greater society. “Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law” (Rand, 1964, p. 108). The thinking individual is the strongest link in a moral society. If the government is composed of men, and men are often fallible and mistaken, then society must work to uphold individual rights. If individual rights are stripped away, collectivism will reign supreme.
America was praised by Rand for being the only true democratic society because it has recognized and upheld the individual’s rights as a moral imperative. America has preserved the individual from tyranny by collectivist systems. From its inception, our nation has regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means of voluntary co-existence of logical, moral citizens, whereas altruist-collectivist societies have esteemed the collective whims of society over the individual’s autonomy.


It’s All about Me

“Since every purposeful action is motivated by some value or goal that the actor desires, one always acts selfishly, whether one knows it or not” (Rand, 1964, p. 66). Acting selfishly is an unselfish act if its aim is an ethical outcome. Selfishness is a conscious choice. The individual is guided by her ethics, which in-turn shape life’s values and purpose. Rand offers the individual herself as the determinant moral purpose of life. The preservation of her life, and her happiness are the primary moral purposes of life. The individual is the first recipient of her productivity and moral actions.
Being concerned for your own survival is a courageous act. To be selfish requires the recognition of one’s own hierarchy of values formed to serve one’s happiness, and foremost, the audacity to never sacrifice one’s self for the group. A morally courageous, selfish woman, will not act in contradiction to her own beliefs and values. To do otherwise would be self-sabotage and surrendering to the dictates of a self-serving community.

The selfishness of a man who is willing to die, if necessary, fighting for his freedom, lies in the fact that he is unwilling to go on living in a world where he is no longer able to act on his own judgment – that is, a world where human conditions of existence are no longer possible to him. (Rand, 1964, p. 68)

According to Rand, whether an action is selfish or unselfish is determined objectively and logically by the individual, without a flood of passion in the individual. Passion is not a criterion for cognition. She goes on to emphasize that if the individual is solely motivated by a feeling of compassion, charity, duty or altruism, the result of her action is that the individual has sacrificed her values and goals for short-lived pleasure, or worse, the wishes and needs of an inferior individual that she values less than the thing she gave up. Objectivism seeks to guard the individual from acting against her own satisfaction by surrendering to altruistic-collectivist ideals which favor the society over the individual.

Concluding Remarks

In conclusion the objectivist philosophy advocates acting morally in one’s own interest first. The virtue of selfishness has been misinterpreted by the altruistic-socialist bureaucracies and organized religions to serve their own ends. Humanity itself requires the individual to think and reason and to produce. For the reasoning citizen to create and pursue happiness, she must be aware of her value system and the ethics of her interaction with a society which would sacrifice her life, for the subjective interests of the whole.


References

Knapp, C. (2007). Equality and proportionality. Canadian Journal of Philosophy,
37(2), 179-201.
Losh, S. C. (2003). On the application of social cognition and social location to creating
causal explanatory structures. Educational Research Quarterly, 26(3), 17-33.
Rand, A. (1964). The virtue of selfishness. New York: Signet.
Valiunas, A. (2005). Who needs Ayn Rand? Commentary, 120(2), 59-62.

Formatted by Dr. Mary Alice Kritsonis, National Research and Manuscript Preparation Editor, National FORUM Journals, Houston, Texas www.nationalforum.com

Virtues - Alex Torrez & William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

The Lamar University Electronic Journal of Student Research
Summer 2008

The Virtue of Selfishness from a Humanitarian’s View

Alex Torrez
PhD Student in Educational Leadership
The Whitlowe R. Green College of Education
Prairie View A&M University
Prairie View, Texas
Assistant Superintendent
Clear Creek Independent School District
Houston, Texas

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Professor and Faculty Mentor
PhD Program in Educational Leadership
The Whitlowe R. Green College of Education
Prairie View A&M University
Member of the Texas A&M University System
Visiting Lecturer (2005)
Oxford Round Table
University of Oxford, Oxford, England
Distinguished Alumnus (2004)
College of Education and Professional Studies
Central Washington University
________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this article is to examine the philosophy of objectivism as presented in Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness (1964). Ayn Rand’s philosophy is centered on the objectivist ethics which advocate that man must be rationally selfish in order to insure survival. This philosophy contradicts the American spirit of giving to improve the well being of humankind by the gift of time, wealth or efforts. How do philosophies of humanitarians and philanthropist such as Mother Teresa, Bill Gates, Bill Buffet, and Theodore Roosevelt conflict with the objectivist philosophy? ________________________________________________________________________


Introduction
Rand’s novel, The Virtue of Selfishness (1964), centers on the concept of objectivism and the virtue of selfishness. Individualism focused on survival by one’s mind and avoiding the people who are incapable of providing for themselves which she characterizes as looters. Based on the fundamental beliefs of objectivism how would people such as Mother Teresa, Bill Gates, and Bill Buffet, the most generous philanthropist, who has personally donated more the 30 billion dollars to improve health care, education and address extreme poverty be categorized.


Purpose of this Article

The purpose of this article is to examine the philosophy of objectivism as presented in Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness (1964). Ayn Rand’s philosophy is centered on the objectivist ethics which advocate that man must be rationally selfish in order to insure survival. This philosophy contradicts the American sprit of giving to improve the well being of humankind by the gift of one’s time, wealth or efforts. How do philosophies of humanitarians and philanthropist such as Mother Teresa, Bill Gates, Bill Buffet, and Theodore Roosevelt conflict with the objectivist philosophy?

Ayn Rand
Ayn Rand was born in St. Petersburg, Russia, on February 2, 1905. At the age of nine she discovered her love of writing and decided to pursue a career as an author. As an eyewitness to both the Kerensky and Bolshevik Revolution and the establishment of Communism she suffered the results of an oppressive government. The final Communist victory brought the confiscation of her father's pharmacy and periods of near-starvation for her family. A product of Soviet Russia her writings are a reflection and interpretation of the events she witnessed during her youth. Rand’s distrust of government and society are obvious in her writings. The common theme in her writing is the focus of the hero or heroes who are tortured by a society that fails to understand their individualism and need to be selfish. In her book, The Fountainhead, she presented the character of the architect, Howard Roark ,for the first time as the kind of hero whose depiction was the chief goal of her writing: the ideal man, as "he could be and ought to be" (The Ayn Rand Institute, 1995).

Objectivism and Philanthropy
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have donated over 60 billion dollars combined to health, education, and helping address poverty. Both men have stated that they plan to donate all their wealth to decreasing the impact of poverty and improving education around the world. Bill Gates with his ability to be innovative in the field of technology and Buffet who is nick named the Oracle of Omaha for his ability to make sound investments. Gates and Buffet did not inherit their wealth but earned it through their own innovation and efforts. The breed of men Any Rand would have identified as men of the mind. To the benefit of the world these men do not adhere to philosophy of objectivism. Whether or not it is the main purpose of these two individuals to help others is beside the point. The fact that they do so with such generosity indicates that they believe that there is an end beyond their own being and accomplishments. The first sentences below are those of an objectivist point of view in regards to helping others. The second sentences are those of Bill Gates a humanitarian who values mankind more than his accomplishments and wealth.

Because a genuinely selfish man chooses his goals by the guidance of reason and because the interests of rational men do not clash-other men may often benefit from his actions. But the benefit of other men is not his primary purpose or goal; his own benefit is his primary purpose and the conscious goal directing his action. (Rand, 1961, p. 67)

And I hope you will come back here to Harvard 30 years from now and reflect on what you have done with your talent and your energy. I hope you will judge yourselves not on your professional accomplishments alone, but also on how well you have addressed the world’s deepest inequities … on how well you treated people a world away who have nothing in common with you but their humanity. (The Harvard University Gazette, 2007, June 7)
Objectivist and Poverty
If a person were to ask an objectivist a question regarding poverty, handicapped, or the mentally ill, the response could be such as the one provided by Barbara Branden, “If you want to help them, you will not be stopped” (Rand, 1961, p. 93). The objectivist would tell you that,

Since nature does not guarantee automatic security, success and survival to any human being, it is only the dictatorial presumptuousness and the moral cannibalism of the altruist-collectivist code that permits a man to suppose (or idly daydream) that he can somehow guarantee such security to some men at the expense of others. (Rand, 1961, p.94)

Guaranteeing such security for the poor, ailing, and orphaned children of the world was the calling Mother Teresa lived to fulfill. Establishing missions of hope and growing the “The Missionaries of Charity, whose primary task was to love and care for those persons nobody was prepared to look after” (Nobel Prize.org) is one of Mother Teresa’s gifts to the world. The Missionaries of Charity has established missions of hope around the world including communist countries such as the former Soviet Union, Albania, and Cuba. Giving for Mother Teresa and those who follow in her convictions can be categorized as much more important than financial assistance. The gift of unconditional love, physical assistance, spiritual guidance, and the gift of hope for those who have no one else is the greatest gift that can be received or given. Barbara Branden “If you want to help them, you will not be stopped” (Rand, 1961, p. 93). One women, Mother Teresa challenged society to see the many issues that need to be addressed for the betterment of humanity. What kind of society would we live in if the majority lived by the philosophy that helping others except by chance is in one’s best interest?


Objectivism and Society

“If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor” (Rand, 1961, p 113). The preceding comment was Ayn Rand’s reaction to Franklin Roosevelt’s declaration and reaffirmation of the economic bill of rights. The rights are as follows:
1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries of shops or farms or mines of the nation.
2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
4. The right of every businessman, large and small to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.
5. The right of every family to a decent home.
6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good heath.
7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of the old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.
8. The right to a good education.


Concluding Remarks

In conclusion the fundamental spirit of giving, servant hood, or being a humanitarian has had an impact on the lives of millions and is a corner stone for making the United States a nation that values the importance of helping people pursue the American dream. The Statue of Liberty reads:
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
We live in a nation that has been built on the idea that everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness. No where does it state that one man must be sacrificed for the benefit of another. The fact that people choose to be humanitarians, philanthropists, and servants gives people hope for a better society, nation, and ultimately world.

References

Rand, A. (1957). The virtue of selfishness. New York: Penguin Group.
Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) (1995). A brief biography of Ayn Rand. Retrieved March 18, 2008, from www.aynrand.org/site
Biography of the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 (1979). Retrieved March 18, 2008, from nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/teresa-bio.html
Franklin D. Roosevelt (n.d.). American Heritage Center, Incorporated. Retrieved March 23, 2008, from www.fdrheritage.org/bill of rights.htm
Remarks of Bill Gates: Harvard Commencement (2007, June 7). The Harvard University Gazette. Retrieved March 18, 2008, from www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/06.14/99-gates.html
_______________________________________________________________________
Formatted by Dr. Mary Alice Kritsonis, National Research and Manuscript Preparation Editor, National FORUM Journals, Houston, Texas www.nationalforum.com

Atlas Shrugged - Alex Torrez & William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

Atlas Shrugged: Unnecessarily Selfish

Alex Torrez
PhD Student in Educational Leadership
The Whitlowe R. Green College of Education
Prairie View A&M University
Prairie View, Texas
Assistant Superintendent
Clear Creek Independent School District
Houston, Texas

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Professor and Faculty Mentor
PhD Program in Educational Leadership
The Whitlowe R. Green College of Education
Prairie View A&M University
Member of the Texas A&M University System
Visiting Lecturer (2005)
Oxford Round Table
University of Oxford, Oxford, England
Distinguished Alumnus (2004)
College of Education and Professional Studies
Central Washington University
________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this article is to examine the philosophy of objectivism and altruism as presented in Atlas Shrugged. The center of Ayn Rand’s philosophy is that man must be selfish in order to achieve happiness and success rejecting one’s own heart, soul, and acceptance of the existence of a higher being. This philosophy contradicts many of the essential views of American society and the legacy of improving the next generation as well as those of religious faiths that center on servant hood. These fundamental values have made our nation a beckon for democracy and an economic power but most importantly a nation that provides the world assistance through missions, education, and finance. Rand’s philosophy of objectivism and selfishness seems to beg the question of what is success and happiness if not something to be shared with others.
________________________________________________________________________

Introduction
Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged (1957), is a strong reminder of the importance of the balance of government and the significant impact of the constitutional safe guards our society has implemented to protect the rights of property and more importantly the rights of an individual. Her views take more of a dark turn with her objectivist philosophy along with her support of selfishness and the need to put oneself first above all else in order to reach the highest levels of success and happiness. Although the novel makes some excellent observations regarding the importance of capitalism Rand’s anti religious views including not sacrificing for others makes one question the true meaning of happiness.

Purpose of the Article
The purpose of this article is to examine the philosophy of objectivism and altruism as presented in Atlas Shrugged (1957) by Any Rand. The center of Ayn Rand’s philosophy is that man must be selfish in order to achieve happiness and success rejecting one’s own heart, soul, and acceptance of the existence of a higher being. This philosophy contradicts many of the essential views of American society and the legacy of improving the next generation as well as those of religious faiths that center on servant hood. These fundamental values have made our nation a beckon for democracy and an economic power but most importantly a nation that provides the world assistance through missions, education, and finance. Rand’s philosophy of objectivism and selfishness seems to beg the question of what is success and happiness if not something to be shared with others.

Ayn Rand
Ayn Rand was born in St. Petersburg, Russia, on February 2, 1905. At the age of nine she discovered her love of writing and decided to pursue a career as an author. As an eyewitness to both the Kerensky and Bolshevik Revolution and the establishment of Communism she suffered the results of an oppressive government. The final Communist victory brought the confiscation of her father's pharmacy and periods of near-starvation. The Ayn Rand Institute (1995). Leaving Soviet Russia in 1925 she was determined never to return to her home country. She was granted an extension to her visa and later married an actor, Frank O’Conner in 1929. She began writing The Fountainhead in 1935. In the character of the architect Howard Roark, she presented for the first time the kind of hero whose depiction was the chief goal of her writing: the ideal man, man as "he could be and ought to be." The Ayn Rand Institute (1995). She published many novels and works following The Fountainhead but most consider Atlas Shrugged (1957), her last work of fiction, her greatest accomplishment.



Atlas Shrugged
In Atlas Shrugged (1957), the economy is collapsing; the government lead by the State Science Institute continues to issue restrictive and unrealistic regulations. Dagny Taggert the Vice President of Operations for Taggart Transcontinental Railroad is determined not to allow her railroad to be destroyed by the looters. As the population becomes overwhelmed with despair they ask “Who is John Galt?” as if having an understanding that the answer to the question will provide a solution to the present state of chaos. The most important character in the novel, John Galt, has organized a systematic withdraw of the most brilliant minds in society in an effort to prove that man cannot be successful by any means other than one’s mind and by doing so breaking the looters hold on the government and economy.

Men of the Mind
John Galt removed the most exceptional minds to prove to the world that society could not exist without them. “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine” (Rand, 1957, p.672) is the oath the men were asked to recite when they committed to leave their present lives. In that world there are only two types of people the ones who serve and satisfy themselves exclusively and those who work to serve others.
In this fictional story the heroes of the novel had no choice but to depart from the present state of affairs. This philosophy appears rational in a world where there are only looters and those who follow the objectivist philosophy. The question to consider is would their philosophy of objectivism be rational in a non-fictional world.

Altruism
Rand’s philosophy conflicts with altruism because of the practice of being unselfish when considering the welfare of others. Since she viewed sacrifice as a surrender of values and objectivism does not consider compromise an option, she viewed helping others as not in ones self interest.

A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous: the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. (Rand, 1957, p. 941)
Parts of Rand’s philosophy such as those stated in these sentences are acceptable and applicable in a fictional story such as Atlas Shrugged where the looters have seized property from the capitalists for their own greed and survival. Sentences such as these are unrealistic in the universe as it truly exists. Most religions including Christianity and people who chose to live by a moral code do not advocate sacrificing their values for the good of the lost, but rather helping because of these values and acknowledging the strength it takes to not sacrifice their own values when helping others. As an atheist Ayn Rand did not have a God in her universe nor did she write Atlas Shrugged (1957) with a concept of a higher being and the understanding of faith as a center of belief. Not understanding the nature of God and the promise of love and mercy Ayn Rand could not see the meaning of sacrifice and virtues of such acts. Christianity is set on the foundation of the greatest sacrifice that can be made “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John, 3:16). Ayn Rand’s interpretation of altruism is illustrated in the words of Lillian Reardon when she states that loving some one for their vices was the real tribute of love therefore sacrificing one’s values. Christian beliefs would reject this premise and adhere that because of Christian teachings a person can love a person in spite of the vices, sins, or other weakness because of God’s grace and mercy. Verses such as the following give direction as to the relationship with others "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart" (Matthew, 18:35). So watch yourselves. "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him” (Luke, 17:3).
Objectivist
The objectivist philosopher would have people believe that most live by the idea that standards or ethics are based on a whim. John Galt expands this concept when he states that “the battle is only over the question or whose whim: society’s or the dictator’s or God’s “(Rand, 1961, p. 15). The objectivist fails to acknowledge the independence of our society and the independence of man. People in free and democratic societies have arrived at that state of freedom by making decisions based on truth and reality. Ayn Rand was a magnificent writer that had the ability to express her views as an authority on morality, ethics, and the concept of rational self interest; selfishness.


Genuinely Selfishness

At the heart of the objectivist ethics is the ideal of selfishness. The following sentences capture the essence of selfishness and how it benefits the practitioner. Difficult sentences for a person or a society that has been built with the core belief that serving and positive leadership improves everyone. “True success comes only when every generation continues to develop the next generation (Maxwell, 1995, p.188). How can people who live by the following ideas develop or leave anything for the generations that follow?

Because a genuinely selfish man chooses his goals by the guidance of reason the interests of rational men do not clash-other men may often benefit of from his actions. But the benefit of other is not his primary purpose or goal; his own benefit is his primary purpose and the conscious goal directing his action. (Rand, 1961, p. 67)

What is Happiness?
Through out the novel a common theme connecting many characters is the need to find happiness as a result of accomplishments and gaining material wealth. Although most would agree that accomplishments can make a person happy most would also agree that accomplishments without anyone to share them with would be a short lived fulfillment. To live a worthwhile, meaningful life, a person must be part of something greater than himself. The following passages examine the reflections of a man who has spent his life in the pursuit of happiness that places more value on accomplishment and wealth than on relationships and people. “I am sorry I disappointed you mother. You’re not sorry. You could have been here if you’d made the effort for anybody but your self? You’re not interested in any of us or in anything we do” (Rand, 1957, p. 40). “He had given Lillian none of his time for months-no, he thought, for years; for the eight years of their marriage. He had no interest to spare for her interest, not even enough to learn just what they were” (Rand, 1957, p123).
Hank Reardon was unhappy in is marriage and with the relationship he had with his mother and brother but never acknowledged the fact that his lack of commitment to his family and his selfishness for his own interest and endeavors had eroded his relationships. Progressive leadership and management philosophies adhere to the required balance necessary to be successful as a person and professional. A major part of present day beliefs is that the climb to the top does not need to be a lonely one for the climber and those he loves.
Concluding Remarks
In conclusion, Atlas Shrugged is an excellent novel with a wonderful story that mixes action, romance, and makes some excellent points regarding the value of capitalism. But readers are advised to remember that the novel is fiction and the characters who are super intelligent, attractive and powerful in their own area are fictional super heroes in a novel. The Constitution of the United States of America begins with the words “We the People of the United States” the key word being “We”. Our founding fathers understood the importance of people, all people and intended for our nation to be established with those ideals. The philosophy of objectivism centers around selfishness and not being part of the “We”. There is no doubt our nation was built on the strength of individuals but as Americans our true strength is as a people.


References

Rand, A. (1957). Atlas shrugged. New York: Penguin Group.
Rand, A. (1964). The virtue of selfishness. New York: Penguin Group.
Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) (1995). A brief biography of Ayn Rand. Retrieved February 16, 2008, from www.aynrand.org/site
Maxwell, M. (1995). Developing the leaders around you. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Incorporated.

Formatted by Dr. Mary Alice Kritsonis, National Research and Manuscript Preparation Editor, National FORUM Journals, Houston, Texas www.nationalforum.com

Thursday, April 17, 2008

William Allan Kritsonis' Contributions to Education

25th Year Anniversary of National FORUM Journals
Founded in 1983
William Allan Kritsonis’ Contribution to Education



Arthur L. Petterway, PhD
Principal
Houston Independent School District
Houston, Texas


ABSTRACT
This year marks the 25th Year Anniversary of the founding of National FORUM Journals by Dr. William Allan Kritsonis. The following snapshot of the career of Dr. Kritsonis is a small tribute to his contribution to education.
__________________________________________________________________________


Founder of National FORUM Journals

Dr. Kritsonis is founder of NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (since 1983).
These publications represent a group of highly respected scholarly academic periodicals. Over 4,000 writers have been published in these academic, scholarly, refereed, peer-reviewed journals.

Dr. Kritsonis Lectures at the University of Oxford, Oxford, England

In 2005, Dr. Kritsonis was an Invited Visiting Lecturer at the Oxford Round Table at Oriel College in the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. His lecture was entitled the Ways of Knowing Through the Realms of Meaning.


Dr. Kritsonis Recognized as Distinguished Alumnus

In 2004, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis was recognized as the Central Washington University Alumni Association Distinguished Alumnus for the College of Education and
Professional Studies. Dr. Kritsonis was nominated by alumni, former students, friends,
faculty, and staff. Final selection was made by the Alumni Association Board of Directors.
Recipients are CWU graduates of 20 years or more and are recognized for achievement in their professional field and have made a positive contribution to society. For


the second consecutive year, U.S. News and World Report placed Central Washington
University among the top elite public institutions in the west. CWU was 12th on the list in the 2006 On-Line Education of “America’s Best Colleges.”


Educational Background


Dr. William Allan Kritsonis earned his BA in 1969 from Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington. In 1971, he earned his M.Ed. from Seattle Pacific University. In 1976, he earned his PhD from the University of Iowa. In 1981, he was a Visiting Scholar at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, and in 1987 was a Visiting Scholar at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.


Professional Experience

Dr. Kritsonis began his career as a teacher. He has served education as a principal, superintendent of schools, director of student teaching and field experiences, invited guest professor, author, consultant, editor-in-chief, and publisher. Dr. Kritsonis has earned tenure as a professor at the highest academic rank at two major universities.


Books – Articles – Lectures - Workshops

Dr. Kritsonis lectures and conducts seminars and workshops on a variety of topics. He is author of more than 500 articles in professional journals and several books. His popular book SCHOOL DISCIPLINE: The Art of Survival is scheduled for its fourth edition. He is the author of the textbook William Kritsonis, PhD on Schooling that is used by many professors at colleges and universities throughout the nation and abroad.
In 2007, Dr. Kritsonis’ version of the book of Ways of Knowing Through the Realms of Meaning (858 pages) was published in the United States of America in cooperation with partial financial support of Visiting Lecturers, Oxford strong>Round Table (2005). The book is the product of a collaborative twenty-four year effort started in 1978 with the late Dr. Philip H. Phenix. Dr. Kritsonis was in continuous communication with Dr. Phenix until his death in 2002.
In 2007, Dr. Kritsonis was the lead author of the textbook Practical Applications of Educational Research and Basic Statistics. The text provides practical content knowledge in research for graduate students at the doctoral and master’s levels.
In 2008, Dr. Kritsonis’ book Non-Renewal of Public School Personnel Contracts: Selected Supreme and District Court Decisions in Accordance with the Due Process of Law was published by The Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, New York.
Dr. Kritsonis’ seminar and workshop on Writing for Professional Publication has
been very popular with both professors and practitioners. Persons in attendance generate an
article to be published in a refereed journal at the national or international levels. Dr. Kritsonis has traveled and lectured throughout the United States and world-wide. Some recent international tours include Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania, Turkey, Italy, Greece,

Monte Carlo, England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Estonia, Poland,
Germany, and many more.


Founder of National FORUM Journals – Over 4,000 Professors Published

Dr. Kritsonis is founder of NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (since 1983). These publications represent a group of highly respected scholarly academic periodicals. Over 4,000 writers have been published in these refereed, peer-reviewed periodicals. In 1983, he founded the National FORUM of Educational Administration and Supervision – now acclaimed by many as the United States’ leading recognized scholarly academic refereed journal in educational administration, leadership, and supervision.
In 1987, Dr. Kritsonis founded the National FORUM of Applied Educational Research Journal whose aim is to conjoin the efforts of applied educational researchers world-wide with those of practitioners in education. He founded the National FORUM of Teacher Education Journal, National FORUM of Special Education Journal, National FORUM of Multicultural Issues Journal, International Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity, International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, and the DOCTORAL FORUM – National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research. The DOCTORAL FORUM is the only refereed journal in America committed to publishing doctoral students while they are enrolled in course work in their doctoral programs. In 1997, he established the Online Journal Division of National FORUM Journals that publishes academic scholarly refereed articles daily on the website: www.nationalforum.com. Over 600 professors have published online. In January 2007, Dr. Kritsonis established the National Journal: Focus On Colleges, Universities, and Schools.

Professorial Roles

Dr. Kritsonis has served in professorial roles at Central Washington University, Washington; Salisbury State University, Maryland; Northwestern State University, Louisiana; McNeese State University, Louisiana; and Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge in the Department of Administrative and Foundational Services.
In 2006, Dr. Kritsonis published two articles in the Two-Volume Set of the Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership and Administration published by SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California. He is a National Reviewer for the Journal of Research on Leadership, University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA).
In 2007, Dr. Kritsonis was invited to write a history and philosophy of education for the ABC-CLIO Encyclopedia of World History.
Currently, Dr. Kritsonis is Professor of Educational Leadership at Prairie View A&M University – Member of the Texas A&M University System. He teaches in the newly established PhD Program in Educational Leadership. Dr. Kritsonis taught the Inaugural class session in the doctoral program at the start of the fall 2004 academic year. In October 2006, Dr. Kritsonis chaired the first doctoral student to earn a PhD in Educational Leadership at Prairie View A&M University. He lives in Houston, Texas.