Was Hitler Selfish?

Many people, both theists and non-theists, casually regard Hitler and other dictators and demagogues as selfish persons, and that selfishness, if uncorrected or unfettered, may lead to injustices of Hitlerian proportions. Objectivists do not accept this view of Hitler because they do not accept the view of selfishness necessarily implicit in such assessments. Contrary to what most persons might think, Hitler was not selfish, in fact, he represents the epitome of selflessness.

Selfishness, as Objectivists view it, is essentially "concern for one's own interests." (Ayn Rand, "Introduction," The Virtue of Selfishness, vii.) On the Objectivist view of morality, an ethics of selfishness is one in which a person tends to his own interests, does not sacrifice himself to the interests of others, and does not expect or accept others sacrificing themselves for his interests. In the Objectivist social theory, this translates to the ethic that men should interact with each other on a voluntary basis, since no one has an inherent obligation to sacrifice themselves to the ends chosen by others. This is what Objectivism calls the trader principle, and it is a direct consequence of Objectivism's morality of self-interest applied to interpersonal relationships. (Ayn Rand discusses the trader principle on page 31 of her book The Virtue of Selfishness.)

Given the Objectivist view of selfishness, it is clear that Hitler was not selfish in this sense. Hitler was the exact opposite, expecting a whole nation - indeed even the whole world - to sacrifice itself to his ends. Hitler did not concern himself with his own interests - he wanted everyone else to be. He did not operate on the trader principle, which teaches men to interact with each other on a voluntary basis; instead he resorted to force. Hitler's guiding view of knowledge was not rational in any regard. Rather, it was pure irrationality.

Naturally, many people who are unfamiliar with Objectivism's principles are surprised by Objectivism's intransigent endorsement of selfishness in morality. This is principally because they have been taught all their lives that selfishness is immoral or evil, or that it can only lead to evil. They implicitly view selfishness as the inclination to benefit from others at others' expense, and quickly assume that the proper morality is one in which one sacrifices himself to others' ends so that they can benefit at his expense! On this model, that which has been identified as an evil is inescapable. But it's not considered evil if one sacrifices himself! Go figure.

According to Objectivism, the best and only rational policy is to act on the recognition that one self should be the primary beneficiary of one's actions, and that no one has an inherent obligation or "duty" to sacrifice himself to the ends of others or that he should think others should benefit at his expense. On the Objectivist model of morality, men are able to live as independently as possible and interact on a voluntary basis. This eliminates the initiation of the use of force from interpersonal relationships, a natural corollary of the sacrificial model of ethics so common in the world's religions.

Here is some background so that the initial comments of the message make some sense:

Now I want to turn attention to the efforts which were made in order to correct RAZA's misunderstandings about Objectivism and the morality of rational self-interest.

To get a better understanding of what understanding RAZA had at the outset of this whole affair and the efforts that were made in order to correct his misunderstandings, let me quote from some of his messages.

"Hitler was as selfless as a person could get. He acted for the good of others purely."

Right. Hitler literally saw himself as a savior of the German people, and of course history shows that a good portion of the German people saw him as their savior as well. Beware of people who like to think of themselves as everyone's savior.

Hitler was also selfless in the sense that he did not want to use his own effort to achieve his goals. Rather, he wanted his goals achieved, but he wanted others to do the dirty work for him (more pursuit of the unearned here - a dead give-away of selflessness). He did not want to achieve anything by his own effort or at his own expense, as a rationally self-interested person does.

******

"The German people liked him and his credo of selfless sacrifice to the Fatherland and elected him for exactly that reason."

Keep in mind that the soil of German culture was steeped in religious (especially Christian) mysticism for centuries prior to Hitler's rise to power. The concept of self-sacrifice, as one of the essentials of the Christian moral code, was synonymous with morality in German culture as a result of its development from mystic roots. This was due to the influence of religion as well as that of German intellectuals (e.g., Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Marx, Eckhart, Schopenhauer, et al.) who not only failed to question the moral validity of sacrifice, but argued vehemently for its supposed moral propriety. Explaining Hitler's rise to power is not a difficult task when his philosophy is taken into account. Leonard Peikoff, one of Rand's foremost students, wrote an entire book on this called _The Ominous Parallels_ (1982; Meridian, 1993).

******

"Everything Hitler said and stood for involved self-sacrifice."

Yep. Hitler was no advocate of selfishness as Rand understands it.

"Rand's morality is based on acting in one's own self-interest (actual self-interest, not delusional self-interest). In simple terms she says that since all organism must act for their own maintenance, health, and growth, to have an ethical system where such action is evil is wrong. That to separate what man must do to live from what he should do to be a good man is wrong."

Rand also was quite explicit about the fact that her moral system of selfishness rises logically from her metaphysics (reality is objective, man has a specific identity, etc.) and epistemology (reason is man's only means of knowledge). She often referred to her moral system as the morality of rational self-interest. She held that selfishness which was not guided by reason was ultimately destructive to the individual, and thus not actual self-interest.

One beauty of Rand's moral philosophy is the fact that it takes into account the fact that the action of an organism is goal-oriented. We act in order to achieve a goal or accomplish something. It may be a simple goal (such as flipping a switch [action] in order to turn on a light [the goal]) or a very sophisticated goal (such as running a business [action] in order to become independent from others [the goal]). Action which is not goal-oriented is action which is performed for no reason at all, and cannot further an organism's life.

Rand recognized man's metaphysical need for a code of morality (something quite unique in the field of philosophy). His life depends on his morality since morality is a code of values which guides his choices and actions. Morality for Rand is not an otherworldly concern, as it is for the religionist, who sees morality more as a code of service as opposed to a code of values. Keep in mind the fact that Rand saw her philosophy, Objectivism, as "a philosophy for living on earth" (rather than one which supposedly enables one to escape it or to exist as a lobotomized zombie).

Rand's moral system is objective since it takes into account the fact that reality does not conform to consciousness (Rand's principle of the primacy of existence) and that man must discover the values which make his life possible (he does not have a choice about the fact that his life needs values, nor does he have a choice about their essential identity - e.g., rocks cannot substitute as food, just as the arbitrary cannot substitute as knowledge) and that this knowledge is not automatic or divinely bestowed (i.e., he needs reason). If man wants to live, then he needs a rational code of values which teaches him how to live. This is what morality is all about for Rand. It is not about pleasing invisible magic beings which could not benefit from man's sacrifices in the first place.

A moral code which is based on the view that morality should consist of duties (i.e., a moral necessity to be performed out of obedience) which are given to man by a reality-ruling form of consciousness (i.e., "X is wrong because god says it is wrong" - not because it may work against man's life and values) is, by contrast, a subjective view of morality. Someone's wishes are the ultimate standard of right and wrong, not the facts of reality.

Hitler's view of morality was in no way similar to Rand's view of morality. In the Third Reich, Hitler's word was the final appeal, not reality. If Hitler says X is bad, then it's bad, simply because of his say-so (remind you of somebody?).

*******

"After all the bible puts it this way - 'For nobody hated his own body', or if we put it in the positive sense, 'people look after themselves/are self-interested.'"

Well, hold on here, RAZA. Ephesians 5:29 ("For no man ever yet hated his own flesh") does not give the whole story. (Indeed, how does the author of this verse know that "no man ever yet hated his own flesh"?) The Bible certainly does not advocate self-interest, and the context of the Ephesians verse has to do with justifying the duties which the author expects believers to accept, not one's rational self-interests. In fact, the morality of the Bible is perfectly suited for those with Hitlerian aspirations.

A few examples show this:

Phil. 2:4: "look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others."

This is altruism in morality and its logical consequence in politics - collectivism. According to this, men have a duty to look after others. Why?

Blank out.

Romans 12:1: "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."

If this is so reasonable, what's the reason given for this? Again, blank out. Clearly, the author here wants people to be willing to sacrifice themselves.

According to Mark's Jesus (cf. Mark 10), following the ten commandments is not enough. One must be willing to surrender the values which he has earned by his own effort to those who did not earn them. Why? Because Hitler, er I mean, Jesus says so, and that's all.

A Hitler relishes these kinds of "virtues" since their acceptance by a large community of persons will transform them into persons willing to sacrifice themselves, and such persons are exactly the kind of people a Hitler wants populating his nation.

Jesus did not advocate the recognition that reality is objective (he thinks that reality will conform to his desires - e.g., walking on water, turning water into wine, healing people simply by wishing it, etc.), nor did he advocate reason (he advocated faith - something is true because one wants it to be true), and he did not advocate selfishness in morality (he expected people to surrender their will for "God's will" - cf. John 5:30, Matt. 26:39, et al.). According to Christianity, one is supposed to surrender his own self-interest for the sake of God or others or both. As is common in some churches, the word "JOY" is supposed to indicate the order or priority of the beneficiaries of one's actions: Jesus, Others, You. Clearly, one's self-interests are to be subordinated to someone else's desires. This is an ethical code which makes aspiring Hitlers water at the mouth. And this is

precisely what we see throughout the Middle East and elsewhere today.

******

"Whereas selfishness (which other than in 'objectivism") is generally seen as a bad thing, it is self-interest *at the expense of others*."

"Rand specifically says that this isn't what she means. She is very clear about this."

Right. Rand is clear in the Introduction to her book _The Virtue of Selfishness_ that "the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word 'selfishness' is: concern with one's own interests." (VOS, vii) Rand nowhere advocates that one expects to gain at the expense of others, and her entire moral philosophy is the repudiation of any code which does advocate gain at the expense of others.

Some dictionaries have modified their definition of 'selfishness' to imply the pursuit of self-interest at the expense of others. For instance, Merriam-Webster's defines 'selfish' as "concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others." Who is to determine that someone is "excessively concerned" with oneself?

In any case, that's certainly not what Rand means by 'selfishness' and any familiarity with Rand's writings on the subject of ethics will confirm this. To say that Rand advocates personal gain at the expense of others because she advocates an ethics of selfishness is clearly dishonest, and the intention here can only be to misrepresent her views in order to vilify them.

What Rand considered fatal to morality was the belief that individuals have a duty to consider the interests of others (which is what the author of Phil. 2:4 believed). Rand recognized that this belief is what has sent the world spiraling into "an orgy of self-sacrificing" and is central to the cause of many injustices (such as Hitler, Stalin, et al.).

******

As a side note - it is quite noteworthy how frequently critics of Rand's philosophy have a habit of never even reading Rand's own writings, let alone citing her own statements in their criticism of her ideas. A lack of familiarity with Rand's ideas has been exposed at the root of criticism paraded on this list before (cf. Rob Mitchell's and Tim Bedding's attacks against Objectivism which had to be corrected earlier this year). It's as if some people believe that their ignorance of Rand's ideas will prove those ideas wrong. Hopefully, this kind of error will not be repeated, but I'm not holding my breath.

Was Hitler good? Not at all. In fact, I would say that it is only on an Objectivist footing that one can really understand the evil nature of a Hitler.

CJ

* * * * * * * * * * * *

"heh don't worry I will, when I have some sort of answer to post to that list."

Yes, I saw it. However, I don't think anyone insinuated that you were lying, just mistaken. (After all, to my knowledge you have not pointed out which post to Jaberz contains your question about Hitler.)

******

"We can just as easily imagine hypothetical person X who might *say* he's the 'saviour of the Y people' but is in fact just after power and money and fame."

I don't really know what the difference would be. When someone's message essentially amounts to "believe in me and I will save you from yourself," that person marks himself as a bad egg.

******

"Hitler was also selfless in the sense that he did not want to use his own effort to achieve his goals. Rather, he wanted his goals achieved, but he wanted others to do the dirty work for him (more pursuit of the unearned here - a dead give-away of selflessness). He did not want to achieve anything by his own effort or at his own expense, as a rationally self-interested person does."

"umm how is getting someone else to do your work an act of selflessness (especially if the 'self' of that person is lazy? )"

It's not selfless so long as their is a contract or agreement which is entered voluntarily by both parties (i.e., uncoerced, without force or compulsion). But of course that's not how Hitler operated. He did not use the persuasion of rational argument, rather he used the muzzle of a gun, the use of force. He wanted his ambitions achieved at the expense of others. He did not care how many deaths his goals required. This is wholly selfless.

******

"Everything Hitler said and stood for involved self-sacrifice."

"Yep. Hitler was no advocate of selfishness as Rand understands it."

"Maybe not as Rand understood it, but seems that he was selfish as I understand it."

Rejoice, and be glad, RAZA, for now your misunderstanding has been corrected.

*******

"so when someone 'should' (moral command) do something it is like when playing chess and a player 'should' have moved his rook rather than his pawn. So it's not a 'moral command' in the traditional sense of the word (that is, if I do not do as I "should" I'm still not 'evil', just a bad player :) ?"

Rand did not teach that a moral system proper for man is one which is composed of commands (cf. "categorical imperatives"). Rather, Rand's system is one which is reason-based - i.e., it is composed of hypothetical imperatives whose standard is man's life and its requirements. (I'm astounded: Why do so many Christians object to life as man's standard of value??? It's no surprise to me that their objections turn out to be wholly self-defeating.)

For instance, *if* your goal is to live (the hypothetical), then you must take those actions which make this goal possible (the imperative course of action). Again, morality for Rand is goal-oriented action based on rational values (as opposed to approval-oriented action based on arbitrary commandments). Morality for Rand is a kind of science: it is reason applied to reality. As Peikoff once said "morality doesn't need commandments any more than physics does." He was right.

*******

"Rand recognized man's metaphysical need for a code of morality (something quite unique in the field of philosophy). His life depends on his morality since morality is a code of values which guides his choices and actions. Morality for Rand is not an otherworldly concern, as it is for the religionist, who sees morality more as a code of service as opposed to a code of values. Keep in mind the fact that Rand saw her philosophy, Objectivism, as 'a philosophy for living on earth' (rather than one which supposedly enables one to escape it or to exist as a lobotomized zombie)."

Yes, I reacll this was how she begged the question.

What question was that? And where did Rand "beg" it? Can you cite a source for this? Please elaborate what you mean here.

******

"After all the bible puts it this way - 'For nobody hated his own body', or if we put it in the positive sense, 'people look after themselves/are self-interested.'"

"Well, hold on here, RAZA. Ephesians 5:29 ('For no man ever yet hated his own flesh') does not give the whole story. (Indeed, how does the author of this verse know that 'no man ever yet hated his own flesh'?)"

"People eat huhm, that's an act of self-interest."

Sure. And thus eating food in order to nourish the body is selfish. Recall that moral action is goal-oriented. The question is: who is to be the primary beneficiary of one's actions? Altruism says others must be the primary beneficiary. Pietism says that an invisible magic being must be the primary beneficiary. Objectivism says that one's self is the primary beneficiary of his own moral actions. When you eat, you directly benefit from your action. When you work for a paycheck and deposit that paycheck as a reward for your own effort into your own bank account, you are the primary beneficiary of that action.

******

"The Bible certainly does not advocate self-interest,"

"It does but does not advocate selfishness (as I've definide them both)."

Let's see. Your definition of 'selfishness' was "self-interest *at the expense of others*." (Post 699)

Does the Bible advocate that the believer should gain at the expense of someone else? Absolutely it does. Look at the whole gospel myth: Jesus loses his life in order that believers can gain. The highest possible gain for the believer (salvation, eternal life, etc.) can only be achieved at the expense of Jesus' life. So when you claim that you are saved by the blood of Jesus, you are doing precisely what you condemn (i.e., selfishness as you yourself define it). Big OOOOOPS!

I went around a few times with Rob Mitchell on just this issue. He had to admit that he accepts the unearned - i.e., that he wants to gain at the expense of someone else - indeed, at someone else's death! Only, he attempted to evade this fact by saying that the desire for salvation was magically inserted into his mind. And then he got upset when I pointed out that this is a form of mind-control. Go figure! (See particularly posts 506, 507, 515, 516, 518, and 523 from June of this year.)

*****

"In fact, the morality of the Bible is perfectly suited for those with Hitlerian aspirations."

"Except God is good."

*******

"This is altruism in morality and its logical consequence in politics - collectivism. According to this, men have a duty to look after others. Why? Blank out."

"Because all people are made in the image of God."

Exactly as I said: Blank out.

******

Romans 12:1: "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."

"If this is so reasonable, what's the reason given for this? Again, blank out. Clearly, the author here wants people to be willing to sacrifice themselves."

"The reason (as described in the earlier chapters) is that God has saved us from sin, therefore we should live in accordance with God's rules (i.e not in sin)."

In other words, one should sacrifice himself (even though god could never benefit from this). Clearly, on the biblical view of morality, morality is not a code of values, but a code of service to an alleged being which could not possibly benefit from that service to begin with.

******

"According to Mark's Jesus (cf. Mark 10), following the ten commandments is not enough. One must be willing to surrender the values which he has earned by his own effort to those who did not earn them. Why? Because Hitler, er I mean, Jesus says so, and that's all."

"God has all authority the rules are His to make and not ours to break."

"Hitler has all authority the rules are His to make and not ours to break" - the obedient German population of the Third Reich.

*******

"A Hitler relishes these kinds of 'virtues' since their acceptance by a large community of persons will transform them into persons willing to sacrifice themselves, and such persons are exactly the kind of people a Hitler wants populating his nation."

"Yes, because Hilter was selfish :)"

In the same sense that the believer is selfish (using your preferred definition) i.e., he expects his highest gain (salvation, eternal life) at the expense of someone else's life (Jesus on the cross).

******

"Jesus did not advocate the recognition that reality is objective (he thinks that reality will conform to his desires - e.g., walking on water, turning water into wine, healing people simply by wishing it, etc.), nor did he advocate reason (he advocated faith - something is true because one wants it

to be true),"

"So why did Jesus argue if he wasn't advocating reason?"

Are you assuming that reason consists simply of uttering arguments?

*******

"and he did not advocate selfishness in morality (he expected people to surrender their will for 'God's will' - cf. John 5:30, Matt. 26:39, et al.)."

"yes, and that included self-interet (as opposed to selfishness)."

******

"According to Christianity, one is supposed to surrender his own self-interest for the sake of God or others or both. As is common in some churches, the word "JOY" is supposed to indicate the order or priority of the beneficiaries of one's actions: Jesus, Others, You. Clearly, one's self-interests are to be subordinated to someone else's desires."

"Yes, but it does not deny self-interest and that was my point."

RAZA, the Bible is explicit about this. Observe:

Matthew 16:24: "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."

It obviously denies self-interest by advocating self-sacrifice (cf. Romans 12:1, et al.) and gain at the expense of others (Jesus' death on the cross as the "payment" for the believer's salvation).

Again, you fail to integrate these ideas in terms of principle.

******

"This is an ethical code which makes aspiring Hitlers water at the mouth. And this is precisely what we see throughout the Middle East and elsewhere today."

"Don't you mean America :)"

Oh, it's here, that's for sure, but not to the degree it is elsewhere in the world.

******

"What Rand considered fatal to morality was the belief that individuals have a duty to consider the interests of others (which is what the author of Phil. 2:4 believed). Rand recognized that this belief is what has sent the world spiraling into 'an orgy of self-sacrificing' and is central to the cause of many injustices (such as Hitler, Stalin, et al.)."

"But this is where we disagree, you see hilter as 'selfless' I see him as 'selfish' (my defn)."

And by your definition "self-interest at the expense of others" I see every Christian believer as "selfish" (i.e., not rationally selfish, but irrationally selfish) since they benefit at the expense of another person (namely Jesus).

******

"AS a side note - I was not raising an objection per se, it was a *question* that occured to me, so I thought it best to ask people who understand objectivism, to find the answer."

Questions are good, RAZA. Keep asking them!

******

"Was Hitler good? Not at all. In fact, I would say that it is only on an Objectivist footing that one can really understand the evil nature of a Hitler."

"heh you've obvioulsy not studied Christianity that well :)"

Funny, I'd say the same thing in regard to your understanding of Objectivism.;)

CJ