Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It

by Craig Biddle

Loving Life demonstrates that morality is a matter not of divine revelation or social convention or personal opinion -- but, rather, of the factual requirements of human life and happiness. Biddle shows how a true morality is derived logically from observable facts, what in essence such a morality demands, and why it is a matter of pure self-interest.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Economics, Religion

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2002

About the author

Craig Biddle writes and lectures on philosophical and political issues from an Objectivist perspective, Objectivism being the philosophy created by Ayn Rand. Craig also edits The Objective Standard, a quarterly journal of culture and politics. His first book, Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It, is a highly concretized, systematic introduction to Ayn Rand's ethics.

The book in progress is an introduction to the principles of good thinking and the fallacies that are violations of those principles. He has lectured and taught seminars at universities across the country, including Stanford, Duke, Tufts, UVA, UCLA, UM–Wisconsin, and NYU. Also lecture regularly at Objectivist conferences.

For a brief elaboration on the nature of Objectivism, see my essay “Introducing The Objective Standard” or Leonard Peikoff’s essay “The Philosophy of Objectivism: A Brief Summary.” To learn more about the philosophy, I suggest beginning with Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged.

Reviews

[Yousef Damra · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It
Published January 2002
Book Review:

This a short book made of 8 chapters.Its main argument is for as the book suggest loving life and giving moral worth to nothing but human life. The first chapter of the argues that there is no difference between Subjectivists (both social and personal) and the religious by arguing that both are inadequate because both rely on what one believes to be the truth and not giving any evidence for what they believe. Both moralities have created disasters,according to the author,including communism and Taliban.

The second chapter the author briefly state what is the is-ought gap and shows that believing that there is no basis for morality in reality can lead to horrific disasters.

The third chapters the author demonstrates that the basis of all value stems from human life because all people no matter how altruistic constantly choose to live. So being moral means
-living properly--and therefore selfishly. “Living properly(being moral) consists in pursuing life-serving values not sporadically or occasionally,but regularly and consistently--as a matter of principle.”

To do that we need to have some moral values which is the subject of the fourth chapter.The basic characteristic of man is productiveness. Because unlike other animals who are wired to survive,humans must produce to survive by making hunting tools,cooking them and cooperating with others. “Productive work is essential to human life; it makes human life possible. What happens if a person refuses to be productive? If he is alone on an island, he dies. And if a person refuses to be productive while he is among others in a society, he becomes a parasite on those who do choose to be productive; he becomes a pauper, a beggar, or a thief. In order to live as a human being (rather than as a parasite), a person has to be productive.”p54
And to be productive we have to think and plan and what makes that possible is reason.”Rational thinking is the most basic requirement of human life; it is the process on which human life most fundamentally depends. ... it follows that reason is our most basic value. “P56

What about emotions? Aren’t they also a part of a good life. The author argues the Stoic notion(without actually quoting them)that negative emotions are but a contradiction between what we think ought to be and how the world actually is. And positive emotions as harmony between our knowledge,conviction and judgements(ideas) and the real world.The author makes this point vividly clear by providing numerous examples of same situation but with different reactions.

The fifth chapter is an instruction manual on how to make life meaningful.I find many similarities between his notion and Sartre’s yet no quotations. Since life is a self-generated process because we have free will and rationality is the most basic moral value so it follows that a meaningful life --process-- is directed at a rational(life promoting) goal such as”getting an education,developing a career,engaging in a hobby,building a romantic relationship,or raising one’s children.”It is a difference between a college student who just wants to get by and just work and a motivated student who wants to be excell at work. “Life is finite,and time is irreplaceable;thus,for a person to do something that does not advance his life is to retard his life.”p.65. The author gives many examples but one for example is the “realm of romance” in which he compares a playboy and a person interested in long term successful relationship.The former may indeed enjoy more physical pleasure but on the long run the latter would enjoy greater satisfaction. He then argues that there should be a balance in the areas of one’s life that make it meaningful but with a prevailing “central” purpose.
The third component necessary to a happy life is self-esteem or to “achieve and maintain the conviction that we are able to live and worthy of happiness”.
“Reason,purpose and self esteem are the basic human values …”

Chapter six begins by differentiating between values(rationality) and using them(virtue;thinking). Living and acting rationally is a broad concept which should be narrowed down to derivative virtues of:
Productivity:”is the process of creating material values,whether good or services”
If one refuses to be productive he betrays his choice to live and cannot survive except as a parasite. “...productive work is properly one’s central purpose in life:it makes life both possible and interesting”
Honesty:”is the refusal to fake reality-- i.e,to pretend that facts other than they are.”In other words it is the commitment to be rational.The author gives examples of misrepresented applications, honest and dishonest bankers,and infidelity to demonstrate the principle in real life to show that the result of dishonesty is self-destruction.Because it cannot be contained and its effects cannot be escaped. “Dishonesty cannot lead to values.Reality won’t let it”. The author then reminds us to keep in mind that morality is objective and not absolute.Meaning that there are situations when dishonesty is permissible because one must not forget the justification of morality that is to serve life. “Given the purpose of morality,honesty does permit a person to lie-- if the lie is intended to protect a legitimate value from a person (or group) that seeks to steal,harm or destroy it”. “Honesty requires that one take into account the full context of one’s knowledge.Dishonesty consists in ignoring or evading some aspect of one’s knowledge.[faking reality.” So morality “is a matter of purposeful principles and contextual absolutes: principles formed for the purpose of making human life possible”

Integrity:”is loyalty in action to one’s convictions and values.” It is the virtue of walking one’s talk, practicing what one preaches, living up to one’s standards. In a word, it is the virtue of being principled.” In short being a person of integrity means constantly vetting contradictions between reality and one’s ideas and always acting on principles one beholds.
Independence:”is one’s acceptance of the responsibility of forming one’s own judgments and of living by the work of one’s own mind”.The author here puts people into three labels. Those who just accepts norms without thinking them through,and those who just rejects norms for the sole purpose of being different a “nine coin bill”(my quotations). And a third group who do not define themselves by how other think but truly think things through.The author thinks the distinction should be made between “second handers”,those who just reject or accept ideas and “independents”.This closely resembles Nietzsche’s Actor and Reactor distinction,though again without any quotations.
Justice:”is the virtue of judging men’s character and conduct objectively and acting accordingly,granting to each man that which he deserves.”In other words do not judge people on the basis of identity but on the basis of their character. The author goes on to argue against the contemporary culture of not giving judgements because one must judge and be judged to constantly gets better. But the standard of judgment should be Objective that is based on life. It is primarily not about harassing people and being negative rather it is about giving honors to those who deserve it.
Pride:”the commitment to achieve one’s own moral perfection”.”Pride is the sum of all virtues”--Ayn Rand
Pride does not mean moral infallibility rather it means to trying to be always moral and rational within the given circumstances.


In the seventh chapter the author claims that the only moral system of governance is capitalism.Because under capitalism everyone has to be productive or else he dies unless someone acts as a host for the parasite. He justifies the existence of governance by justifying its role in preserving the rights of everybody which are adequately summarized in the famous words of Jefferson “the right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The author argues that the government should not ban any medical treatment or any substances rather its duty is only to fight fraud but if a patient and a doctor both agree on a treatment no one else should be involve.Personal freedom includes the right to harm oneself. Because a person must always be free to act on his own judgment unless he infringes on the rights of others.The author asserts that there should be a law specifically banning the “initiation of violence” meaning taking a right,at the threat of a violence or imprisonment, to choose of a person if the person is not harming anyone else without their consent. The argues this should be applied in all cases not matter what the request of the person is,because one owns one’s own body and should be free to mutilate it or sell it. It may very well be morally reprehensible but that is not the government or anybodies else’s business.This is all goes to trash if one rejects the idea of property as many egalitarian leftists do [and as do Muslims ownership is for god].But if one believes in that then it is morally permissible for a society to ban people from expressing themselves in certain ways or ban certain groups of people the rights to “life,liberty and pursuit of happiness.” And so we have sacrificed the individual again for a utopia that no one so or a plan that has not rifen. Society exists to protect the individual and his property and if the society encroaches on that right then the individual the building of block of society is sacrificed and so is the society,which is at this point immoral. He then answers the concern that some people are not genuinely able to work the author is critical of the claim and asserts that only a very few percent of those on entitlement programs actually needs them.Then he says people must give charity only voluntarily and never forced to give charity.[updating old statistics in US:Charitable giving continued its upward trend in 2015, as an estimated $373 billion was given to charitable causes] .

The last chapter sums up the crest of the book and I find no better words than that of the author:
In order to live together as civilized beings, rather than as barbarians—in order to coexist as independent equals, rather than as masters and slaves—people have to refrain from using physical force against one another. Hence the principle of individual rights: Each person morally must be left free to act according to his own judgment—so long as he does not violate the same rights of others. A moral society—a civilized society—is one that bans the use of initiatory physical force from human relationships and delegates the use of retaliatory force to the government for the sole purpose of protecting individual rights. Accordingly, such a society prohibits its government from using physical force except in retaliation against those who initiate (or threaten) its use. And the only social system that does so—thereby leaving people free to act fully as human life requires—is pure, laissez-faire capitalism. Just as rational egoism is the only morality that is actually moral, so laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system that is actually moral. And just as the first leads to the second, so the second depends on the first. Egoism and capitalism mutually imply each other; to uphold either consistently, one must uphold both unwaveringly. It all comes down to this: Do you want to live in a world in which you are free to choose and pursue your own goals and values; free to do with your own body, your own mind, your own life, whatever you think is in your best interest;free to engage with other adults in whatever kinds of relationships you and they agree to engage in; free to think, work, and achieve whatever you are willing and able to achieve; free to keep, use, and dispose of the products of your own efforts; free to trade your goods and services with others voluntarily, by mutual consent and to mutual advantage; free to act according to your own judgment in all areas of your life; free to live fully as a human being? In short: Do you want to make the most of your life and achieve the greatest happiness possible? If so, you must embrace, advocate, and defend laissez-faire capitalism; the principle of individual rights; and the ethics on which they, your life, and your happiness depend: rational egoism—the morality of self-interest. It is supported by the facts of reality. It is required for human existence. It is a matter of loving life.

[An · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of my best friends recommended this book and I was rather skeptical when he first told me about it. I realize now that I've just always had the wrong definitions of true 'morality' and 'selfishness'. This book is a real eye opener, and the many examples and anecdotes make it very easy to read.

[Russ · Rating 5 out of 5]

I don't know of any other book that gives a more concise introduction and general explanation of the Objectivist ethics of self-interest. I'll definitely be recommending the book.

Two areas that I think might be problematic, albeit very slightly if so, are 1) the many of times Biddle uses the phrase "[to live] a human life" or "[live as] a human being," and 2) his discussion of public property. I understand Biddle's points regarding human life, but even the people in his examples of extreme rights violations, where he says they aren't living a human life, are in fact still human beings and therefore living (and dying) as humans. They are, however, not living a maximal or proper human life. I can see some readers re-reading his uses of words and maybe spending too much time on thinking about exactly what Biddle means. In regards to his bringing up public property, he leaves the discussion incomplete and will (I hope) leave the reader thinking: he dismisses all public property but doesn't say how government buildings, which he says are necessary, fit conceptually--or how they are acquired and maintained.

As mentioned above, if they are issues, then they are minor, as the reader should be thinking about and challenging what he is reading anyway, and Biddle's conclusions are still sound.

[Daniel Hageman · Rating 2 out of 5]

If this book was titled “How to maximize the number of garbage arguments in a 160-page book” it’d be an instant 5 star.

It’s bummer that facile arguments like this circulate to the extent that they do, given there are actually some important insights ancillary to this topic that are there to be understood. The intrinsic value of personal well-being, and the rational imperatives that follow from it, can go a long way towards outlining the normative structure in which we live our lives. But this incessant need to force together normative self-interest, naively grounded in a dogmatic adherence to libertarian free will and myriad other unjustified beliefs, with morality itself, is doing much more harm than good to an otherwise important conversation.

I'd probably give it a 1-star if it wasn't for the threshold my previous 1-star rating set.

[Josiah R · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most accessible introduction to Objectivism I have found so far.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great overview/intro to objectivism. Ideas are laid out in an easy to understand way that will challenge the reader on their more traditional views of altruism and self sacrifice.

[Bill Henderson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well written and I well formulated argument. I felt his premise, along with Rand's generalizes religion to the point of absurdity. I don't believe religion can only be subjective.

Also the hostility towards religion was distracting. I'd like to read some more of Biddle's work; I hope he's done grinding this axe.

[Tom B. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well-written and well-argued into the philosophy of Objectivism.

[Alexander Temerev · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a beautiful, short, concise and modern summation of Objectivist ethics.

[Neil · Rating 4 out of 5]

A wonderful primer of Objectivist Ethics.