Atlas Shrugged Money Essay

The Morality Of Money Essay

In reacting to the Enron scandal, many cultural commentators have been quick to recur to a favorite theme: the corrupting power of commerce.

Here is a typical example, from the "Letters Column" of the New York Times: "Enron's collapse was a product of the culture of greed, dishonesty, ethical blindness and wishful thinking that has characterized much of corporate America since the advent of the Reagan administration" (John S. Koppel, January 22, 2002). In this view, Enron is simply the representative of corrupt, "free market" capitalism. And the author's reaction, like the reactions of many editorialists and commentators, is disgust with "greed" and contempt for the idea that money-making might be moral. The Los Angeles Times's editorial cartoonist, Jeff Danziger, captured the feeling perfectly by depicting Enron as a house of prostitution, whose parlor is decorated with statues and pictures of naked and scantily clad women holding bags marked with the dollar sign. The message was clear: Dollars are money; money symbolizes capitalism; capitalism is immoral.

Danziger is right that money symbolizes capitalism, but what should we think of this symbol? Ayn Rand's answer was unequivocal: "Money demands of you the highest virtues," she wrote in Atlas Shrugged. Yet her view seems incongruous in light of the moral shortcomings of certain businessmen, wealthy heirs, and corporations, of which Enron is a particularly noisome instance. Under the circumstances, it may be useful to re-examine Objectivism's view that money is a badge of nobility, a view of money that underlies the economic commentaries in this magazine.

In Atlas Shrugged, one of the heroes, Francisco d'Anconia, gives a speech on the meaning of money. In it he says: "The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality." His reason is that one makes money through production and trade. And that is the noblest way to live: as a producer who creates value and then gains values from others through voluntary exchange.

That is just what people normally do in a free market. Money does not itself create anything, but because it is the medium of exchange it makes possible the specialized production and long-distance commerce that are the basis of our advanced and bountiful civilization. This is why, in the abstract, it is a symbol of justice, achievement, and progress.

Objectivists thus defend the moral worth of making money because we admire the productive, rational, independent man or woman. But this does not mean we equate wealth with moral worth, especially not in the mixed economic system we have today. That should be apparent from the various wealthy villains Rand portrays in her novels, such as the architect Peter Keating in The Fountainhead and the railroad heir James Taggart in Atlas Shrugged.

Still, the goodness of wealth is only a presumption. An heir whose business skill amounts...

Loading: Checking Spelling

0%

Read more

Transcendentalism: The Basis of Morality Essay

1171 words - 5 pages Although not looked upon as a widely popular topic in the 21st century, transcendentalism has played a role in everyone's life. Action of the tenets and values of transcendentalist people vary. Religious traditions from each generation amplify the movement along with the social and political activity. Transcendentalist believe in the natural man. One who is self-reliant, uncorrupted and one with nature. God is in everything but nothing in...

The morality of Capital Punishment Essay

2110 words - 8 pages In 1965, Robert Massie murdered mother of two Mildred Weiss in San Gabriel, Calif., during a follow-home robbery. Hours before execution, a stay was issued so Massie could testify against his accomplice. Massie's sentence was commuted to life when the Supreme Court halted executions in 1972. Receiving an undeserved second chance, Massie was paroled, but eight months later robbed and murdered businessman Boris Naumoff in San Francisco....

The Morality of Capital Punishment

2156 words - 9 pages The Morality of Capital Punishment   We find ourselves at a moment when considerable national attention is being given to the morality of capital punishment, so let's discuss it in detail in this essay. Although preserving the death penalty is nowhere near the top of my moral concerns, I can think of no persuasive reason-save perhaps one, to which I will come-why a clearly guilty terrorist such as Timothy McVeigh should not be...

The Morality of Capital Punishment

2651 words - 11 pages The precise question at issue in this essay is the moral standing of capital punishment. Taking the teachings of the largest Christian denomination (Catholic) as a starting point, some say that the presentation of capital punishment in the Catechism of 1992 (#2266) differs surely in restrictiveness from the teaching of the Catechism of 1566. And that the revised Catechism of 1997 is even more restrictive. Leet's examine these ane other...

The Morality of Assisted Suicide

2768 words - 11 pages The Morality of Assisted Suicide Deciding when to die and when to live is an issue that has only recently begun to confront patients all over the world. There is an elderly man lying in a hospital bed, he just had his fourth heart attack and is in a persistent vegetative state. He is hooked up to a respirator and has more tubes and IV’s going in and out of his body everywhere. These kinds of situations exist in every hospital everyday. ...

The Morality of Lord of the Flies

879 words - 4 pages William Golding wrote of his novel "Lord of the Flies" that the theme was an attempt to explore how the defects society are based largely on human nature rather than the structure of civilization. Golding used "Lord of the Flies" to allegorically explain that the architecture of a society depends on the morality of the individual rather than a social or political construction, regardless of its inherent merit or esteem. Golding very carefully...

The concept of Time Value of Money

956 words - 4 pages Show Me the MoneyThe concept of Time Value of Money (TVM) is that a dollar in ones hand is more valuable than receiving that same dollar in the future because of the potential earnings of the money in ones possession when invested properly (University of Phoenix, 2007). TVM has factors that can assist in determining whether money should be held on,...

Nuances of Money in The Great Gatsby

1484 words - 6 pages No American writer has understood money more than F. Scott Fitzgerald has, says James L. W. West III . "He knows money has a deadening effect on morality. It insulates people from the pain of others." Fitzgerald's books seem to give a clear picture of the influence of money upon people's behaviour and relationships during that time. The Great Gatsby is...

The Power of Money in Campaign Finance

2730 words - 11 pages It may seem that with the Buckley decision, soft money and PACs the hope for reform has been lost, however there is still hope. The Supreme Court upheld the voluntary public financing of presidential election, which was considered a great step forward because taking public funds requires the candidate to limit their spending on the federal level. There is also the “hard money” in political campaigns, which is strictly regulated by law through the...

The Morality of the U.S. Bombing Hiroshima

1663 words - 7 pages The Morality of the U.S. Bombing Hiroshima On August 6 and 9, 1945, the only atomic bombs ever used in warfare were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The mass destruction and numerous deaths caused by those bombs ultimately put an end to World War II. Was this the only way to end the war, however? Could this killing of innocent Japanese citizens had been avoided and the war still ended quickly. ...

The Merchant of Venice: Money & Love

671 words - 3 pages The main theme in The Merchant of Venice is the way money and love is viewed by each character. The Christian characters in the play value human relationships over business ones, whereas Shylock is only interested in the money. Antonio lends money without interest...

June 2002 -- In reacting to the Enron scandal, many cultural commentators have been quick to recur to a favorite theme: the corrupting power of commerce.

Here is a typical example, from the "Letters Column" of the New York Times: "Enron's collapse was a product of the culture of greed, dishonesty, ethical blindness and wishful thinking that has characterized much of corporate America since the advent of the Reagan administration" (John S. Koppel, January 22, 2002). In this view, Enron is simply the representative of corrupt, "free market" capitalism. And the author's reaction, like the reactions of many editorialists and commentators, is disgust with "greed" and contempt for the idea that money-making might be moral. The Los Angeles Times's editorial cartoonist, Jeff Danziger, captured the feeling perfectly by depicting Enron as a house of prostitution, whose parlor is decorated with statues and pictures of naked and scantily clad women holding bags marked with the dollar sign. The message was clear: Dollars are money; money symbolizes capitalism; capitalism is immoral.
Danziger is right that money symbolizes capitalism, but what should we think of this symbol? Ayn Rand's answer was unequivocal: "Money demands of you the highest virtues," she wrote in Atlas Shrugged. Yet her view seems incongruous in light of the moral shortcomings of certain businessmen, wealthy heirs, and corporations, of which Enron is a particularly noisome instance. Under the circumstances, it may be useful to re-examine Objectivism 's view that money is a badge of nobility, a view of money that underlies the economic commentaries in this magazine.
In Atlas Shrugged, one of the heroes, Francisco d'Anconia, gives a speech on the meaning of money. In it he says: "The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality." His reason is that one makes money through production and trade. And that is the noblest way to live: as a producer who creates value and then gains values from others through voluntary exchange.
That is just what people normally do in a free market. Money does not itself create anything, but because it is the medium of exchange it makes possible the specialized production and long-distance commerce that are the basis of our advanced and bountiful civilization. This is why, in the abstract, it is a symbol of justice, achievement, and progress.
Objectivists thus defend the moral worth of making money because we admire the productive, rational, independent man or woman. But this does not mean we equate wealth with moral worth, especially not in the mixed economic system we have today. That should be apparent from the various wealthy villains Rand portrays in her novels, such as the architect Peter Keating in The Fountainhead and the railroad heir James Taggart in Atlas Shrugged. In the Objectivist view, money is not an end-in-itself. It is valuable because of what one does with it, and it is morally meaningful because of how one normally obtains it in a free society. Thus, in assessing someone's moral worth Objectivists do not ask: Does he have money? They ask: Did he earn it? And: What does he want to do with it?
In short, not every penny is a badge of honor for Objectivists, but we can nevertheless presume in most cases that it is a sign of goodness. After all, every dollar of profit earned through free trade represents value freely conferred by happy customers. Customers may demand things they shouldn't—some part of the market for wine consists of drunkards, for example. But for the most part, the responsibility for ensuring that the customer is well served must rest with the customer himself. He is the one who must take care to avoid dodgy deals and look out for his own long-term well-being. The seller, in general, must have confidence that his customer will use his product responsibly. Thus, there can be moral worth in selling wine, even though some people use it to become alcoholics.
Still, the goodness of wealth is only a presumption. An heir whose business skill amounts to hiring a responsible private banker is not necessarily evil, but once we ask how he earned his money, we think far less of him than we would of a brilliant entrepreneur. In general, one person is not worth less morally simply because he has less money than another. (If money did equate to moral worth, this writer for a journal of opinion could hardly feel pride in his career choice!) And of course money gained dishonestly is morally worthless. When a corporate executive like Enron's Ken Lay poses as an innovator while building a financial house of cards and deceiving his shareholders and employees, we see the difference between earning money and pretending to earn it. Merely having or getting money is not noble; making money is.
Similarly, spending money is not in itself morally admirable. In the Objectivist view it is noble to use one's own money in service of one's own life and happiness. But money can be ill spent, too. Simply accumulating it is of little use to anyone, especially oneself. Shortsighted hedonism and the soulless conformity of "keeping up with the Joneses" are contemptible uses for wealth. But worse is spending one's money to promote evil: irrationalism, collectivism, sacrifice. As a case in point, consider corporations and wealthy individuals (often heirs) that finance anti-industrial, anti-civilization environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. The same may be said of those who pour vast sums into religions, which most often teach people that moral worth consists in self-sacrifice and that non-rational faith is the only means to ultimate truth. Then there is the depressing phenomenon of wealthy heirs like the many Kennedys in politics today. They appoint themselves the overseers of society, exploit their riches to gain the power of government, and then paternalistically manage our lives through taxes, regulation, and mandatory social programs.
Ayn Rand praised money in order to fight the ancient hatred of practical wealth and the current widespread moral contempt for the earned wealth of the marketplace. In American culture we have the healthy sense that there's nothing wrong in earning a buck, but it is admixed with the moral conviction that money is the root of all evil. Hence, the wealthy heirs, eager to prove their rejection of capitalism and their embrace of a "higher" social ideal. Hence, the common sight of a productive genius who eagerly passes his earnings on to the hands of those enemies of industry and freedom residing in universities, foundations, and churches. America is distinctive for the generosity of its citizens, but it is pitiful that so much of that generosity goes to add to the hatred of commerce and freedom.
At times, Rand's heroes claim that they seek only to make a profit, which could give a misimpression of Rand's view. For instance, her heroine Dagny Taggart, at the launching of the "John Galt" rail line she has built, announces to the press: "Miss Taggart says—quote—I expect to make a pile of money on the John Galt Line. I will have earned it" (Atlas Shrugged). Here, Rand (through Dagny) is playing on a caricature of business—the view that most business executives do their work solely for the sake of the cash return. In the novel, this is belied by the zest Dagny takes in the spiritual and personal dimensions of her work. And in fact it is rare to find people, even financiers, working well at work they do not value for its own sake. Rand's point here is that "money-grubbing" is part and parcel of living well. Far from being the root of all evil, money, where it has been earned through production and trade, is the sum of that which is finest in human beings.
Such is the meaning of money. The moral worth of particular wealthy people is a matter of judgment, of applying the general principles of earning money to individual cases. Today, many people, especially on the Left, have misgivings about the qualities of business executives. Objectivists do too: Is that figure on the cover of Fortune a Hank Rearden—or an Orren Boyle?
To some extent, the widespread distrust of business is a result of the political environment. Businesses are constantly asked to undertake some new government boondoggle that works more harm than good. And in the era of media agitprop, they are bombarded by false or sensationalistic claims from advocacy groups. (Remember Alar? The attack on saccharine? "The China Syndrome"? The annual doomsaying of the Worldwatch Institute?) And it is now commonplace that a mad theory will pass on into the courts and be used to devastate a business, as Dow-Corning was crushed by false assertions about the health effects of silicone breast implants.
Business executives rarely defend themselves morally from these assaults. When they do mount a defense, it is not often one that asserts pride in making money. Rather, like William Clay Ford, they assume that there is nothing moral about building good products that people want and are willing to pay for. They assume that "moral" means "serving the public good" or "caring for the environment." It has nothing to do with making a profit. Yet making a profit is what they do. Indeed, for corporate officers, it is their duty to the shareholders who hire them. As if they sense the inconsistency of their received, altruistic morality, many business leaders adopt cynicism and hypocrisy as a reflexive stance.
Thus, it is those most involved in making money who most need to appreciate its meaning. Our capitalistic culture can thrive only when we understand that making money demands our best, and that no apology is needed for achievement and excellence.

This article was originally published in the June 2002 issue of Navigator magazine, The Atlas Society precursor to The New Individualist.

spiderID=842

About The Author:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *