The Virtue of Selfishness: Fiftieth Anniversary Edition

My General Overview: Ayn Rand has a 'controversial', but brilliant and effective philosophy that can best be applied to your personal life and sense of ethics. She advocates both ethical and rational egoism and dismisses altruism as a vice rather than a virtue. Ayn made a great case against altruism in favor of ethical/rational egoism as a much better alternative. Her writing style is concise, direct, and illustrative of her points and arguments. It's accessible to readers who don't have a thesaurus nearby at all times, so this is much better than Immanuel Kant's confusing, convoluted, nonsensical work. Ayn Rand also makes a strong case for the rejection of mysticism and the adoption of reason as your primary guiding principle in life. Objectivism is a very motivating philosophy because, if you live by it, you will be pursuing your Values (she uses the word 'values' to describe passions and aspirations). The core components of Objectivism are Reason, Productivity, and Self-Esteem, all great on their own, but even better in combination. Ayn's philosophy addresses how we ought to live, in a very practical sense rather than meandering abstractions like some other philosophers. My Contentions: Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, is great when applied to your personal life. However, my biggest contention with her work is the fact Ayn endorses capitalism that is unregulated by the government. No; I'm not a socialist. I'm a capitalist, but I believe government regulation is an extremely important aspect of a market economy. There are too many real world examples (i.e., 2009 recession, Flint Michigan's water, etc.) of unregulated or barely regulated markets causing serious economic problems and, worse, even public health concerns. So, while I'm on board with Objectivism as a personal philosophy, I'm certainly not on board with it as a POLITICAL philosophy. Definitely not. Ayn Rand dismisses collectivism as inherently bad, while individualism is heralded as inherently good. To a certain extent, I agree with this assessment, but Ayn paints a picture that's way too 'black and white' on this issue. I believe MOST collectivism is bad, but I can't help but notice Social Collectivism, such as government building roads or providing single-payer healthcare, is reliably successful. Research the Nordic Model if you don't believe some forms of collectivism can actually be good. Yes, most collectivism fails by almost every measure, but SOME forms of collectivism are very successful and beneficial to society. I agree with Ayn Rand's advocacy of Individual Rights being of maximal importance. However, there must be a government that both grants and protects those Individual Rights. They do not come out of thin air; they're not 'natural' rights. Rights are social constructs, so while I agree Individual Rights are the most important thing in society, I don't believe those rights to be self-evident. We human beings must figure out what those rights are, set up a system that grants them, and also have a system that PROTECTS them. No rights are natural or just fall out of the sky. Individual Rights are the most important thing we need in society, so I agree with Ayn Rand on that bit, but rights are still social constructs at the end of the day. If Individual Rights were truly self-evident, these huge authoritarian nightmare governments of human history would have never existed. But, sorry... they did exist and some still DO exist (i.e., North Korea), so rights are social constructs, not self-evident, and we must establish those rights ourselves, as humans. I agree with Ayn Rand about using Reason as our primary guiding principle; we have to use Reason to determine what our Individual Rights are. They're not clear until we make propositions and arguments in favor of why certain rights ought to be granted/protected in our civilizations. Property Rights are also something I agree with Ayn Rand on. Yes, I definitely believe in private property being extremely significant to a prosperous society. However, those too, like the Individual Rights, are not self-evident and we must figure out for ourselves what these Property Rights are, what they mean, what the nuances and implications are, etc. And we should use Reason, not Mysticism, to do that. My Politics: Since I know Ayn Rand's work is very politically charged ever since the Tea Party movement leaders pretended to be Objectivists (they were definitely pretending and probably didn't even read Ayn's work)… I will go ahead and reveal my personal political beliefs. I'm a Social Democracy style liberal and a Civic Nationalist. Now that you know that about me, you can probably see why I had some issues with the political implications of Ayn's philosophy. But, that's okay. Objectivism is still a great PERSONAL philosophy to live your life by; I just think you ought to evaluate your politics differently than how you live as an individual. Politics is a lot more nuanced and complicated than Ayn makes it out to be. A market without government regulations is simply NOT the solution to modern economic struggles and it also isn't an ideal market in my view. Why 4 Stars? Because I have a lot of contentions with Ayn's economic and political ideas. Having said that, Objectivism is sound, logical, and great for your personal life.

This book is a collection of essays by Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden. It covers the ethics of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism. You don’t have to be interested in philosophy or Ayn Rand to get something out of this book, but you do have to approach it with an open mind. Quite predictably, a continuous theme throughout the book is the immorality of altruism and virtuousness of (rational) selfishness. I picked up this book a bit skeptical, especially because of the cult that seems to surround Ayn Rand. But this work was extremely thoughtful and thought-provoking. Probably one of the most interesting books I’ve ever read. More people should give it a chance. Rand and Branden talk a lot about “the virtue of selfishness.” “Selfishness" is defined from the get-go as “rational self-interest,” and Rand even offers an explanation for why she uses the word “selfishness” at all (it’s in the Kindle preview!). In the first chapter, Rand says that life is an end in itself, and that “Reason, Purpose, and Responsibility” are the things we should value in order to secure our life. We achieve those three values by being rational, productive, and having pride in ourselves and our work. So, since our life is an end in itself, there’s no moral obligation to subject ourselves to the will or whims of others. In fact, she argues that living for others is flat-out immoral. Throughout the book, Rand and Branden addressed almost every concern and question I had (and have seen others have) regarding the ethics of her philosophy. Altruism is defined as sacrificing oneself for someone else, and Rand denounces it as immoral. But there are cases where an “altruist act” is actually in your rational self-interest. Rand gives the following example: Someone is going to torture your significant other to death in order to get something from you. If you love this person so much that living without them would be impossible, then the moral thing to do would be to “sacrifice” yourself. It’s not really self-sacrifice though, since it's in your rational self-interest. Rand also denounces racism, violence (except in self-defense), criminal activity, and exploiting others for your own gain (!!!). Really, it’s like her critics have never read her work. She is very clear on her stance with each of these issues: vehemently opposed. One unanswered question I still have after reading this work: since I have the right to do what I want with my property and time, can I give a homeless man a dollar? Can I loan my friend my car for the weekend? Would either act be immoral? I’m confident that the answer is yes, I can do these things, but I’m not sure whether (according to Objectivist ethics) it would be immoral. What I got from this book: The essays by Nathaniel Branden on self-esteem and mysticism were especially enlightening for me. I also really enjoyed reading about the “doomsday mindset” (my words - I forget how Rand/Branden called it exactly) that we all apparently have inherited from religion and superstition. This “the world is going to shit” outlook is what compels us to embrace altruism. Overall, the virtue of selfishness itself is incredibly empowering. It says that I am responsible for myself and my actions, and that I owe it only to myself to live a happy, meaningful life. I love that. And I loved this book. Who should read this book: Everyone and anyone can get something out of this book, but especially students and people just getting into the working world. It’ll empower you to work harder and take responsibility for yourself and your actions. And it’ll also get you to think more about what you’ve been taught, what you believe, and why. I alternated evenings between reading this book and listening to Leonard Peikoff’s lectures on “The Philosophy of Objectivism” (available online through the Ayn Rand Institute). I thought Peikoff’s lectures complimented this work well. Now I’m reading something that’s the polar opposite: Bertrand Russell’s

There are nineteen articles in this volume, fourteen by Rand and five by Nathaniel Branden. The longest is "The Objectivist Ethics," in which Rand explains her philosophy of "Rational Self Interest." The remaining articles are examples of the application of this philosophy. Rand contends that "that which furthers (a living being's) life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil." Thus the basic human value is "rational selfishness...the value required for man's survival." How do people determine if something is "good or evil"? If the person experiences pleasure, it is a signal that the experience is "good" and that the person is acting properly. If the individual has pain, the feeling shows that the experience is "bad." People understand these sensations by using their intelligence, by thinking. Since people are not born with intelligence, they must study about the world and how to think well so that they can live properly. There are two essentials for survival: thinking and productive work. A person who tries to survive without thinking is no better than an animal. Productive work is the way people sustain themselves, getting food, adequate comfort, and time for study and self improvement. The work should be "the fullest and most purposeful use of the mind." Living by her agenda results in a feeling of pride, the realization that one has achieved the best that one can achieve. This achievement is selfish. The individual is interested in himself, his own life, and not the life of another or of society. The individual deals with others only when he wants to do so, without constraints or directives, unforced, in an exchange that "benefits both parties by their own independent judgment." Society is good when it gives individuals the two things necessary for human existence: knowledge and trade. "The only proper, moral purpose of a government is to protect man's rights." Since a person's life is the top value, how should a person act in the following examples? 1. Should a man save his wife who he loves and feels that he can't live without or twenty strangers? The wife because she is dear to him. 2. Should a man act courageously and take an unreasonable chance to save another person's life? No, his life comes first. 3. Should people devote their lives to help the poor rise from poverty? No, he should devote himself to his own concerns, his life. 4. Is faith and self sacrifice for others correct? No, they are the cause of all evil and the deterioration of humanity. There are three problems with this volume. First, it is very repetitious. Rand's philosophy is contained in the first chapter and the book presents nothing new after it. It only rehashes the message and applies it to various situations. Second, Rand bases her philosophy on ethics, an amorphous subject that many scholars correctly feel is very subjective. She would have done much better to base her ideas upon reality, upon what is "true and false," upon the nature of people and the laws of nature. The result is the same, but the presentation would be clearer. Third, many philosophers would agree that the basic human nature, that which distinguishes them from animals and inanimate objects is their intelligence, and that, as Rand contends, being altruistic is not an inherent part of a human being. Yet, as Aristotle pointed out, man is a social animal, he must live with and interact with people to survive. Thus helping others is necessary, at least to some extent. Rand ignores this when she insists that altruism is evil.

This book posits an empowering ideology that encourages individuals to pursue their interests with self-determinant agency. In Virtue of Selfishness, Rand unveils the Objectivist ethos: a life in which an individual acts for one's self is properly the highest moral life one can live. Objectivism is an attractive philosophy in its exaltation of the individual and his personal achievement as the ultimate end-game of existence. However, ultimately Objectivism is reduced to the ethics of egoism: acting selfishly is inherently acting morally - merely assuming an inverted form of the "beneficiary criterion of morality" it assails in altruism. Inevitably, the philosophy merely substitutes the individual for the collective as that beneficiary. Rand and Objectivists alike vehemently deny this assertion. Rand demarcates what exactly constitutes a moral action. Designating Objectivism as a "morality of rational self-interest," Rand claims that as living entities biologically constituted to value our existence and the objects that sustain it, we are morally obligated to act efficaciously to those ends - existence in itself induces an ethical responsibility of self-progressing action. Therefore, in crude biological terms, it is not God nor society that composes moral authority - instead it is our very nature itself. Rand argues that "the fact that a living being is, determines what it ought to do." (17) All who live implicitly understand existence as 'good' - and that the continuation of this existence is the first and highest moral edict nature affirms. Those who reject this basic truth subsequently contravene not only the first and highest law of nature but also transgress the very essence of existence. Consequently, an action is ethical only if that action advantages the individual to the attainment of greater 'value' for one's life. Rand attests that life is in end in itself, and that an individual can objectively ascertain what serves his greater existence and what does not. At a most basic level, this reality is signified by the physiological phenomenon of 'pain' and 'pleasure' (17). Perhaps this is the best encapsulation: "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics - the standard by which one judges what is good or evil - is man's life, or: that which is required for man's survival qua man. Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes, or destroys it is the evil." (23) Upon this exposition, Objectivist critics promptly declare that individuals can murder, steal, and cheat their way to Objectivist heaven. This is not necessarily the case. Rand would assert that individuals will rationally conclude that destructive actions that harm others' self-sustaining interests incidentally do not serve their own. Such actions encourage collective behavior that compromises one's ability to pursue his own self-interest. In immediate terms, I should not wrong my neighbor precisely because such an action entails the risk of incarceration, execution, or retaliation. Inevitably, the morality that results lacks the 'thou shalt not' categoricals of most ethical modes. Instead, the correct moral choice for a singular event is properly arrested by an ad hoc calculation of an individual's ultimate benefit. Each individual event requires an individual deliberation - because the broad contours that comprise the class of actions that can best benefit an individuals' acquisition of value/life can not be properly circumscribed by any categorical rules of morality. Thus the flaw within the Objectivist ethics is not that it does not forbid most conventionally immoral actions; it is that it does not forbid them unilaterally. If my self-interest is the standard by which actions are ethically judged, then the prohibition against murder becomes a conditional rather than a categorical one. Thus, in Objectivist eyes, murder is not inherently wrong. Instead, murder is only wrong because it is an action that does not serve one's own self interest (I risk incarceration, execution, reprisal, etc). Hence, if murder did serve my self-interest, it would not only be morally permissible according to Objectivism, but also morally sound. If I can murder someone - accrue substantial personal/pecuniary gain - and no one will discover my actions, will I suffer any negative ramifications to my self-interest? Subsequently does that murder not have moral sanction? Objectivism could resolve this issue by claiming that harmful acts against others still don't serve one's self interest, in that they incur latent consequences not immediately palpable. For if everyone acted against one another (even in the absence of ostensible ramifications), the society encouraged would be one comprised of insidious backstabbers who harm one another the moment they sense no evident consequences. This society would doubtlessly compromise the pursuit of self interest. It would thus be ethical as well as pragmatic to forbid all such transgressions categorically, in that such prohibitions protect individual self - interest. But this reasoning merely circles back to the methodology of discerning the correct moral action in the first place. The claim that injuring another - in the absence of overt injury to my own self interest - still bears an opaque consequence is an abstract claim that often opposes an action that bears apparent and concrete self-interest. One could rationalize that destructive actions against the interests of another are categorically unethical in that they ultimately harm one own's self interest. However in practice, individuals confronting such an action could easily rationalize exemptions, particularly when an action that harms one another carries a patent benefit with no known ramifications. In fact, the 'opaque/distant' consequences mentioned regarding actions committed against others appear contrived to place Objectivism in greater harmony with more conventional modes of morality. And so the circle continues, and Objectivism veers in vertiginous circles of reasoning to this contradictory conclusion: In Objectivist ethics, transgressions against others is both always and never permitted. Ascertaining the correct moral action shouldn't entail such convoluted abstractions. This problem originates from the methodology applied to discern the relationship between self-interest and morality: reason. Objectivists insist reason is a foolproof faculty {Rand calls its potential for knowledge 'limitless' (18)} that objectively gleans the substantive (and thus moral) worth of an action to one's self. There are also issues with Objectivism's implied 'by any means necessary' consequentalism towards 'being' - any action that enhances survival is thus 'good'. This is a tough proposition to swallow - and when one does - this cocktail tastes like the hard liquor of Darwinism chased by a sweet twist of ethics. Our genetic identity prescribes a biological - not a moral - blueprint for existence. The confluence of biological fitness with moral worth is problematic, for morality is an evaluative construct derived from our biological constitution - a composition that is not ab initio moral but just 'is'. Survival is antecedent to morality rather than concurrent with it. Thus why must an organism sustain itself? Why is it unethical for an individual - as the true sovereign of his being - to terminate himself, especially after rational deliberation (i.e. in the situation of a life of total suffering)? Objectivists claim reason forbids actions that jeopardize self-existence. But if reason is the paramount force that frames our purpose and morality, critical to the accuracy of such a position is the discussion of rationality itself. Camus and others have claimed that the purpose of epistemology is not to extinguish reason entirely or to aggrandize reason as infallible. Instead, the purpose is to lucidly acknowledge its limits. Rand eschews such humility, and in her book, reason - paradoxically - exalts itself as a nearly omnipotent instrument for truth. The other side of the coin, where reason falls on its own sword, suffers its own paradox. Whereas one might argue that Rand applied reason poorly in imparting it with such objectivity and omniscience, philosophers who could be said to reason most prudently (which is in itself a problematic evaluation) are often the ones who subsequently depreciate the faculty most (Hume, Kant). Every episode of reason evaluating its own efficacy is doomed to paradox (it is akin to a student grading his own test without an answer key - there is no external/objective standard for evaluation). Most attempts at such inevitably result in epistemological suicide. Rand's assertion that reason can convey moral proclamations from a superficial throne of its own construction is illusory - for its scepter is its own hand. The problem is not that morality itself is subjective or relative, it is that Rand's particular claim to objective morality - that rationality affirms selfishness (acting on one's own behalf) as the consequent ethics - is flawed: the rationale expressed is less than compelling, discordant with many other sound ethical reasonings, and presumes to crown itself as 'objective' without 'objective' proof of such a designation. Can one live unequivocally selfishly and morally? This is the question explored in the Virtue of Selfishness. Certainly, any 'beneficiary criterion of morality' presents an ethical system fraught with contradictions. It is not surprising that philosophers in academia scoff at Objectivism as unsound and sophomoric. It is an empowering ideology, but poor philosophy. In terms of the individual/collective egoism/altruism opposition, it can best be resolved by a holistic incorporation of the two seemingly disparate interests. Formulating a moral framework that eschews this either/or construct would be ideal.

To some of the people who have written previously striving to stain Ayn Rand and Objectivism with examples of brutal acts, it would be a good idea to at least have the decency to actually read The Virtue of Selfishness so they would know what they are talking about, because as is, they only stand out as examples of people talking about a subject they know nothing about. Even more the posted review from the Library Journal, which heads the page, is a highly prejudicial piece of work that only exhibits the author's emotional feelings and distaste for Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Full of sharply pointed adjectives like "outlandish" and "sadly dated" and "mutant symptoms" the author fails to offer factual evidence to make his claim, and in other instances, such as his claim that Rand advocated "the rights of the individual at the expense of the community" was completely mistaken. Without a doubt, this is a forum of opinions and one has to expect a wide variety of different views from all types of people. But I would expect Amazon to follow a higher standard when posting comments by media sources such as Library Journal. If you are going to post something from a media source, at least post an articulate and well-informed piece instead of a highly prejudicial post, filled with the author's ungrounded opinions divorced from facts. In the early sixties, when The Virtue of Selfishness hit the market, it was one of the first book-form expositions of Objectivism. True to form, in the introduction to the book, Ayn Rand defines a new concept of egoism and points out that her definition of selfishness, or rational self-interest, differs radically from the common usage of the term. She does this in order to describe positive character traits, and make it possible to conceptualize the self-reliant, self-respecting independent man or woman, who lives his or her life for their own sake, without sacrifice on anyone's part. She explains how the negative connotation of selfishness serves as a package deal to negate the concept of an independent and talented man or woman living their life for their own sake. What Ayn Rand set out to do with her revolutionary concept of rational self-interest was to conceptualize the men and women of ability and talent: creators, producers and builders, who live independent lives, without sacrificing others to themselves or themselves to others. One of the best graphic illustrations of this concept is the characterization of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead. Here, one sees in a fictionalized version of the Objectivist view of selfishness: a character in love with life, his work, the act of creation, and the sharing of these values with others of similar mind and personality. Obviously in our society, the Saddam Hussein concept of the selfish brute, who mauls and defiles everything in his path, is very common. However, a cursory knowledge of history would tell one that these horrors, that people often try to slander Objectivism with, are almost always the result of self-sacrificial behavior in the name of a higher cause with an authoritarian leader at the helm. Self-sacrifice and the duty to serve others are at the fundamentals of fascism, Nazism, communism, and every other blight on civilization since the beginning of time. Saddam Hussein would be a perfect example of this: a man who saw himself as the great Arab leader who would unite the Arab world against the infidels, and in the process, sacrificed anyone and anybody in the name of his higher, mystical cause. Pol Pot was another example. An authoritarian leader armed with his idea of a Marxist agrarian revolution, he had no compunction, under the guise of self-sacrificial service to others, to kill and murder millions of people in order to achieve his perfect, unselfish society. In contrast to this, on examining Ayn Rand's life, one would see a magnificently benevolent women in love with the mind and efficacious behavior, who by pursuing her rational self-interest, has enlightened the minds of millions of her readers and helped them to pursue a more fruitful and productive life. Her writings on the sorry state of the educational system and its attempt to obliterate reason, reality and individualism are masterpieces of benevolence for those who are trapped in this system, and want to break free from this mind-destroying nightmare. Rational self-interest is a revolutionary concept that challenges the morality at the very root of our society. If this interests you and you are looking for a different vision of the world, a vision of a better, more rational and productive existence, The Virtue of Selfishness (VOS) may be a book you would want to investigate.

Most of the material you know if you follow Rand Or have listened to her over the years. I do like her bit on rasicm , that is something that was really enjoyable and I encourage everyone to read.

Read this book a few times now and I always catch something I missed. This book has helped me to think more about myself and what I want instead of what people think/want. Reminds me daily that I’m not put on this planet to save or help anybody, I come first always. I’ve built better relationships with better people over the years because of this book.

This is the book that brought me to Ayn Rand's ideas and challenged everything I thought about selfishness. Self-sacrifice, betraying one's values and living for others is not equivalent to morality. Morality is something completely different.

This was my first introduction to Ayn Rand although I've read and followed people who you might call fellow-travelers of hers for a long time. I had always heard that the writing in Atlas Shrugged was a bit of a slog, so I was pleasantly surprised by the writing style here. It's exactly what I like to see in an author. She's concise, yet laser-precise in her use of language, she defines her terms consistently, and works step by step from first principles, and doesn't ramble. She does regularly restate her positions using different words, which you might consider filler, but in my experience, this seems like a common convention for European writers of the time. Personally, I think it's a useful convention in that it guards against later readers playing word games to reinvent the author's meaning, by providing a backup context for the point they're trying to make.

Give it a try it’s not what you think ! It’s awesome And insightful

My General Overview: Ayn Rand has a 'controversial', but brilliant and effective philosophy that can best be applied to your personal life and sense of ethics. She advocates both ethical and rational egoism and dismisses altruism as a vice rather than a virtue. Ayn made a great case against altruism in favor of ethical/rational egoism as a much better alternative. Her writing style is concise, direct, and illustrative of her points and arguments. It's accessible to readers who don't have a thesaurus nearby at all times, so this is much better than Immanuel Kant's confusing, convoluted, nonsensical work. Ayn Rand also makes a strong case for the rejection of mysticism and the adoption of reason as your primary guiding principle in life. Objectivism is a very motivating philosophy because, if you live by it, you will be pursuing your Values (she uses the word 'values' to describe passions and aspirations). The core components of Objectivism are Reason, Productivity, and Self-Esteem, all great on their own, but even better in combination. Ayn's philosophy addresses how we ought to live, in a very practical sense rather than meandering abstractions like some other philosophers. My Contentions: Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, is great when applied to your personal life. However, my biggest contention with her work is the fact Ayn endorses capitalism that is unregulated by the government. No; I'm not a socialist. I'm a capitalist, but I believe government regulation is an extremely important aspect of a market economy. There are too many real world examples (i.e., 2009 recession, Flint Michigan's water, etc.) of unregulated or barely regulated markets causing serious economic problems and, worse, even public health concerns. So, while I'm on board with Objectivism as a personal philosophy, I'm certainly not on board with it as a POLITICAL philosophy. Definitely not. Ayn Rand dismisses collectivism as inherently bad, while individualism is heralded as inherently good. To a certain extent, I agree with this assessment, but Ayn paints a picture that's way too 'black and white' on this issue. I believe MOST collectivism is bad, but I can't help but notice Social Collectivism, such as government building roads or providing single-payer healthcare, is reliably successful. Research the Nordic Model if you don't believe some forms of collectivism can actually be good. Yes, most collectivism fails by almost every measure, but SOME forms of collectivism are very successful and beneficial to society. I agree with Ayn Rand's advocacy of Individual Rights being of maximal importance. However, there must be a government that both grants and protects those Individual Rights. They do not come out of thin air; they're not 'natural' rights. Rights are social constructs, so while I agree Individual Rights are the most important thing in society, I don't believe those rights to be self-evident. We human beings must figure out what those rights are, set up a system that grants them, and also have a system that PROTECTS them. No rights are natural or just fall out of the sky. Individual Rights are the most important thing we need in society, so I agree with Ayn Rand on that bit, but rights are still social constructs at the end of the day. If Individual Rights were truly self-evident, these huge authoritarian nightmare governments of human history would have never existed. But, sorry... they did exist and some still DO exist (i.e., North Korea), so rights are social constructs, not self-evident, and we must establish those rights ourselves, as humans. I agree with Ayn Rand about using Reason as our primary guiding principle; we have to use Reason to determine what our Individual Rights are. They're not clear until we make propositions and arguments in favor of why certain rights ought to be granted/protected in our civilizations. Property Rights are also something I agree with Ayn Rand on. Yes, I definitely believe in private property being extremely significant to a prosperous society. However, those too, like the Individual Rights, are not self-evident and we must figure out for ourselves what these Property Rights are, what they mean, what the nuances and implications are, etc. And we should use Reason, not Mysticism, to do that. My Politics: Since I know Ayn Rand's work is very politically charged ever since the Tea Party movement leaders pretended to be Objectivists (they were definitely pretending and probably didn't even read Ayn's work)… I will go ahead and reveal my personal political beliefs. I'm a Social Democracy style liberal and a Civic Nationalist. Now that you know that about me, you can probably see why I had some issues with the political implications of Ayn's philosophy. But, that's okay. Objectivism is still a great PERSONAL philosophy to live your life by; I just think you ought to evaluate your politics differently than how you live as an individual. Politics is a lot more nuanced and complicated than Ayn makes it out to be. A market without government regulations is simply NOT the solution to modern economic struggles and it also isn't an ideal market in my view. Why 4 Stars? Because I have a lot of contentions with Ayn's economic and political ideas. Having said that, Objectivism is sound, logical, and great for your personal life.

This book is a collection of essays by Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden. It covers the ethics of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism. You don’t have to be interested in philosophy or Ayn Rand to get something out of this book, but you do have to approach it with an open mind. Quite predictably, a continuous theme throughout the book is the immorality of altruism and virtuousness of (rational) selfishness. I picked up this book a bit skeptical, especially because of the cult that seems to surround Ayn Rand. But this work was extremely thoughtful and thought-provoking. Probably one of the most interesting books I’ve ever read. More people should give it a chance. Rand and Branden talk a lot about “the virtue of selfishness.” “Selfishness" is defined from the get-go as “rational self-interest,” and Rand even offers an explanation for why she uses the word “selfishness” at all (it’s in the Kindle preview!). In the first chapter, Rand says that life is an end in itself, and that “Reason, Purpose, and Responsibility” are the things we should value in order to secure our life. We achieve those three values by being rational, productive, and having pride in ourselves and our work. So, since our life is an end in itself, there’s no moral obligation to subject ourselves to the will or whims of others. In fact, she argues that living for others is flat-out immoral. Throughout the book, Rand and Branden addressed almost every concern and question I had (and have seen others have) regarding the ethics of her philosophy. Altruism is defined as sacrificing oneself for someone else, and Rand denounces it as immoral. But there are cases where an “altruist act” is actually in your rational self-interest. Rand gives the following example: Someone is going to torture your significant other to death in order to get something from you. If you love this person so much that living without them would be impossible, then the moral thing to do would be to “sacrifice” yourself. It’s not really self-sacrifice though, since it's in your rational self-interest. Rand also denounces racism, violence (except in self-defense), criminal activity, and exploiting others for your own gain (!!!). Really, it’s like her critics have never read her work. She is very clear on her stance with each of these issues: vehemently opposed. One unanswered question I still have after reading this work: since I have the right to do what I want with my property and time, can I give a homeless man a dollar? Can I loan my friend my car for the weekend? Would either act be immoral? I’m confident that the answer is yes, I can do these things, but I’m not sure whether (according to Objectivist ethics) it would be immoral. What I got from this book: The essays by Nathaniel Branden on self-esteem and mysticism were especially enlightening for me. I also really enjoyed reading about the “doomsday mindset” (my words - I forget how Rand/Branden called it exactly) that we all apparently have inherited from religion and superstition. This “the world is going to shit” outlook is what compels us to embrace altruism. Overall, the virtue of selfishness itself is incredibly empowering. It says that I am responsible for myself and my actions, and that I owe it only to myself to live a happy, meaningful life. I love that. And I loved this book. Who should read this book: Everyone and anyone can get something out of this book, but especially students and people just getting into the working world. It’ll empower you to work harder and take responsibility for yourself and your actions. And it’ll also get you to think more about what you’ve been taught, what you believe, and why. I alternated evenings between reading this book and listening to Leonard Peikoff’s lectures on “The Philosophy of Objectivism” (available online through the Ayn Rand Institute). I thought Peikoff’s lectures complimented this work well. Now I’m reading something that’s the polar opposite: Bertrand Russell’s

There are nineteen articles in this volume, fourteen by Rand and five by Nathaniel Branden. The longest is "The Objectivist Ethics," in which Rand explains her philosophy of "Rational Self Interest." The remaining articles are examples of the application of this philosophy. Rand contends that "that which furthers (a living being's) life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil." Thus the basic human value is "rational selfishness...the value required for man's survival." How do people determine if something is "good or evil"? If the person experiences pleasure, it is a signal that the experience is "good" and that the person is acting properly. If the individual has pain, the feeling shows that the experience is "bad." People understand these sensations by using their intelligence, by thinking. Since people are not born with intelligence, they must study about the world and how to think well so that they can live properly. There are two essentials for survival: thinking and productive work. A person who tries to survive without thinking is no better than an animal. Productive work is the way people sustain themselves, getting food, adequate comfort, and time for study and self improvement. The work should be "the fullest and most purposeful use of the mind." Living by her agenda results in a feeling of pride, the realization that one has achieved the best that one can achieve. This achievement is selfish. The individual is interested in himself, his own life, and not the life of another or of society. The individual deals with others only when he wants to do so, without constraints or directives, unforced, in an exchange that "benefits both parties by their own independent judgment." Society is good when it gives individuals the two things necessary for human existence: knowledge and trade. "The only proper, moral purpose of a government is to protect man's rights." Since a person's life is the top value, how should a person act in the following examples? 1. Should a man save his wife who he loves and feels that he can't live without or twenty strangers? The wife because she is dear to him. 2. Should a man act courageously and take an unreasonable chance to save another person's life? No, his life comes first. 3. Should people devote their lives to help the poor rise from poverty? No, he should devote himself to his own concerns, his life. 4. Is faith and self sacrifice for others correct? No, they are the cause of all evil and the deterioration of humanity. There are three problems with this volume. First, it is very repetitious. Rand's philosophy is contained in the first chapter and the book presents nothing new after it. It only rehashes the message and applies it to various situations. Second, Rand bases her philosophy on ethics, an amorphous subject that many scholars correctly feel is very subjective. She would have done much better to base her ideas upon reality, upon what is "true and false," upon the nature of people and the laws of nature. The result is the same, but the presentation would be clearer. Third, many philosophers would agree that the basic human nature, that which distinguishes them from animals and inanimate objects is their intelligence, and that, as Rand contends, being altruistic is not an inherent part of a human being. Yet, as Aristotle pointed out, man is a social animal, he must live with and interact with people to survive. Thus helping others is necessary, at least to some extent. Rand ignores this when she insists that altruism is evil.

This book posits an empowering ideology that encourages individuals to pursue their interests with self-determinant agency. In Virtue of Selfishness, Rand unveils the Objectivist ethos: a life in which an individual acts for one's self is properly the highest moral life one can live. Objectivism is an attractive philosophy in its exaltation of the individual and his personal achievement as the ultimate end-game of existence. However, ultimately Objectivism is reduced to the ethics of egoism: acting selfishly is inherently acting morally - merely assuming an inverted form of the "beneficiary criterion of morality" it assails in altruism. Inevitably, the philosophy merely substitutes the individual for the collective as that beneficiary. Rand and Objectivists alike vehemently deny this assertion. Rand demarcates what exactly constitutes a moral action. Designating Objectivism as a "morality of rational self-interest," Rand claims that as living entities biologically constituted to value our existence and the objects that sustain it, we are morally obligated to act efficaciously to those ends - existence in itself induces an ethical responsibility of self-progressing action. Therefore, in crude biological terms, it is not God nor society that composes moral authority - instead it is our very nature itself. Rand argues that "the fact that a living being is, determines what it ought to do." (17) All who live implicitly understand existence as 'good' - and that the continuation of this existence is the first and highest moral edict nature affirms. Those who reject this basic truth subsequently contravene not only the first and highest law of nature but also transgress the very essence of existence. Consequently, an action is ethical only if that action advantages the individual to the attainment of greater 'value' for one's life. Rand attests that life is in end in itself, and that an individual can objectively ascertain what serves his greater existence and what does not. At a most basic level, this reality is signified by the physiological phenomenon of 'pain' and 'pleasure' (17). Perhaps this is the best encapsulation: "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics - the standard by which one judges what is good or evil - is man's life, or: that which is required for man's survival qua man. Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes, or destroys it is the evil." (23) Upon this exposition, Objectivist critics promptly declare that individuals can murder, steal, and cheat their way to Objectivist heaven. This is not necessarily the case. Rand would assert that individuals will rationally conclude that destructive actions that harm others' self-sustaining interests incidentally do not serve their own. Such actions encourage collective behavior that compromises one's ability to pursue his own self-interest. In immediate terms, I should not wrong my neighbor precisely because such an action entails the risk of incarceration, execution, or retaliation. Inevitably, the morality that results lacks the 'thou shalt not' categoricals of most ethical modes. Instead, the correct moral choice for a singular event is properly arrested by an ad hoc calculation of an individual's ultimate benefit. Each individual event requires an individual deliberation - because the broad contours that comprise the class of actions that can best benefit an individuals' acquisition of value/life can not be properly circumscribed by any categorical rules of morality. Thus the flaw within the Objectivist ethics is not that it does not forbid most conventionally immoral actions; it is that it does not forbid them unilaterally. If my self-interest is the standard by which actions are ethically judged, then the prohibition against murder becomes a conditional rather than a categorical one. Thus, in Objectivist eyes, murder is not inherently wrong. Instead, murder is only wrong because it is an action that does not serve one's own self interest (I risk incarceration, execution, reprisal, etc). Hence, if murder did serve my self-interest, it would not only be morally permissible according to Objectivism, but also morally sound. If I can murder someone - accrue substantial personal/pecuniary gain - and no one will discover my actions, will I suffer any negative ramifications to my self-interest? Subsequently does that murder not have moral sanction? Objectivism could resolve this issue by claiming that harmful acts against others still don't serve one's self interest, in that they incur latent consequences not immediately palpable. For if everyone acted against one another (even in the absence of ostensible ramifications), the society encouraged would be one comprised of insidious backstabbers who harm one another the moment they sense no evident consequences. This society would doubtlessly compromise the pursuit of self interest. It would thus be ethical as well as pragmatic to forbid all such transgressions categorically, in that such prohibitions protect individual self - interest. But this reasoning merely circles back to the methodology of discerning the correct moral action in the first place. The claim that injuring another - in the absence of overt injury to my own self interest - still bears an opaque consequence is an abstract claim that often opposes an action that bears apparent and concrete self-interest. One could rationalize that destructive actions against the interests of another are categorically unethical in that they ultimately harm one own's self interest. However in practice, individuals confronting such an action could easily rationalize exemptions, particularly when an action that harms one another carries a patent benefit with no known ramifications. In fact, the 'opaque/distant' consequences mentioned regarding actions committed against others appear contrived to place Objectivism in greater harmony with more conventional modes of morality. And so the circle continues, and Objectivism veers in vertiginous circles of reasoning to this contradictory conclusion: In Objectivist ethics, transgressions against others is both always and never permitted. Ascertaining the correct moral action shouldn't entail such convoluted abstractions. This problem originates from the methodology applied to discern the relationship between self-interest and morality: reason. Objectivists insist reason is a foolproof faculty {Rand calls its potential for knowledge 'limitless' (18)} that objectively gleans the substantive (and thus moral) worth of an action to one's self. There are also issues with Objectivism's implied 'by any means necessary' consequentalism towards 'being' - any action that enhances survival is thus 'good'. This is a tough proposition to swallow - and when one does - this cocktail tastes like the hard liquor of Darwinism chased by a sweet twist of ethics. Our genetic identity prescribes a biological - not a moral - blueprint for existence. The confluence of biological fitness with moral worth is problematic, for morality is an evaluative construct derived from our biological constitution - a composition that is not ab initio moral but just 'is'. Survival is antecedent to morality rather than concurrent with it. Thus why must an organism sustain itself? Why is it unethical for an individual - as the true sovereign of his being - to terminate himself, especially after rational deliberation (i.e. in the situation of a life of total suffering)? Objectivists claim reason forbids actions that jeopardize self-existence. But if reason is the paramount force that frames our purpose and morality, critical to the accuracy of such a position is the discussion of rationality itself. Camus and others have claimed that the purpose of epistemology is not to extinguish reason entirely or to aggrandize reason as infallible. Instead, the purpose is to lucidly acknowledge its limits. Rand eschews such humility, and in her book, reason - paradoxically - exalts itself as a nearly omnipotent instrument for truth. The other side of the coin, where reason falls on its own sword, suffers its own paradox. Whereas one might argue that Rand applied reason poorly in imparting it with such objectivity and omniscience, philosophers who could be said to reason most prudently (which is in itself a problematic evaluation) are often the ones who subsequently depreciate the faculty most (Hume, Kant). Every episode of reason evaluating its own efficacy is doomed to paradox (it is akin to a student grading his own test without an answer key - there is no external/objective standard for evaluation). Most attempts at such inevitably result in epistemological suicide. Rand's assertion that reason can convey moral proclamations from a superficial throne of its own construction is illusory - for its scepter is its own hand. The problem is not that morality itself is subjective or relative, it is that Rand's particular claim to objective morality - that rationality affirms selfishness (acting on one's own behalf) as the consequent ethics - is flawed: the rationale expressed is less than compelling, discordant with many other sound ethical reasonings, and presumes to crown itself as 'objective' without 'objective' proof of such a designation. Can one live unequivocally selfishly and morally? This is the question explored in the Virtue of Selfishness. Certainly, any 'beneficiary criterion of morality' presents an ethical system fraught with contradictions. It is not surprising that philosophers in academia scoff at Objectivism as unsound and sophomoric. It is an empowering ideology, but poor philosophy. In terms of the individual/collective egoism/altruism opposition, it can best be resolved by a holistic incorporation of the two seemingly disparate interests. Formulating a moral framework that eschews this either/or construct would be ideal.

To some of the people who have written previously striving to stain Ayn Rand and Objectivism with examples of brutal acts, it would be a good idea to at least have the decency to actually read The Virtue of Selfishness so they would know what they are talking about, because as is, they only stand out as examples of people talking about a subject they know nothing about. Even more the posted review from the Library Journal, which heads the page, is a highly prejudicial piece of work that only exhibits the author's emotional feelings and distaste for Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Full of sharply pointed adjectives like "outlandish" and "sadly dated" and "mutant symptoms" the author fails to offer factual evidence to make his claim, and in other instances, such as his claim that Rand advocated "the rights of the individual at the expense of the community" was completely mistaken. Without a doubt, this is a forum of opinions and one has to expect a wide variety of different views from all types of people. But I would expect Amazon to follow a higher standard when posting comments by media sources such as Library Journal. If you are going to post something from a media source, at least post an articulate and well-informed piece instead of a highly prejudicial post, filled with the author's ungrounded opinions divorced from facts. In the early sixties, when The Virtue of Selfishness hit the market, it was one of the first book-form expositions of Objectivism. True to form, in the introduction to the book, Ayn Rand defines a new concept of egoism and points out that her definition of selfishness, or rational self-interest, differs radically from the common usage of the term. She does this in order to describe positive character traits, and make it possible to conceptualize the self-reliant, self-respecting independent man or woman, who lives his or her life for their own sake, without sacrifice on anyone's part. She explains how the negative connotation of selfishness serves as a package deal to negate the concept of an independent and talented man or woman living their life for their own sake. What Ayn Rand set out to do with her revolutionary concept of rational self-interest was to conceptualize the men and women of ability and talent: creators, producers and builders, who live independent lives, without sacrificing others to themselves or themselves to others. One of the best graphic illustrations of this concept is the characterization of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead. Here, one sees in a fictionalized version of the Objectivist view of selfishness: a character in love with life, his work, the act of creation, and the sharing of these values with others of similar mind and personality. Obviously in our society, the Saddam Hussein concept of the selfish brute, who mauls and defiles everything in his path, is very common. However, a cursory knowledge of history would tell one that these horrors, that people often try to slander Objectivism with, are almost always the result of self-sacrificial behavior in the name of a higher cause with an authoritarian leader at the helm. Self-sacrifice and the duty to serve others are at the fundamentals of fascism, Nazism, communism, and every other blight on civilization since the beginning of time. Saddam Hussein would be a perfect example of this: a man who saw himself as the great Arab leader who would unite the Arab world against the infidels, and in the process, sacrificed anyone and anybody in the name of his higher, mystical cause. Pol Pot was another example. An authoritarian leader armed with his idea of a Marxist agrarian revolution, he had no compunction, under the guise of self-sacrificial service to others, to kill and murder millions of people in order to achieve his perfect, unselfish society. In contrast to this, on examining Ayn Rand's life, one would see a magnificently benevolent women in love with the mind and efficacious behavior, who by pursuing her rational self-interest, has enlightened the minds of millions of her readers and helped them to pursue a more fruitful and productive life. Her writings on the sorry state of the educational system and its attempt to obliterate reason, reality and individualism are masterpieces of benevolence for those who are trapped in this system, and want to break free from this mind-destroying nightmare. Rational self-interest is a revolutionary concept that challenges the morality at the very root of our society. If this interests you and you are looking for a different vision of the world, a vision of a better, more rational and productive existence, The Virtue of Selfishness (VOS) may be a book you would want to investigate.

Most of the material you know if you follow Rand Or have listened to her over the years. I do like her bit on rasicm , that is something that was really enjoyable and I encourage everyone to read.

Read this book a few times now and I always catch something I missed. This book has helped me to think more about myself and what I want instead of what people think/want. Reminds me daily that I’m not put on this planet to save or help anybody, I come first always. I’ve built better relationships with better people over the years because of this book.

This is the book that brought me to Ayn Rand's ideas and challenged everything I thought about selfishness. Self-sacrifice, betraying one's values and living for others is not equivalent to morality. Morality is something completely different.

This was my first introduction to Ayn Rand although I've read and followed people who you might call fellow-travelers of hers for a long time. I had always heard that the writing in Atlas Shrugged was a bit of a slog, so I was pleasantly surprised by the writing style here. It's exactly what I like to see in an author. She's concise, yet laser-precise in her use of language, she defines her terms consistently, and works step by step from first principles, and doesn't ramble. She does regularly restate her positions using different words, which you might consider filler, but in my experience, this seems like a common convention for European writers of the time. Personally, I think it's a useful convention in that it guards against later readers playing word games to reinvent the author's meaning, by providing a backup context for the point they're trying to make.

Give it a try it’s not what you think ! It’s awesome And insightful

Either you like an author or you don't. My contention with Rand is probably my own brain. I have to read her very slow as her ideas are so against social norms that I have a difficult time thinking about her ideas clearly. And her content is sometimes unnecessarily heavy. I feel like if she thought it through more or took more time to draft it things could be stated in a more simple way. Something for the lay person to easily understand. The ideas in this book are profound and should at least be considered. Am I good just because I'm trying to do good? Or is it only good if the results are beneficial to those around me? We live in a society that in general is trying to do the right thing. But that right thing often imposes a very negative result on many people. So the people doing the right thing feel good about themselves, believe in their own rightness, and impose laws accordingly. While others suffer as a consequence. What leads us to believe what they are doing is the right thing? Rand cites, most often, it is whim. And the result is living in a society whose laws and regulations are based on the moral whim of a few people.

Ayn Rand has got to be the greatest philosopher of all time. She is a complete and total advocate of reason, prosperity and freedom, as necessities for mankind. "The Virtue of Selfishness" is her best non-fiction work. ("Atlas Shrugged" is her magnum opus, most enduring novel.) She starts with the basics of philosophy in plain and simple language. This includes why we need philosophy and all its branches, including ethics and politics. Every word is reasoned and clear. She works from the basics to the complex, one step at a time, covering all the bases. None of the nonsense about reality not existing you got in college. As Richard Slomon, who expanded upon her ideas, has stated, in his article, "Liberty Defined," this philosophy of liberty "is an entire way of life which by its basic premises stands philosophically, and ideologically, in total antagonistic opposition to the dominant psychology, culture and politics of our time. Libertarianism is nothing less than the most radical and revolutionary doctrine known to the world. It is a rigorously rational and individualistically anti-authoritarian way of life, which must, by the nature of what it entails, threaten every existing center and institution of coercive and arbitrary power on the planet. Libertarianism is the implacable foe of Church and State. It is the ultimate eroder of all unearned privileges, coercively imposed status, arbitrary authority and unjust use of force." Rand was this prime revolutionary for freedom, prosperity, and laissez faire capitalism. Rand states that rational self interest is in man's nature. Letting this interest run free automatically leads to undreamed of prosperity, raising man to new heights for his own sake, and not for the imposed sake of others. America was a nation built partially on these ideas. Its dream still fills the hearts of millions. Were it so that we could allow ourselves such freedom today. It is philosophies of mysticism and collectivism (socialism, fascism, communism), the philosophies of death, that rule today's men's minds. Pick: Life or death. Freedom or slavery. Reason or mysticism. It is philosophy that leads you down the road for one or the other.

This book consists of written essays from Ann Rand and a couple from a former associate Nathaniel Branden on Objectivism about capitalism, objective reality, reason, and most of all self-interest. I found this book interesting and by using a few quotes and scenes from Atlas Shrugged to help the reader understand what her theories of selfishness means objectively was clearly helpful. Some people agree with Rand’s views and opinions and some people don’t but that’s alright because there is enough material in her writing to believe some of her viewpoints or not. I’m one of her avid readers and I don’t agree with some of her philosophy on Objectiveness. However, I will say a lot of her viewpoints in this book have changed my thought pattern to side with what she is saying. Ann Rand is a unique intellectual person. When she wrote this book she was strong, clear, and made a lot of sense about the meaning of selfishness. The analogy she pairs together makes a real thought provoking onset to where a person to begin living your life you require to take account for the needs and values of your own life before you can help someone else. As for example; if you give up a chair to help another person who is frail and you are also fragile and could faint or fall, who should you think of first? The way some people are brought up would be to give up their seat but in reality why jeopardize your health? Keeping your chair is looking out for one-self and that is not selfishness. Ann Rand had many good concepts and great comparisons in her writing of this book that I thought was clearly written for the readers intense thought process. My example is nothing compared to what she wrote in this book. This was a really great book to her addition on Objectiveness. In order to understand her concept on selfishness you need to read this book. It is one of her clear understandable books that I have read.

This has been out since the 60’s and it was important then and even more valuable and applicable now. A must read if you are someone in favor of individual rights and the individual’s pursuit of happiness.

During your preflight they tell you to secure your own mask before you help others. In a nutshell this book is that. Your happiness and ambition are paramount for the success of your life. Your quest for these things is not evil but rather a moral imperative; even indicative you are on the right path. So far it has been very tough for me to digest this book; long sentences with ideas that conflict years of indoctrination. Rand’s words are important to those (like me) who have been raised they are a dirty doormat. You will do well to read and reread and ponder. This could be the most important book of my life. I will update as I understand better (and when I actually finish the book) but for now I am walking with a weight lifted.

Ayn Rand is a heroine of many conservatives. Her life story is dramatic, starting in Russia. I first encountered her writing in the 50's at the University of Texas in Austin. At that time I had no real politic convictions and studied in Plan Two which was definitely not a conservative learning group of bright students. There about 300 of us in the freshman class of about 4,000 students, men and women. I moved to Dallas after graduation to do a masters program. My political thinking was influenced by the general intellectual environment in Dallas in the summer of 1963. I was in the downtown Dallas area at the moment of John Kennedy's assassination -- a tragic event that had a strong effect on my life and the lives of huge numbers of the world's population. In January, 1965 I boarded a military bus leaving basic air force training in San Antonio Texas and on the bus station book rack picked up this book. Over the next 7 hours on the road trip to Amarillo Air Force Base where I was going to start a study course in air force personnel. After having spent the prior 6 weeks in a totally regimented military experience, the intellectual experience of reading this book was heavy. I have discussed this book over the years. Many followers of Ayn Rand don't know that she was a non Christian atheist. It's pretty clear from reading The Virtue of Selfishness that she doesn't have much sympathy for the less fortunate in civilization. She is a pure capitalist. This book does a great job of explaining Ayn Rand's philosophy.

I always love Ayn Rand books!

Ayn Rand was one of the most important writers of her time and her writings ring true to this day. The Virtue of Selfishness explains the true meaning of the word, not the abundance of negativity people ascribe to it today. Her other writings, such as Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal and We The Living are must reads today where all you hear is socialism and altruism is the best way to go. It is not and she makes it very clear in her books. They should be mandatory reading for young people today who have been steeped in the left wing propaganda by the failed public education system. Buy them, read them and learn from them.

Ayn Rand sets fourth an interesting idea with the opening of her book "The Virtue of Selfishness", and it's that the concept of "Selfishness" alone is not an evil thing, being little more than "concerned with one's own self interests", and sets fourth that it's ethics and philosophy that tells one whether these pursuits are bad or good, and which pursuits to go for. From here we are treated to a collection of essays by Rand and Nathaniel Brandon that cover a myriad of different topics, from a general overview of Objectivist Ethics ("The Objectivist Ethics"), compromise and how it should work ("Doesn't Life Require Compromise?"), the rise of the notion that there's no such thing as good and evil ("The Cult of Moral Grayness"), the concept and issue of government granted rights ("Man's Rights"), to racism, how the South during the 1960's was in the wrong, and the rise of reverse-racism ("Racism"). All essays offer some interesing thoughts or viewpoints, and though I don't find myself personally agreeing with everything I do find quite a bit that, at the very least, gets me thinking. If one is looking for a way to break into Rand's ideals but does not want to suffer through the immense tome "Atlas Shrugged", this would be a good book for them to do it with.

Ayn Rand teaches you how to think logically, rationally, and why it is important to understand what makes us all tick. Her writing is so knowledge-dense that I advise you to take this is small bites, digest what you have read, re-read it again, chew it some more, and then take your next bite. If you want to fight the collectivist and the statist where they stand, you need to be able to expound on the concepts found in the Virtue of Selfishness with sound conviction and a thorough understanding of the underlying principles. If you have this, there will be none that can withstand your logic. The Marxist, the so-called progressive, the socialist and the mystic, (regardless of flavor), will crumble before you as you destroy all of their dogmatic talking points. WARNING: Doing the above will subject you to the violence they will turn to once you have pissed them off. When they realize that your arguments are virtuous, the only recourse they have left to them is to physically attack you. Violence is the primary tool of the communist and the fascist. It's what they use when they can no longer subjugate you with Altruism, (the surrendering of a greater good for a lesser one). Be prepared. You've been warned.

The Virtue of Selfishness is a provocative title and so are the ideas that Ayn Rand discusses in the book. Rand remains a popular fiction author, but less well known, and less understood, is her philosopher side. She did not write fiction to entertain, she wrote to convince her readers of of philosophical truth as she understood it. Ayn Rand set her own course in life and opposed both Christians and Communists with equal fervor. She states the premise of the book when she declares that, "Every human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others and therefore, man must live for his own sake..." This principle is diametrically opposed to the Christian belief in altruism, and the communist collective and sets up both the title and a theme in the book. Most of the essays are written by Rand, the rest were written by Nathaniel Branden and all but one originally appeared in The Objectivist Newsletter, a newsletter co-published by Rand and Nathaniel Branden during the sixties. If you are interested in understanding Rand's philosophy of Objectivism this book is an essential element of that understanding. While Rand thought of Objectivism as an integrated philosophical system, which required acceptance as a whole, time and her death in 1982 has mellowed the message. In recent years, people have been more willing to accept parts of what she proclaimed and leave others "in the book," so to speak. This has allowed many more conservatives, libertarians and even Christians to read and enjoy her work.

This book has opened my mind more so than what other professors had assigned me. I prefer her book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", but in regards to this one, I agreed with the majority of what she had to say in opposition to collectivism (which Democrats firmly believe in nowadays without any compromise). [You can learn a lot from older generations if you listen to them closely.] The Republican Party has become the rebound of once-Liberal thinkers because many realize how corrupt and delusional Democratic "policies" (if you can even call them that) have always been The Democratic Party of the United States of America is (and always has been) an amoral cesspool where the individual dies and is dissolved into the fictional collective. One noticeable example of the aforementioned "amoral cesspool" is the insanity involved with the recent "Women's March" where one could not find any sense of moral congruity with the crowd at all: cognitive dissonance (or merely just shear rejection of reality) rests upon them all. There is no utopia on Earth nor anywhere. There is only you.

Apparently selfishness does not include towards wife. Wife makes me very happy sometimes so it is in my self interest to support her. But still I am thinking maybe I spend too much on her. Anyway the alternative, altruism, living as a slave to support communist state is not very attractive. The main difference between Communist Russia and US is that in US people have more stuff. The proletariat was fooled into thinking they would have more stuff with communism. They were more miserable and poor than under the Czar.

THE GREATEST collection of essays on Ethics I have ever come across. I have literally been mind blown every page turn. Best of all it’s such an easy read! So much effort has been put into these works to bring out their clarity and it has paid off! I truly feel, for the first time in my life I have clear, logical and truly moral guidance in my life!

This book is composed of essays that seek to communicate the virtue behind objectivism. The philosophy that is expressed lacks in modern philosophical insights and falls under its own premises that have been debunked by modern science. One of the biggest presuppositions behind Rand's philosophy is that human beings are "tabula rasa." The debate concerning this term can be found in the popular rendering "nature vs. nurture." The problem with this position is primarily twofold. One, the term tabula rasa was termed by John Locke who came to some very different conclusions about its philosophical output. In the rest of Locke's philosophy he talked about concepts that were used as the philosophical base for the Declaration of Independence. While Rand draws from this pool in her views on "rational selfishness" she does not refer, in this book, to Locke's own philosophy or why she departs from his conclusions. Two, modern science largely holds the view that genetics play a very large role in human development and behavior. This is a significant point because it makes the human animal not nearly as autonomous as Rand would have you believe. The human animal is not born tabula rasa and while there is a significant argument still held by philosophers on language we are discovering more and more that there are simply things in the human mind that are not environmentally driven. There is the tension between language and biology that many philosophers have dealt with and still deal with today, but Rand does not deal with those issues in the essays contained in this book. Ayn Rand should have addressed these issues because they existed during her lifetime. It is especially important if she wanted to convince her readers that her definition of rational selfishness was something that is ethically tenable. As I wade through the rest of Rand's life and thought I will hope to discover whether or not she ever explained these issues, but I was disappointed that they were not in this book. The ethics put forth in this book are somewhat inflammatory and certainly call for a better explanation if one is to hold to them in their lives or even describe them as virtues. Two stars for a book that is a good introduction for this methodology and a clear exposition of its logical consequences, but lacking in the philosophical background required of its content.

It is the first non-fiction Rand book that I read, and within two pages I totally changed my socialist views when I learned what "selfishness" is. We need to understand that phenomena such as the Holocaust are not a failure of anti-self ideologies but their success. Millions of selves exterminated according to a doctrine that holds the self evil is a considerable accomplishment. Only the egoist is capable of a consistent morality. "Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man’s character. Only a brute or an altruist would claim that the appreciation of another person’s virtues is an act of selflessness, that as far as one’s own selfish interest and pleasure are concerned, it makes no difference whether one deals with a genius or a fool, whether one meets a hero or a thug, whether one marries an ideal woman or a slut." ~ Ayn Rand in 'The Objectivist Ethics

I am having a very difficult time completing this VERY short book as I find it contrary to many of my principles. I am not a fan of Ayn Rand and, in fact, detest her writings. I only read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged because I was forced to in college and then re-read them recently because a friend was reading them and I could not recall the books well enough to carry on any discussion about them. Now my friend has moved on to this work of drivel. At least it is short. I have always believed Ms Rand fancied herself a philosopher when she was not and that she loved nothing more than putting words on pages just to fill them up. My friend has now taken this work to mean that everyone should put themself first no matter what and do as they please and to heck with other people. "think only of yourself". In a manner of speaking that is what she is saying, but not to the very base black & white of that. I find I can barely finish a chapter - although they are very short - without dozing off because she pounds her ideas mercilessly/boringly into the ground. As I am a speed reader, this book should have been a nothing read, but I cannot get through it as its contents irritate me so much. I suppose if you can detach and read it, it could be an interesting read. I will never agree that "Selfishness is a virtue". I truly wish I could knock the people over the head with these 3 books who recommended them to my friend. He is almost intolerable now. I almost completely forgot another thing about this book that drives me crazy. Rand attempts to point to "fact examples" of her theories by referencing her characters from Atlas Shrugged continuously throughout this book. It is absolutely ridiculous to point to "speeches" of a fictional character as "supportive fact" for your thesis, especially when that "supportive fact" is from a FICTIONAL character SHE created herself! When in doubt, cite to yourself! She cannot point to anything to support her verbose drivel but her own FICTION!

Are we headed toward a future similar to Germany and the Nazi? Where is our government that is suppose to be "by the people and for the people" - we don't have that today. Is socialism really the answer? How, in a free country, has media has become a government propaganda outlet? Are we really free people? These where questions which led me to this book. This book (written in the early 1960s) really clarified for me what it means to be an individual and my responsibilities in today's world. I have a fuller understanding of collectivism, capitalism, and liberalism. Objectivism was a term I had not heard before despite having a university degree and now I know why. I recommend this book to anyone looking for some clarity regarding how we got to where we are today in the USA, and what we as an individual can do.

I love the bold title of this book, after years of indoctrination with the magnificence of collectivism it is refreshing to have the individual proclaimed worthwhile, even supreme. Many of the concepts in this book were very challenging for me making it difficult in writing this review. I spent many hours poring over comments to be sure I understand, however I am not sure. This book explains among other issues man rights, the nature of government & racism. I especially liked Ms Rand's discussion on the origin of values and how that which benefits ones life is its standard. From my reading I have come to the understanding that the only legitimate transactions are that of a trader, wherein parties' voluntarily engage in commerce in an effort to benefit both. It seems that as results of years of communitarian programming the concept of enlighten self interest is so counterintuitive, or perhaps it is rejected so harshly because it contradicts state doctrine, just like evolution does the church.

Rand is a very rational person presenting arguments that are uncomfortable. It is the truth that is uncomfortable. You are forced to ask yourself "Why is trying to better myself wrong?" And then the connection with 'pursuit of happiness' becomes evident. The country's history comes clearer. All those people, from the settlers to the railroad barons, did things to help themselves become more independent, to provide for their families and secure their own comfort. In other words they were selfish and their selfishness build a powerful, rich country. The scary part is the realization that you are probably wandering through life, putting a little money aside and hoping that social security will be there to make retirement possible. Ayn Rand's questions become "Why am I depending on other people for my comfort and life? Shouldn't I make sure things will go as I want them? Shouldn't I be more selfish?" Those questions ultimately self examination are why Ayn Rand's book is important and why I recommend it.

This is my personal favorite of her nonfiction. According to Goddess of The Market, Rand was able to crack out nonfiction much easier than her fiction. This book summarizes her claim that, as the title suggests, selfishness is a virtue. The book begins with a dictionary definition of selfishness (which at the time was very different than the definition today). Her definition is "concerned with one's self-interest", whereas the definitions today add on "and disregard for others". She theorizes that all action, including charity, can be selfish. She even goes so far as to claim that sacrificing one's life for another can be selfish. Because of this, do not claim to have an understanding of her ideas on selfishness without first reading this. It will address misconceptions you might have.

This book is for someone who wants an insight to the mind of Rand. Very good and logical arguments which she uses to justify her way of thinking. It allows one to understand what was in her mind when writing the characters in her famous novels.

Excellent writer.she will stimulate you mentally !

This collection of essays was not written as a justification for individuals to selfishly rape and pillage. On the contrary. Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden merely argue that one is entitled to his own life, the pursuit of his own happiness and to the accumulation of property through productive activity and voluntary exchange in the free market. The authors argue that one must pursue selfish interest with full respect for the rights of others to do the same. Don't let the title of the book scare you. In Rand's own words: "The title of this book may evoke the kind of question that I hear once in a while: 'Why do you use the word 'selfishness' to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?' To those who ask it, my answer is: 'For the reason that makes you afraid of it.'" I highly recommend this book. Excellent work.

The introduction sets the stage. "There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into one 'package-deal': (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance. Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes." Personal growth and satisfaction are achievable.

Ayn is great at putting into words the things that most logical people think and feel. This book makes it clear why it is reasonable to pursue the things that make us happy, and points out that by doing so, we make the world a better place. The things that are commonly called "bad" are in fact the things that motivate us to do great things in our lives that actually serve mankind more than if we were to be "unselfish". Like most of her work, she uses big words and can be a very dry read to try to read all at once. But when you read a chapter or two every now and then, she gives you a lot to think about.

To be candid I am not a fan of Ayn Rand and I really do not respect her worldview. however, just as she was frustrated during her lifetime by people who formed opinions of her without ever having read her works, I do agree with that viewpoint and therefore have read her works, even the stuff she wrote for Harper's. This book is ostensibly a collection of writings from the objectivist newsletter which she self published for many years. It also has a very to the point preface which I feel is important when understanding exactly how she viewed the differences between the words altruism and selfishness, because in the preface she makes it very clear that they are mutually exclusive concepts. Whether or not you buy into her version of utopian society, I feel that there is value in doing it in an informed manner. If you don't want to read her fiction, but at least want to have an educated understanding of her worldview, this is the thing to read.

I like the fact that all Ayn Rand books speaks of being a individual. Even though some readers may feel that she maybe to harsh in being so frank in her reads.

For readers who doubt "A's" bias on the subject of "Rand and Objectivity"... click on his profile.... you can see he systematically went through and scored every Rand book with "one star" and then attempted to trash each book with basically the same cut and paste text. Sounds like the kind of person who would like to burn books, rather than read and rationally discuss them. You might also note than fewer then 20% of review readers thought his review was "helpful." But again, don't take my word for it... read the books... and decide for yourself... don't let "A's" poisoned pen perspective be a bar to your own self-enlightenment. "No mind is as light tight as one that is closed."

This is the one. Discover here, rediscover here, study the key tenets. Still my favorite one of Rand's essay collections and in many respects one finds in this book the most significant fundamentals of the philosophy of Objectivism. If you take these ideas seriously, you'll reject being a means to others' ends, a slave or some emotion driven wreck. You'll understand the morality of laissez faire capitalism, the proper role of a gov't, rational egoism and why politics are not a left-right dichotomy but a fight for freedom (individual rights) vs collectivism. Enjoy!

If it is definitions of key philosophical systems and how they work together that you are looking for, this book has them in abundance and in tight cohesion. Being raised an Objectivist, I can recommend almost no other book as highly to describe how to deal with the complexities of this world (the “Romantic Manifesto” comes close).

Make sure you purchase the Ayn Rand novels before the cancel culture attacks them

Just the first two pages expose the dominant culture of both "liberal" and "conservative" politics and the illogical package-deal fallacy that leads most people down that irrational road where "kindness", a byproduct trait of a healthy self-interested soul, is turned on its head and instead made the overarching virtue of "unselfishness" or "altruism" - a trap to sucker people into giving up themselves for various self-abnegating causes and most importantly, the state, which uses them unmercifully for its failed causes. I cannot imagine a more important book except for Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" where this ideal is promulgated in full detail.

I've read only couple of chapters so far and have to say that I'm disappointed. Yes, it's a good philosophy for me personally but the same is not for everyone. It's nice to imagine what would be if everyone acted rationally, but then we wouldn't live in the world we live in. Plus so far I didn't learn anything I didn't already know. If I do after reading more, I'll revise this review of course. If you are looking for philosophy that rejects traditional morality but that actually has depth to it, then read Nietzsche.

A great start book to get to know Ayn Rand and her philosophy. This book will also teach you how to think critically, use logic and will make you reconsider many things that you once believed or did unquestioningly. In this book Ayn Rand destroys collectivism and shows through logical and very good arguments why selfishness is better and why although selfishness is categorized or deemed as something negative nowadays, it is actually absolutely fine and moral to be selfish. This woman is such a great writer. This book changed my life. I mean that!

Excellent, Nails Human Nature.

Best book ever as a gift

Interesting how the struggles for freedom outlined in the work fifty years ago are equally prevalent today. Rand was heroic in her vision.

The headline is for shock value. In the first chapter she defines "Selfishness" after reading her definition I think most people would agree that they are selfish. Each chapter is an easy read and there are some notable chapters like the one on "racism". Her condemnation of Racism is excellent and I think that everyone of every race should read this chapter and practice her advice on respecting the individual. I marvel that Ayn Rand had such foresight that in the 1960's she was able to see where the welfare state would take us. The chapters on compromise and lack of moral clarity are also very informative. I highly recommend this book.

I had many misconceptions about Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. I suppose it is because she has always been marginalized as sort of the lunatic fringe. Her atheism, a necessary component for strict adherence to her philosophy, is probably most responsible for tagging her with that status. But, I now can understand why her philosophy strikes such fear in the hearts of statists. It is a level of fear only stark truth can evoke. "Virtue" is a very well written work and more easily understood that most of the economic books I continue to wade through. Her clarity of thought is most remarkable, as she offers explanations consistent with both nature and reason.

Written by a frightened woman who was afraid of being diminished,as she was in her childhood by the Bolsheviks in Russia. The book is is for the most part an attempt to establish ethics, and morals based on logic but, in the end it is evident that it is more based on a fear of being diminished where she attempts to use logic to rationalize her fears. She often quotes characters from her books in this as if they were actual people on many occasions. She seems to do this to validate her thinking as if to back up her flawed frightened way of looking at things with her own badly written stories, where her characters act, and react in ways that do not happen in life. She manipulates the definitions of a few things to suit herself including the definition of "selfishness" to represent self interest to create this ranting diatribe. She attempts to demonstrate that altruistic acts are "selfish". Once again manipulating the definition the definition to suit her ends in rationalizing her fears.

Challenging millennia of ethical ideas that demand that individuals submit themselves to serving others, the author presents a clear, unapologetic egoistic approach to ethics. It presents a vision of people living in a society where each can live up to their greatest potential, and a vision of people living honestly and harmoniously . I love her approach.

Just started this one, AR is being philosophical of course and it's not easy sledding, but taking bits, here and there that are ringing true with me, not 100% agreeing with the argument she presents, it is not an easy task to take on, but still worth the investment of time here.

Champions the individual...makes reader realize what we ve been talked out of...guilt free elevation of the individual instead of yhr group

As a rational thinking man and a self proclaimed advocate of Ayn Rand's philosophy Objectivism, I would recommend this book to anyone who should choose to rely on their individual mind and follow the path open to them by means of their logic. However, my recommendation is strictly for those who take the work of Ayn Rand seriously and as an undisputed right, any who read it merely from an entertainment stand point don't deserve to read it at all.

Ayn Rand's political and social philosophies are well know to anyone who is a fan of her fictional works. The Virtue of Selfishness is a direct view of these philosophies without the storyline. Although, there are several references to her fictional characters and their beliefs in order to accent her points at times. Which, if you're a fan of her fiction, makes this particular read more enjoyable.

Rand really touched on an important philosophy. I get weird looks when people see the cover but Rand's words explain that too...not directly, but one can understand why they would look at you funny for being "selfish"....they don't understand the "rational" perspective. A must read in my mind.

This book, just another of the great works of the late Ayn Rand, reflects not the negative 'selfish, or me first attitude', that most people would expect this book to put forth to the reader.. Rather, it is a guide for all human beings who love life and others, as they do ( and should) love themselves.. I recommend this book for all people who love and appreciate their personal Freedoms, and would be inclined to pass her (Miss Rand) words of wisdom on to others that she would wish well ..

This was the first book by Rand that I read, and one of the most eye opening experiences of my life. By watching her logically break down various issues, I was learning how to think. Whether you agree or disagree with her (I agree), you will benefit from watching a meticulous thinker at work in this book. I have read these essays over and over again. Her other collections of essays are highly recommended too.

If you read the comments of any of Ayn Rand critics, you will notice they do not provide logical explanations as to why her premises are false. Furthermore, none have proposed an alternative basis for morality that is rooted in reason - all of it is emotional appeal that is founded in some mystical environment. Her arguments are flawless; in fact, I challenge any of her critics to find a contradiction in any of the 168 pages of written text (I bet they can't do it). Read and learn.

I enjoyed it, I think it is pointing in the right direction, it speaks to me and my experience. Actually I used it at work and made a tool to improve my productivity and in the end others used it and it was a win win situation for all. But the main motivation was my focus on improving my own productivity. Also I like that there were other authors who wrote some of the chapters.

Ayn Rand goes to the limit when talking about selfishness and virtues. I don't agree with her in every aspect of her thinking but I do agree on the premises and concepts that formed her view of men's code of values. If you struggle to defend how right is to be selfish or up to which point. If you struggle with how right is to be proud of yourself and your own work, then this book will help you resolve those struggles.

There are no words that I can use to describe how this book has impacted my life. Those who understand this book no longer need it. Those who have not read it, need to. Those who have read, but do not understand this book, don't deserve it.

an interesting book from the view of the pragmatic and total capitalist, as of the mid sixties. Some universal philosphies are discussed, but most of it is home in the US capitalist world view of the mid sixties. Some concepts are hard to understand and others more clear. I never really got the author's view on virtuos selfishness as opposed to altruism in the first reading, and i doubt there will be a second...

I had been meaning to read this book for a long time and was not disappointed. Ayn Rand's logic is sound. If you appreciate the human mind and reason, this book is for you. It explains many of Ayn Rand's ethical thoughts in the form of essays. I found the essay on the nature of rights particularly enjoyable

Outstanding author. Her books change hour insides. Highly recommend. Everyone can take care of themselves in this world and it balances out perfectly - that’s how it was created.

A friend of mine in the legal profession recommended this book. It didn't take me long to order it, and when I started reading, I couldn't put it down. It was great reading throughout. This classic is as relevant today as it was yesteryear. I would recommend this book.

Superb analysis as always from Ms. Rand. She was WAY ahead of any other philosopher in the centuries before her or since. It's easy to see why so many people who are truly willing to hear her ideas and use scientific methods of thinking have embraced her Objectivist system. Objectivists may yet save Liberty for all of us from the uninformed masses who seem hell-bent on reckless statist policies.

Rand was brilliant. Period. If you didn't know that 50+ years had passed, you would think she had written these articles yesterday. I especially enjoyed the explanation of differences between objectivism (rational long term self interest which frees us) and altruism (and its corrosive effects on our culture and its use as a means to control and enslave).

Gotta luv the ole gal and her style of uncompromizing egoism slash (and burn) objectivism, he shrugged. Rather like modern day politics still is definitely a concept with some merit ... properly tempered. This is a short collection of short essays mostly by Ayn interspersed by some from her lover.

This is an awesome book! I don't agree with everything Ayn Rand says (she is a rabid atheist, and I am a rabid Christian, go figure), but the basic concept (that selfishness is a virtue) is profoundly liberating. She approaches this issue from many different angles, and each angle provides a little more insight into the hidden thought processes that keep us captive to false religion and political correctness.

This book untangles and defines exactly what rational "Selfishness" is. Even if you wanted to give away everything you have, someone would have to produce it and you'd have to acquire it first. This is the moral armor all achievers need to defend themselves against all those who claim title to the efforts and wealth of others based on some abstract moral principle of the "Higher Good."

I have read and re-read this book several times. The first time was while serving during the Korean war at an isolated Loran Station located on an island off Okinawa. The content of this book (which I still have in pocket book format) provides me with greater insight with each reading. It's especially noteworthy on how out country continues on a path of liberalism. Yes I am selfish.

To the religious fundamentals I ask, IF you pray from dawn to dusk and do NOTHING, what do YOU have? Though I am not crazy about her atheism, (Personally I think she was a closet Jewish), She was so far ahead of her time, and strive to surround my self around others of the same mind...... WE chose to have a GREAT DAY or not.....

Having read some of Rand's fiction, (Atlas Shrugged), and wondering how she could have got away with calling her movement 'objectivism' when her views are so subjective, (and, downright detached from reality), I thought I should try some of her non fiction to see how she 'rationaly' argued her case for a world based only on self interest. I probably shouldn't have bothered. Like the leaders of most 'isms', Rand produces no evidence to back up her views, prefering to simply berate anyone who disagrees with her. She also uses the wierd concept of quoting from the characters of her own fiction as her only authority. I expected some of the logical arguement that she so highly praises in her fictional heros but found only emotional rants. Growing up in Russia during the revolution and the early Soviet era, Rand has plenty of reason to be bitter and see the world through a warped perspective, but it is disapointing not to see her at least try to practice what she preached.

A powerful work written in an eloquent and concise manner. The chapter "The Objectivist Ethics" outlines from the ground up why she believes as she does and what she defines as morality. The chapters called "The Monument Builders", "Man's Rights", "Collectivized "Rights"", and "The conflict of Men's Interests" should be required reading in all philosophy classes. This is a wonderful compilation of essays, which rivals "The Voice of Reason" as one of her best. PS. I find it "interesting" that Amazon includes an editorial review of this book, (that rates 4 solid stars on average) that sh*&ts on the book, by espousing that the writer simply disagrees with Rand's reason and logic....with no reasoning of his own offered. It's a hatchet job. Nice going Amazon. (Sarcasm alert).

Selfishness is good for you and me. Altruism has no exceptions--can I breathe for another man-no. Beats that stupid saying of do a kind act today--why not be consistent in your actions towards yourself and your fellow man by developing a consistent philosophy as Ayn Rand does in this book.

My favorite book

This brilliant (seriously) work by Ayn Rand is an absolute must-read for anyone interested in saving themselves and the world. Traditional thinking has brought us to a dangerous place in human history, but follow this simple advice and you will clearly see light at the end of the tunnel!

I may have to read it twice just to get the full understanding of what she is trying to say. A lot of good thought provoking information

I am glad that I have it it was not easy to find. It is articles that were published as a magazine to spread her Philosophy of "Objectivism"! Her philosophy is devoid of ethics or morals. It is a valuable reference in light of the Republican Party which is pushing her philosophy in every way they can! They even made a trilogy of movies of Atlas Shrugged!

This anthology of essays on ethics is excellent, and the introduction to the book, which explains the essence of ethics/morality, per se, (as opposed to any specific theory, including the Objectivist theory that is the subject of the rest of the essays), is especially noteworthy.

The smallest minority is the individual

I did not receive the centennial addition like I thought. It was Ayn Rand's The Art of Virtue, but nothing like the picture. It did come very quickly and the book is in decent shape. The price was fair considering what I received. The book is older and the pages are brown. It has that old smell to it like a book bought from a thrift store.

Every college kid needs to read this book.

Should be required reading for all high school students and then again at college. Bought a copy for myself and will probably buy another for each of my kids.

One of Ayn Rand's most important works. It is a great, quick, read that explains one of the most important points of her Objectivist philosophy. A must have!

It is nice to know that there is somebody who's had the same thoughts I've had for 20 years. The civil rights act is pathetic. Everyone has a right to everything. That is just great. "At who's expense?".

thank you Iyourself his after being brainwashed by religion for so long Lol. It's refreshing to know that being Focused on yourself and your own needs is not evil simply because everybody else on planet earth is focused on their own needs as well. It's human nature.

While I don’t agree with Ayn Rand 100% she makes great arguments for capitalism.

Written in the early 60s, this book is probably more relevant today than it was back then. A truly prescient philosophy.

This book nails down the problem we have as individuals. The first step is to see that we by nature want what we want but there are greater things that we acheive in our lives if we get off of the fence and choose those greater things by putting others before ourselves and learn to live in the way God designed us to live.

Arrived intact and undamaged

This books helps you look in to the the reasons behind why you do what you do. What is your driving goal? Is it to be selfless just because you are told you should be or to be selfish and to help yourself and with that be able to help others more if you so choose?

This book should be required reading. As with many books I have started reading in recent years, I would have benefited greatly had I read this book, and the other, when I was young enough to apply what I am learning. Such books would have served me better in life than reading Steinbeck and Hemingway.

Ayn Rand is genius. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. She definitely blew my mind with her thoughtful and well reasoned arguments.

I love Ayn Rand so I am a bit bias. I am not a philosopher of any sort so I did have to reread pages a couple of times, but I still enjoyed this book.

I knew that coming in, I would not like this book. It did inform me about the Objectivist philosophy, which I wanted, but this philosophy, in application, reduces man to a mercenary character. The fact that Ms. Rand quotes her own novels in support of her ideas (yes, yes, and to explain the reasoning for the novels as well) causes me to think that little research has been done in supporting her theories. Dr. Branden has some pretty outmoded ideas about where homosexuality, psychopathy and autism come from as well, and they seem to be pulled out of the air in order to support his points. All in all, not, to my mind, a life pattern to follow

Even though it is a quick read, it deals with a number of complex philosophical issues which are only minimally approached. However, I must say it is a de rigour read for any Ayn Rand fan and a good complement to The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (if you still have any energy left after the latter)

This book provides a clear understanding of some of the basic principles of Objectivism without the use of obscure philosophical jargon. And even though these essays were written in the 1960's, they are as relevant today as when they were first written.

The book was delivered very promptly, and I was impressed with its condition--it being a used book and all. The pages were completely straight, almost as if the book had never been read. The pages were a bit yellowed, but that was just due to the age of the book.

Magnum Opus managed to get the book, THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS by Ayn Rand, to me in a very timely manner and in perfect condition. In spite of some confusion as to who actually sent the book, as I ordered the same book from two different distributors, it was finally ironed out in a basically satisfactory manner. The other company, CarpePM, had difficulty in that the post office either lost or destroyed the same book. CarpePM immediately credited my account with the $6.59 cost of the book and communicated the transaction to me as soon as they knew what had happened. Unfortunately, I did not see it in a timely manner, got confused as to who did what and wrote to Maghum Opus thinking they had not yet sent the book. There was confusion and some words exchanged. In the long run, however, it appears to have been cleared.

Spinning your wheels trying to understand existence? Maybe you have accepted some mad premises. Madness is resultant of refusing to think. Reality if fundamentally and irredeemably natural and therefore subject to causality, and therefor subject to human reasoning. The devil is in the details, and in this light, she has fought the devil himself. No mystic can say as much.

After reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (three times), I needed to delve into Rand's Objectivism. Still wading through, but gaining better insights into the mind that wrote these novels plus Anthem.

The essays in this book make the direct argument that rand makes implicitly in the dialogue and narrative of atlas shrugged. It also applies objectivism to many common situations that refute many of the accusations levied against her

A very difficult read. The philosophy here is deep and takes more than one reading.

Another Ayn Rand book that makes you think. New insight and great read. Everyone should read this, you will learn something new.

Each man to himself, with his own rights as an individual, so long as it is backed with a strong reason can and will never be challenged by anyone. The book asks you to be yourself, do for yourself before you do for others

This book opens the eyes of the typical society conditioned zombie. There is nothing wrong with thinking about oneself and than thinking about other if one so chooses too. Meaning it should not be an automatic conditioned response without a rational reason for it. Great book.

In "Atlas Shrugged", "The Fountainhead", and her other fictional-romantic-artistic works she demonstrates the morality of egoism. This non-fictional writing is mainly for those who need a literal interpretation of the meaning of selfishness in proper context and details.

I am a big fan of Rand and this didn't dissappoint. Rand is very unique obviously and I think her philosophy is very true and accurate. I don't believe in her 100%, far from it...I am a Christian, sorry Ayn.

I recommend being incarcerated before reading this.

The most eloquent explanation of why if you do not get your politics right, all is lost. Extraordinarily comprehensive in explaining Ms. Rand's philosophy of Objectivism that I have read. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Ayn Rand must have been able to view the future. Here is a good book describing some of her feelings. Good read.

for my son

This book covers a lot of social issues in a rational point of view. I've read it a few times and agree with the message, I think everyone should read this book to see things from a different view.

gave it as a gift he liked it blah blah blah blah blahb labh albha blah blah blah blah blah

Don't take my word for it, find out for yourself why this book is so valuable. It is always helpful to know more in order to base your opinion/personal truths.

not sure that selfishness is a virtue in very case

Atlas is much better. Says the same thing. Most people will not read because they are ignorant and have lived too long under socialism. They are too stupid to realize the beauty of self reliance!

Excellent series of essays. Puts selfishness in a whole new light. Loved it.

Very old book pages are yellow

Ayn was way ahead of the times.

Great read, I wish more people would read her books.

This book is so tiny in size that it is not practical to read without a magnifying glass. Go with a larger book if you have the option.

GREAT

👍🏻

Bought this for a philosophy paper. It's a good quick read of you're curious about Rand's views of the necessity of selfishness in human nature.

You need to go down to the basics once you have read Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead. Ex: why do you need a moral code. This is it. I'll try We the living afterwards.

I have enjoyed reading the book, Rand, while no fan of God, certainly understands his prized creation. If you want to understand the "natural man" This is a good reference for it.

People that think patience is virture and not procrastination would never get this work. People that like group projects would not like this work. I loved it!

This book really challenged me to think in ways I had never done before. Ayn Rand does a brilliant job of describing her philosophy in a clear concise manner.

Fantastic book for the rational philosopher!

this book should be in our public school system

There are better books to help you understand her vision of objectivism.

Escalating profundity with the turn of each page.

If you want to get rid of your guilt trip for being an individual and taking responsibility for yourself as your first priority, this book is for you.

Wow even I can have node that much.

Later in life, Mrs. Rand wrote a series of essays and speeches which she turned into books. These compilations provide valuable insight into the underlying philosophy interspersed throughout her brilliant novels.

One of the most important books ever written.

Ayn Rand is a hero. Remember, if you don't watch out for yourself, nobody else will, including the jive folks from the church of your choice.

thank you

Great writer worth the read

amazing book

Package came in exepected timeframe as described, no problems, no damages from the united states postal service corporation owned by a british citizen or crown subject.

Strange title for most of us. Society teaches us that being selfish is a bad thing. Not true. Don't agree? Read the book.

Anything written by Ayn Rand deserves 5 stars.

Worthy of repetetive reading and analysis warrants Greater and wider acceptance. have been reading for 15 years and still lot of introspection to be done.

She may tag it "selfishness" but in reality it is merely taking responsibility for one's self. It should be mandatory reading for all subsidy recipients!

Excellent read for someone looking for answers as to what is happening to (the people in) our society. The natural social evolution of humans is on display.

I have many friends and acquaintances that need permission to love themselves. This book provides just that. It helps me help them.

Loved it!

Very thought provoking book. She is a big time thinker. Too bad so few people have experienced her ideas.

Outstanding read. Definitely one of my favorite Rand books so far.

Great personal philosophy.

Life changing and challenging. Must read for people searching for confidence, self esteem and people at the mercy of guilt.

So much information and so many facts to review. Can't say any more. In total agreement and will start reading this again right now.

One of the most important books in my library. "A philosophy for living life on earth"

Reading this is a wonderful way to convince yourself that Ayn Rand's Objectivist theory amounts to nothing more than "dog-eat-dog" or "might makes right" - even more in today's polarized environment "He who has the gold rules" and what's more ought to. Total repudiation of religion in all its pernicious forms. Actually posits that altruism is both counterproductive and harmful to both recipient and giver.

it's ayn rand and she's awesome. really, though this is a great quickie read and details ideas if you're not quite desiring to read atlas shrugged or fountainhead.

Ayn Rand in my opinion has the most logical philosophy ever written. Awesome read.