Ayn Rand, Rousseau and Compassion

Compassion: Good or Bad?

Above: The Objectivist Tree, by Ayn Rand

found here

"It is then certain that compassion is a natural feeling, which, by moderating the violence of love of self in each individual, contributes to the preservation of the whole species." -Rousseau

"No creator was prompted by a desire to please his brothers. His brothers hated the gift he offered. His truth was his only motive. His work was his only goal. His work, not those who used it, his creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things, and against all men. He went ahead whether others agreed with him or not. With his integrity as his only banner. He served nothing, and no one. He lived for himself. And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement." 

-Howard Roark, from "The Fountainhead," by Ayn Rand.

Throughout political history, philosophers have argued over the relative importance of the individual versus the collective group. Rousseau argues that compassion is a natural feeling and a vital tool of survival for the group. He argues that compassion is an innate capacity that by enabling the sustenance of the community as a whole, benefits the individual.

Found here on Youtube

 Ayn Rand, an American writer (born in the Soviet Union), wrote several books that collectively (unintended irony) conveyed her philosophy, Objectivism. Rand proposes that the only moral way to live one's life is to purely pursue your own interests. Whether others benefit or suffer on accord of your own selfishness is irrelevant. Rand believes that people are naturally driven by self-interest and that compassion is a bastardization of the human spirit and its potential. 

From "The Fountainhead"
Found here on Youtube

*Sidenote: Although Kant and Ayn Rand are extremely different, they do possess one basic similarity - Man is only free (mature) when he thinks for himself and creates his own original ideas rather than relying on others to think for them.

The conflict between these two perspectives has likely never been as intense in America as it is now. American political rhetoric swings between rugged individualism and "Yes we can." American politics is largely divided along the line that exists between these two school of thoughts (note: I am not referring to all of Rousseau's ideas - I am simply considering his ideas on compassion). On one side, conservatives continue to campaign on a platform of individualism and "self-responsibilty," whereas American liberals campaign on a platform of interrelatedness and community progress.

Found here on Youtube

Obama was blasted by the GOP for these statements, which they viewed as an attack on the individual. However, I think Obama had a valid point, even if he could have phrased it more efficiently. There has never been an individual who made everything in his life by himself, whether you were directly or indirectly benefited by another person in a large or small way.

Found here on Youtube

Similarly to Obama's "You didn't build that," Romney was blasted for his infamous 47 percent comments, in which he criticized Obama's electorate as entirely reliant on government handouts. He directly criticizes the type of policies that prioritize community financial aid over individual wealth.

Another pop-culture example of the "compassion wars" is Occupy Wall Street. Although often a seemingly disjointed and chaotic campaign, Occupy's protests really embody the conflict. The protestors argue that the well-being of the masses are being sacrificed for the selfish interests of a few wealthy Wall Street bosses (I am by no means suggesting that all of Wall Street is guilty of the offenses attributed to them by Occupy). There is an important question to be asked here - should we regulate the decisions of Wall Street based on compassion for the majority, or is it more important to preserve the freedom of enterprise on wall street? In other words, which is more important - empathy or self-interest? Ayn Rand would argue that "the masses" are dangerous as there is no such thing as a collective brain, and therefore there is no collective reason. She believes in a brutal capitalist justice in which people ultimately get what they deserve. Rousseau on the other hand, believes one should vote based on the interests of the whole state rather than one's own personal interests.

Found here

Found here

In my opinion, compassion is both moral and necessary to society. I agree with Rousseau that compassion enables communities to survive. Without concern for our fellow man, society deteriorates. I think if Self-interest, although not malicious in and of itself, is not counterbalanced by compassion or empathy, then everyone ultimately suffers. I disagree with Ayn Rand's assertion that civilization is built upon the backs of a few men driven by self-interest, and that we are all "parasites" living off of their genius. Without community, no one can truly be successful.  Let me know what you think.

*EDITED on November 27th for media sources