Note on Morality

  Man exists for his own happiness, and the definition of happiness proper to a human being is: a man’s happiness must be based on his moral values. It must be the highest expression of his moral values possible to him.

  This is the difference between my morality and hedonism. The standard is not: “that is good which gives me pleasure, just because it gives me pleasure” (which is the standard of the dipsomaniac or the sex-chaser)—but “that is good which is the expression of my moral values, and that gives me pleasure.” Since the proper moral code is based on man’s nature and his survival, and since joy is the expression of his survival, this form of happiness can have no contradiction in it, it is both “short range” and “long range” (as all of man’s life has to be), and it leads to the furtherance of his life, not to his destruction.

  The form of happiness which involves “a price” to be paid for it afterwards (“a price,” not in the sense of the means and effort to achieve it, but in the sense of a consequence which is evil to him by his own standards, such as the hangover the morning after a drunken orgy) is an improper form of happiness by that very fact, a sign that the man who finds enjoyment in it holds a destructive premise that must be corrected.

  A man must, above all, be proud of his happiness, of the things in which he finds enjoyment and of the nature of his enjoyment. This is the difference between James Taggart and the strikers. The strikers find their joy in self-exaltation, in achievement. James Taggart finds his joy in evil—in cruelty, fraud, degradation of others to his own level. (For example, he takes pleasure in the fact that people are disgraced by paying homage to him, and he enjoys bringing them to this degradation.) His happiness is based on that which, by his own standards, is evil; his happiness requires evil. Man’s proper happiness must not depend upon or be derived from anything which is evil, low, contemptible, undesirable by his own standards.

  The evil man is not the one who mistakenly believes that bad things are good and acts accordingly; this is only an error of knowledge, not a sin, not a moral flaw. The evil man is the one who loves evil for being evil. (The poor fool who indulges in sex while semi-believing that it is evil according to his church morality, is not wholly bad because he does not really believe that sex is evil. But this does destroy his self-respect and creates all kinds of miserable conflicts for him. The evil man is the one who, knowing that sex is good, takes pleasure in forbidding it and thus causing men to suffer.)

  Man does exist for happiness; he has the right to seek that which makes him happy. But he is a being of free will, therefore a being who cannot exist without a moral standard (a standard of values). If he attempts to drop his own essence—reason—and to seek happiness in the irrational and the contradictory, if he evades his responsibility for his own emotions, if he lets his emotions rule him without thought as to where these emotions came from, permitting himself to be determined by his own feelings, which means by his own stale thinking, by his arrested reason—that is where he destroys himself and is unable to achieve any sort of happiness.

  This is the key to the pattern of how men “suspend” their reason.

  Another aspect: a man’s happiness must not include any evil as its essential element. This is the point which disqualifies the alleged happiness of an altruist. His happiness depends, by definition, on somebody else’s suffering ; he considers this suffering an evil, since he finds it so important to relieve and eliminate it, since he makes that the paramount aim of his life. Therefore, his happiness is based on an evil, and requires that evil to exist. In a world of happy men, he could not be happy (which, of course, is one of the reasons why collectivists achieve horrors).

  If it is said that suffering exists in the world anyway, permanently and essentially, therefore it’s noble to combat it—then that is the malevolent universe. Man does not exist for suffering. Suffering is an accidental, “marginal” part of his existence, which he must fight in order to be free to exist in happiness; [a part] which he must overcome as quickly as possible—and not spend his life seeking, thus making it the aim of his life. The suffering which threatens men from physical nature is negligible compared to the suffering he brings upon himself and others. If man functioned properly in the field open to him and determined by him—the field of his choice, his free will, his thinking and actions—he would eliminate most, and perhaps even all, of the suffering caused by the accidents of his physical nature.

  The essence of suffering is destruction. By acting on the premises of self-destruction, man brings about suffering, his own and that of others. And he acts on a premise of self-destruction when he places others above self. He acts against his own nature and theirs. The suffering of others cannot be made one’s concern. It is not within our power of action. It is not within the function of our nature.

  Help to others can, at best, be only an incidental activity and then only on a “trader‘s” basis—such as help to a loved one, where one has a specific, selfish, personal reason for wishing to help. Just as one cannot conduct one’s own life on the basis of trying to avoid pain and holding that to be a final goal, just as one must live for one’s happiness and fight one’s suffering as an incidental on the way, so one cannot live for the relief of the suffering of others, as a goal—only this last is infinitely more improper.

  And neither can one live for the happiness of others—because that involves one’s own suffering as an essential, since one’s happiness is not automatic, but has to be achieved by one’s own effort, and that effort is the chief duty of one’s life (essentially, the sole duty). One’s own happiness is within one’s own power, and one’s whole nature is tied to the necessity of achieving it; the happiness of others is not. This is the point involving and illustrating man’s essential independence.

  Note in regard to Christian morality: The Christian moralists would accept the first paragraph of my statement here—but then, of course, the difference lies in the definition of the moral code involved. And that is where they would not accept the second part of my statement—the fact that one’s happiness must not include evil as its essential part. The Christian morality includes the most vicious evil as the most essential part of the happiness it advocates: self-sacrifice. This leads to all the vicious paradoxes of “be happy because you’re not happy,” “find happiness in suffering,” etc.

  There is no conflict and no sacrifice necessary when a man functions on his proper moral standards. Giving up a party in order to write a novel is not a sacrifice, but plain common sense, an acknowledgment of the impossibility of “having your cake and eating it, too” or of doing two things at the same time. A rational man does not desire the impossible—and, therefore, feels no pain in not having it, and commits no sacrifice. The sense of sacrifice is possible only to the emotion-ruled man, who wants or feels without thinking. The happiness of man’s proper morality does not require his own suffering.

  The essential test of any moral code or teaching is the presence or absence of the paradox. A paradox cannot exist. It is only the result and sign of man’s errors in thinking. If one accepts a paradox as an essential part of one’s moral code—right there is the sign that one has accepted a code untrue to reality, that one is in the realm of the irrational, and, therefore, one has accepted destruction as a principle, and as a goal of one’s conduct. (Besides, a code based on a paradox cannot be practiced; so this leads to the “lip-service morality” of preaching what one cannot practice.) Destruction is the result of a departure from reality. Man’s destruction is a result of his suspending his means of survival and his tie with reality—his reason. By accepting any sort of paradox, he destroys reality in his own eyes, he destroys his control over reality, his means of knowledge, he destroys his mind—and his destruction can be the only result.

  A point requiring a great deal of detailed consideration is that the paradox is the chief symptom and the chief weapon of all the destroyers of man.

  May 29, 1949

  For “Money is the root of all good ”

  “So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever looked at the root of money?”

  The root of money—production. The root of production—the mind.

  Money is the material form of a spiritual achievement.

  To make money requires the highest spiritual values. (America is the first nation that ever spoke of “making” money.)

  Money is the tool of a society of free men—men as equals—money as the guarantee that the product of your effort will be exchanged for the product of the effort of others, that you are dealing with producers—not with parasites or looters. Money is the symbol of your dealing with men whom you can trust.

  Money is the tool of freedom—it gives you choice of everything being produced.

  Money is the tool of your values—the means to exercise your values.

  Money will buy happiness—if you understand both money and happiness. Money is your tool of achievement and enjoyment. It will give you the enjoyment that you create; but it will not buy you the second-hand kind of enjoyment, the source of which is in others. Money is your passkey to the services of other men—your means of dealing with them, not through force, fear, or suffering, but through the good—through offering them a value, a means to the achievement of their desires, in exchange for what you want from them.

  But money will not become a tool of evil. Money destroys those who attempt to [make it such a tool].

  Money destroys those who defy its root. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool. It will not buy the admiration and respect of men who understand these terms—for the man who doesn’t deserve them. It stands as the best guard of man’s virtues—the virtues needed for “making” money. Money always remains an effect—and refuses to become a cause. It will not give the parasite what he wants most—its own source—the unearned, undeserved virtues of the man who makes money.

  Money is the hardest test of a man—took at the heirs who are wrecked by it. No man may be smaller than his money. Money is the barometer of a man’s character—if he claims to despise it, he’s making it dishonestly; if he is proud of it, he’s earned it and deserves it. [This paragraph was added later.]

  In the hands of the producer, money is the means of security. In the hands of the looter, money is the agent of his destruction (as in the case of the criminal). Whenever a society establishes criminals-by-right, whenever the looter is permitted to rob legally—his money is the attraction for other looters, who will get it from him as he got it, achieving nothing but general destruction and slaughter.

  Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue.

  Whenever money is in the wrong hands, in the hands of those who have not earned it, in the hands of grafters and looters (whenever one can get richer by dishonesty than by honesty)—it is the sure sign that that society is evil, that it is corrupt and in the process of destruction.

  [Note added later: Paper money—a check on an account which the bureaucrat does not own.

  Money is the symbol of virtue. It cannot be made by nor will it stay in unclean hands. The highest virtues are required to make money—or to keep it. Men without courage, without pride, without the highest moral sense of and for their money (the men who apologize for their money)—are not able to keep it. They are the natural prey of looters.

  Now, in the first real country of money in history—the country of production and achievement—men have come to regard money as the savages did. Throughout history, money was made by the producers and seized by the looters. Men have continued, in every different form, to exploit and despise the producers and exalt the looters. Now the one country of money is proclaiming the looter’s standards; its men of honor are the looter, the moocher and the beggar. Unless and until it accepts money as its highest, noblest standard—it is doomed to the destruction it is asking for and deserves.

  Tears, whips and guns—or dollars. Take your choice, there is no other.

  (When money ceases to be the tool—then men become the tools of the looters.)

  (“You damn money and you all want it. So you damn yourselves.”)

  (“When you denounce money, it’s always the heir-parasite or the crook that you denounce. What about the man who made the money? You denounce the parasite of the unearned—and, as cure, you wish everybody to become parasites of the unearned.”)

  Outline of Money Speech

  The nature of money:The root of money—production, mind, virtue.

  The money in your wallet as a symbol of trust—not of moochers and looters.

  Definition of money—guardian of rights, independence, freedom, benevolence, brotherhood, integrity; the tool of your values.

  Money as a scourge of the “reversers of cause and effect.” The things which money won’t do: buy happiness, intelligence, etc.

  The heirs of great fortunes.

  What happens when you acquire money by contemptible means—this is the root of the hatred of money. (The lovers of money are willing to work for it. Run from the haters.)

  Sociology:The apologizing rich won’t stay rich for long.

  The looters-by-law: the rule of brutality. (The society of death.)

  Money as a barometer of a society’s virtue.

  The destruction of gold—paper money.

  The consequences—the demoralization of men.

  Answers to all the smears against money: made by the strong at the expense of the weak—your neighbors don’t pay you a just reward—charity, instead of competence.

  The denunciations of the parasite and the criminal, the silence about the producer—what you are really after.

  The industrialist and the scientist—the real benefactor.

  History:The history of glorifying looters and despising producers (and the source of the quote about the evil of money).

  America—the country of money. The self-made man. “To make money.”

  The rise of the looters’ standards here. The warning.

  August 28, 1949

  Note Regarding Art vs. Entertainment

  The idea that “art” and “entertainment” are opposites—that art is serious and dull, while entertainment is empty and stupid, but enjoyable—is the result of the non-human, altruistic morality. That which is good must be unpleasant. That which is enjoyable is sinful. Pleasure is an indulgence of a low order, to be apologized for. The serious is the performance of a duty, unpleasant and, therefore, uplifting. If a work of art examines life seriously, it must necessarily be unpleasant and unexciting, because such is the nature of life for man. An entertaining, enjoyable play cannot possibly be true to the deeper essence of life, it must be superficial, since life is not to be enjoyed. (Why can’t a man like Graham Greene, for instance, write an “art” story which is also entertaining? Because his philosophical premises are false to life and could not be expressed in action, in plot, which means: in reality.)

  Such is the credo of all the modern intellectuals who divide literature into “art” and “entertainment.” This school of thought will have two kinds of representatives in practice, both equally disgusting: the intellectual who will be bored by the best kind of plot story because “if it has suspense, it can’t be serious”; and the intellectual who will reject any element of seriousness in a story as “high-brow,” declaring ostentatiously: “Me—I don’t believe in ‘messages,’ I’m for entertainment” and hold that the burlesque theater is the highest form of art. These [two types] are, basically, the “saint” (of altruism) and the cynic who takes pride in wishing “to go to hell,” to be daringly evil.

  Why does this school of thought always fail at the box office? Why doesn’t the public agree with these intellectuals? Because the public has not been corrupted by any serious acceptance of the essence of the altruist morality; the public thinks of altruism as some sort of innocent form of good will and charity to one’s fellow men. The public does not believe that enjoyment is evil. The public has never accepted the depravity of “if I enjoy this, it’s no good” and “if I enjoy anything, I’m no good.”

  Incidentally, the intellectual does not enjoy anything; the dutiful form of boredom he [feels for] his chosen “art” works is certainly not enjoyment, but a kind of masochistic satisfaction in liking it because he’s supposed to like it, a form of quest for self-esteem on the pattern of: “There, I’m virtuous if I approve of this dull mess I’m supposed to like; I can’t really like it, but my trying to is my step toward virtue.” (Contrast the public enthusiasm for a hit play in the old days with the “sophisticated,” “we-don‘t-go-to-extremes” attitude of “smart” New Yorkers today.)

  Test: do you enjoy a book or play for its own sake?—or do you “enjoy” it as a means to an end, the end being that self-conscious sense of acquiring some virtue from it? Joy is an end in itself. My pattern of enjoyment is: I’m good, and if this thing has given me enjoyment, then it is good. Their pattern is: I’m no good and if this thing has made me better, then it is good.

  My pattern holds joy as its own end, man’s end. Their pattern holds joy and man as a means to an end—the end being God or the supernatural, since they hold that man exists “for God” (or for others, or for the universe, or for anything but himself). Any man’s enjoyment is based on his standard of values. I can enjoy an entertaining story because my standard of values holds man as a noble being and joy as his proper aim in life. They cannot enjoy an entertaining story because their standard of values holds man as depraved and joy as evil; therefore, they get to the paradox of enjoying only the unenjoyable. There’s another example of the use of the paradox. Man cannot escape from joy, as the altruists and mystics want him to; he can only pervert it into horror and sadomasochism.

  This is an illustration of the morality of altruism in practice. So they preach that joy is evil? Well, they do achieve this much: their disciples lose the capacity of enjoyment altogether. And since joy is the means, the advancer and protector of life, the joyless creatures are ready for destruction; they have, in fact, destroyed themselves and their capacity for life. There’s altruism and its ultimate goal—destruction.