Letters, Mar. 21, 1960

On Altruism

Sir:

I read "objectivist" Ayn Rand's anti-altruistic philosophy [Feb. 29] with a shudder of horror. Her whole idea of life is incredibly wrong. She seems an embittered, unfortunate woman who has never learned the joys of giving to other people, liking other people and being liked by them.

ARABELLE M. PARMET Bryn Mawr, Pa.

Sir:

In your report of my lecture at Yale University [Feb. 29], you alleged that I oppose the morality of altruism because it "leads to self-immolation, tolerance of the 'incompetent' common man, the welfare state, and ultimately to the slave labor camp." Nowhere in the text of my lecture will you find a phrase such as "tolerance of the 'incompetent' common man," or its equivalent, either in the context where you inserted it or in any other context. That phrase is a gross misrepresentation of my position.

I do not speak or think in such terms as "the common man." I leave such patronizing concepts to the liberals. If, by "common man," you meant the lower-income groups, I do not regard incompetence as the exclusive, collective attribute of any group or class, lower or upper. I am not a modern liberal or a Marxist. I do not pass collective judgments on individuals by any sort of group or class standards. The terms "competence" and "incompetence" denote how well or how badly one does one's job, in any profession, on any level of ability, in any income group.

I would never use so evasive an expression as "tolerance of the 'incompetent.'" It has no intelligible meaning. If you compare it to the precision with which I express my ideas, you will easily see that it does not belong to my style of speaking or thinking. If you were hinting that what I oppose is the sacrifice of the competent to the incompetent—you don't have to hint; this is what I hereby request that you put me on the record as saying: I oppose the sacrifice of the competent to the incompetent and of any man to any other man.

As to the rest of your report, the direct quotes were selected perceptively and fairly, but I regret that the editorial slant contradicts their meaning and sets up a straw man by equating me with Herbert Spencer. If you wish to refute me, you will not do so by refuting Spencer (or Nietzsche, or Epicurus or Robert A. Taft). Their philosophies are not mine.

AYN RAND

New York City

Sir:

As long as Ayn Rand insists on the premise that ego liberates rather than obliterates ultimate truth and reason, she will, unfortunately, continue to arrive at her misguided conclusions based on half-truths.

MRS. DAVID GENTRY Glendale, Calif.

Tears for Injun Joe

Sir: