The Ethics of Socialism: Immanuel Kant and Ayn Rand
“One of the most serious challenges our countries face is the specter of socialism. It’s the wrecker of nations and the destroyer of societies'. There are few spectacles as polarizing as the subject of socialism. Throughout history there are examples of notable people being both staunchly for and against this economic ideology. There are those who claim this system is immoral and selfish. Those who support his economic theory say the complete opposite. These supporters say there is nothing more moral than humanity giving up selfish ambition for the good of fellow humans. One thing is certain, there are no lack of people who have strong opinions on the subject. Many times, in history we have seen emotions on this touchy subject flare into violence. Revolutions, political witch hunts, and ostracization of people with different ideas then the group have all resulted from people not being able to meet in the middle when it comes to this subject. There is one question that all fellow ethics scholars have wondered: “Is this ideology ethical?” When analyzing socialism under a microscope using utilitarianism, selfish egoism, and Kantian ethics, there is no clear-cut answer to rather or not socialism is ethical.
Before digging in and analyzing socialism using ethics systems, it is important that socialism is defined and broken down. Will Kenton, who is a writer with Investopedia with a Bachelor of Arts in political science, defines Socialism as follows, “Socialism is a populist economic and political system based on public ownership (also known as collective or common ownership) of the means of production”. Kenton goes on to explain some of the following ideas in his article. Socialism being about public ownership means that everyone shares ownership of resources. Equality is also gained through the distribution of goods and services with centralized planning. Believers in socialism argue that a worker’s time put in determines their value. They believe this keep workers from being taken advantage of, which they argue is what happens in capitalism. The philosophy is that this helps promote equality and provides security to the common worker. Socialism argues that production is the key to an economy, rather than profit. Hypothetically, this lack of competitive buying and selling will invoke a more equal distribution of wealth. It is widely assumed that Karl Marx is the individual that created socialism. While his writings did popularize the philosophy, the idea actually predates Marx’s “Communist Manifesto.” Socialism’s premise can be summed up by an old saying; “from each according to ability, to each according to need.”
Utilitarianism is an ethics system that revolves around the idea of doing the most good for the largest amount of people. At face value it would seem that this theory is the very definition of socialism. As stated in the paragraph above, socialism’s very premise is all about equality for the common worker, and the common worker is the majority. Karl Marx states his beloved ideology’s intent very clearly in a quote from Reflections of a Young Man on the Choice of a Profession; “History calls those men the greatest who have ennobled themselves by working for the common good; experience acclaims as happiest the man who has made the greatest number of people happy”. The idea of sharing wealth is seemingly very much a utilitarianism concept. Socialism in theory is all about not allowing the people at the top hoard their money, while the common worker who earned them this money are starving and struggling to get by. Once again, since the worker is the majority, this by definition goes hand and hand with utilitarianism ethics.
Like anything, there are shades of grey where utilitarianism and socialism do not necessarily get along. When considering utilitarianism, it is important to always remember that the key is the most amount of good to the most people. What if the majority have no interest in socialism? Something in philosophy and something in practice are very often two very separate things. Socialism has a very complicated and troubling history. This troubled history often makes the common man uninterested in the benefit that socialism may offer. People often understandably would rather take their risks in a free economy, and let their own decision shape their lives, rather than being told in “security” how these individuals’ lives should be lived. If the majority would not prefer this way of life it brings in a complication. What is considered the most amount of “good”. Is it more important that people should be safe or free? This paper is not about free will, but this example goes to show the complications in using utilitarianism as a person’s sole ethics system, and why more examples are needed to analyze socialism.
Immanuel Kant was an eighteenth-century philosopher. Kant’s philosophy can be summed up with one phrase, “do your duty.” The idea of duty can be described in many different ways. There is the duty to your fellow man. This can be thought of as almost like a Good Samaritan approach, that our job as human beings is to help each other whenever we can. Another form of duty is the idea of duty to one’s country. This can be acted out or seen in many different ways. Duty to God is another major form of duty that people commonly refer to. This concept is also very complicated because one’s duty to God revolves around what someone sees as. The point trying to be reached is duty is a very subjective term that is hard to define or nail down to one precise definition, but that does not take away from the importance of it. That leads to a prominent question; does socialism stand up to the test when looked at from the perspective of Kantian ethics? As does everything that takes real critical thinking, it all depends on perspective. Narrowing it down to each type of duty does not give a clear-cut answer, but it helps organize the arguments both for, and against. Duty to your fellow man can be narrowed down to two trains of thought. If a person believes that duty to their fellow man is about taking care of each other, then they will most likely be a fan of socialism. Socialism is all about helping protect those who may have be less able to competitively produce good and skills. It also keeps people who may have accumulated wealth from stepping on those with less. If a person views duty to your fellow man’s most important aspect as a duty to protect other people’s rights, then they would probably not be huge socialism fans. Socialism can be viewed as being restrictive and oppressive to other people’s rights. Duty to one’s country is not any less complicated. Just like one’s political affiliation, often how someone sees their duty to their country depends their previous experiences. If ten people were to be asked what they thought the correlation of their country and socialism, the answers given would most likely be extremely varied. One person may say how the theory would lead to the destruction of their country, and another might say it will be the saving grace of society. This paper will not get too deep into duty to God because that revolves around divine law ethics, and that is not on the road map. That being said, it is no less complicated than the other types of duty. These examples just further go to prove that socialism is a very complex and divisive issue.
Ayn Rand was a Russian American who came up with an ethical philosophy called ethical egoism. Rand coming from the USSR leads to her philosophy system being directly at odds with socialisms ideas. Ethical egoism states that everyone uses selfishness to make their decisions. This ideology is based on reason and is strongly influenced by Aristotle. As stated earlier, ethical egoism is directly at odds with socialism. Rand hated socialism and she was not afraid to show it. She stated this in many of her books, one of which was For the New Intellectual: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand; “socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good”. It would be hard to find an ethics system that is more at odds with an ideology then Egoism looking at socialism. Once again, the reasoning for this is because of Rand’s experience with socialism in the USSR. She saw the ugliest outcome socialism could achieve. Instead of people being fed and wealth being distributed, it led to people starving, and leaders taking advantage of the system and taking complete control. This being said, not every person is Ayn Rand. A reoccurring theme is that people are different, and they have different experiences. While Ayn Rand believes that socialism is evil due to her past experiences, there are almost definitely people who believe a redistribution of wealth would be in their own selfish interests. Being protected by the system rather than being likely to be lost within it is probably attractive to some people. An ethics system that is built by someone who hates socialism after firsthand less then pleasant experiences with a lot of pain, there are still ways that it can be for this ideology.
Socialism is divisive and complex by nature. It is no surprise that people are so emotional about this topic because the stakes are so high. People are complex and their opinions vary. This is no surprise due to the fact that every person’s experiences and backgrounds are so different. Each ethics systems seem at face value that they should have a black and white answer to rather or not they support socialism. This is never the case. The world is a complicated place, and everyone has their own goals and reasons for everything that they do and everything they are. A person would think that utilitarianism would be the biggest advocate for socialism, due to it being almost synonymous at face value. There are strong positive arguments that can be made using this ethics system for socialism. That being said, there are also less then flattering questions that can also be raised due to the confusing nature of human beings. The question of what is truly good makes it hard to determine rather or not socialism is good using utilitarianism ethics. Pushing into other ethics systems just continue to confuse and lead to more grey areas. More questions were raised then answers were given. Kantian ethics led to another example of how it is hard to describe socialism as ethical or unethical unless someone’s morality and values. Kant said do your duty in a time when that meant join Fredrick the Great as he unites Prussia together. Now we live in a more complicated time where nationalism is (hopefully) not the driving force between most people’s morality. This being said, Kantian ethics cannot give a simple answer. Even ethical egoism, an ethics system made by Ayn Rand, an immigrant from the Communist controlled USSR, leads to be too complicated to give a decisive answer. People are just so unique a basic answer cannot be given. Individuals may have strong opinions on socialism as way to set up the market, but it seems to be nearly impossible to hem in rather or not it is ethical.
Works Cited
- Kenton, Will. “Socialism.” Investopedia, 16, Sep. 2020, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp
- Marx, Karl, and Fredrick Engels. “130 Karl Marx Quotes & 30 Frederick Engels Quotes.” Marx Quotes: Quotes from Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/quotes/index.htm.
- Rand, Ayn. “Socialism.” Ayn Rand Lexicon, 2020, aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/socialism.html.
- Trump, Donald J. “Remarks by President Trump to the 74th Session of the United Nations Assembly.” The White House, The United States Government, 25 Sep. 2019, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-74th-session-united-nations-general-assembly/
