Historically business practices have been considered at a minimum amoral if not in fact immoral. Business financing and profit seeking in all its forms, historically referred to as “usury”, was considered as immoral even by Aristotle, as he deemed it unproductive. It was condemned and punished by the Catholic Church during the Dark and Middle Ages; and this position remained unchanged until the 19th century. The Church considered it immoral as the profit motive was deemed exploitive and not consistent with the Christian morality of self-sacrifice. This was the morality of Altruism, the idea that the highest ethical and moral standard is the sacrifice of oneself to others. Altruism still remains the dominate morality in today’s modern world and why business pursuits are not deemed moral pursuits.
But why? Why aren’t those who produce all the goods and services that we all benefit from and require for our very survival on a daily basis not considered moral hero’s for doing so? Many successful entrepreneurs are admired as business heroes but never as moral heroes. Why is Bill Gates admired for his philanthropic activities, which benefit millions, but not for creating Microsoft, which benefit billions? Is there not something wrong with such a moral code?
Entrepreneurs, especially young entrepreneurs, want to have an impact on the world and make it a better place for themselves and everyone else. From an ethical position this is a noble and virtuous pursuit, the very definition of morality, the pursuit of what’s virtuous. However, entrepreneurs are conflicted about how to achieve that. Altruism claims the high moral ground belongs to those who are willing to sacrifice themselves, their ambitions, even their enterprises to the service of others. This sacrifice is not just as a means to an end but deemed the very end itself. It is a morality of selflessness and self-sacrifice. Yet no entrepreneur can survive by practicing such a moral code consistently. The business itself would ultimately be sacrificed down to the last penny causing it to fail.
Moreover, as we defined entrepreneurship previously, it is based on a morality of Individualism, the pursuit of one’s own rational self-interests. Altruism and Individualism are opposites. They cannot be reconciled. This leaves the entrepreneur with the moral quandary of realizing they cannot practice Altruism to succeed but being pronounced immoral if they don’t. This is highly demoralizing and critically undermines one’s motivation to become an entrepreneur.
However, I contend as an individual you have already have rejected Altruism in all the important aspects of your life; and should do so in your entrepreneurial pursuits as well. Ask yourself, who is responsible for your life? I presume your answer is the same as mine; “I am responsible for my life.” To assume responsibility for one’s life presumes the freedom to act on that responsibility.
Would you agree you should be free to choose whom you marry or partner with in life? Would you agree you should be free to choose your course of education? Would you agree you should be free to choose whatever career most interests you? Beyond these large life choices, even in regards to something as small as the purchase from a store, would you agree you should be free to choose it from all possible goods available for you to purchase. In short, to live your life you must be free to choose what is right for your life.
You do not choose a partner, education, career or whatever you require to sustain your life based on a morality of sacrifice to others. These are all examples of practicing a morality based on pursuing what is in your rational self-interest, a morality of Individualism, not Altruism. Therefore, why would you not apply the same morality of Individualism to guide your career as an entrepreneur, one of the most important choices you will make in your life?
“Only on the basis of the morality of Individualism is each man free to decide what is right for himself, and only himself.”
Ayn Rand
From an Objectivist’s perspective Altruism is wrong because, as stated above, you are responsible for your life and therefore have a right to live your life as you and only you see fit. It is your life to live. As an entrepreneur, your passion, your vision, your creative abilities, your productive achievements are all rightly yours. The only moral justification required to be a creative and productive entrepreneur is that you can be and you want to be.
“The question isn’t who is going to give me permission, but who is going to stop me?”
Ayn Rand
What you choose to produce of value for yourself is singularly sufficient, morally and ethically in and of itself. Entrepreneurship is a morality of self-actualization, not self-sacrifice. It is this pursuit that represents the high moral ground. Entrepreneurs are not born into this world with a debt to their fellow man they are obligated to repay through a lifetime of involuntary service to others. That is Altruism, which is immoral. Individualism claims the high moral ground and is the morality of an Objectivist entrepreneur.
“Productive achievement is man’s noblest ambition.”
Ayn Rand
Individualist’s support liberty and freedom because they believe most entrepreneurs are inherently good; and if left to make their own choices as individuals will act morally with honesty and integrity. Altruists do not have such confidence and believe government coercion and regulation is required to prevent entrepreneurs from immoral, exploitative, oppressive behavior. This is the fundamental difference in the two views of the nature of mankind in general, the Individualists being optimists, the Altruists being pessimists.
To make this issue personal, ask yourself the following question. As an entrepreneur would you lie, cheat, steal, take advantage of and oppress others if there weren’t laws and regulations preventing you from doing so? That is, do you consider yourself an inherently good person, who if left to make your own choices as an individual would conduct your business in a moral manner with honesty and integrity? I suspect you would answer you would. If you are not quite sure, then read the essay on Honesty and Integrity and see if that changes your mind.
In my experience, when asking entrepreneurs this question, virtually everyone replies that they believe they are good and do not have to be coerced or have their behavior regulated. Therefore the follow up question to ask yourself is why would you believe other entrepreneurs and businessmen are substantively different than you are? While there are people who steal and are fraudulent, and there need to be laws to prevent them from doing so, there is no evidence to suggest that the majority of people or even any significant percentage of people would act any differently than you do.
“Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
Milton Friedman
Finally, while the morality of Individualism may be rational, psychologically you may feel it is too unkind and uncaring of others or spiritually devoid to be acceptable. While Objectivists act on reason not emotions even this psychological claim is not true. Being kind, helpful, and benevolent are moral values we should all practice. But it is a voluntary decision to do so if we choose to, not a coerced one. It is the use of coercive force to impose charity which makes it unkind and uncaring itself for all parties.
There is no act less charitable for either the giver or the receiver than the act of forced charity. Psychologically both parties’ feelings of well-being are undermined when charity is forced. For the giver the feeling of well-being that arises from generosity and benevolence is replaced with a feeling of resentment for being forced to give to someone they may not have chosen to give to. For the receiver the feeling of well-being that arises from gratitude and thankfulness is replaced with a feeling of entitlement. This further precipitates envy and resentment for not having received even more. When charity is forced the positive feelings of wellbeing are replaced with negative ones to the detriment of both the giver and the receiver, which is psychologically damaging to both.