German Gómez 

 The word "Reason" seems to arise much dispute over its meaning and its role in human interaction. In fact, it is easy to find numerous definitions of "Reason" and its application to decision making. The field of Ethics provides a great example of such differences over "Reason" and its purpose. This divergence can be found in its greatest exponent when comparing Ayn Rand’s idea of "Reason" to the one provided by Emmanuel Kant’s philosophy. Although both points of view see "Reason" as an essential factor in human action, both differ greatly in the direction it may conduct the individual’s behavior and actions. Specifically, Ayn Rand’s "Reason" leads the person into a path of seeking happiness through the fulfillment of self-interest. On the other hand, Kant’s "Reason" holds the idea that happiness can’t be found without considering others’ conditions and looking for the satisfaction of self-interest. In reality, Kant presents a more altruistic view of "Reason".

To begin, Ayn Rand establishes "Reason" as the sole guide to a person’s decision making. In this sense, "’Reason’ is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action" (Darbolo, p.2). Perhaps Reason’s greatest impact is not found in the term itself but in the results it brings forth. A person’s "Reason" guides him or her to fulfill his self-interest or the goals that he believes best for him or her as a means of achieving happiness. Thus, a person’s "Reason" dictates the mandate that acting selfishly can be considered the highest goal of the individual. After all, self-interest can’t exist without being directly tied to a certain degree of selfishness. This so called highest goal boils down to the ideal of self-preservations through the use of one’s "Reason". Consequently, "Reason" is "able to direct the actions and provide for the survival of the individual"(Rand, p.21). Through her doctrine Rand portrays human existence as the constant seeking of individual objectives and interests. Indeed, every living person has the natural right and ability to seek his or her own personal well being without much concern for that of other people. It is evident that this symbolizes the victory of individualism or the individual as the ultimate end. Morality is therefore places under the guidance of self-interest. Deciding as to whether an action is moral or immoral becomes a mere question of how will it help the individual to fulfill his or her goals. The individual becomes the end of his actions and implicitly self-preservation.

Making self-interest the objective or rule of thumb for one’s actions destroys every possibility for altruism to exist in human interaction. The concern for other people is thus overridden. As a result, "happiness id the state of consciousness which proceeds form the achievement of one’s values"(Rand, p.28). Disregarding others when taking action becomes the most controversial aspect of Rand’s philosophy. Should a person have the right to believe himself or herself as the ultimate goal? Aren’t the individual’s selfish acts a possible source of injustice and wrong doing? These are questions that arise from the advocacy of self-interest. Rand quickly answers such questions by appealing to human nature. In reality not everyone is created equally. As a result, everyone must strive for self-improvement. This can only come about with the proper use of "Reason". "Reason" thus becomes the universal and innate tool for every individual. By linking human nature to "Reason", Rand converts the advocacy for self-interest into a mere natural process to be followed. Worrying about one’s own interest is nothing more than following the law of nature. "Reason" is used to act but away from altruism. Clearly, "Objectivism rejects any form of altruism—the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society"(Darbolo, p.2).

Emmanuel Kant also sees "Reason" as the fundamental factor for human action. It is in fact this "Reason" which differentiates us from other animals. In other words, "we are able to conform our actions to our ideas of how the world might be or should be"(Darbolo, p.3). Like Rand, Kant emphasizes the role played by "Reason" in human action. Kant’s point of view, however, takes the individual in a different course of actions. When using "Reason" to act, in the Kantian view, the person must consider the full effects of his or her actions. For this, the person must ask if a specific course of actions can become a universal rule. The person must consider what would happen if everyone acted in the same manner. It is evident that Kant’s use of "Reason" take a person in a different direction. No longer should the person be concerned with self-interest but with the effects of his or her actions on the society as a whole. "Reason" serves as a guide for acting but in a very altruistic manner. In this sense, the individual is no longer the end. More specifically, there is a clear advocacy for treating everyone as an end and not a mere means to selfish objective. Kant argues that this condition can be acquired due to the help provided by good will. It is good will what will eventually determine whether an action is virtuous or not. Good will thus creates an environment for acting or decision making which considers other individuals. Truly, "the only thing unqualifiedly good in this world is good will-the will to follow moral law, regardless of profit or loss for ourselves"(Durant, p.209). Good will takes our actions to the realm of duty. It is no longer a choice to act in the correct manner but an obligation towards society. Actions are "only valuable id they originate from duty"(Polanco). Clearly, Kant points out to "Reason" as a guide to action bur from a more altruistic point of view.

In conclusion, the field of Ethics provides examples of conflicting opinions regarding "Reason" and its application. The greatest example is the idea of "Reason" according to Ayn Rand compared to that of Kant. While Rand offers a selfish picture of "Reason", Kant provides an altruistic view. In any case, however, "Reason" is the main factor in human actions and morality.

Polanco, Moris. Notas de Clase, sesion 19. http://www.economia.ufmedu.gt/teorias.html

The Essentials of Objectivism. The Ayn Rand Institute. http://www.aynrand.org/ARI/index.html