.jpeg){kind=small}
Overall, a thoughtful work that reiterates and updates the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand. Although tackling some in-depth issues relating to philosophy and economics, Dahlen keeps his language fairly accessible--one need not be an economist or philosopher to read and understand the work. It is clear that Dahlen's main focus and love is philosophy, as that section of the book is the most in-depth and engaging. He clearly also went to some length to get a good grasp on economics and does a good job explaining his concepts to the readers.
Additionally, Dahlen gives a summary read of Western history, though one that obviously came from second-hand sources, complete with their own point of view baked in. He overstates the religious nature of ancient regimes (many transitioned between priestly and warrior-led regimes in short order, even if the warrior leaders claimed to be deities or other privileges with regard to leading the cults).
He then understates the religious nature of the classical Greco-Roman period, with the interest of making that some sort of secular ideal. While secular thinkers and ideas did exist (alongside more religious thinkers an ideas), it should be remembered the special relationship each Classical Greek city-state had with its protecting deity, and the deified nature of Roman emperors. For that matter, Jews and early Christians were persecuted by the Romans precisely because their refusal to participate in pagan rituals was seen as unpatriotic.
Dahlen blames the Dark Ages on Christian obscurantism, whereas the real history shows the Church was the only institution preserving earlier knowledge from destruction by largely as-yet unchristianized forces (German tribes, Vikings, Huns, Bulgars and other Slavs, etc.). It was warfare and social upheaval that brought on the Dark Ages. While the Church deserves some of the criticism Dahlen levies at it, he tends to paint with a very broad (and ideologically-motivated) brush. For instance, there are still Thomists aplenty in the Church today, so his characterization of Aquinas as a failed force falls flat (see Peter Kreeft for one contemporary example out of many). Dahlen claims the idea of infallibility marring medieval history, when in fact Papal infallibility was not pronounced until 1854. And while clubbing the Church over Galileo, he fails to note why Copernicus and Kepler were not treated the same way (i.e., what other things Galileo did and said that drew such hostility toward himself). Anyway, long and short of it is that it is clear Dahlen is not a historian.
Dahlen conveniently characterizes his own philosophy as "rational" and that of those he disagrees with as "irrational." He should review Ludwig von Mises' Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, which explains that all purposeful human action is "rational." Dahlen would come off as less self-serving should he stick to terms such as "objective" and "subjective," for instance, especially as many of those whom he opposes are openly and admittedly subjectivist.
As for the most interesting part of his work, his philosophy deserves a good look. In short, he lays out the position that the only moral choice is to be a rational egoist. Altruism, or sacrifice of a greater good for a lesser (or none at all) is immoral. He also accepts the premise that people are ends unto themselves, not means to an ends. While reviewing logic, Dahlen reminds us that "If a conclusion contradicts reality or contradicts itself, it is false and must be corrected." (location 936)
Here is where things get interesting. If sacrifice is immoral, then no one can ever be a parent. If one has a child to insure oneself against old age, one is using another person as a means to an ends, and this is immoral. If one has a child for any other reason, such as Dahlen's similarly contradictory admonishment that "A selfish person values others for the joy he derives from another human being's virtues and character." (emphasis in original, location 1058) Clearly, deriving utility from another in this manner is using them as a means to an ends. Rand has this problem too, hence there were no children in her hidden valley utopia in Atlas Shrugged. Likewise, we could not really imagine soldiers, police, firefighters, etc., in a society where sacrifice were actually immoral.
To some extent this can be allayed by noting that some people gain intangible benefits from their apparent sacrifice. In other words, Dahlen's criticism of C.S.Lewis is hollow because Lewis' charity and other sacrifices are to gain Heaven, which cannot be compared to any temporal sacrifice (at least not in Lewis' own worldview). But for secular soldier, firefighters, police, etc., those who have no hope of eternal paradise, or maybe those for whom their specific sacrifices, being secular in nature, might not guarantee such, they have no benefit to equal potentially sacrificing their own lives.
The solution to this problem lies in a review of human beings' own animal instincts. We have both an instinct for survival of self and for survival of species. Granted, there is no "collective" or "society" or "group" without individuals, and such things are only composed of individuals, there remains that there is a human species, and without more than one individual, the species is anyway doomed to extinction. Dahlen (and Rand) are correct in releasing us from the obligation to altruism. After all, as Dahlen points out, practically speaking, there must be a director of altruism, who will certainly net benefit from such and exploit that system and end up crushing both the survival of the individuals and the survival of the species thereby.
But Dahlen and Rand are wrong by levying upon us an obligation toward selfishness. They should stick to their instincts about liberty and freedom here as they do elsewhere. That is, for an individual to choose survival of the species as over and above survival of self is not immoral, provided that is a choice the person freely made.
Apart from this, there are minor areas for criticism and review. For instance, Dahlen claims that "A government limited only to protecting individual rights must be financed through voluntary methods." (location 1176) This completely neglects the obvious and inevitable problem of free riders. Anyway, it would be immoral, from Dahlen's point of view, for some to receive tangible benefits from government (like defense, freedom from criminality, etc.) without paying for them. And if people were to pay for police and courts on a use basis, as Dahlen suggests, then obviously the poor would victimized at will by the rich. Likewise, Dahlen takes a principled stand against eminent domain, and praises private infrastructure projects, while neglecting to note how many of those private infrastructure projects in fact benefited from eminent domain, either already in place or used to finish them. Very long-distance projects are nearly unimaginable without it (i.e., transcontinental railroads, coast-to-coast interstate highways, etc.), and therefore the very commerce and exchange the free market system depends on for its benefits would be limited and undermined.
Overall, this is a welcome addition to the literature and I recommend reading it to anyone with an interest in living in a better world. Dahlen makes an important contribution by insisting that we address the moral basis of whatever system we adopt and consciously think through both the bases and the outcomes of any chosen action. He is correct in correlating the positive or negative outcomes to the fact of their being in accord with morality--moral laws are just as insistent as physical laws, and violations have real consequences in both cases. Given how important this morality is, I would call on Dahlen to review his own understanding of it, since the continued survival of the human species hinges on people sacrificing to have children and undertaking similar survival behavior.