"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil"
About this Quote
Ayn Rand condenses her moral philosophy into a hard-edged rule: on matters of principle, the idea of a virtuous middle ground is a trap. One position accords with reason and individual rights; its opposite violates them. Meeting halfway in such cases does not produce justice but grants moral sanction to the wrong side while crippling the right. The image she favored is practical and stark: mixing food with poison does not yield a safer meal; compromising with a thief by surrendering half your wallet does not turn theft into trade.
The context is Rand’s Objectivism and her mid-20th-century polemics against collectivism, especially in the essay The Cult of Moral Grayness in The Virtue of Selfishness. She was writing in a cultural climate that prized moderation and pragmatism, often framing political and ethical conflicts as disputes where balance is the highest virtue. Rand rejected this as moral relativism dressed as civility. For her, individual rights are absolute, the initiation of force is evil, truth is objective, and reason is the only means of knowledge. When those fundamentals are at stake, compromise means endorsing a contradiction and empowering aggression. A policy that splits the difference between free trade and coercive controls erodes liberty; a middle line between honesty and deception still corrupts trust.
She did not oppose all compromise. Bargaining over price between two honest traders is proper because both sides share the same principles and are negotiating details, not surrendering the good to the evil. The warning targets those who, out of fear, expediency, or the desire to appear fair, blur moral lines where clarity is required.
Critics see a perilous absolutism here, arguing that life presents mixed cases and imperfect knowledge. Rand answers that moral uncertainty should prompt better thinking, not a reflexive dash to the center. When right and wrong are genuinely at issue, the middle is a vote for wrong.
The context is Rand’s Objectivism and her mid-20th-century polemics against collectivism, especially in the essay The Cult of Moral Grayness in The Virtue of Selfishness. She was writing in a cultural climate that prized moderation and pragmatism, often framing political and ethical conflicts as disputes where balance is the highest virtue. Rand rejected this as moral relativism dressed as civility. For her, individual rights are absolute, the initiation of force is evil, truth is objective, and reason is the only means of knowledge. When those fundamentals are at stake, compromise means endorsing a contradiction and empowering aggression. A policy that splits the difference between free trade and coercive controls erodes liberty; a middle line between honesty and deception still corrupts trust.
She did not oppose all compromise. Bargaining over price between two honest traders is proper because both sides share the same principles and are negotiating details, not surrendering the good to the evil. The warning targets those who, out of fear, expediency, or the desire to appear fair, blur moral lines where clarity is required.
Critics see a perilous absolutism here, arguing that life presents mixed cases and imperfect knowledge. Rand answers that moral uncertainty should prompt better thinking, not a reflexive dash to the center. When right and wrong are genuinely at issue, the middle is a vote for wrong.
Quote Details
| Topic | Ethics & Morality |
|---|
More Quotes by Ayn
Add to List
