Rational Self-Interest vs. Self-Serving
I am having a little debate with an Objectivist, about this sentence in our book.
"He was being protected by the immoral, self-serving culture of Washington DC. Hank’s face flushed with anger.”
Do you see a problem with using "self-serving" next to "immoral" ? If so, what other word(s) might you use in place of "self-serving."
We were attempting to get across the 'we'll save our own tribe' culture of government. it's not crony-because we want to just focus on from within the government. We saw it last week, with many republicans like Sen. Rubio, backing McConnell's actions. Or I wonder how many park rangers relished the high handed tactics of keeping citizens from using their own property, etc.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
"He was being protected by the immoral, self-serving culture of Washington DC. Hank’s face flushed with anger.”
Do you see a problem with using "self-serving" next to "immoral" ? If so, what other word(s) might you use in place of "self-serving."
We were attempting to get across the 'we'll save our own tribe' culture of government. it's not crony-because we want to just focus on from within the government. We saw it last week, with many republicans like Sen. Rubio, backing McConnell's actions. Or I wonder how many park rangers relished the high handed tactics of keeping citizens from using their own property, etc.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
One of the things that makes me wary of objectivism (and I've expressed this before) is that like all utopian philosophies such as socialism, to work it relies on everybody behaving in certain ways and having certain values in common.
Back to my point... everybody lies. Everybody.
How do I know everybody lies? Because the suicide rate is so low. I've never met a person yet who is willing to see him/herself as s/he truly is.
Take a person who tries to view himself objectively, who does not rationalize his past transgressions to himself to one degree or another... and I'll show you a near-psychotic or potential suicide. Or both. I'll also show you a perpetual failure.
Even Hank Rearden lied to himself to justify his adultery to himself.
Funny that I'm posting this message now.
On tv there's a movie called The Dilemma, where Vince Vaughn sees his best friend's wife kissing another man, but for his best friend's sake decides he has to keep it secret from him.
There's also the moral contract; what words were in their marriage vows? "in sickness and in health, for richer for poorer, for better for worse, cleave only unto..."?
Do two wrongs, in fact, make a right?
In terms of integrity, if you break faith with me, am I still principled, solid, unwavering by breaking faith with you?
I'm not saying he shouldn't have gotten involved with Dagny; I'm saying, being the man he was supposed to be, he would have gotten the divorce far, far sooner, in my opinion.
I sensed in the conversation some "givens" that I felt should be explored rather than assumed.
I didn't have the right or wrong answer; I just believed there was one.
Your question relates to why is not using force against another human important if it doesn't help your happiness.
One might argue that his wife broke the contract (how?), but the resolution for someone with integrity is divorce *before* screwing Dagny.
And now I am asking; why should integrity be important if it doesn't get you what you want? If it actually costs you in terms of money, achievement and/or happiness?
Load more comments...