Rational Self-Interest vs. Self-Serving

Posted by khalling 12 years, 1 month ago to Philosophy
109 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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.



All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Posted by $ johnrobert2 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    leeches, not leaches. One is a blood sucking worm, the other is removal of salts and minerals from soil. Hmmm. On second thought, 'leach' could be used in this sense but the connotation is not as vivid.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 1 month ago
    I think it is spot on. Immoral is immoral and it's never rational. So immoral self-serving is the opposite of rational self interest. An example of immoral self serving would be Pelossi saying ...well...anything she says because it's usually a lie of some sort or another and she's lying to benefit in some way herself (staying in the good graces of the devil..I mean Bo and that in turn secures her seat). Rational self interesting would be to tell the truth even if you knew it would result in public ridicule and possibly end your position, because keeping your integrity intact is more important then selling out for financial or clout gain.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Currently, financial and clout gain IS more important to politicians than keeping their integrity intact...that's my point. (Unless you're really asking why integrity should be important..?) If politicians we're in touch with integrity they wouldn't lie and steal and bulldoze freedom. No?
    Rearden didn't want to play dirty like politicians...he has integrity... Once they blackmailed him into giving up his patents he realized what he really wanted...to divorce his blood sucking wife who only wanted his money (and to condemn him for it at the same time). He was done playing nice, out of obligation, with leaches. By your comment you would say shrugging was playing dirty too... they broke the laws by leaving their businesses behind. (Playing 'dirty' to save yourself, while not taking from others, is different than politicians playing dirty to steal your wealth.) I don't think it was a "misunderstanding" on the politicians or Rearden's part about how either worked... One is corrupt while the other was trying to survive on it's own merit free of gov intervention and theft..he wasn't going to cave to coercion.
    Now you elaborate...cuz I'm confused by your argument.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Hiraghm 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    why and how is keeping your integrity intact more important than financial or clout gain in Washington DC?

    I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want elaboration.

    One of the problems I had with the movies was that Rearden, in the 1st movie, refused to get "dirty" because he didn't understand the political world (so why condemn people who don't understand the business world, but I digress) , so he got hammered by those who do, then in the 2nd movie, he didn't care if his lawyers had to buy a judge to get him out of his contract with his wife.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    If you are a representative, yes... provided the immorality did NOT violate the Constitution.

    As an example, if you find abortion immoral, but your constituents consistently by a measurable majority favor abortion-on-demand... then either vote as they would want you to vote, or leave office.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    maybe that's the way to "fix" it;

    Remove the comma...

    "He was being protected by the immorally self-serving culture of Washington DC. Hank’s face flushed with anger.”
    ?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    You remind me of the sign in the tobacco aisle of my store: "selling tobacco products to those under 18 is not only wrong... it's illegal!" as if illegality was worse than immorality.

    Self-serving is immoral when it is at the expense of trading value for value, in my opinion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    good one. goodness, I got a luscious review and I know not where it is from. so much for me being a control freak-
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Mimi 12 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Um, no. Do you have a link? Love a good wordsmith! ;)
    Try self-catering in the sentence next to immoral and see if that sounds better to you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ kathywiso 12 years, 1 month ago
    Immoral self serving culture of Washington, DC is correct !!! You are describing a true fact that happens every minute in that town, and it is no wonder that Hank's face flushed with anger !

    Self serving is for oneself above others, but when you are elected into a position to serve others and protect their freedom by taking an oath to protect the law of the land, the Constitution, but serve yourself over fulfilling that promise, is criminal.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MattFranke 12 years, 1 month ago
    I would say that the proper use of the two terms together could only become a problem depending on the context. Since the statement is qualified with a mention of D.C., I think, that it is well put as "immoral, self-serving"; which I doubt an Objectively minded individual would confuse with an opposite idea, like "moral self-interest".
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo