The Virtue Of Selfishness
Wikipedia definition:
"Selfishness is placing concern with oneself or one's own interests above the well-being or interests of others.[1][2] Selfishness is the opposite of altruism or selflessness..."
In the recent interview with Mr. Aglialoro, producer of AS movies, he was asked a question about the collection of Ayn Rand's essays titled "The Virtue Of Selfishness." He answered by joking, that he thought Rand must have been having "a bad hair day" when she chose the title.
In fact, it was not the original working title for the essays, mostly compiled articles in The Objectivist. But that for another post. I wanted to ask those in the Gulch about how they view the meaning of selfishness. Did Rand distort the definition for her own philosophical purposes? If the definition above stands in the philosophy of Objectivism, is it necessary, when conversing with those not familiar with Rand's works or perhaps misled, to qualify the word "selfish" with words like "ethical" or completely change "selfish" with "rational self interest?" I look forward to your thoughts on this....
"Selfishness is placing concern with oneself or one's own interests above the well-being or interests of others.[1][2] Selfishness is the opposite of altruism or selflessness..."
In the recent interview with Mr. Aglialoro, producer of AS movies, he was asked a question about the collection of Ayn Rand's essays titled "The Virtue Of Selfishness." He answered by joking, that he thought Rand must have been having "a bad hair day" when she chose the title.
In fact, it was not the original working title for the essays, mostly compiled articles in The Objectivist. But that for another post. I wanted to ask those in the Gulch about how they view the meaning of selfishness. Did Rand distort the definition for her own philosophical purposes? If the definition above stands in the philosophy of Objectivism, is it necessary, when conversing with those not familiar with Rand's works or perhaps misled, to qualify the word "selfish" with words like "ethical" or completely change "selfish" with "rational self interest?" I look forward to your thoughts on this....
So, I have no reason to compromise on this. If someone balks at "selfishness" it is pretty easy to explain enlightened self-interest and eudaimonia in a sentence or two. And you never have to convince anyone of anything. They can be wrong and you can let that happen.
your last sentence is interesting. "when does it become destructive."
In Objectivism, rational self interest is a state of being. By its very meaning, there is no destructive quality. A man may act against his nature, and that can be destructive. For example, Rand would not weigh an action in one's own self interest less than something more altruistic.
"By elevating the issue of helping others into the central and primary issue of ethics, altruism has destroyed the concept of any authentic benevolence or good will among men. It has indoctrinated men with the idea that to value another human being is an act of selflessness, thus implying that a man can have no personal interest in others—that to value another means to sacrifice oneself—that any love, respect or admiration a man may feel for others is not and cannot be a source of his own enjoyment, but is a threat to his existence, a sacrificial blank check signed over to his loved ones." AR, The Virtue of Selfishness
Eating to sustain life.
Doing a good dead for the reward of heaven.
Exercising while you could be spending that time on something more altruistic.
We are all 3 meals away from being a liar, 6 meals away from being a thief and 9 meals away from being a murderer. We are all selfish to what degree is the question; when does it become destructive. Was it a trick question?
it would be lively and engaging AND you would have gotten it.
I'm just not sold on the flies to honey thing. first of all, I abhor flies.
This is very interesting. Emotion plays a huge role in discussions of altruism vs selfishness. But I would like to point out that we do not read "The Little Red Hen" in college. It is one of the first fables we read to our children.
In play groups or at the park, when my children were toddlers, one deals at the onset of two years old, "mine!."
usually parents will scramble initially to mitigate friendly fire. Then, once you become comfortable with on another, and discussions happen while the kids are playing, and you get a sense of people's politics or overall vagueness depending,
the "mine" mitigation dance changes. I am always struck by how those parents whose views on altruism are very deep in their foundational make up are the worst at teaching their children to share. Like it's only skin deep. There are a myriad of caveats to sharing in play group. A whole gray area of special rules for why the altruistic parent's child will not have to share-this time.
"Hopefully" being the operative word there.
Most of the time, the opposition is so dug-in, wanting only to prove me wrong, that it doesn't matter what I say. They end up being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian - in the back of their minds only thinking that because we may disagree, I must be wrong... about everything.
That's the case with the hardcore left anyway.
On the rare occasion, I run into someone actually seeking the truth enjoying the depth and wanting to go deeper. If we can get past natural rights, I can usually make my way to "selfishness" with a smile and a "Wow" from the target. But again, it's rare.
I try to remember Rand's "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone." It helps keep me on the lookout for the irrational with hopes of eventually finding the reasonable.
Selfishness is absolutely foundational to free market capitalism. Altruism is foundational to slavery.
Often, a discussion with a alleged fellow free market person, who does not understand these foundations, you will run into all sorts of contradictions. example: importance of property rights.
Rand did not "dumb down" her philosophy to make it more accessible. If she had, Atlas Shrugged would not have been such an important book.
how I approach people when discussing Rand for the first time: The way it (discussion of selfishness) normally comes up, usually I'll ask if the person is familiar with Rand and her philosophy. If liberal, they will immediately go right to the topic of selfish which they equate with evil. Or they will try to discredit Rand personally.
Or I'm having a political/economic discussion, not about Rand, and quickly people who dislike free market/capitalism broach the subject of "we've got to help people" "it's not fair" "equality." though not explicit, selfish is still in the room, if one is supporting laissez faire. For me, at this juncture, I determine whether to head in the direction of most efficient way of achieving the desired result (if the person just wants to see everyone doing better economically) or taking on altruism (if the person seems bent on punishing producers to support nonproducers).
Once the movies came out, it is so much easier. you re in a discussion of "do you like where the world is headed," I suggest the movie, briefly talk about AS and wait until they come back with more discussion.
I have no illusions that I can talk "the other side" into seeing the movie, and so I generally don't, unless it's to say-hey go to the movie and you can sharpen your own arguments! they won't convert but the movie ticket is still bought, or the rental made.
You will never win a debate by marginalizing your position right out of the gate with a prejudice word such as "selfish". Never mind that you are prepared to debate the definition of "selfish" until the cows come home...your audience is not on that level, and have emotionally left you at the get go. You 'talk down to them' until you can get your point across.
Don't be too smart by a half, and then wonder why no one is following you when you look behind. The definition of "pedantic" may apply here....
You are intellectually superior in this regard, but if you take that superiority too seriously, then you are not the right person to promote the cause.
Visually picture yourself explaining to the Taggart train engineer why it is in his best interest to shut down his train and walk away, and you will see that your argument will not start with a long winded debate about selfishness. It can include the concept, but would be worded (semantics) differently.
Like I said hours ago: 'you attract more flies with honey, etc.'
That's an interesting twist on total crap, and altruism IS a dirty word.
I wasn't suggesting we avoid the discussion. I was suggesting quite the opposite - a logical course arriving eventually at calculus (the definition, and virtue, of selfishness).
To understand why John took that route, you only need to remember that those on the other side have read very few books at all, let alone the same books you and I have.
I'm sure you've had a ton more discussions than I have...almost none of mine have worked so I'm no flippin' expert.
The discussion of reason can come before selfishness.... and probably should. Talking about my own self initiation into Rand I wouldn't have been lured in with selfishness (or provocatively compelled) like I was into understanding reason and logic. The word "selfishness" alone invokes an emotional reaction.... it makes sense to tackle it later.
Load more comments...