Are Objectivists really selfish?
What is selfish? How do selfish people act? Below is "the Top Acts of Selfishness" list used in the video posted at,
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/f1...
If you have been taught to be collectively minded; if you believe a forest is a physical thing and not a concept representing individual trees in an area; if you believe that a state is a physical thing and not a concept representing many individual people in an area; you are likely to unthinkingly accept this list as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
So here it is, the Top Acts of Selfishness:
Bad-mouthing someone to look better
Avoiding donating to charity
Failing to let another driver in or give way
Not contacting relatives
Forgetting a birthday
Being unsympathetic
Making what you want for dinner without consulting
Making only your own cup of tea in the office
Giving a smaller portion
Failing to open doors
Not clearing up your mess
Picking a DVD without thinking about a partner
Borrowing something and not returning it
Blaming someone else
Not helping out colleagues
Not handing back money when someone drops it
Pushing into a queue
Not offering a lift
Are the above acts rational? Do they follow the Objectivist virtues?
How many Objectivists do you know that fit this list?
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/f1...
If you have been taught to be collectively minded; if you believe a forest is a physical thing and not a concept representing individual trees in an area; if you believe that a state is a physical thing and not a concept representing many individual people in an area; you are likely to unthinkingly accept this list as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
So here it is, the Top Acts of Selfishness:
Bad-mouthing someone to look better
Avoiding donating to charity
Failing to let another driver in or give way
Not contacting relatives
Forgetting a birthday
Being unsympathetic
Making what you want for dinner without consulting
Making only your own cup of tea in the office
Giving a smaller portion
Failing to open doors
Not clearing up your mess
Picking a DVD without thinking about a partner
Borrowing something and not returning it
Blaming someone else
Not helping out colleagues
Not handing back money when someone drops it
Pushing into a queue
Not offering a lift
Are the above acts rational? Do they follow the Objectivist virtues?
How many Objectivists do you know that fit this list?
Selfish, to me, is different from self-interest. I'm currently reading (slow read) the Virtue of Selfishness and do not yet profess to understand Rand (Objectivists) definition of the word. However, I do understand self-interest, as my Founding Fathers did, and none of those things above strike me as legitimate at face value. While the individual has every right to be all of the above, for whatever reason he/she chooses, it certainly won't win him companionship, friends, co-workers support.
So this list of "Top Acts of Selfishness" is actually against the individual's self-interest. AND THERE IS THE CONTRADICTION.
Check the premises, such as, does the list really represent the most selfish acts? Does a selfish act need to be thoughtless? Are truly selfish acts about the short term? Is selfishness irrational?
There are many trying to convince the world the only answer is, "yes", to all of the above.
The video within in the post linked above debunks selfishness as being so irrational using their own list.
Lets not forget that people are social creatures...how you project your self-interest directly correlates to how (and if) people interact with you.
Within the psychological description of selfishness are two concepts; the first is self interest, the second is self centeredness. In general self interest we think we've got a good handle on-being interested in one's own good. The second is where we seem to get confused, that being the taking form-I'm the only one that counts, etc.
Self Interest - allows others to have their own self interest. Self Centeredness - takes all to themselves and doesn't allow the sharing of the right.
My 2 bits.
"... [then she contrasts the distortions and past fighting for control of term liberal]...
"... When what is being disguised or destroyed is not exactly what you uphold, then drop the word and use another." -- AR, The Art of Nonfiction
Self-interest, on the other hand, to me, is doing/saying things solely to satisfy things which are to your own benefit (you keep your $1 that the homeless guy asked for because you need it for yourself because you business is doing poorly and money is tight.).
I'm not sure there are things called greed or hubris. Both of those things are subjective to other people interpretation of your actions.
Greed is defined as "excessive desire for something of value."
"Excessive" by who's standard? Another package deal that implies "others" making a subjective judgement of 'how much'. I would define greed as "desire for the unearned."
"Excessive" by who's standard? Another package deal that implies "others" making a subjective judgement of 'how much'. I would define greed as "desire for the unearned.""
Good point.
Being rude and impolite is a lack of courtesy not a virtue.
1) I just like to, and it's my short life to do whatever I want with.
2) Maybe people will reciprocate.
3) Maybe I can get a network of people who will do it not out of reciprocity but because it makes us all stronger than the sum of our parts. (The goal is individual strength. The network is just a means.)
4) There's a psychological thing inside me that goes off when I fix someone's problem. It gets me thinking "what can I fix next"? "Whom can I help next?" "How can I serve (for money not guns) people?" This thinking leads to actions that get things I want.
Read Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Piekoff; or The Virtue of Selfishness for more detailed analysis on the subject.
As far as Objectivists acting unselfishly, it depends on how you define an Objectivist.
this list rubs me the wrong way. there may be times when someone drops money and I will not stop and pick it up for them. Someone else may deserve the blame, I have definitely avoided giving to charity before, and there are plenty of relatives I am not contacting regularly. I'd rather discuss the forest question
Here is a good (old) discussion about the difference between labeling objectively real things vs labeling subjective collections of objectively real things,
https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/...
"Any group or “collective,” large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. In a free society, the “rights” of any group are derived from the rights of its members through their voluntary, individual choice and contractual agreement, and are merely the application of these individual rights to a specific undertaking. Every legitimate group undertaking is based on the participants’ right of free association and free trade. (By “legitimate,” I mean: noncriminal and freely formed, that is, a group which no one was forced to join.)"-AR, Virtue of Selfishness. Here is the section on "Collectivized Rights."
http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas...
No. "society" is a label of a subjective collections of objectively real things (including many individuals)
So "society rights" can not exist since "society" is not even an objectively real thing.
A post (from the link above) by, Dave Bockman,
"Trees exist as discrete individual entities we conceptually label 'tree'. In other words, the human mind has objectively (through an objective standard, language) labeled an objectively real aggregation of atoms which exists in empirical reality. In the case of forests (or bushels, or bunches, or pods, or schools, or prides, or cultures, or societies, etc.) the human mind objectively (through an objective standard, language) labels a subjective collection of an objectively real aggregation of atoms which exists in empirical reality.
Is there anything wrong with objectively labeling a subjective collection of discrete individual entities such as a forest of trees, or a bushel of apples, or a class of people? No, not in and of itself-- in fact it's quite handy and useful in many instances in order to facilitate the transmission of ideas. ****** The problem is when people try to ascribe qualities to these subjective groupings which they simply cannot possess. "Society demands that we get tough on crime" is a typical example. Is that helpful?"
Dave
yes. how do you apply that to corporations then?
Yet, if you think about how a cooperative society of six people could run, you see the individuals. If you think about how a cooperative society of a million people could run, the individuals typically disappear and a state like thing takes their place. Yet it is still in reality many many individuals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRXNNqNf...
Ayn Rand's villains engage in this behavior. The heroes focus on getting things actually done rather than looking like they're getting things done.
Are shellfish Objectivists?