Hello, My Name is Cameron

[cma]

Hi, I just joined. About me:

I like Science, politics, debate, phychology, reading, thinking, music, and philosophy

I live in Charlotte, NC, USA

That is about it. I would like to volunteer and do some work for this great website. My overall goal for life is to change the world for the better.

[AshRyan]

...My overall goal for life is to change the world for the better.

...For your own selfish benefit, I hope?

Welcome to the forums.

[iouswuoibev]

Hello and welcome.

...For your own selfish benefit, I hope? 

I would argue that this is a slight misrepresentation of objectivism. I think the issue is not of self benefit but of self interest. One could construe stealing as being for ones 'selfish benefit', but not for one's self interest. One can benefit others lives in their self interest, but not to their benefit. But, I am the less experienced student of objectivism, so feel free to tell me why I am wrong.

[y_feldblum]

One could construe

Modern philosophy is proud of being merely one big word game. Objectivism is proud of the opposite.

I think the issue is not of self benefit but of self interest.

I think benefit ought to be taken as a synonym of interest, and not construed as something with slightly different but all-changing nuances. Keep in mind that "selfish benefit" and "self-interest" are always long-range.

[RationalBiker]

I think the issue is not of self benefit but of self interest. One could construe stealing as being for ones 'selfish benefit', but not for one's self interest.

Well, that can be taken further along your line of thinking. It can be construed that stealing is also in your self interest, but not in one's rational self-interest. Rational self-interest represents the long term or long range. Self-interest itself doesn't make that distinction.

And welcome to the forum cma!

VES

[AwakeAndFree]

This is silly. Stealing is not in your interest OR your benefit - if you consider the consequences.

[RationalBiker]

if you consider the consequences.

Hence the addition of the word "rational".

But you're right, this is digressing....

VES

[AwakeAndFree]

So let me bring it back to topic: Welcome, Cameron!

[AshRyan]

Hence the addition of the word "rational".

That is a redundancy. It's a necessary one in today's altruistic culture, but should not be on this board.

iouswuoibev,

One can benefit others lives in their self interest, but not to their benefit.

How can something be in one's interest, but not benefit him at all? What exactly is the distinction you are making? Is there some reason that you don't think the terms should be used synonymously in this context?

[oldsalt]

Welcome Cameron.

You guys just went off the deep end.

[visaplace]

"Deep End"? What do you mean by this? Where is your referent?

Please people just say "Hello, Welcome".

Rationalists are easy to spot a mile away.

[AshRyan]

"Deep End"? What do you mean by this? Where is your referent?

Please people just say "Hello, Welcome".

Rationalists are easy to spot a mile away.

To whom are you referring as rationalists? Those (such as myself) who asked questions to try to clarify the other posters' positions? Those who think that clarity and accuracy are important for objective communication?

The issue of whether there is a difference between "interest" and "benefit" that started this little debate is not a trivial one. If it doesn't interest you, don't join the discussion. But don't just throw around names like "rationalist" without providing any justification for it (or even making it clear to whom you're referring).

[oldsalt]

Oops! Never mind Edited June 22, 2004 by oldsalt

[oldsalt]

If anyone gives a rats behind, I said "deep end" as a joke. This is the place for introductions and here everybody was plunging into a discussion. I didn't mean that what was being discussed was in anyway invalid. After making an observation once (on this board) that I thought was funny, but went horribly flat, I promised never to do that again. I should have remembered my promise and kept quiet.

Visaplace:

I'd like to know what physical characteristic(s) a rationalist possesses that allows one to spot him a mile away (she said as she did a cannonball off the high dive).

[iouswuoibev]

How can something be in one's interest, but not benefit him at all? What exactly is the distinction you are making?

I think the thread I started on pets demonstrates a case of someone's interest not benefiting them. I think I should clarify: when I say self-benefit, I mean the result of an action promoting one's life.

Is there some reason that you don't think the terms should be used synonymously in this context?

In this context, I think it is fairly appropriate to use the phrase 'self-benefit', but I think it is more precise to say 'self-interest'. Benevolence as a long-term habit (virtue) can be of self-benefit, but individual cases are not tantamount to promoting my life. Whether I help one old lady across the street or pass on by, makes absolutely no difference to my life. Whether I would feel good about doing such a thing is a measure of my character, and how much benevolence I have.

To summarise, I think 'self-interest' can describe things that are for your own benefit, or they can be things that are neutral. But they cannot be things that are contrary to promoting your life. 'Self-benefit' can only mean the first.

[DPW]

I think the thread I started on pets demonstrates a case of someone's interest not benefiting them. I think I should clarify: when I say self-benefit, I mean the result of an action promoting one's life.

Could you clarify this point, because I can't imagine that which is one's interest not benefiting him. Or do you mean, a thing which one finds interesting?

In this context, I think it is fairly appropriate to use the phrase 'self-benefit', but I think it is more precise to say 'self-interest'. Benevolence as a long-term habit (virtue) can be of self-benefit, but individual cases are not tantamount to promoting my life. Whether I help one old lady across the street or pass on by, makes absolutely no difference to my life. Whether I would feel good about doing such a thing is a measure of my character, and how much benevolence I have.

This is a completely wrong approach. You're trying to judge acts rather than identify principles. The question is, is it in your interest to act justly (of which benevolence is an aspect)? If yes, then you can evaluate concretes, such as helping an old lady across the street. Now, once you identify your principles, you will find that some choices within that principle are optional, but that doesn't imply that there's a dichotomy or even an important distinction between acting on principle and whether or not a particular act benefits your life. Acting on principle does benefit your life.

To put it another way, since acting on principle is in your interest, every principled action you take benefits your life even if the immediate gains are not apparent.

[iouswuoibev]

Could you clarify this point, because I can't imagine that which is one's interest not benefiting him.  Or do you mean, a thing which one finds interesting?

Yes, I wasn't making a distinction between one's interest and what one finds interesting. I don't think the word 'self-interest' makes that distinction either...

Acting on principle does benefit your life.

To put it another way, since acting on principle is in your interest, every principled action you take benefits your life even if the immediate gains are not apparent.

I agree, so far as one chooses the correct principles. But according to my principles, I don't see how helping an old lady across the street is a principled action, or how helping a thousand old ladies brings any gain, immediate or not. Would these actions not in fact be benevolent?

[DPW]

I agree, so far as one chooses the correct principles. But according to my principles, I don't see how helping an old lady across the street is a principled action, or how helping a thousand old ladies brings any gain, immediate or not. Would these actions not in fact be benevolent?

Well, first you'd have to define benevolence and explain why it is a virtue. I said it is an aspect of justice, but a very delimited one. It certainly doesn't imply that you should always act to help others. Not helping an old lady across the street, therefore, would not be a breach of benevolence, just as your failure to buy something from every store you pass is not a violation of the trader principle.

But let's say we determined it would be an optional choice within in a valid moral principle (to help an old lady across a street, that is). In what way would you benefit? Well, it's impossible to say - she might be rich and decide to put you in her will, or she may have a single grand-daughter you'd like to pounce on.

What we can say, however, is that you gain in at least one very real sense: you've acted according to a rational principle (even though the action was an optional choice within that principle). No matter the particular gain that results, therefore, you've gained.

Let me put it another way. If I am on a diet, and I walk past a bowl of M&Ms I'm not supposed to have, I might think to myself: "Why don't I eat just one? The effects will be negligable, after all, and the benefits will be delicious!" But then I look down at my pudgy belly and remember that in order to succeed, I have to stick to my diet consistently. What I have gained, in such a case, is more than just the fact of not ingesting a few extra calories: I have reinforced my principles and helped reassure my long range success. Notice that most people do not break their diets by saying, "I'm going to eat as much as I want." They make a single small exception, and that destroys their will.

When we act on principle, even when the particular consequences seem small, the long range effects of reaffirming our commitment to our principles is huge.

[P.S. If there are any confusions in the above, I apologize and feel free to ask for a clarification but I simply don't have time to review and edit it right now!]

[iouswuoibev]

When we act on principle, even when the particular consequences seem small, the long range effects of reaffirming our commitment to our principles is huge.

[P.S.  If there are any confusions in the above, I apologize and feel free to ask for a clarification but I simply don't have time to review and edit it right now!]

No, I understood it loud and clear. I can see why reaffirming a commitment is valuable. That was a very helpful explanation.