Promoting selfishness: good or bad?

[Dorian]

Before I start I want to say I agree with Ayn Rand, selfishness is important. I think it is an important aspect of being a moral and honest human being.

However, I often find promoting "selfishness" with friends to be negative because I am fighting my ability to communicate. I am fighting semantics.

When I tell someone I am selfish it is open for interpretation. It can be read as either a negative or positive, and for someone who has not read any of Ayn Rand's book I imagine it will most likely be a negative. This is the basis of my argument, generally people will view selfishness as a negative. People can be selfish and immoral OR selfish and moral.

So I was thinking there must be another way to communicate the "virtue of selfishness" without easily discrediting myself by stating I am selfish to someone who does not understand my intent.

I think from this point forward I will say it is good to be individualistic or self-interested.

One thing I am learning as I get older (and yes I know I am still young for anyone that wants to point out my age) is that it doesn't hurt to be diplomatic. I don't believe in bending on my ideals or compromising on my ideals. What I mean by being diplomatic is not that. I just don't want to scare off anyone by having them think I am abrasive.

Aside from all this I do agree with discouraging the promotion of being selfless. It's easy to describe to someone the fallacy in using selfless to describe someone in a positive way.

I'm curious what other objectivist here think, do you agree? Does the word selfish work against us?

[Prometheus98876]

I know what you mean when you say that saying you are selfish might not be taken as a good thing by most people (does not really help that they dont usually know what the word really means, or understand what the word really means).

First of all, if you tell someone you are selfish and if you are in any doubt as to whether or not they know exactly what you mean, explain it fully and accuretely so that they cannot honestly claim they dont understand, or miscontrue you without evasion (if they are going to evade this early, the whole discussion is most likely pointless as they are unlikely to be convinced). Use whatever terms you wish as long as they truly express your idea as efficently as possible, the exact words you use are not as important as getting your idea across well.

Sometimes it is best to word your message in different ways, sure, but dont comprimise your message, if they refuse to get it, dont make a big deal out of it, they probably arent worth dealing with, and hopefully you wont have to.

I dont think the word selfish works agaisnt us, unless you fail to back it up with proper arguments, then you might represent yourself and your philosophical as fully thought out, integrated whole, which isnt exactly a good thing. If you do this, no it doesnt work against "us"...

[DavidOdden]

I am fighting semantics.

Are you? IMPO, you are not, but that's from a technical perspective. What exactly does that mean (that you're fighting semantics). What does "semantics" mean to you, what are you trying to distinguish it from? How can you "fight semantics"?

[Korthor]

I think the "semantics" issue is that the word "selfish" carries lots of baggage in people's minds, baggage that has nothing to do or is even the opposite of what Objectivism intended.

One possibility is to use a phrase like "rational egoist." The unusualness of the phrase makes it less likely to carry baggage, and it might prompt their curiosity, thereby giving you an opportunity to fully explain what you mean.

Edited April 14, 2007 by softwareNerd
Removed duplicated text

[Spano]

What kind of context are you using the word selfish? In my experience, philosophical issues like this don't come up until I have established some rapport with the person I'm talking to. In other words, I've never needed to say "Hi, my name is Noah, and I'm intransigently selfish", at which point the person draws back in moral revulsion. More likely, the person already knows me to some extent, has evaluated me as good-natured etc, and if I mentioned that I adhere to a morality of selfishness, they'd be more curious as to what exactly I mean than repulsed. It doesn't take much to say "I'm selfish on principle, by which I mean...."

If somebody is such an altruist that even the mere mention of the word selfish has them ready to condemn, than they aren't worth my time anyway. Fortunately, most people allow you to offer at least another couple sentences to explain yourself before they write you off entirely.

Edited April 14, 2007 by Spano

[Dorian]

Are you? IMPO, you are not, but that's from a technical perspective. What exactly does that mean (that you're fighting semantics). What does "semantics" mean to you, what are you trying to distinguish it from? How can you "fight semantics"?

Sorry I wasn't clear. I suppose that doesn't make much sense, what I meant by that is I generally have to deal with explaining what I mean, deal with meaning. Fight with meaning.

One example I can think of is when a friend of mine was calling someone selfish and said this person put himself before others in a tone as if it were a negative. Then I said I am selfish and I had to explain what I meant because I just put myself in the same category as someone who was being selfish and immoral. My friend is not altruistic, but he is just used people using the word selfish as a negative and selfless as a positive, so he did the same obviously without thinking about the meaning of what he said. I can't blame him either, I'm sure I have at one point or another repeated a common saying that was against my principles without realizing it.

Anyways, in this context the word selfish worked against me. I now had to spend time explaining what I meant and dig myself out of a hole. I think if I found another way to put it I would have started in a better position and worked up, and probably saved time.

Edited April 15, 2007 by Dorian

[Moebius]

When I don't have the time to actually sit down and explain my philosophical outlooks (or when I don't think the other person is particularly interested), I tend to only comment specifically on what should be done in that particular situation rather than explain the principles behind my reasoning.

You can generally save yourself the effort of explaining yourself if you keep your comments strictly in context. Like if your friend said "so and so is so selfish because he did this", you don't have start of with "but I am selfish too", but rather "well he's wrong in this case because [insert reasoning], but if I was in that situation I would [insert reasoning]". In most situations people generally understand inherently the virtue of selfishness without it having to be explained explicitly to them (since it's rational), as long as you explain the morality and the practical application/implication separately.

[DavidOdden]

Anyways, in this context the word selfish worked against me. I now had to spend time explaining what I meant and dig myself out of a hole.

Okay. I usually don't start by saying that I'm selfish, because people don't understand. So I describe what selfishness is and why the alternative is bad, and at some point may mention that this is being "selfish".

[tps_fan]

This is the basis of my argument, generally people will view selfishness as a negative. People can be selfish and immoral OR selfish and moral.

So I was thinking there must be another way to communicate the "virtue of selfishness" without easily discrediting myself by stating I am selfish to someone who does not understand my intent.

The only way that you could really discredit yourself is if you sold out the idea of selfishness e.g. by capitulating to a bad moral premise, by equivocating the term with something wholly different, etc.

Think of it this way, you aren't doing yourself or other Objectivists any favors if you completely avoid the idea of selfishness when the idea's discussion is warranted.

I think from this point forward I will say it is good to be individualistic or self-interested.

One thing I am learning as I get older (and yes I know I am still young for anyone that wants to point out my age) is that it doesn't hurt to be diplomatic. I don't believe in bending on my ideals or compromising on my ideals.

Granted, there is an art to how you present ideas. The key as far as that goes is that you have to take the context of the person who you are speaking to in consideration. In other words, you have to think in terms of your audience, but anyone who communicates should do that anyway.

One of my standing orders is roughly this: You don't have to be the first one to discuss selfishness, but if _anyone you are communicating with_ does mention the concept, then at that point you can't let the idea (and by implication you!) be smeared without a counterargument.

Further than that, you will also have to (quickly!) decide if the person is worth discussing issues with beyond certain points. This may be an issue if and when they argue over basic principles in a counterproductive way. That is, it also depends on how the other person(s) present(s) his/their arguments. For example, if the person in question goes into a circular argument. e.g. "Well, that's bad because it's selfish, and selfishness is bad....", then you might want to highlight that error in particular before going further. There would likely be other logical errors intertwined within a typical anti-selfish argument, so if you can separate those errors as well, then it might help.

Of course, there is great use in getting to essentials. For example, you don't want to focus on just tangential elements of just one specific case if it means that an adversary thinks he can get away with smearing an entire Objectivist concept.

I really think that Objectivists should spend more time reviewing logic for several reasons e.g. better error identification, more essentialized thinking, more concise speech, etc.

Ultimately, you don't want to forgo either the relevant "forest" (abstractions) or "the trees" (concretes). (You can refer to what Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff say about Intrinsicism and Subjectivism vs. Objectivism aka the IOS trichotomy for more help.)

[Worker8]

Firstly, I think you should promote selfishness when the occaision is right. Secondly, the occaision is hardly ever right as you will surely need to clarify many points as many people have negative views of selfishness dating back to childhood. To start, I would think it would be useful to quote Mr. Galt in his vow never to live for anyone else or to ask anyone else to live for him; thus showing that by selfishness you don't mean greed without regard for others. Once you have established your definition of selfishness as determination to solve your own problems and make your own way the only way your opponent might go would be to question the responsibility of one man for others. This might range from acting according to the emotions of others, working for those who do not, etc. Anything from here seems easy enough to argue away.

If the person you are talking to is illogical in their method of arguement, don't talk to them.