Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Definition of "selfish", what do we do?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

When explaining Ayn Rand’s ethical theory to my students, I use terms like “rational selfishness” or “objective self-interest,” or some combination like that because of the way self-interest is treated by today’s ethicists. I’ve been a TA for instructors and read articles where self-interest is almost exclusively defined in terms of desire-satisfaction (no matter how irrational) or as the pursuit of the agent’s values (where value is subjectively defined). So, I always differentiate Rand’s view from those views, and that’s why I frequently qualify my use of the term “selfish” or “self-interest” – at least in the classroom.

If you want examples or anecdotes, I’d be happy to discuss them via PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't enjoy the dictionary game one bit. [...] At moments, I think I can make a difference in the big scheme.

Well then why do you persist in it? Does it have something to do with this "big scheme"? What is this "big scheme" of which you speak?

Before you start to consider some "big scheme", your first concern should be with yourself. You will help no one until you understand what selfishness is. What have you done in this regard? What words of Ayn Rand's have you read on the subject? Judging from your posts, I suspect you do not understand what it is to be selfish let alone being able to prove the virtue of selfishness. Of course you can prove me wrong by explaining it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to dissuade you from pursuing what interests you or learning in a way you think appropriate, I'm just disagreeing with you that this is the best method. I don't know how you are going to be able to explain selfishness to anyone else when you don't understand it yourself. This fascination with dictionary definitions is dumbfounding to me. How are you to argue one way or the other until you understand what Ayn Rand meant by selfishness and why she thought that way? I should think you would want to know why Ayn Rand wanted to rescue the term.

These are difficult subjects that require much study to understand and the only way to do it is to read Ayn Rand and then come here and ask questions about what you just read.

If you take the time to understand Objectivism, then you will not be put-off by dictionary definitions or questions such as these:

Plenty of people act in so-called selfish ways, without a rational result. The bank robber killed in the act, the drug dealer in prison, political crooks, etc. What about my selfish brother, who took all of the ice cream and left none for my sister's birthday party?

What a great opportunity to easily demonstrate the concept of selfishness to someone who thinks that these people are acting selfishly. You say with sarcasm lilting your every word: "Yes, these people are so selfish that one is dead, the second two are in jail, and the brother is sick and fat." It should be self-explanatory at that point how none of those things is in their self-interest.

Besides, this thread isn't about debating concepts. We are debating viability of the definition of selfish, as understood by non-Objectivists. I think many here are having a hard time imagining what selfish means to a non-Objectivist.

Sure it is, just like the last thread was, I see no difference between the two threads. Definitions describe concepts. How are you going to debate the validity of the definition of "selfish" without understanding the concept? You shouldn't really care what non-Objectivists think "selfish" means. As long as you understand what Objectivists mean by the concept, then everyone else's objections are easily defeated.

Rational self-interest is a good explanatory phrase but is more like a definition and is redundant. Once you understand what selfishness entails, i.e., how acting rationally and pursuing values is in your interest and how acting irrationally and giving up values is not, then defending selfishness is a battle you are happy to take on. It is the essence of the entire moral struggle going on today and for the last 2000 years.

We need one word which names the concept at the heart of that struggle and to give up "selfishness" when this names exactly what most people need to practice more of, would be like giving up the word "I" because it was considered evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 1:12

Tom Snyder: "Tell me the value of selfishness."

Ayn Rand: "Use another word: self-esteem. The value of selfishness is that you esteem yourself as a value, that you live according to your nature, which means; by the judgment of your own mind. And you respect your own mind, you respect your own ability to do the right thing, therefore you respect the possibility of being a morally virtuous person, and you regard yourself as a value worth preserving."

:wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this position basically amounts to moral cowardice. Selfish means having a primary concern for oneself, in contrasted to selfless (or altruistic) which means having a primary concern for others. In the meaning of the terms, there is no difference between selfishness and rational self-interest. It is important to rescue some terms from the altruistic / subjectivist / faith axis, and the only way to do that fully is to stand up for selfishness as meaning having a primary concern for oneself.

If your friends and associates can't be brought to understand that, and that it is your moral right to be primarily concerned with yourself, then I would suggest getting new friends nor associates. Sometimes with co-workers, you may not have much of a choice, but you can also add that your primary concern for yourself leads to you being the best employee in terms of production and honesty.

Objectivism is a new philosophy, and some terms need to be re-defined in terms of their actual meaning, and not the moralizing that goes with some terms that the dictionaries have been violating for the past 50 years or so. One does not give up on a languages simply out of bad and non-objective dictionary definitions that are a corruption of the English language. Just as one must assert that logical means a non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality as given by observation, to distinguish it from rationalistic deductive word games.

Your entire argument breaks down when you consider that your definition of "selfish" is not it's actual definition. Your definition is wrong. To argue otherwise is indefensible, assuming that you accept (as I'm sure you do) that words do not have intrinsic meanings that exist in nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your entire argument breaks down when you consider that your definition of "selfish" is not it's actual definition. Your definition is wrong. To argue otherwise is indefensible, assuming that you accept (as I'm sure you do) that words do not have intrinsic meanings that exist in nature.

Arguing from definitions without referring to reality and the referent is rationalism, something else Objectivism is against. If the rest of humanity is corrupt in thinking selfishness means the bank robber, the Christian, and the hedonist, then it is up to the new intellectuals to point out that such actions are not for oneself -- that they are actually against respect and concern for oneself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguing from definitions without referring to reality and the referent is rationalism, something else Objectivism is against. If the rest of humanity is corrupt in thinking selfishness means the bank robber, the Christian, and the hedonist, then it is up to the new intellectuals to point out that such actions are not for oneself -- that they are actually against respect and concern for oneself.

These arguments are really laughable. What in the hell is corrupt about thinking that a word is best defined by the way most people use it? You need to take a linguistics class...because this is how languages are formed. The word "selfish" does not belong to you and it is not yours to surrender or defend. It belongs to the English-speaking world, of which the Objectivist community is but a minute fraction of a percentage.

To support this ridiculous argument, you are burdened with showing why "selfish" has an intrinsic definition. You can't just assert, as is apparently your wont, that the rest of humanity has it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These arguments are really laughable. What in the hell is corrupt about thinking that a word is best defined by the way most people use it?

Because it is social metaphysics. Studying the way people use words might be a legitimate field of study, but if you don't include a word's objective meaning -- what it refers to in reality -- then you are having a social metaphysics philosophy. Reality is a primary, and concepts and words refer to aspects of reality. If people use words incorrectly due to their upbringing or their philosophy, then they need to be taught how to make objective definitions.

So, no, the objective definition of "selfish" is neither intrinsic nor subjective, but referring to the fact that a man can be primarily concerned with himself and the bettering his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These arguments are really laughable. What in the hell is corrupt about thinking that a word is best defined by the way most people use it? You need to take a linguistics class...because this is how languages are formed. The word "selfish" does not belong to you and it is not yours to surrender or defend. It belongs to the English-speaking world, of which the Objectivist community is but a minute fraction of a percentage.

(underlining is mine)

With the exception of proper nouns, every word is representing a concept. So let's look at a few words and how they are defined.

Justice can be defined as lawfulness or fairness. But some people define justice to include "social justice" which would include a redistribution of wealth. Should we not use the term justice since it carries a meaning we do not agree with? Liberty should be freedom from force, but communists love to use liberty to mean freedom from "having to work" or "having an equal standard of living".

Murder is deliberately causing the death of a human being. The pro-life people would say murder is the killing of a human being, either born or unborn. I recently saw a poll where 51% of the US population called themselves pro-life. Since that's a majority, should we no longer just use "murder" and switch to "murder of a born human" or "post pregnancy caused death"?

Changing definitions of words is a tool liberals (or progressives now) have used for a long time to chip away and confuse concepts. The conservatives certainly get in the act as well. Surrendering these definitions unchallenged is giving up. I could list 100 words that have been twisted to serve some purpose. Definitions do matter and are extremely important.

Edited by Brule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It belongs to the English-speaking world, of which the Objectivist community is but a minute fraction of a percentage.

Neither a word nor a language belongs to anyone. There is no absolutely official use of any words in the English language. The smaller the group, the easier it is to agree upon a certain definition. I would say that an agreed upon definition is a standardization. Many things are standardized. No standardization is accepted as "the truth", whether it be involving computer science, mathematics, language or even writing techniques. When we're speaking of the entire English speaking community, you'd probably be surprised about all the different ways people use particular words. When I hear the word selfish used with a negative connotation, it doesn't usually seem to be the best word to use to convey a particular concept.

I never understood how "disregarding others" will always lead to bad or immoral actions. A thief is certainly a selfish type of person. Many people would say he's selfish, and they would be right. What I think is more important is to emphasize that what makes a thief bad is their irrationality. I would also emphasize that a thief's selfishness is not what makes him immoral.

When I'm describing a person who acts with rational self-interest, I don't describe them as "rationally self-interested" because that manner of speaking is a little awkward to me. I would describe them as "Selfish and rational". I would want to emphasize the fact that the person is selfish, but I also want to emphasize that they are rational. Sometimes I do need to use the word selfish because I need to emphasize a disregard for others. If I describe myself as selfish, it is useful for me to also explain that I don't really care what another person thinks or what happens to them.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never understood how "disregarding others" will always lead to bad or immoral actions.

Just to be clear, I don't think that most Objectivists would say that they disregard others. In fact, they very highly regard those they love.

A thief is certainly a selfish type of person. Many people would say he's selfish, and they would be right. What I think is more important is to emphasize that what makes a thief bad is their irrationality. I would also emphasize that a thief's selfishness is not what makes him immoral.

Words may take on different meanings but the one we should concern ourselves with is the objective one, the one that matches reality. It is easy to see how a thief is NOT selfish -- he is utterly dependent upon others, he is dependent upon the productivity of others. He cannot produce for himself so he must steal from others.

The thief is acting irrationally. Acting rationally is what selfishness entails. Thus the thief is acting selflessly and that is what makes him immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a general suggestion about this problem. I assume the Objectivist epistemology. Now, given the nature of concepts and words, and the relationship between words, concepts, definitions and meaning, what exactly do you think the relationship between the word "selfish" and the concept, definition and meaning of "selfish" is, or should be (if there is a difference). I'm leaving out all questions about specific dictionaries for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An objective concept integrates similarities by omitting the measurements forming a range of items subsumed under the concept; and the definition should distinguish these items from all others. The problem with trying to subsume running a business, seeking a girlfriend, taking care of one's health on the one hand and bank robbery, murder, and rape, is that these are not commensurate characteristics. So, claiming that they are all "selfish" violates the objective means of forming a concept and coming up with a definition. In other words, robbing a bank is not commensurate with building a business; and it confuses getting money with earning money.

So, the dictionary referents in some of the definitions presented are not valid examples of someone acting in their own self-interest or being selfish. This means they can be thrown out as definitions, no matter how many people make the mistake of trying to subsume incommensurate together into one concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give up. Whatever other Objectivist stances I may disagree with, this one strikes me as the most asinine, the most petty, and the most indefensible. Ultimately it doesn't matter. What matters is the concept that you describe with the word "selfish" and I describe with the phrase "rational self-interest." But continue using the word in an esoteric way, if you wish. All it accomplishes is to further alienate the Objectivist movement from the rest of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, some people do find me of interest and would like to know more about my code of ethics, at times. Do I tell them, flatly, that I'm selfish?

No, because (hopefully) you don't operate on the same definitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. But in my personal estimation, you seem unnecessarily concerned with upsetting people that are wrong in their understanding. You don't have to convince or conquer them. Just explain that you are rationally selfish and go about your business. You don't have to argue with every fool that comes along. If your actions are integrated with your professed principles, you will be happy, and anyone that is worth dealing with will notice it.

Ayn Rand wrote about this issue in The Virtue Of Selfishness in an essay entitled, "How Does One Live A Rational Life In An Irrational Society?". Her theme in that essay addressing that valid question is:

"One must never fail to pronouce moral judgment."

-Ayn Rand VOS

And this goes to the central issue involved here in this thread. You might be surprised how quickly the rats scurry back to their little holes when they hear a confident, perceptually successful, happy individual say with sincere conviction, "Yes, I am selfish. I am rationally self-interested. I have no intention of sacrificing my self-interest."

You don't have to be mean or combative about it. Just be sincere. Do not be meek or unconvincing or humble. If nothing else, just do not agree with or acquiesce to the evaluation that self is in anyway bad. If you expect to have a chance to live and enjoy your life, if you ever expect to have a society that is ever more rational, we must never surrender the word self in any way shape form or connotation.

Hell, yes.

If they are of value to you, then be prepared to rationally, honestly, but not combatively, explain.

This is wrong. And I wonder if it is not what is causing you trouble with this issue.

Language is primarily about identification. Only after that first crucial task can it be used secondarily, as a consequence, as a tool of communication.

So, yes it is individualistic. Like all thinking is.

Best of success standing up for your self. :)

Thank you for this post, ChristopherSchlengel. It was very helpful to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever other Objectivist stances I may disagree with, this one strikes me as the most asinine, the most petty, and the most indefensible. Ultimately it doesn't matter. What matters is the concept that you describe with the word "selfish" and I describe with the phrase "rational self-interest."
I find this ironic.

Do you really think that what you consider to be in your "rational self-interest" is that same as these average people who blank out when Objectivists use the term "selfish?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finally got a reply from the dictionary editor. Have fun with it, guys. ;)

You are correct: the word "selfish" relates to a "concern for one's own

interests." However, when considering the concept of selfishness, there are

inherent psychological and emotional forces to consider. A person is

especially selfish when another person is affected by their actions and they

do not think or care about that person's resultant feelings and needs.

Let's say, a boy voluntarily helps to clean up an elderly person's yard.

The next day the elderly person gives him some money, which he takes because

he can then buy things for himself with it. It would be hard to make a case

that this boy acted selfishly, mainly, I would argue, because he did not

harm anyone in any way. Now, let's say a group of boys did the voluntary

clean-up. The next day the elderly person gives one of the boys some money

for their work, but the boy does not share the money with the others. This

boy is acting selfishly specifically because he is not thinking about the

other boys and how they would appreciate the money, too; instead he is

thinking about how the money can be spent by himself and for himself. In

other words, he is acting in his own interest without regard for others and

what is rightfully due to them. We had such scenarios in mind when we

modified the definitions of "selfish" with the phrases "without regard for

others" and "in disregard of others."

I hope my explanation has cleared things up.

Sincerely,

Benjamin Korzec

Associate Editor

www.merriam-webster.com

www.merriam-webstercollegiate.com

www.wordcentral.com

www.learnersdictionary.com

-----Original Message-----

From: slacker00

Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 7:11 PM

To: [email protected]

Subject: Definition of "selfish"

I'm curious how you come up with this definition for "selfish".

Common understanding of selfish is simply concern for one's own interests.

Why tack on "without regard for others"? How does this extra

phrase add meaning to the definition? I think it only confuses the

definition, clouding the true meaning. Please explain. Thank you.

I'll resist giving my own opinion at this time to let you guys swing for the fences, if you care to do so.

To those that continue to debate concepts rather than definitions, I've started a concept thread.

Edited by slacker00
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but the boy does not share the money with the others. This boy is acting selfishly specifically because he is not thinking about the other boys and how they would appreciate the money, too; instead he is thinking about how the money can be spent by himself and for himself.

This is WRONG!!! It is NOT in this boy's interest to screw over those he worked with. This will cause the other boys to never trust him again, he will be labeled a cheat, he will have a hard time finding people to do business with in the future and he probably won't have many friends or willing coworkers. How is that in the boy's own interests?! He just shot himself in the foot and burned his bridges. Do you need another metaphor?

Edited by K-Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is WRONG!!! It is NOT in this boy's interest to screw over those he worked with. This will cause the other boys to never trust him again, he will be labeled a cheat, he will have a hard time finding people to do business with in the future and he probably won't have many friends or willing coworkers. How is that in the boy's own interests?! He just shot himself in the foot and burned his bridges. Do you need another metaphor?

Depends on your definition of selfish. : )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say, a boy voluntarily helps to clean up an elderly person's yard.

The next day the elderly person gives him some money, which he takes because

he can then buy things for himself with it. It would be hard to make a case

that this boy acted selfishly, mainly, I would argue, because he did not

harm anyone in any way.

Good God Almighty...so the boy who acted in his own self-interest and earned his money is not being selfish because he didn't harm anyone!

This is what Ayn Rand was talking about in the quote from The Ayn Rand Lexicon I presented earlier, that altruism totally prevents there to be a single concept denoting that someone is acting in his own self-interest based on the trader principle and justice.

If you harm somebody, you are selfish; if you don't harm anyone but rather trade with them value for value and earn a profit then you are....blank out. I have no idea what word they would use, and neither do they most likely. Maybe greedy, with the connotation that it is immoral to make a profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on your definition of selfish. : )

Are you really this dumb or are you talking in circles to be cute? ;)

In case you're really this dumb...

You are correct: the word "selfish" relates to a "concern for one's own interests."

That's the definition. Period. Now go back and read post #70. The dictionary idiot contradicted himself, thus proving my point. Get it now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you really this dumb or are you talking in circles to be cute? ;)

In case you're really this dumb...

That's the definition. Period. Now go back and read post #70. The dictionary idiot contradicted himself, thus proving my point. Get it now?

If the boy isn't selfish, then what is he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...