Definition of "selfish", what do we do?

[L-C]

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.

Nail, head, sledgehammered.

A society where the only social interactions are of mutual consent and interest is inconcievable to altruists.

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

Irrational.

Edited May 19, 2009 by L-C

[K-Mac]

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

I like L-C's answer, personally, but you can call him anything that accurately describes him. Selfish, would be inaccurate. The boy did not act in his own interests by lying and keeping all the money to himself. He was being foolish to say the least.

[turboimpala]

Irrational.

Irrational, but still selfish.

[K-Mac]

Well, that answers my first question in post #74.

[Thales]

Depends on your definition of selfish. : )

Definitions aren’t arbitrary. The internal combustion engine, for example, can’t have any definition.

You have to look at this inductively. Ayn Rand develops rational egoism by looking at nature. If you do it that way, the definition follows. This is why I recommended reading Ayn Rand's essay on Objectivist ethics -- in another thread by slacker.

Doing something like stealing money may seem selfish, but it's really self-destructive. It's anti-self, even if the goal is to be pro-self.

[turboimpala]

Well, that answers my first question in post #74.

I've discovered the error in your thinking.

You assume that since rationality implies selfishness, that selfishness also implies rationality.

But it doesn't work that way.

To be rational you must be selfish.

But to be selfish, you need not be rational.

Everyone is selfish, but not everyone is rational.

Selfishness is a characteristic of rationality, but it is not the ONLY characteristic.

[Thales]

Everyone is selfish, but not everyone is rational.

There are no altruists?

[turboimpala]

There are no altruists?

Nope.

Impossible.

Think about it.

[01503]

There are no altruists?

He means that there are no PURE altruists, because that would ultimately and quickly result in death.

[Thales]

Nope.

Impossible.

Think about it.

Well, this is wrong. Altruists are people who believe altruism is moral and who try to practice it. There are altruists, and there are societies that push altruism in a big way, e.g. the old Soviet Union. The problem is there are very few people pushing egoism, and even fewer who think it is right. In fact, aside from Aristotle (to a certain extent), and Rand, I don't know of any major figures who have endorsed that code.

He means that there are no PURE altruists, because that would ultimately and quickly result in death.

There is nobody that can practice pure altruism and survive, but there are pure altruists, i.e. people who do their best to live by the code.

[turboimpala]

There is nobody that can practice pure altruism and survive, but there are pure altruists, i.e. people who do their best to live by the code.

Exactly!

There are 2 definitions of selfless, just like there are 2 definitions of selfish.

There are the original definitions, and there are the current popular culture definitions.

Both words have been redefined over the last several decades.

As much as we would all like this to not be true, it is a basic fact of reality.

And to be an Objectivist, one must accept this fact.

Objectivism is based on reality and reason, not just reason.

[slacker00]

At 1:12

I'm way way off topic, but I finally got a chance to watch this. At the very end Rand & Snyder exchange "God bless you.", in addition to discussing God briefly. I never knew Rand was so agreeable to using the word God.

[AllMenAreIslands]

Depends on your definition of selfish. : )

The boy in the example is simply a thief, acting on a range-of-the-moment whim. If he considers stealing to be in his self-interest, then he will end up spending the majority of his life in jail, deservedly so.

[K-Mac]

I've discovered the error in your thinking.

You assume that since rationality implies selfishness, that selfishness also implies rationality.

Uh, no.

I never knew Rand was so agreeable to using the word God.

If you will read more of what she wrote, you will know.

[slacker00]

If you will read more of what she wrote, you will know.

Translation: You have not been sufficiently brainwashed. Keep trying.

Seriously. If there's a concept or fact which is up for debate, at least that's something to which I can apply reason.

Edited May 20, 2009 by slacker00

[K-Mac]

Translation: You have not been sufficiently brainwashed. Keep trying.

Just because you read a book to educate yourself on a particular subject, doesn't mean that you have been brain washed, much less even agree with what you read. (Are you suggesting I'm a brainwashed Nazi because I've read about the Nazi party during WWII?)

You're asking ignorant questions and making ignorant statements about Rand and her philosophy. Based on your questions, I'm assuming you want to know more and be less ignorant, so you should read and educate yourself. Trolling around here isn't going to help you much.

[softwareNerd]

Translation: You have not been sufficiently brainwashed. Keep trying.

That's completely uncalled for. If you had said you don't think Rand ought to mention God favorably, your response would be understandable (well, a wee bit more). However, you simply commented that you did not realize she was so disposed. The solution is to read what she wrote, in order to find out how she was disposed.

Seriously. If there's a concept or fact which is up for debate, at least that's something to which I can apply reason.

There are a few existing threads on atheism etc. Rand was an atheist, but not primarily so, nor militantly so. Not primarily so, because atheism is about a negative. It is a rejection of theism, and requires a positive viewpoint as a primary. Not militantly so... primarily because she saw that it was not a primary. Edited May 20, 2009 by softwareNerd

[Jake_Ellison]

Translation: You have not been sufficiently brainwashed. Keep trying.

Seriously. If there's a concept or fact which is up for debate, at least that's something to which I can apply reason.

Translation: I'm bored, and I like to argue for the sake of argument. I'm not really interested in understanding the subject I'm arguing about.

[slacker00]

That's completely uncalled for. If you had said you don't think Rand ought to mention God favorably, your response would be understandable (well, a wee bit more). However, you simply commented that you did not realize she was so disposed. The solution is to read what she wrote, in order to find out how she was disposed.

I'm sorry if I'm breaking the code of ethics around here. But I'm sick of the implied accusation that I'm a troll who has never opened an Ayn Rand book. Maybe I'm one of those idiots that can read and reread her words and the ideas just don't stick. There are certainly people in this world who are mentally defective. I don't believe I am mentally defective, but the mentally defective may also have the defect of not knowing what they don't know. I'm just sick of the useless advice. Do you seriously think that I'm not reading and rereading the books as well as studying other materials as I'm taking part in these discussions?! Saying "Go read a book" is an insult to me, you might as well say "Sit down and and STFU". At least that has less intellectual dishonesty attached.

My understanding about Rand and God is that she was an atheist, to put it simply. But in the video, she seems to be acknowledging the existence of God, at least in the theoretical sense. This is a big difference to what I've seen her say anywhere else. Was she just humoring Tom Snyder and being polite? Even that, seems somewhat contrived, but that's the best explanation I can give. Apparently I'm completely clueless because I haven't read enough Rand books yet.

Is God the creator of the universe? Not of existence has primacy over consciousness.

Is God the designer of the universe? Not if A is A. The alternative to "design" is not "chance", it is causality.

Is God omnipotent? Nothing and no one can alter the metaphysically given.

etc

There are a few existing threads on atheism etc. Rand was an atheist, but not primarily so, nor militantly so. Not primarily so, because atheism is about a negative. It is a rejection of theism, and requires a positive viewpoint as a primary. Not militantly so... primarily because she saw that it was not a primary.

Wouldn't it still require her to be consistent? I mean, in one place I hear her saying, "God doesn't exist.", then I hear what she says in the Tom Snyder video above. I agree that it's derivative. It still makes me wonder.

softwareNerd, I was wondering if you could possibly cut and attach this God discussion to this thread. I searched the forum, and it would have been the most appropriate thread to launch my discussion. I apologize for my mistake. I thought there might be a simple explanation, such as that she was talking about Spinoza's God or something.

[Jill]

My understanding about Rand and God is that she was an atheist, to put it simply. But in the video, she seems to be acknowledging the existence of God, at least in the theoretical sense.

She explains that herself in the interview. Watch with more attention.

[Thales]

I'm sorry if I'm breaking the code of ethics around here. But I'm sick of the implied accusation that I'm a troll who has never opened an Ayn Rand book. Maybe I'm one of those idiots that can read and reread her words and the ideas just don't stick. There are certainly people in this world who are mentally defective.

Not all of us are making those accusations. I've never said any such thing about you.

I don't believe I am mentally defective, but the mentally defective may also have the defect of not knowing what they don't know. I'm just sick of the useless advice. Do you seriously think that I'm not reading and rereading the books as well as studying other materials as I'm taking part in these discussions?! Saying "Go read a book" is an insult to me, you might as well say "Sit down and and STFU". At least that has less intellectual dishonesty attached.

I recommended you read her essay on Objectivist Ethics, because it has a lot in it and explaining it to you would be a lot of work. It's very convenient to read it and then work from there as a foundation. One of the very important things about Ayn Rand is that she worked inductively, as opposed to deductively. This is vital to understand.

My understanding about Rand and God is that she was an atheist, to put it simply.

She was a straight up atheist, who did not believe in any form of mysticism. Period.

But in the video, she seems to be acknowledging the existence of God, at least in the theoretical sense.

You can't continually say "I don't believe in god, ad infinitum". But, in the interview you are referring to, Tom Snyder knows she is an atheist, and she knows he knows. Ayn Rand has before said that there are certain things about "God bless you" she liked. IIRC, she liked the benevolent spirit of the saying, so she would sometimes respond in kind.

But, again, she was an atheist and believed in no god, or anything like that.

[K-Mac]

But I'm sick of the implied accusation that I'm a troll who has never opened an Ayn Rand book.

We don't know you personally. We only know what you type here. I think if you reread through many of your posts, you will see that you seem to be more interested in arguing than understanding. Many of us have stated and restated, explained and reexplained several times to no avail, then add in your snarky comments and what do you know? That's just exactly what trolls do!

Saying "Go read a book" is an insult to me, you might as well say "Sit down and and STFU". At least that has less intellectual dishonesty attached.

Well, based on your questions and arguments, it appears that you have not read (or comprehended) what Rand had to write on the subjects you're questioning. If your reading comprehension skills are lacking, no amount of answers we provide to you is going to help. (Since you have to read our responses to your questions, attacks and arguments.) There are tutors and classes for people who need help with their reading comprehension skills. Perhaps you should look into that prior to rereading all the Rand books you've claimed to have read.

In “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,” from Philosophy: Who Needs It, Rand starts with the Bible verse, "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference" and explains why she likes it.

In another essay or interview, I don't recall which, she talks about how saying, "Oh, God!" when you see something shocking doesn't mean much either. It's a common expletive used when people are shocked or surprised, regardless of their religious affiliation. I think it was in one of her interviews where she talks about not being offended when people say, "God bless you" because she realizes they are wishing her well, or something to that effect.

So you see, she does discuss this very subject you asked about in several places. (And per Jill, it's in the very link you posted, although I have not watched for myself to confirm that.)

I've only been studying O'ism for two years, I have yet to read all the non-fiction or OPAR. I'm also a college dropout with probably very average reading skills. (I have many other great qualities, but being an intellectual is not my attribute.) If you have problems learning, you should've been up front about that; however, that is what you should be working on prior to studying something as lengthy and complex as the philosophy of Objectivism.

[logart]

Many here have been trying to find the “morality of irrational selfishness” which is a contradiction, selfishness is always rational, as described by rand. There are only two moralities that are predatory and therefore irrational.

egoism: the morality of self interest (always rational)

altruism: the morality of self-sacrifice (always irrational)

henodism: the morality of seeking pleasure at all cost (even if someone has to do irrational things to achieve pleasure), see Rand description of the concept hedonism:

To say that pleasure should be the standard of morality simply means that whichever values you happen to have chosen, consciously or subconsciously, rationally or irrationally, are right and moral

Now someone who robs a bank, or the kid of the previous exaple who didn’t pay his friends, or even someone who cheated on his wife, fits more with having a hedonist morality, that would be “the irrational selfishness sort of speak”…. they all were having a predatory behavior, seeking short-term pleasure in doing these irrational acts which could almost certainly be detrimental for them. Of course someone could achieve pleasure doing rational acts to, but a hedonist doesn’t know the difference, is just by pure accident that in his quest for pleasure he ends up doing something rational instead of irrational.

The altruist on the other hand when he practice altruism individually, can only harms himself, only self-sacrifice and self-destructs himself, but when altruism is applied on a collectively matter, as a duty (collectivism), then the consequence is always the sacrifice individuals for the sake of the public good of the group or tribe. 
 

 

 

[Easy Truth]

5 hours ago, logart said:

egoism: the morality of self interest (always rational)

Not sure why you say "always rational". There would be no point in saying rational egoism if it was always rational.

"Rational egoism—or rational self-interest—is the name that Ayn Rand gave to the moral code of her philosophy, Objectivism. This book is a guide to understanding rational egoism by means of your own observations and integrations."

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Understanding-Rational-Egoism.pdf