Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Definition of "selfish", what do we do?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

It doesn't seem like you really understood anyone's posts, let alone read them. Rand's definition of selfishness is pretty consistent by most dictionaries as well as common understanding of what the word means. I've never seen anyone use the word selfish incorrect. Many people just attribute the "badness" of an action to its level of selfishness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The definition of selfish is definitely not the same for all people and all dictionaries, as can easily be seen in the definitions referenced in this thread and the discussions in this thread.

Objectivist definition = rational self-interest

Other definitions = IRrational self-interest

Some people in this thread believe that irrational self-interest (living off of the effort of other people, or completely disregarding the well being of others) is the same as being selfless.

But we know this can't be true, because true selflessness can't really exist (at least not for long).

If you're truly selfless, you will sacrifice yourself for others, you'll spend all your money to help others survive, and you won't allow yourself to eat or drink and within 2 weeks you'll die.

So, as far as I'm concerned, there are 3 options:

Selflessness

Rational Selfishness

Irrational Selfishness

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, as far as I'm concerned, there are 3 options:

Selflessness

Rational Selfishness

Irrational Selfishness

You're wrong, there are only two options: selfish or selfless, rational or irrational. Some people (altruists) think that you can be irrationally selfish and rationally selfless, but they are wrong. They're not wrong about what the word selfish means (it clearly means to be concerned about yourself as opposed to others or other entities), they are wrong about what it means to be rational.

Then there of course are people who don't think rational is the way to go at all. They go on faith instead, but they are never irrationally selfish, but irrationally selfless.

The one thing you can never be is irrationally selfish, since to be rational means to be selfish. Whenever a dictionary claims that to be selfish means to be irrational, they are wrong not on the meaning of the word selfish, but on the philosophical statement they have no business even making. Luckily, most good dictionaries stay away from that statement.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of the examples of "irrational selfishness" are not selfish. Someone who robs a bank is not selfish as they are not making the best long term decision for themselves. Someone who violates others' rights is mocking his own. Not very selfish of him.

I can't seem to find my copy of VoS at the moment, but I think that has the introduction where Ayn Rand addresses exactly the subject of why should we use the exact word selfish, even with it's baggage. In real conversation I say something along the lines of "I believe in being selfish, and by that I mean rational self interest." So in one sentence I equate the two and then go on to defend them as one. It seems to work well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're wrong, there are only two options: selfish or selfless, rational or irrational. Some people (altruists) think that you can be irrationally selfish and rationally selfless, but they are wrong. They're not wrong about what the word selfish means (it clearly means to be concerned about yourself as opposed to others or other entities), they are wrong about what it means to be rational.

Then there of course are people who don't think rational is the way to go at all. They go on faith instead, but they are never irrationally selfish, but irrationally selfless.

The one thing you can never be is irrationally selfish, since to be rational means to be selfish. Whenever a dictionary claims that to be selfish means to be irrational, they are wrong not on the meaning of the word selfish, but on the philosophical statement they have no business even making. Luckily, most good dictionaries stay away from that statement.

Obviously the selfless people are irrational.

And like I said, these people end up dead within 2 weeks.

So what you're saying is that there are only 2 types of people, dead people and live people.

The selfless people are dead and the selfish people are alive.

Which means there is really only 1 type of person, the selfish person (because the selfless people are dead).

Which makes sense, because selfishness is the only way anyone can stay alive.

So how do you separate the rationally self-interested people from the "other" selfish people?

They can't be described as irrationally selfless, because irrationally selfless people are still selfless and therefore they are dead.

And I understand what you mean when you say they're not irrationally selfish, because if they're selfish, they're rational.

So obviously the "other" selfish people are also selfish.

But what is the appropriate phrase to describe them?

Is there a single appropriate phrase?

Objectivist selfish people admit they're selfish and are proud of it.

The "other" selfish people don't admit it (or don't realize it) (or just don't think about it at all).

Which is why the "other" selfish people support immoral laws, because they don't realize that they're immoral.

Edited by turboimpala
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2 cents (which I've given many times before):

Since words have no intrinsic meaning, the proper definition of a word is the one that is used by the majority of people who speak the language. Most people think "selfish" means "willing to step on others" or something to that effect. Since that's what most people think it means, then that's what it means. Period.

Stubbornly insisting that it means something else does you no favors. You loudly proclaim how proud you are to be "selfish." Well, if most people accepted your definition, there wouldn't be anything wrong with that. Indeed, I suspect more people would find it admirable than you might imagine. But, since that isn't how it is defined by most people, what most people are going to do is look at you and say "man, what an asshole," and then never give Objectivism a second thought. And just think...that might have been a person that you could have brought over to your way of thinking, if you had used some phrase such as "rational self-interest" instead.

If you want for Objectivism to continue being viewed as a right-wing fringe movement, then by all means, continue with your undying loyalty to an arbitrary group of phonemes with no intrinsic meaning. When you decide that it is the ideas, rather than the specific letters used to describe those ideas, that are more important, then you can come help me defend the principle of rational self-interest from the attacks of my left-of-center coworkers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it hasn't been mentioned yet,

on selfishness is top notch. It's from Mr. Cropper, ideas provided by Stuart Hayashi.

I think what I want to say on the subject is right there, presented pretty well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it hasn't been mentioned yet,
on selfishness is top notch. It's from Mr. Cropper, ideas provided by Stuart Hayashi.

I think what I want to say on the subject is right there, presented pretty well.

What do you know, the first thing Mr. Cropper says is that selfishness has 2 definitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2 cents (which I've given many times before):

Since words have no intrinsic meaning, the proper definition of a word is the one that is used by the majority of people who speak the language. Most people think "selfish" means "willing to step on others" or something to that effect. Since that's what most people think it means, then that's what it means. Period.

Definitions are important. This isn't about running around yelling "I'm selfish, I'm selfish!" at the top of your lungs, thinking that everyone else should have the same definition as you do. If I had to describe myself with one phrase I'd use rational self interest. The reason to continue to use selfish is to attack the package deal of selfishness that is currently accepted. It's to put a divide between selfishness being acting in one's own self interest and the idea of selfishness being exploitative or narcissistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't about running around yelling "I'm selfish, I'm selfish!" at the top of your lungs, thinking that everyone else should have the same definition as you do.

In fact, going around yelling like that is essentially selfless. Doing so is a need to convince others that you are behaving by the standards you set for yourself. If people ask me why or how I'm able to be so consistently happy and confident about myself, I will tell them that it's because I live as selfishly and as rationally as I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never met a single person who considers it wrong to act in his own self-interest. Virtually everyone agrees that it is a generally good principle to act in your own self-interest. And when you consider that giving your life so that a loved one can live is actually sparing yourself intense sadness, most people will admit that even death can be in your own self-interest, in some circumstances. Many of these people are people who can potentially see things the way you do. That's why I think it is essential that the Objectivist movement stop stubbornly defending its esoteric definition of "selfish."

You're saying there's a false dichotomy. Okay, fine. You can construct arguments against the dichotomy without using definitions that 299,990,000 out of America's 300,000,000 people disagree with. Even so, I disagree that there is a false dichotomy here. I've never met anyone who thinks that the only way to not be a greedy, hoarding, exploitative bastard is to be completely selfless and spend all your time helping other people. Everyone realizes that there is something in between, where you are concerned with your own welfare but do not needlessly step on others to get what you want. Altruism and self-interest lie on a continuum, with Mother Theresa on one end, Ayn Rand on the other, and virtually the rest of humanity somewhere in between. They are not discreet categories, and I challenge you to find anyone who thinks they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I think it is essential that the Objectivist movement stop stubbornly defending its esoteric definition of "selfish."

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

As I understand it, you just contradicted yourself. The first definition, and the one Ayn Rand gives, "concern with one's own interests", does not mean the concern will be effective, intelligent, long-term, or even rationally based. A Christian who believes he will go to heaven if he lives according to certain dictates is selfish--he is concerned with his own (eternal) self-interest. It is not rational, it is not true, but it is self-concerned.

It is not a contradiction to be irrationally selfish. Take hedonism. That a hedonist's idea of his own good is to live each moment with disregard for the next does not change the fact that his concern is selfish as opposed to altruistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, you just contradicted yourself. The first definition, and the one Ayn Rand gives, "concern with one's own interests", does not mean the concern will be effective, intelligent, long-term, or even rationally based. A Christian who believes he will go to heaven if he lives according to certain dictates is selfish--he is concerned with his own (eternal) self-interest. It is not rational, it is not true, but it is self-concerned.

While Christianity does have that type of a "selfish aspect," I think one has to drop the context of what it means to have a selfish concern for oneself in that the only way to do that is to selfishly pursue one's values on earth, the only place we know and where man can function in everyday life. I used to be Christian, and yes I was concerned for my soul, but Christianity is primarily altruistic, and even getting that selfish pursuit of one's saved soul requires one to be altruistic -- to give up everything that means anything to you for the sake of others.

Likewise with the hedonist. Acting on one's short-term, feel-good premises does not make one selfish. In fact, being a hedonist is actually acting against one's long-term interest.

Nice try, but it doesn't fly with me. To be selfish in the full meaning of the term means to act in one's best, rational, long-term interest. It does not mean acting on fantasies disconnected from reality, and it doesn't mean getting some short-term pleasure out of life that may very well kill you in the next moment.

To be concerned for oneself, means to think and act according to reason; not irrationality of any type. This is part of the philosophical revolution of Objectivism -- to show what it means to be selfish.

That is, the Christian and the hedonist are most definitely not selfish. A word means more than its definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

even getting that selfish pursuit of one's saved soul requires one to be altruistic -- to give up everything that means anything to you for the sake of others.

It's altruistic if this life is all that exists, long-term selfish if the next life exists. Assuming that an eternity of bliss followed, then giving up everythiing that means anything in this life would not be altruistic, but the most disciplined selfishness--giving up temporary values for greater gain in the long (eternal) term. But this is a moot point to our disagreement.

Our disagreement was already stated in my last post--I do not think "selfish" means "rationally selfish" or "selfish with respect to the long term". Your rejection of my hedonism example requires that it does mean those things, and does not actually get to the root, why "selfish" necessarily includes those other things.

Yes, a word means more than its definition. We agree on that much. But I don't think "selfishness" includes everything you think it does.

Edited by musenji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With selfish, I have to explain why everyone is wrong and I am right... Meanwhile, explaining RSI, I'd already well on my way down the path of my concepts, in explanation... In the second example, a rational result, explaining things accurately...

You loudly proclaim how proud you are to be "selfish..." What most people are going to do is look at you and say "man, what an asshole," and then never give Objectivism a second thought. And just think...that might have been a person that you could have brought over to your way of thinking, if you had used some phrase such as "rational self-interest" instead.
There are people who think religion is rational; they include worshipping dieties as within their rational self-interest. You'll find hedonists who think that anything they're interested in is in their self-interest. You'll find collectivists who think self-interest isn't rational unless it serves the greater good.

If you're giving up on "selfish" because it's a debatable term, why should these people accept your debatable definition of "rational self interest?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that it is not factually in one's self-interest to be religious or to be a hedonist. If one is to have concern for oneself -- i.e. be selfish -- then that concern must be long-range and conceptual, because man cannot operate on the level of a consciousness without a body (Christianity) or a body without a consciousness (hedonism). Is it factually in a man's self-interest to decry life on earth; and is it factually in a man's self-interest to live as a pleasure seeking beast? No, it is not; and this is the revolutionary aspect of the Objectivist ethics -- that it does not see man as a spirit or a beast, but rather sees him as a man, and only as a man can a man seek his self-interest and be selfish. Nature forbids him to have any other concerns without impunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're giving up on "selfish" because it's a debatable term, why should these people accept your debatable definition of "rational self interest?"
Because "selfish" doesn't force them to understand what it means to me. In fact, there's traps in the definition.

RSI, nails it to the wall. What is debatable about RSI?

rational

1 a: having reason or understanding

b: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>

self interest

1 : a concern for one's own advantage and well-being <acted out of self–interest and fear>

2 : one's own interest or advantage <self–interest requires that we be generous in foreign aid>

Very notable, regard for others is not mentioned either as a positive or negative. It's totally free of baggage. Not to mention value judgment expressions like excessive or undo, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RSI, nails it to the wall. What is debatable about RSI?

Everything. It is a statement, not a word. It implies that to be self interested means to be rational, and that rational people are self interested.

As such, you're doing exactly the same thing a liberal does when he calls himself progressive: playing word games.

Just because Objectivism holds that to be rational means to be self-interested, that is not a self evident fact. When you go around telling intelligent people that "rational self interest" is a good thing, they will inform you that you're an idiot, because there's nothing rational about expecting others to accept that very loaded statement you just made as self evident. Then they will ask you to stop trying to force them to accept your philosophy before the debate even began, and hit the bricks. The debate isn't about whether "rational self interest" is a good thing, it is mainly about whether self interest is rational or not.

Look at it this way: what if my starting position in this argument would be: MCRSI is bad- take it or leave it. (MCRSI is of course short for "moronically clinging to rational self interest") Would that help of hurt my attempts to explain why using RSI is sometimes wrong?

On the other hand, when you tell people that you are selfish, that does not force them to accept your philosophy in order to understand what you are saying. It is simply a factual statement about yourself, which leaves them free to decide whether it's good or bad.

P.S. The whole discussion is a bit on the pointless side, because no one goes around describing themselves to people using a single word or a catch phrase. You raised the issue of replacing selfish with RSI, and I feel we've pretty much explained the difference and also dispelled your misconceptions about the definition of "selfish".

If you're interested in ways to argue with non-Objectivists, leading with "rational self interest" is not the way to go, as I said above. I heard a talk recently, by Tara Smith, on her book Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist.. I haven't read the book itself, but in the talk she argued very well in favor of Ayn Rand's Ethics (leading with virtuous egoism, rationality of course being one of the virtues), so the book should give you all the answers you seek.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing the dictionary game is impossible, Slacker. Different dictionaries give different definitions. That is why in fact there are different definitions.

For example:

self⋅ish  [sel-fish] Show IPA

–adjective

1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

There is no fundamental difference between THAT definition and the definition you offered for self-interest.

The argument from cultural use doesn't make much sense either. Objectivism is in many senses a sub-culture, and so we have specific terms we use to describe concepts. As the video I posted points out, in the 19th century, pride was a word maligned by Christian society. However, many did not cede the meaning of the world as something valuable, to be proud of oneself. Today, pride is considered a virtue despite it's definition as a sin by the Catholic church.

Simply giving up the battle over any world because a majority of people use it would be quite ridiculous. That just is not how language works.

And frankly, if people shrug me off because I say my ethical idea is of a truly selfish individualist, I'm not interested in talking with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing you can never be is irrationally selfish, since to be rational means to be selfish. Whenever a dictionary claims that to be selfish means to be irrational, they are wrong not on the meaning of the word selfish, but on the philosophical statement they have no business even making. Luckily, most good dictionaries stay away from that statement.
Isn't it possible to have a RSI intent without a RSI outcome? Mistakes happen.

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? You can use a circular definition for selfish, which equates it to rational, but I don't think that's rational at all.

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. Weren't we all unfamiliar to Objectivism once upon a time?

Back on topic, here's more definitions, extending my list from page 1.

selfish

concerned with oneself more than others, not sharing: Your selfish brother took all the ice cream and left us none. -n.

selfish

1. Holding one"s self-interest as the standard for decision making.

2. Regard for oneself above others" well-being.

Wow, good one! #1 seems like dead-on RSI, probably even better than Rand's Oxford dictionary definition.

selfish

Someone who is selfish only thinks of their own advantage:

The judge told him: "Your attitude shows a selfish disregard for others."

selfish

concerned chiefly with one’s own personal profit or pleasure at the expense of consideration for others.

selfish

Regarding one's own interest chiefly or soley; influenced in actions by a view to private advantage.

Check it out. Webster's 1828 definition. My oldest definition so far!

selfish

1640, from self (q.v.). Said in Hacket's life of Archbishop Williams (1693) to have been coined by Presbyterians. In the 17c., synonyms included self-seeking (1628), self-ended and self-ful.

From an Etymological Dictionary, which I've never used before. It explains word origins.

Here's another dozen dictionary definition links which I haven't explored yet: selfish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing the dictionary game is impossible, Slacker. Different dictionaries give different definitions. That is why in fact there are different definitions.

And frankly, if people shrug me off because I say my ethical idea is of a truly selfish individualist, I'm not interested in talking with them.

Yes. I don't enjoy the dictionary game one bit. Ever since I started this tangent, I've been questioning the utility value the entire time. I stated earlier that I cannot change the word. I cannot rewrite the dictionary. At moments, I think I can make a difference in the big scheme. At times I wonder if it's worth it.

Shrugging off people is a loss of value, IMHO. I value people more than you, in general, I imagine. Maybe we've got different unique life situations. Maybe one or both of us are giving a false value to others, in general. It's a good debate topic, but beyond the scope of this thread.

Jake, I don't claim RSI is good. I claim RSI is what I am. Others can make their own value judgements.

Your argument that I'm saying R implies SI or that SI implies R seems like the false argument that you were making earlier, which I rejected in my last reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? You can use a circular definition for selfish, which equates it to rational, but I don't think that's rational at all.

You're right, none of those situations are rational. Also none of them appear to be truly selfish.

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. Weren't we all unfamiliar to Objectivism once upon a time?

Very notable, regard for others is not mentioned either as a positive or negative. It's totally free of baggage. Not to mention value judgment expressions like excessive or undo, etc.

(underlining is mine)

I used to think definitions didn't really matter. I argued at length with my (excellent) professor that Voltaire's Candide was infinitely more influential than Diderot's Encyclopédie. I mean, how could great satire lose to dry definitions? I was wrong.

I know what "selfish" means to the common guy on the street. As you said above, it carries more baggage than a 747. That is precisely the reason to use it. When Joe Blow hears the word selfish he immediately has plenty of examples in his head and likely most (or all) he considers bad. He thinks of the wealthy businessmen and of the common thief. This concept must be changed in the minds of people before they will ever be willing to accept or even really understand Objectivism. A vast majority of uninformed, passing critiques of Objectivism I've come across rely on the false understanding of selfishness. So wild, laughable comments are made such as "making slaves out of the poor" or "giving special privileges to big business."

One advantage of fighting for "selfish" is that it can be done at a layperson level and not only by philosophers. By clarifying and showing why selfish should mean rational self interest, a plumber/dentist/farmer/CPA can relate without having to go through years of philosophical training. Personally, calling myself selfish and then explaining how I mean it has lead to far greater understanding with friends and family than any high level rant could do. I am selfish. Switching to something else not only isn't needed, it is actually counterproductive. There's a reason Ayn Rand named her creation "The Virtue of Selfishness" and not "The Virtue of Rational Egoism".

Edited by Brule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is debatable about RSI?
Everyone believes that they act with a reasonable or understandable concern for their own advantage and well-being.

Where do you go from there?

Do you make it debatable by adding positive or negative modifiers - good rational self-interest, greater good rational self-interest, nihilistic rational self interest, etc? That would mean that, like giving up the term selfish, you'd agree that there are good forms of rational self-interest and some instances where acting in your rational self-interest is immoral...

Or do "rational", "understandable", "advantage", and "well-being" already involve the type of value judgements you exorcised with "selfish?"

RSI either is just as debatable or will be debatable before it has any philosophical relevance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would highly recommend reading this entry for selfishness in the Ayn Rand Lexicon, where Ayn Rand explains the importance of objective definitions and the upholding of selfishness on epistemological and moral grounds.

Here is the most important thing she has to say about this current discussion:

If it is true that what I mean by “selfishness” is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites—that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men—that it permits no concept of justice.

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...