Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is Rational Self Interest equivalent to Objectivist Selfishness?

Rate this topic


Is Rational Self Interest equivalent to Objectivist Selfishness?  

34 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Rational Self Interest equivalent to Objectivist Selfishness?

    • Yes.
      23
    • No. (explain)
      4


Recommended Posts

Since I feel like people are debating this point in my thread debating the definition of selfish. Let's drill down one more level. Is Rational Self Interest equivalent to Objectivist Selfishness? This time the debate is about concepts and not definitions. This is in direct contrast to my other thread on the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I feel like people are debating this point in my thread debating the definition of selfish. Let's drill down one more level. Is Rational Self Interest equivalent to Objectivist Selfishness? This time the debate is about concepts and not definitions. This is in direct contrast to my other thread on the topic.

How are you defining your concepts? You can not discuss a concept in concrete terms if you can not define the concept itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one kind of selfishness. Either you are behaving with your interests in mind or you're not. Some people would call Bernie Madoff selfish, but of course, his Ponzie scheme was NOT in his best interest, as evidenced by the fact that he ruined his life. People use the word wrong all the time. That's not my/our fault.

I don't know what you're so hung up on this. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but that is not a self evident fact. If anything, the (explain) tag should've been next to the Yes option, because the vast majority of people would require quite a lesson in Ayn Rand's philosophy before even beginning to grasp why you're saying that "rational self interest" is not a contradiction in terms.

And, as an aside, there is no such thing as Objectivist selfishness. The word selfishness has been around long before Ayn Rand named her philosophy, and she did not change the meaning of the word. By saying Objectivist selfishness, you're falsely implying that she did, and selfishness in fact means something else than what she meant by it. That's very misleading to people who are not as familiar with her work as OO.net dwellers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I feel like people are debating this point in my thread debating the definition of selfish. Let's drill down one more level. Is Rational Self Interest equivalent to Objectivist Selfishness? This time the debate is about concepts and not definitions. This is in direct contrast to my other thread on the topic.

Do you mean "is the popular conception of rational self-interest equivalent to the Objectivist concept of selfishness?

I'd say no, as large numbers of people, e.g. Christians, prudent predators, etc., have rather popular conceptions of RSI that do not coincide with that of Objectivism.

IMO RSI has to be redefined as much as selfish does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean "is the popular conception of rational self-interest equivalent to the Objectivist concept of selfishness?

Yes.

IMO RSI has to be redefined as much as selfish does.

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>

hunterrose, how would you change these two definitions, which compose rational self interest?

Yes, but that is not a self evident fact. If anything, the (explain) tag should've been next to the Yes option, because the vast majority of people would require quite a lesson in Ayn Rand's philosophy before even beginning to grasp why you're saying that "rational self interest" is not a contradiction in terms.

This remains to be seen.

And, as an aside, there is no such thing as Objectivist selfishness. The word selfishness has been around long before Ayn Rand named her philosophy, and she did not change the meaning of the word. By saying Objectivist selfishness, you're falsely implying that she did, and selfishness in fact means something else than what she meant by it. That's very misleading to people who are not as familiar with her work as OO.net dwellers.
Rand does qualify her selfishness. Sure, she starts out with the classic definition of selfish, rather than the modern definition. But she writes a whole book about it. I don't know how you can say that she didn't brand the word, selfish, her own way. She had a lot to say about selfishness.

There is only one kind of selfishness. Either you are behaving with your interests in mind or you're not. Some people would call Bernie Madoff selfish, but of course, his Ponzie scheme was NOT in his best interest, as evidenced by the fact that he ruined his life.
What if he never got caught? Was it the results which define the act, or the intention?

How are you defining your concepts? You can not discuss a concept in concrete terms if you can not define the concept itself.
Standard dictionary for RSI. Rand's lexicon for selfishness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if he never got caught? Was it the results which define the act, or the intention?

Yet another grand false dichotomy, this time between deontological ethics and consequentialism. Most regard Rand's ethics as being related to the second. Rand's ethics, if to be described in modern philosophic terms, may be something like principled consequentialism.

The basic Objectivist argument for morality, as I'm sure you're aware by now, is that that which benefits a man's life as a rational individual is the moral. So, we can say it must be both. There can be both. Morality cannot exist without the correct intentions, to further one's life, and one cannot be said to be acting morally if he continues on a path that harms him.

Let us consider the first, why intentions matter. There are some extreme utilitarians that say all life and action must be dedicated to the service of others.. Since humans are better served usually by other living human beings, it would be immoral to commit suicide. But the only reason you preserve your life, the only reason you eat or get an education or clothe and house yourself is for the sake of others. We cannot merely judge people because, for example, they are running a soup kitchen. Running a soup kitchen can be a good and decent venture, but it matters why they are doing it.

This was rather divergent from the subject matter, though. Feel free, oh mighty mods, to create a separate thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Ryan, that's a good response.

I was actually just being snarky. The fact that Madoff went to prison has nothing to do with anything. It's hindsight, which is always 20/20 vision. It's results-oriented, after the fact, which is a mistake. It completely ignores ethics. It's also the common reason, IMHO, why the general population make mistakes with words like selfishness. It's an oversimplification.

Besides, Madoff knew the risks & rewards going into his venture. He's an old man, he's lived a good life for a long time. In prison, he won't be bunking with Bruno to Butcher. He'll be living in some kind of minimum security country club. Madoff's prison cell and facilities will be nicer than my current apartment. Madoff is doing just fine, despite the fact that he took a very high-risk, high-reward gamble and lost. People gamble all the time in business. If we really want to drill down into Madoff's behavior, we need to examine his ethics, which is no easy matter and it's probably more realistic to just leave it alone.

But, yes, we're getting off topic. The Madoff example should probably just be ignored going forward, because it's a bad example no matter what point one is trying to argue. We can't get inside his head, much less know his inner most dealings, besides the fact that he was breaking the law. I break the law every day, whether it be jaywalking, going a couple miles over the speed limit or rolling through a stop sign, etc. People do that. They push the boundaries. Some use the ideology, "it isn't a crime if they don't get caught". Then there's the people willing to accept very high risk or even extreme high risk. Sure, Madoff hurt a lot of others in his dealings, but what was he supposed to do, have a high regard for others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO RSI has to be redefined as much as selfish does.
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>

hunterrose, how would you change these two definitions, which compose rational self interest?

Personally, I don't think either needs to be redefined.

But both selfish and RSI use the concept of "one's own advantage." If people agreed as to what is to one's own advantage, people would agree on what it means to be selfish. Same thing for RSI.

Edited by hunterrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, yes, we're getting off topic. The Madoff example should probably just be ignored going forward, because it's a bad example no matter what point one is trying to argue. We can't get inside his head, much less know his inner most dealings, besides the fact that he was breaking the law. I break the law every day, whether it be jaywalking, going a couple miles over the speed limit or rolling through a stop sign, etc. People do that. They push the boundaries. Some use the ideology, "it isn't a crime if they don't get caught". Then there's the people willing to accept very high risk or even extreme high risk. Sure, Madoff hurt a lot of others in his dealings, but what was he supposed to do, have a high regard for others?

Well there's two things here.

First, something illegal is not inherently immoral. More so now than ever with all the non-objective laws that exist. What Madoff did was clearly both illegal and immoral because he attempted to do business through fraudulent means (faking reality).

Second, even if, through some freak coincidence, Madoff lived his entire life without being caught his life and well being would still suffer. There's an excellent

that demonstrates this well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't think either needs to be redefined.

But both selfish and RSI use the concept of "one's own advantage." If people agreed as to what is to one's own advantage, people would agree on what it means to be selfish. Same thing for RSI.

Not to beat a dead horse, but my problem with selfish doesn't revolve around being at advantage. That's a pretty small point in this whole debate. But I'll address advantage as long as you brought it up.

advantage

1: superiority of position or condition <higher ground gave the enemy the advantage>

2: a factor or circumstance of benefit to its possessor <lacked the advantages of an education>

3 a: benefit, gain ; especially : benefit resulting from some course of action <a mistake which turned out to our advantage> bobsolete : interest 2a

4: the first point won in tennis after deuce

I'm just not sure who might be speaking out against those that try to benefit or advantage themselves. There's just no extra negative baggage that I can see in the definition. One would have to point that out to me.

Like I said in my other thread regarding the definition of selfish, it's the extra crap that they tack on which makes the definition of selfish seem unwholesome. Rand was using a classic definition, which didn't have the extra baggage. But that definition seems all but lost in the present day. I'm not drilling down into how it happened or why it happened. I'm simply making a case that it is a fact and that it must be addressed, all of this being addressed in the other thread.

Luckily, words like RSI or advantage seem to still be clean, as far as I can tell. As I addressed in my very first thread, capitalism also seems clean, as far as the dictionary is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there's two things here.

First, something illegal is not inherently immoral. More so now than ever with all the non-objective laws that exist. What Madoff did was clearly both illegal and immoral because he attempted to do business through fraudulent means (faking reality).

Second, even if, through some freak coincidence, Madoff lived his entire life without being caught his life and well being would still suffer. There's an excellent

that demonstrates this well.

He basically did live his entire life without getting caught. He just turned 71. What's the average lifespan for a human male? I bet there's a lot of people that would take that deal, live like a king for the majority of an adult life span. Then face the consequences of sitting in a virtual retirement home to play out the rest of one's life.

The YouTube guy is basically preaching the same thing as any Christian Church. Just replace the word reality for the word God. Nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying. The moralizing in this case isn't any kind of revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's just no extra negative baggage that I can see [in RSI.]
You seem to be concerned with the fact that some people, before they even know what Objectivism is, think negatively of the word "selfish", and thus think negatively of Objectivist selfishness.

But once a person finds out what the Objectivist concept of selfishness is, it no longer matters whether "selfish" has a negative connotation or not. Similarly, once a person finds out what the Objectivist concept of RSI is, it no longer matters whether RSI has a negative connotation or not.

For anyone disinclined to understand what an Objectivist means when he says "I am selfish," how will taking the negative connotation from a definition change anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He basically did live his entire life without getting caught. He just turned 71. What's the average lifespan for a human male? I bet there's a lot of people that would take that deal, live like a king for the majority of an adult life span. Then face the consequences of sitting in a virtual retirement home to play out the rest of one's life.

He ahs been publicly humiliated, and he is going to be sitting in a jail cell, surrounded by the scum of society, reflecting on a wasted life. And rightfully so.

That's the real reality, in which people have self esteeem, thoughts, emotions and values. In your version of reality people are unconscious robots who's purpose in life is to "live as kings" for 72.4 years.

The YouTube guy is basically preaching the same thing as any Christian Church. Just replace the word reality for the word God. Nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying. The moralizing in this case isn't any kind of revelation.

You have no idea what the youtube guy is saying, because you don't understand the morality he's talking about. Reading up on that would be a revelation, for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For anyone disinclined to understand what an Objectivist means when he says "I am selfish," how will taking the negative connotation from a definition change anything?
Too late to elaborate?

For the sake of argument, say there are 4 types of reactions to the Objectivist concept/definition of selfishness:

  1. man on the street thinks positively of selfishness before he knows of Objectivism and is willing to understand what an Objectivist means by "selfish."
  2. man on the street thinks negatively of selfishness before he knows of Objectivism but is willing to understand what an Objectivist means by "selfish."
  3. man on the street thinks positively of selfishness before he knows of Objectivism but is unwilling to understand what an Objectivist means by "selfish."
  4. man on the street thinks negatively of selfishness before he knows of Objectivism and is unwilling to understand what an Objectivist means by "selfish."

Case #1 is unchanged by using RSI in place of selfish.

Case #2 is unchanged by using RSI in place of selfish - since he's willing to understand what "I am selfish" means when used by an Objectivist, it doesn't matter whether it has a positive/negative connotation beforehand.

Case #3 is unchanged by using RSI in place of selfish - like RSI, he likes selfishness until he knows what Objectivists mean by it.

Case #4 is the only case where using RSI in place of selfish is advantageous - the lunkhead who thinks selfishness is stoopid and doesn't want to be confused with the facts.

Is there some other advantage to using RSI in place of selfish? Or are we giving up the term selfish in order to appease folks who think Objectivism is bad before and after Objectivism is explained to them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too late to elaborate?

For the sake of argument, say there are 4 types of reactions to the Objectivist concept/definition of selfishness:

  1. man on the street thinks positively of selfishness before he knows of Objectivism and is willing to understand what an Objectivist means by "selfish."
  2. man on the street thinks negatively of selfishness before he knows of Objectivism but is willing to understand what an Objectivist means by "selfish."
  3. man on the street thinks positively of selfishness before he knows of Objectivism but is unwilling to understand what an Objectivist means by "selfish."
  4. man on the street thinks negatively of selfishness before he knows of Objectivism and is unwilling to understand what an Objectivist means by "selfish."

Case #1 is unchanged by using RSI in place of selfish.

Case #2 is unchanged by using RSI in place of selfish - since he's willing to understand what "I am selfish" means when used by an Objectivist, it doesn't matter whether it has a positive/negative connotation beforehand.

Case #3 is unchanged by using RSI in place of selfish - like RSI, he likes selfishness until he knows what Objectivists mean by it.

Case #4 is the only case where using RSI in place of selfish is advantageous - the lunkhead who thinks selfishness is stoopid and doesn't want to be confused with the facts.

Is there some other advantage to using RSI in place of selfish? Or are we giving up the term selfish in order to appease folks who think Objectivism is bad before and after Objectivism is explained to them?

You seem to be assuming that the other person is willing to sit still (figuratively, if not literally) long enough to listen to the definition of selfishness, rather than simply reacting negatively (and closing his mind) when he hears the word, *based on his misunderstanding of it*.

I have run into cases where people who would probably react positively to "supply an explanation of what the word means, then supply the word" would freak out if they heard the word first, because "selfish" to them means "thoughtless uncaring exploitative thieving pig". To someone like this, the word "selfish" is unproductively shocking. With people like this, you can't start a explantation like this: "Objectivism advocates selfishness..." because they fill in their own image of what the word means before you can continue into the ellipsis. They are convinced that what you are advocating is being thoughtless, uncaring exploitative pigs, because based on their operating definition of "selfish" that is exactly what you just *did* say. Most likely they'd decide you and Ayn Rand are nucking futs at best, but more likely just total assholes. At this point you are going to have a very hard time getting them to understand that what you were *actually* saying is not the same as what they *thought* you said, assuming they haven't just stopped listening.

The goal is to communicate, and alas in most cases that sometimes means learning to speak their language--and a lot of times people function off that misdefinition of "selfish." You therefore have to avoid it until you can redefine it. I prefer to describe the ramifications of selfishness first before actually using the word, and even then I preface with something like, ".... and this is the true meaning of a word that has been abused and misused a lot lately: selfish[ness]." If they can't agree with what we know the word "selfish" means even without using it, then they are truly hopeless, not just misunderstanding what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have come round to the conviction that any softening of the Objectivist meaning of 'selfish', in any debate with others ( no matter how receptive they may or may not be ), is at the very least, counter-productive. And at the most , lacking in integrity, and possibly, immoral.

hunterrose's use of the word 'appease' is key here.

Do I want to have a philosophy I am proud and certain of ; or do I want to compromise it's principles for the sake of all and sundry ?

This is against a background ( in my early Ayn Rand years ) of doing the same as slacker00 and substituting 'RSI' for 'selfish'.

On the practical basis of 'convincing' anyone , I gained nothing. On the very doubtful premise- altruism- that I should be here to preach to the world and enlighten any one , well the only people that I was and am concerned about i.e. of importance to me , could simply borrow my copy of V.O.S. and see it for themselves - like we all did. And view ' selfishness' at work in my life.

I have to add a couple of riders to what I've just said: a. It could be beneficial for a new Objectivist to make that "SELFISH / R.S.I." interchange , for his OWN INTERNAL DEBATE, until he can comfortably integrate the two.

And b. , I completely stand by the premise that Selfishness is a stepping-stone ( an essential one ) to the even greater Value/Virtue of mind-independent Individualism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And b. , I completely stand by the premise that Selfishness is a stepping-stone ( an essential one ) to the even greater Value/Virtue of mind-independent Individualism.

I think "ethical egoism" makes a good stepping stone to selfishness.

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...