Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Emergency Situations And Selfishness

Rate this topic


tommyedison

Recommended Posts

"Selfish, self'ish, a. Caring only or chiefly for self; regarding one's own interest chiefly or solely; proceeding from love of self; influenced solely by private advantage."

I would like to point out, though, that this definition does contain a serious logical flaw. It is literally imposible to care only for one's self (and anyone who attempts this doesn't care for himself very much). Unless one lives in a complete vacuum, one must care for the things one values, which are in all cases but one not one's self. If you care only about the things you value, however, then it's true you care chiefly for your self.

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Selfish, self'ish, a. Caring only or chiefly for self; regarding one's own interest chiefly or solely; proceeding from love of self; influenced solely by private advantage."

(Bold for emphasis) Those are the changes.

Let me ask you this, considering Rand's definition and statement in the intro to VOS where she says "selfishiness" does not include a moral evaluation, do you agree with her? (btw, this is the definition which I go by now) According to her definition there, an honest business man would be selfish just as a dishonest business man who charges for work not done, there is no moral evaluation being done. This was the stance of my statement that there is a difference between selfishness and self-interest.

From your reply, I am reading that you are arguing like Rand goes on to say, that the moral evaluation is being done by altruistic influences to give the word a bad connotation, redefining the word. Further on in VOS under Isn't Everyone Selfish Objectivism goes and does the same thing in the opposite direction. The essay has at the end this nice little tidbit. "A definition of "selfishness" that includes or permits the possibility of knowingly acting against one's long-range happiness, is a contradiction in terms." When I look at this, selfishness has been redefined from the common usage even more so that now it can only be a moral concept, the dishonest business man can no longer be selfish. I am assuming this is the definition you are using when saying that selfishness and self-interest are one and the same and could not make Joe lazy and fat, am I right in this?

Edited by Lathanar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask you this, considering Rand's definition and statement in the intro to VOS where she says "selfishiness" does not include a moral evaluation, do you agree with her? (btw, this is the definition which I go by now) According to her definition there, an honest business man would be selfish just as a dishonest business man who charges for work not done, there is no moral evaluation being done. This was the stance of my statement that there is a difference between selfishness and self-interest.

By a moral evaluation, I think she meant that solely on the basis of definition, one cannot say that selfishness is moral/immoral just as solely on the basis of the definition of altruism we cannot say anything about its morality.

It is the task of ethics to answer questions such as why one needs a code of morality and what is good and evil. A definition simply defines the term, which means, it simply singles out the essential characteristic of the term.

As for the dishonest businessman, solely on the basis of definition, one can say that he is not selfish (he is not acting in his long term interest) but one cannot say that he is immoral. It is only with the knowledge of ethics can one condemn the dishonest businessman as immoral.

Edited by tommyedison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By a moral evaluation, I think she meant that solely on the basis of definition, one cannot say that selfishness is moral/immoral just as solely on the basis of the definition of altruism we cannot say anything about its morality.

It is the task of ethics to answer questions such as why one needs a code of morality and what is good and evil. A definition simply defines the term, which means, it simply singles out the essential characteristic of the term.

As for the dishonest businessman, solely on the basis of definition, one can say that he is not selfish (he is not acting in his long term interest) but one cannot say that he is immoral. It is only with the knowledge of ethics can one condemn the dishonest businessman as immoral.

I disagree. Only under Objectivist philosophy can he be considered to be not acting in his long term interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. Only under Objectivist philosophy can he be considered to be not acting in his long term interest.

And how?

I think, by saying that it is philosophy which decides whether a person is acting in his long term self interest or not, you are divorcing concepts from facts.

Consider the meaning of selfishness. Selfishness is a concept, which means an integration, induced from the facts of reality. Thus, whether a person is or is not selfish, depends on his actions (facts of reality), not the specific philosophy he follows. Just because, people can't understand that a person is acting against his long term self-interest does make it a fact.

Now consider the implications if your view was true. It would mean that the facts of reality and thus the morality of an action would be decided by the philosophy a person holds. How did that person get that philosophy? Your viewpoint would be unable to answer that. You would in effect be substituting primacy of consciousness for the primacy of existence because then there would be no rational basis to distinguish the true from the false since the true and the false would depend on one's philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thus the morality of an action would be decided by the philosophy a person holds.

So all those religious people and altruists out there, according to their philosophy, are not moral? Not according to reality or Objectivism, but according to them. Don't start calling me relativists either, I'm not. No matter how much logic I give them, they still believe they are correct. Part of this discussion is not a question of whether the commonly accepted definition of selfishness is logical or rational, it is a discussion of whether the commonly accepted definition of selfishness has been changed to suit Objectivism.

Getting back to the other point, whether selfishness is the same as self-interest, Rand has the definition concern with one's own interests VOS's later essays, and you, are now taking it to concern with one's self-interest or as it's been said several times in this thread best interest. One's own interest can be simply making money. One's self-interest is making money honestly. There is a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all those religious people and altruists out there, according to their philosophy, are not moral? Not according to reality or Objectivism, but according to them.

Oops! I meant to say factuality instead of morality. :thumbsup:

Don't start calling me relativists either, I'm not.

I didn't pass any moral judgement. If I implied otherwise, I apologize.

Getting back to the other point, whether selfishness is the same as self-interest, Rand has the definition concern with one's own interests VOS's later essays, and you, are now taking it to concern with one's self-interest or as it's been said several times in this thread best interest. One's own interest can be simply making money. One's self-interest is making money honestly. There is a difference.

I'm confused now. How is one's own interest different from self-interest?

A definition isn't defined by a philosophy. It is defined by facts of reality. The method is provided by the philosophy.

As for the definition of selfishness, it means concern with one's self-interest. What else can it mean?

Edited by tommyedison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let me restate my position once more. Selfishness means, and has always meant, concern (cheifly) with one's self (-interest). Nothing in this definition tells you whether it is good to be concerned with yourself or not. Nothing in the definition of money tells you whether it's good to have money or not. Nothing in the definition of food tells you whether it is good to have food or not.

But words have objective meanings. They stand for concepts-- they represent part of reality. By studying reality, one can ascertain whether selfishness, money, and food are good for people or not; once one has established an objective standard and a means for judging things accordingly (which is the task of morality). That doesn't mean that, once you've arived at a rational code of morality, you can start including a moral evaluation in the definition of every word. Because definitions are supposed to contain only the essential meaning of a word, and ethics is several levels of abstraction away from that, in most cases, besides being highly contextual.

I see no relevence in the fact that altruists think they're right (or, to be more acurate in most cases, think they're wrong, metaphysically). Definitions are supposed to correspond to reality. If you define a triangle as a figure with three sides whose angles add up to 470 degrees, it doesn't matter how right you think you are. You're wrong. Objectively.

So, to say it one more time-- nothing in the definition of selfishness tells you whether it's moral to pursue self-interest, or not. But in the context of reality, you can conclude that it is moral. Which is what I believe Ayn Rand meant, and I think that's why she called her book The Virtue of Selfishness. And I agree with her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused now. How is one's own interest different from self-interest?

A definition isn't defined by a philosophy. It is defined by facts of reality. The method is provided by the philosophy.

As for the definition of selfishness, it means concern with one's self-interest. What else can it mean?

Interest is a concern or regard for something. Self-Interest is a concern or regard for one's self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One moral thing for a hungry adult to do near a child who has food is to look at reality and ask some questions (i.e., think, reason) -- e.g., how on earth did the kid get the food!?; from where?; is there more?; etc.
I see two ways this can be taken, o rational one time poster. First, that in such exceptional situations, one should look at whether she is "at fault" for the situation and for ways to survive that don't come at the expense of others' chances of survival. I'd more or less agree, but it wouldn't answer the question of what to do if one doesn't find such means and isn't particularly responsible for the situation. Second,
Morality applies ... in the context where rational choices are possible.
that rationality (and by extension, principles) is not possible in such situations. How is rationality being defined, that it wouldn't be possible in emergencies?

"Every code of morality is based on and derived from a metaphysics, that is: from a certain view of the nature of the universe in which man has to live and act. Observe that the altruist morality is based on a "malevolent universe" premise, on the view that man's life is, by nature, a calamity, that emergencies, disasters, scourges, catastrophes, are the norm of his existence. Are they? Observe also that the advocates of altruism always offer "lifeboat" siutations as examples from which to derive the rules of moral conduct .... The fact is that men do not live in lifeboats -- and that a lifeboat is not the place on which to base one's metaphysics."
But using force against other men isn't the norm of man's existence either, and yet benevolent universe ethics distinguish under which conditions it is proper to use this abnormal action, and which conditions it is not. Wouldn't it similarly be legitimate to find the principles in emergency situations?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you misinterpreted me. I meant to ask, what is the distinction between "One's Own Interest" and "Self-Interest".

Last night at an Objectivist get together they gave me something to chew on, so I have to retract my stance for right now till I can sort through what they presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but why couldn't initiation of force be a rational action in certain situations?

Let’s say you are having a rational discussion with someone. He makes a point with which you disagree. Would you still be using your rational faculty if you then punched him?

In my scenario, by stealing, the man supports his biological life. As I see it, he does not reject his own reason; he adheres to it. He only violates his victim's self-interest and reason. He violates his victim's reason because the victim must now act in ways which would otherwise not be in his self-interest.

Objectivists prefer to live in a civilized society where people deal with each other voluntarily. What your scenario describes is anarchy. So you have to decide: rule of law or law of the jungle.

When you say “supports his biological life” you mean life as an animal. Objectivists prefer to live like rational animals, like men. Animals deal with each other by force, rational humans do not. If you want to survive like an animal and reject reason, then don’t be surprised when you are treated like one. If a criminal came to my door with a gun demanding my property I would shoot him down like the rabid dog he is and I would be perfectly justified in doing so.

according to the standard Objectivist response to my question, the potential initiator of force should not be taken into account by the potential victim's rational reasoning [...] I don't see why the two parties shouldn't see each other for what they are prior to the initiation of force: a potential victim and a potential initiator of force.

In a civilized society we define rational rules for dealing with each other voluntarily (Rights). Those that reject reason and initiate force are taken into account, they are retaliated against as rule breakers (Right’s violators).

A world in which people are only seen as potential victims or potential criminals describes anarchy and would be a very malevolent world indeed. And it doesn’t describe the way most people prefer to live (as evidence witness all the free countries in the world). I prefer to view most people as potential trading partners but perhaps that is my benevolent nature.

Just remember: the only way anyone survives is by production. A thief would have nothing to steal if not for someone else having produced it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last night at an Objectivist get together they gave me something to chew on, so I have to retract my stance for right now till I can sort through what they presented.

I was asked what was presented to me as an argument to make me have to sit back and think this one through more, and instead of keeping it private, I'd thought I'd post it and see if anyone had thoughts on it. They agreed that the definition in itself had no moral evaluation tied to it, and that the interests mentioned were not defined, but as soon as you took a look at the word interest, you had to apply ethics to derive it's meaning. They used the argument you couldn't mention interests being both rational and irrational without deciding what irrational is, thus bringing ethics into play. You can't say interests are both good and bad under other ethical systems without bringing those ethical systems into it. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one.

[edit] If this is simply a restating of what someone else said, sorry I didn't get your meaning. Sometimes talking in person gets meaning across easier than through text.

Edited by Lathanar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A world in which people are only seen as potential victims or potential criminals describes anarchy and would be a very malevolent world indeed. And it doesn’t describe the way most people prefer to live (as evidence witness all the free countries in the world). I prefer to view most people as potential trading partners but perhaps that is my benevolent nature.

Just remember: the only way anyone survives is by production. A thief would have nothing to steal if not for someone else having produced it.

This is true. But in the scenario I presented, the thief steals because it is the only way for him to survive. Isn't life in anarchy is better than no life at all? I agree that usually initiation of force is irrational. But is it always irrational?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that usually initiation of force is irrational. But is it always irrational?

Yes, the initiation of force is always irrational and will always end in disaster for the person doing the initiating.

Given the choice of existence as a lifeless corpse or as an "animal" that has the ability to eat, sleep, breathe, think rationally, and act accordingly, what existence would a life-loving, selfish man choose?

You are dropping the context within your own post and, as a result, offering us a contradiction.

If a man is able to "think rationally[] and act accordingly" he is not living like an "animal".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me: "Isn't life in anarchy better than no life at all?"

Lathanar: "Only if you wish to survive as an animal."

Me: "Given the choice of existence as a lifeless corpse or as an "animal" that has the ability to eat, sleep, breathe, think rationally, and act accordingly, what existence would a life-loving, selfish man choose?"

Dbc: "You are dropping the context within your own post and, as a result, offering us a contradiction.

If a man is able to 'think rationally[] and act accordingly' he is not living like an 'animal'."

The contradiction was deliberate. I meant to show that Lathanar's assertion that a thief is only capable of the life of an animal is unwarranted. A thief is capable of rational thought and action, an animal isn't. Lathanar has yet to demonstrate how theft nullifies man's essence, be it rationality or some other quality or faculty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the concept of moral selfishness under Objectivism and am in complete agreement of it. I am not trying to challenge the philosophy at all. What I am saying is that what ya'll see as 'selfish' is actually 'rational self-interest' or 'moral selfishness'. Rand herself in VOS states that the term selfish implies no morality and morality is what determines if doing something is in one's self-interest.

Here is the thing. What does it mean to be completely selfish. If you do something in your own interest, it can ONLY be long-term. If it benefits you now and hurts you a year from now, it was NOT in your interest to do it.

Yes, at the time you may have thought it was, but it turned out it wasn't.

My point is that any selfish act implies a gain in values, not a reduction. If it turns out in the long-run that the act reduced your values, then it was not selfish.

In other words, a truly selfish act (truly should not be needed) is only a rationally selfish act (again rational is redundant).

Any other use of the term is simply incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me: "Isn't life in anarchy better than no life at all?"

Lathanar: "Only if you wish to survive as an animal."

Me: "Given the choice of existence as a lifeless corpse or as an "animal" that has the ability to eat, sleep, breathe, think rationally, and act accordingly, what existence would a life-loving, selfish man choose?"

Dbc: "You are dropping the context within your own post and, as a result, offering us a contradiction.

If a man is able to 'think rationally[] and act accordingly' he is not living like an 'animal'."

The contradiction was deliberate. I meant to show that Lathanar's assertion that a thief is only capable of the life of an animal is unwarranted. A thief is capable of rational thought and action, an animal isn't. Lathanar has yet to demonstrate how theft nullifies man's essence, be it rationality or some other quality or faculty.

I am not talking about a simple thief. You are dropping contexts.

But in the scenario I presented, the thief steals because it is the only way for him to survive. Isn't life in anarchy better than no life at all?

If my only chance of survival is by theft, if I am acting on the simple desire to stay alive at any cost, morality is gone. Without reason and morality you are an animal, nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume we all agree it is not wrong to try to survive. Furthermore, we probably all agree preserving one's life is, in general, a noble end at which to aim one's actions. So why does the survival motive of the theft make the theft more heinous in your eyes?

Are you arguing that one must sacrifice his self-interest to morality contrary to AR's assertion, as I understand it, that morality is defined by one's enlightened self-interest? If not, please demonstrate how theft is not in the theif's self-interest.

Why do you think a theif must lack reason?

Ultimately, you are arguing that by initiating force the thief is betraying an essential principle which makes man's life worthwhile and more significant than that of an animal. My question is why is non-initiation of force essential to man's meaningful existence?

When I kill a turkey to feed myself to survive another day, you believe I am a rational man. When I kill or steal from a man to survive another day, you allege that I am no longer a man qua man. What quality do I lack after the initiation of force that is so essential? Is it simply the respect of my fellow rational men, who can now reciprocate the force?

I agree that reciprocating the initiation of force of a thief is not wrong. So if you mean that initiating force lowers the thief's status to that of an animal in the esteem of other rational men in that they would not mind returning force, we agree. There remains the question of whether the reciprocated force should be scaled to the amount of force initiated (should a thief be executed?). If, as I believe, the answer is yes, there are degrees of status between that of man qua man and man qua animal.

And if you mean that initiating force lowers the thief's status to that of an animal in the esteem of other rational men in that they would not mind returning force, why couldn't a rational man choose to sacrifice this relationship with other rational men in order to survive? Ultimately, isn't the mutual relationship held because it is in the interest of all parties? If so, when it no longer becomes mutually beneficial, why wouldn't the relationship be abandoned?

To summarize the above seven paragraphs and nine questions:

As I understand it, AR asserted that morality is defined by one's self-interest. It has been asserted that theft is always wrong, implying it can never benefit the thief. Why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume we all agree it is not wrong to try to survive. Furthermore, we probably all agree preserving one's life is, in general, a noble end at which to aim one's actions. So why does the survival motive of the theft make the theft more heinous in your eyes?

Who said it is more heinous? Did I say the man was evil? I said he was surviving as nothing more than an animal. Animals lack reason, they are not evil, they do what they must to survive. If that is the level of existence you wish, then be an animal. Just remember that animals do not have rights.

Are you arguing that one must sacrifice his self-interest to morality contrary to AR's assertion, as I understand it, that morality is defined by one's enlightened self-interest? If not, please demonstrate how theft is not in the theif's self-interest.

Morality is based on reason, when force is applied reason goes out the door. The reality in your example is that the food belongs to the orphan. I'm taking it from him and forcing upon him the reality that the food belongs to me. There is no reasoning involved, he has no choice in the matter except to respond with violence. Force negates reason, period.

Why do you think a theif must lack reason?

What reason is a thief employing? He's saying he has something, I need it, I shall not earn it, I shall simply take it. Need does not give rights of ownership of property, that is not reason, that is the basis of socialism.

Ultimately, you are arguing that by initiating force the thief is betraying an essential principle which makes man's life worthwhile and more significant than that of an animal. My question is why is non-initiation of force essential to man's meaningful existence?

see above reasons

When I kill a turkey to feed myself to survive another day, you believe I am a rational man. When I kill or steal from a man to survive another day, you allege that I am no longer a man qua man. What quality do I lack after the initiation of force that is so essential? Is it simply the respect of my fellow rational men, who can now reciprocate the force?

There is a difference between killing and eating an animal to survive and stealing from a man who has rights and reason. You can't reason with a turkey, you can reason with a man. Man does not survive as a man by his muscles and strength, he survives by his mind and reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume we all agree it is not wrong to try to survive.

It is wrong to survive as by murderer.

Furthermore, we probably all agree preserving one's life is, in general, a noble end at which to aim one's actions.

Preserving one’s life as a murderer is not noble.

as I understand it, that morality is defined by one's enlightened self-interest?

Do you think it is enlightened to be a thief or murderer?

Why do you think a thief must lack reason?

I ask again: Let’s say you are having a rational discussion with someone. He makes a point with which you disagree. Would you still be using your rational faculty if you then punched him?

When I kill a turkey [...]

Let’s see if you can first grasp the principle of non-initiation of force then maybe we can move-on to the issue of why Rights apply only to those with the ability to understand them.

There remains the question of whether the reciprocated force should be scaled to the amount of force initiated (should a thief be executed?).

Are you now saying that you understand and agree that it is irrational to initiate force? Or are you just throwing up roadblocks to your understanding?

Ultimately, isn't the mutual relationship held because it is in the interest of all parties? If so, when it no longer becomes mutually beneficial, why wouldn't the relationship be abandoned?

It is. We throw thieves and murderers in jail you know. Who cares about the interests of thieves and murderers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, AR asserted that morality is defined by one's self-interest. It has been asserted that theft is always wrong, implying it can never benefit the thief. Why not?

That's not entirely accurate. AR asserted that morality is defined by one's self-interest based upon the standard of value being the life of a man. As was once point out to me, saying that "man's life" is the standard of value is NOT the same as saying "my life" is the standard of value.

Hmm, I'm haven't read all the way through this thread, but I'd be willing to bet that not all of the Objectivists on here say that stealing would be wrong in ALL cases. The essential difference where stealing could be morally acceptable in an emergency situation would depend on the level of responsibility the actor had in getting into the emergency situation. If the actor placed himself in the emergency situation by bad choices and evasion, it would be immoral for him to further compound his problems by theft. If the actor had no responsibility for ending up in the emergency situation and his only choice is steal or die, it would be moral for him to steal IF he made every attempt he could to recompensate those he stole from after the emergency situation has abated.

It is immoral to resort to the initiation of force, which is not in one's long term self-interest as a man, when the use of reason can accomplish the same goal. Again, do not think of the term reason in the short term as in "clever tactical planning so that I can get away with a crime". It is really "what is the best course of action for the long term totality of my life as a man."

The view that the initiation of force can be used as a reasonable tool of survival for a man is not the view of the rationally self-interested egoist, it is the view of the solipsist.

In the long term, even the "prudent predator" speeds up his death by decaying the value available to him in the society in which he lives. I would venture to say that most criminals think of themselves as "prudent predators".

Edited by RationalCop
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...