Emergency Situations And Selfishness

[DavidOdden]

I smell a troll.

Maybe; but this prudent predator misunderstanding is wide-spread and actually would be a good midterm question for Objectivist Ethics 101. Trolls are by nature hit and run, so the test will be whether serious intellectual engagement follows.

[Olex]

I'm God . In this case it is. His options are steal or die.

This is a false dichotomy. How about the fact that it's possible to claim bankruptcy, get the sergery, and then live to pay it back.

You seem to push really heavy on a certain situation. What is it that you are looking for? Is it OK for Objectivist to steal to stay alive when there are no other options? In real life, there are always better alternatives that will give you better chance to survive: loan, etc.

[Icarus]

????????????

I smell a troll.

I discovered this forum just today, but I've read Atlas Shrugged twice, The Fountainhead once, an Ayn Rand biography, and a couple chapters of The Romatic Manifesto (dense reading) since I discovered Atlas Shrugged last fall. I have had this question for a while now, so I was eager to pose it to better read Objectivists on this forum. Write me off as a troll if you'd like, but I would really apreciate it if someone could at least point me in the right direction.

My understanding is that morality's foundation is self-interest. This begs the question: what if self-interest flies in the face of conventional morality. Does true morality sometime contradict conventional wisdom, or am I missing something?

[Olex]

My understanding is that morality's foundation is self-interest. This begs the question: what if self-interest flies in the face of conventional morality. Does true morality sometime contradict conventional wisdom, or am I missing something?

Your wish to understand is fine.

I suggest you start by defining what do you mean by 'conventional morality', 'true morality', and 'conventional wisdom' (versus 'true wisdom?').

[Lathanar]

He is a selfish Objectivist

There is a huge difference between selfish and self-interest. Being selfish got Joe into his predicament.

[Sherry]

????????????

I smell a troll.

I discovered this forum just today, but I've read Atlas Shrugged twice, The Fountainhead once, an Ayn Rand biography, and a couple chapters of The Romatic Manifesto (dense reading) since I discovered Atlas Shrugged last fall. I have had this question for a while now, so I was eager to pose it to better read Objectivists on this forum. Write me off as a troll if you'd like, but I would really apreciate it if someone could at least point me in the right direction.

My understanding is that morality's foundation is self-interest. This begs the question: what if self-interest flies in the face of conventional morality. Does true morality sometime contradict conventional wisdom, or am I missing something?

Well, welcome to the board.

I think that understanding what self-interest really is, is very important. Remember, John Gault and Roark did a few things that may not have seemed to be in their self interest in the short term. For example, wouldn't it have been in Gault's self interest to force Dagne to stay at the Gulch when he had her there the first time? He loved her then. But it wasn't. Gault was a long range thinker and realized that it wouldn't be worth it, it wouldn't truly be in his self-interest to have her there unless it was her choice.

I believe someone else recommended it, but you should really read Rand's essay on "The Ethics Of Emergencies".The Virtue of Selfishness, (pb: 47).It is very good, and covers a lot of these questions, and you will understand why you have gotten many of the answer you did. Actually, if you have not read it all ready, I think The Virtue of Selfishness is a great book of her essays to start with, since, well the them of the book is selfishness, or what self interest is.

Also, the OPAR book I referred to earlier was Objectivism The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. It's been very helpful to me.

The Romantic Manifesto is good too (I haven't read all of it yet) but deals mostly with aesthetics. I don't think you will get a lot of your questions answered in that particular book.

If you have not already, check out the topic search feature at ARI's site. Here is the link:

Suggested Reading & Topic Search

It has a list of suggested reading, but if you look to the left, you click on Topic Search. Type in a word or phrase, and it will refer you to an essay or other piece of work to read.

[DavidOdden]

My understanding is that morality's foundation is self-interest. This begs the question: what if self-interest flies in the face of conventional morality. Does true morality sometime contradict conventional wisdom, or am I missing something?

Then conventional morality is wrong. Of course by "conventional morality" I assume you mean Christian moral teaching, since that is what western convention is about. However, this question is distinct from your initial question, the prudent predator question. This is an example of the integrated nature of Objectivist ethics. If man had infallible knowledge of the future, the Objectivist ethics would be entirely different: but we don't, so it isn't. The two-word version of Objectivist ethics is a bit too short, IMO, so here are the essentials that may help you out of your bind. You need a central purpose as the standard for judging actions -- you've made a choice to live (otherwise, you'd be dead). Do your decisions work towards that goal, or against it? Of course you may be ignorant of the actual long-term consequences of particular actions, but given that things don't just happen randomly, principled choices will support your long-term goal of living.

Joe isn't just going against conventional morality, he is committing suicide, and is ignoring reality (causality, in particular) by pretending that his actions do not have consequences or that he should not take responsibility for his actions. Objectivist ethics is not about only acting to save your hide, it is about acting in a way that supports your life. As a thief he is still not doing that. He is still completely confused about the difference between living, and morgue-avoidance.

[Bold Standard]

There is a huge difference between selfish and self-interest. Being selfish got Joe into his predicament.

No, there's not. No, it didn't. Not if you use words consistently and attatch exact meanings to them, anyway.

Dictionary definition of selfishness (in any legitimate dictionary)-- concern with one's self-interest.

[Lathanar]

No, there's not. No, it didn't. Not if you use words consistently and attatch exact meanings to them, anyway.

Dictionary definition of selfishness (in any legitimate dictionary)-- concern with one's self-interest.

Stealing what you want is an act of selfishness. Producing and earning what you want is an act of self-interest. To eat a mound of candy because it tastes good is selfish. To realize that eating too much candy makes you fat and gets you sick is self-interest. What you want is and what is best for you, that's the difference between selfish and self-interest.

[LaszloWalrus]

Stealing is not an act of selfishness. Have you read The Virtue of Selfishness? It's not called The Virtue of Self-Interest. Properly speaking, selfishness is self-interest and self-interst is selfishness and neither one is compatible with stealing or with defrauding people.

[Lathanar]

Stealing is not an act of selfishness. Have you read The Virtue of Selfishness? It's not called The Virtue of Self-Interest. Properly speaking, selfishness is self-interest and self-interst is selfishness and neither one is compatible with stealing or with defrauding people.

Have you read The Virtue of Selfishness? If you have a copy, look in the intro where she defines selfish.

yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word "selfishness" is : concern with one's own interests.

This concept does NOT include moral evaluation it does not tell us whether concern with one's own interest is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constistutes man's actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.

(I believe that's it word for word, I had someone send to me in IM as I don;t have a copy here)

Selfish does not tell us what is one's self-interest. Anything done in self-interest is selfish but not vice-versa. That is a huge difference to me.

On a side note, her definition I can not find in any dictionary. Anyone have any idea where she got it? She seems to have left things out of it.

[Lathanar]

No, there's not. No, it didn't. Not if you use words consistently and attatch exact meanings to them, anyway.

Dictionary definition of selfishness (in any legitimate dictionary)-- concern with one's self-interest.

Webster's, which I consider to be a legitimate dictionary, defines selfish as

1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>

There is a difference between saying "concern with one's self-interest" and "concern with one's self-interst without regards to others"

[Olex]

Going back to topic. Here is a quote from: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...jectivism_pobs5

...[The ethics of rational self-interest]does not advocate "survival at any price."

Man's life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being—not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement—not survival at any price, since there's only one price that pays for man's survival: reason...

So, just going off stealing just so you can live is not a path of Objectivist.

[Bold Standard]

Selfish does not tell us what is one's self-interest. Anything done in self-interest is selfish but not vice-versa.

I interpret this differently. I think her point is that the concept alone does not specify what is in one's self-interest. But reality does specify what is in one's self-interest (e.g., what is "selfish"). We must, therefore, look to reality to decide whether we or others are really being "selfish," or whether we are mistaken in our assessment.

On a side note, her definition I can not find in any dictionary. Anyone have any idea where she got it?

Yes. Read any dictionary published prior to the 60's (when this book was published). Every major dictionary, including Webster’s, defined it precisely as she transcribed. Why did the definition suddenly "change" subsequent to the book's publication? Very interesting question...

Edited June 15, 2006 by Bold Standard

[Icarus]

I suggest you start by defining what do you mean by 'conventional morality', 'true morality', and 'conventional wisdom' (versus 'true wisdom?').

By "conventional wisdom" and "conventional morality" I meant, in this case, the general belief that theft is wrong. By "true morality" I meant morality according to Objectivism.

Actually, if you have not read it all ready, I think The Virtue of Selfishness is a great book of her essays to start with, since, well the theme of the book is selfishness, or what self interest is.

I'll do that, but I think, thanks to the responses, I'm closer to the answer.

Man survives and achieves by reason. Force is the rejection of reason; therefore, one who uses force rejects life. He instead survives on destruction and death. Reason begets life; force begets death. He who survives on force is a cannibal. He who survives on reason is a man.

The question becomes: Is the life of a cannibal or a beast better than no life at all? Possible answer: Yes. A cannibal has volition, reason, and a future. The cannibal survives on his own species, but he is not a species. He is one being. He does not live off of his own death, but the death of others like him.

My problem is, why should humanity be treated differently than any other resource? Using force against men does treat them like mere animals, resources to be manipulated freely, but while this will result in less incentive for production and violent inclinations toward the cannibal, which could be considered costs of harvesting, why couldn't someone theoretically find it in their best interest to do it?

[Maarten]

Dictionary.com says:

self·ish Audio pronunciation of "selfishness" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slfsh)

adj.

1. Concerned chiefly or only with oneself: “Selfish men were... trying to make capital for themselves out of the sacred cause of human rights” (Maria Weston Chapman).

2. Arising from, characterized by, or showing selfishness: a selfish whim.

Granted, the examples they give portray it negatively, but a selfish person (in the proper sense) is chiefly concerned with himself, so it is still correct I think.

[RationalBiker]

My problem is, why should humanity be treated differently than any other resource? Using force against men does treat them like mere animals, resources to be manipulated freely, but while this will result in less incentive for production and violent inclinations toward the cannibal, which could be considered costs of harvesting, why couldn't someone theoretically find it in their best interest to do it?

I'll answer your question by quoting you;

Man survives and achieves by reason. Force is the rejection of reason; therefore, one who uses force rejects life.

I would only change your quote to say, "one who initiates force rejects life. It is perfectly reasonable (and one of the few duties one has) to use force in defense of one's life against another who is actively initiating force.

Edited June 16, 2006 by RationalCop

[Lathanar]

Yes. Read any dictionary published prior to the 60's (when this book was published). Every major dictionary, including Webster’s, defined it precisely as she transcribed. Why did the definition suddenly "change" subsequent to the book's publication? Very interesting question...

From Webster's 1828 edition

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

The only person that has tried to change the definition is Rand. If you read the entry under the Lexicon there are several excerpts where Rand admits to redefining it. I understand her justifications for why she did so, but I don't agree that it was the best way to handle it. I explain to others what selfishness means and they're immediate response is 'you're changing the definition to suit your needs', and they're right. I think she would have been better served to simply stick with moral selfishness, or rational self-interest. I didn't really agree with objectivism in part and saw several contradictions until it finally sunk in what her new defintions to terms such as selfishness and evil meant.

[miseleigh]

As far as I can tell, she did change the meanings, but in any conversations with Objectivists her meanings will be the ones intended. I think she did this because there is no word that actually means what she was trying to say, and selfish is fairly close. She really changed the connotation more than the actual meaning, and took the word literally: self*ish, which can only mean what she intended, vs. selfish as one word instead of it's parts, which has the meaning we grew up knowing. Besides, saying 'I act in rational self-interest' just doesn't sound the same as 'I am selfish.'

From Webster's 1828 edition

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

The only person that has tried to change the definition is Rand.

That definition is not negative, and sounds almost exactly like her definition...

This article (although it is a TOC article ) sounds accurate according to all I know about Objectivism. Perhaps it will shed a little light on this issue.

Edited June 16, 2006 by miseleigh

[Lathanar]

As far as I can tell, she did change the meanings, but in any Objectivist conversationg her meanings will be the ones intended. I think she did this because there is no word that actually means what she was trying to say, and selfish is fairly close.

(emphasis mine)

There in lies the issue. Amongst Objectivists, yes, but we are a very small minority. I don't have a degree in philosophy, but I imagine there is some terminology for redefining a term and then using it to refute an opposing philosophy by applying the new definition to where they have used the term. They say selfish is bad and under their definition I'd say even Objectivism would agree or there would have been no need to redefine it. We say, no, selfish is good, and we're right, under our new definition.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Dictionary.com says:

1. Concerned chiefly or only with oneself: “Selfish men were... trying to make capital for themselves out of the sacred cause of human rights” (Maria Weston Chapman).

2. Arising from, characterized by, or showing selfishness: a selfish whim.

RE 2: Not a definition. Selfish = a selfish whim = showing selfishness = arising from selfishness?

What a wonderful use of words to say nothing.

RE 1: why the ""??? Its someones personal example to elaborate on the definiton. It is not part of the definiton.

Selfish = concern with ones self.

If you steal something, you may not be caught, but there is the chance that you will feel guilty, that you will be caught, that you will have to live in fear of being caught.

This is not selfish. You lost much more than you gained.

Selfish is long-term. There is no such thing as short-term selfishness.

If you take from someone, mooch off someone, harm someone, is this selfish? No. You have hurt someone, you have lost friends, you have taken advantage of someone and as a result they will probably not go out of their way for you again.

Being selfish means that you do what is in your best interest. This typically implies that you respect the moral rights of other human beings and that you strive to add value to your life.

An explanation of selfishness in the way that I want to do it is beyond my current capability. Perhaps someone who has integrated the knowledge properly could comment briefly.

[Lathanar]

Being selfish means that you do what is in your best interest. This typically implies that you respect the moral rights of other human beings and that you strive to add value to your life.

An explanation of selfishness in the way that I want to do it is beyond my current capability. Perhaps someone who has integrated the knowledge properly could comment briefly.

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.

[Icarus]

I wasn't very clear in my last post. I'll try again.

The following is my understanding of the standard Objectivist response to my question:

Man survives and achieves by reason. [The initiation of] force is the rejection of reason; therefore, one who [initiaties] force rejects life.

My response:

Yes, man must use reason to survive and achieve, but to say that force is the rejection of reason is too vague. Force is specifically the manipulation, suppression, or rejection of the victim's reason. 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.

Before the initiation of force, 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, nor should the potential victim be taken into account by the potential initiator of force's rational reasoning. This is what I'm challenging. 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. It's assumed that a rational person will not initiate force, but why couldn't initiation of force be a rational action in certain situations?

In summary, my problem with the standard Objectivist response to my question, as stated by myself, is this:

A clearer restatement of the first sentence of my statement of the standard Objectivist response is: "Man survives and achieves by rational action informed by reason." Worded this way, the fallacy in the second sentence becomes clear.

The initiation of force is the rejection of reason; therefore, one who initiaties force rejects life.

The initiation of force is not necessarily the rejection of rational action. I have yet to see an explanation apart from the one in question of how theft cannot be rational. As such, initiating force is not necessarily the equivalent of rejecting one's own life.

[Lathanar]

The initiation of force is not necessarily the rejection of rational action. I have yet to see an explanation apart from the one in question of how theft cannot be rational. As such, initiating force is not necessarily the equivalent of rejecting one's own life.

Man can only attain value by reason. The use of force negates reason, both of the attacker and the victim. The victim is denied any use of reason, he is forced to submit to the whims of the attacker. The attacker is trying to impose his own view of reality and denying reason with that evasion of reality. If a man attacks another and takes food from them solely to survive, he is nothing more than an animal, he is no longer surviving qua man. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Bold Standard]

As far as I can tell, she did change the meanings, but in any conversations with Objectivists her meanings will be the ones intended. I think she did this because there is no word that actually means what she was trying to say, and selfish is fairly close. She really changed the connotation more than the actual meaning, and took the word literally: self*ish, which can only mean what she intended, vs. selfish as one word instead of it's parts, which has the meaning we grew up knowing. Besides, saying 'I act in rational self-interest' just doesn't sound the same as 'I am selfish.'

That definition is not negative, and sounds almost exactly like her definition...

(Bold mine). So, do you think she changed the meanings, or not? I agree with you, the definition that Lathanar gave is, in essence, exactly the same as Ayn Rand's definition. Therefore, she didn't change it.

As to the "connotation," I think you might want to examine what causes words to have specific connotations. It is not something innate in the way they "sound." It is philosophy. Selfishness has a negative connotation, because, and only because, altruism is the predominate morality in our culture.

Look at another word. If you said that a movie was "gay," in an era when romanticism and benevolence were popular, it would mean that it were pleasant, enjoyable. If you say that now, it means it's false, superficial, lame (to most people). That's assuming a context where it's clear that you don't mean homosexual, which is another new popular application of the term. The word still means the same thing ("happy, carefree"), but the connotation has changed because a cynical shift in popular philosophy.

Ayn Rand did not, I believe, select selfishness because there was no word for what she was describing and she didn't want to invent a new word. She intentionally picked that word-- because it is precisely the word that stood for what she wanted to express. The fact that the connotation of selfishness is negative is her whole point-- that whole idea is based on a false premise, namely, that it's selfish to be a "Neitzschean egoist."

You see, we are not "changing the words meaning to suit our purposes," we are using the word to mean precisely what it means. SELF - ISH. The way the word is defined in my 1940 edition of Webster’s is close to Lathanars, but I think I like it even a little better:

"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."

Ayn Rand changed nothing about this definition. Of course, the third usage is the exact one.

Now allow me to quote from m-w.com (Merriam-Webster's online dictionary):

"1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others"

Gentlemen, we have a change. And one that makes absolutely no sense from the etymology of the word. But this definition is typical nowadays. I've never seen it defined this way in any dictionary prior to the 60's.