Rational Selfishness, Personal Experience and Questions

[HollowApollo]

Ayn Rand's philosophy is somewhat new to me. I find her philosophy interesting, but I am a free thinker and I am not easily won over by ideas, simply because they seem reasonable on the surface, so I joined this forum to share my thoughts with other people, with the hopes that they would, in turn, share there thoughts with me. I plan to put effort into my posts and comments, so I hope you will do the same. Lets make this an even trade.

"Rational Self Interest" is interesting to me.

Is it correct to say, "the only rational action is the action that best serves your own self-interest?"

I am confused by this. It seems to make sense, but I am a person who thinks deeply about the terms being used in any assertion, so I am not mislead by deceptive wording.

I of course focused on the two terms on which the above assertion is dependent upon: "rational" and "self-interest."

Rational - having reason or understanding (that is the easy one).

I would assume that what reasonable is logical.

Self-interest - (according to the dictionary)a concern for ones own advantage and well being.

I assume that having concern for well-being is having concern for those factors that best contribute to self preservation. "Satisfying my NEEDS to ensure my survival and good health" might be a more specific way of putting this. Nutrition, exercise, shelter, these are the things that come to mind when I think about well being.

But what about advantage?

Advantage - (according to the dictionary) superiority of position or condition.

When thinking about an assertion, I like to rewrite the assertion by replacing the terms with their definitions:

"the only rational action is the action that best serves your own well-being and your own superiority of position or condition."

I like the well being part but I am unsure about the "superiority of position or condition" part.

I find myself asking: "Superior to what?"

Now I am merely using the definitions from the dictionary and simply using those definitions instead of the terms...because people tend to take the meanings of terms for granted. One might think that self-interest means, "things that I like," but did Rand mean "things that I like" or did she mean to use self-interest as it is defined in the dictionary? Maybe she meant both, but when I say I am interested in something, I don't say I am self interested in something. I don't say I am self-interested in astronomy. I had my question answered when I found that Rand used the term "rational selfishness" to seemingly help modify the term "rational self-interest," (by using "or") but did she use the term to modify, or did she present it as a separate, yet interchangeable concept? I needed to keep in mind the true definition of "selfishness" to figure it out.

Dictionary time:

Selfishness - seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being, without regard for others(Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

I found that she explicitly presents Objectivism ethics as a morality of rational "self-interest" OR of "rational selfishness." Since the "self interest" is not defined as "selfishness," and "selfishness" is not defined as "self interest," AND since the two terms do not share the same dictionary definition, I can only assume that one is used as an alternate for the other, or one is used to modify the other, meaning that Rand must have presented three options. They are as follows:

ASSERTION 1- Rational action of self interest

ASSERTION 2- Rational action of self interest and selfishness

ASSERTION 3- Rational action of selfishness

But after rereading I noticed that she did not speak of options, so I should not make that assumption, though her sentence structure inferred options. I should see then as only required modifiers of each-other, after all the title of Rands piece is "The Virtue of Selfishness," not "The Virtue of Self Interest or Selfishness."

So, with that in mind, I wrote down only the first assertion, with all the dictionary definitions of the terms exposed, in order to present the three options clearly and logically:

Assertion - "The only rational action is the action that best serves your own well-being and your own superiority of position or condition, without regard to others."

So now I would like to use logic to better understand the assertion.

The 3 requirements of a rational action (I am assuming that, if one requirement is missing, the action can no longer be considered rational:

The only rational action is one that serves your own well being

(AND)

The only rational action is one that serves your own superiority of position or condition

(AND)

The only rational action is one that is made with no regard for others (this is rational selfishness broke down to definition)

I am assuming these are the three requirements (it says "only") for a rational action...and not one can be absent in order to justify the action as rational.

But, wait, does this mean that any action I choose to perform is rational, if it serves my well being and gains me a superior position or condition, so long as that actions pays no regard to others?

Rand informs me of the only reason I should act...and that is to gain a superior position or condition and serve my well being,

but she doesn't tell me what actions I should take.

She just says those actions should be made with NO regard for others; that it is the requirement, while acting, but it is not the action itself.

So now I know what ends justify my actions as rational, but, Rand does not tell me what actions should be made, just that I shouldn't sacrifice myself, or murder people. I guess all other actions are fine, so long as they are committed without regard for others, in the service my own well being and achieve superiority of position or condition

So, now that understand what rational self interest, or rational selfishness, is, I should test it in a scenario.

If my friend and I are lost in Alaska, without a compass...and my friend knows how to navigate without one and I know how to find food and water, what would be my best rational action?

If the only rational action is one that serves my own well-being and gains me a superior position or condition, with NO regard to others, then the only rational thing to do is find food and eat all of it without sharing with my friend. This action serves my well-being because eating all of the food keeps me alive, it also puts me in a superior position because, since (I am the only one who can find food) I will be the one who is NOT starving...and, according to Rand, I am not required to share to exist, nor is it rational to have regard for my friends hunger. I will also be stronger, faster and have more energy than my friend, so I will have superior condition. Yes, it is clear that eating all the food is the most rational action.

But, wait, after four days of traveling, my starving friend passes out and wont wake up. He is the only one who can navigate without a compass. Now I am lost and I don't know how to get out of the wilderness. Since it would be irrational to try to nurse him back to health...because I a rational act must be one that pays no regard to others, I guess I will just keep walking. Damn, I have no idea how long I will be in the woods...and though I can find food and water it is never quite enough, not enough to sustain me indefinitely. Finally,the weather turns bad, as weather often does in Alaska, and my last night is spent freezing to death, lost in the woods.

My Questions to everyone are:

(with Rands lexicon correctly defined)

Concerning the above survival situation:

How is acting, with NO regard to others, to serve my own well being and gain a Superior position or condition, considered the only rational action, when that action decreases my chance of survival?

Why would acting with regard for others, to serve our well beings and gain equal position and condition, be considered irrational, when the chances of death for one, lead to the chances of death for the other?

Edited September 5, 2011 by softwareNerd

[Greebo]

I of course focused on the two terms on which the above assertion is dependent upon: "rational" and "self-interest."

First of all, remember that "self-interest" is a LONG term prospect.

The, I read more and found that she explicitly presents Objectivism ethics as a morality of rational "self-interest" OR of "rational selfishness." Since the "self interest" is not defined as "selfishness," and "selfishness" is not defined as "self interest," AND since the two terms do not share the same dictionary definition, I can only assume that one is used as an alternate for the other, or one is used to modify the other, meaning that Rand must have presented three options. They are as follows:

The bold part is incorrect:

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.

But, wait, does this mean that any action I choose to perform is rational, if it serves my well being and gains me a superior position or condition, so long as that actions pays no regard to others?

As a matter of fact, it does - as long as the "paying no regard to others" means "not putting their needs and interests above your own".

So now I know what ends justify my actions as rational, but, Rand does not tell me what actions should be made, just that I shouldn't sacrifice myself, or murder people.

This is where you really start to go off the rails - the position is that you should not sacrifice yourself or others - sacrificing others isn't limited to murder.

If my friend and I are lost in Alaska, without a compass...and my friend knows how to navigate without one and I know how to find food and water, what would be my best rational action?

So the scenario you come up with is an unusual, extreme hypothetical situation which is basically a "lifeboat scenario" with a slight twist. This, to you, seems rational?

If the only rational action is one that serves my own well-being and gains me a superior position or condition, with NO regard to others, then the only rational thing to do is find food and eat all of it without sharing with my friend.

Stop here.

It is in your interest for your friend to survive because YOU VALUE YOUR FRIEND. He is your friend for a reason - because you DO care about him. This doesn't mean putting his interests above yours - but it does mean recognizing that the world is a better place for YOU with him in it.

Further, unless you're an idiot you recognize that EVEN IF YOU HATE THE OTHER PERSON, you need a navigator to escape your situation - so not only do you value your friend, you NEED your friend's ability to navigate, but even if he wasn't a friend, he's necessary to your long term self interest, so keeping him alive until you escape the emergency is in YOUR interest.

And thus your hypothetical falls apart.

Ultimately you should re-title this thread to "A poorly conceived example of Rational Selfishness"

Edited September 5, 2011 by Greebo

[softwareNerd]

If the only rational action is one that serves my own well-being and gains me a superior position or condition, with NO regard to others, then the only rational thing to do is find food and eat all of it without sharing with my friend. This action serves my well-being because eating all of the food keeps me alive, it also puts me in a superior position because, since (I am the only one who can find food) I will be the one who is NOT starving...and, according to Rand, I am not required to share to exist, nor is it rational to have regard for my friends hunger. I will also be stronger, faster and have more energy than my friend, so I will have superior condition. Yes, it is clear that eating all the food is the most rational action.

But, wait, after four days of traveling, my starving friend passes out and wont wake up. He is the only one who can navigate without a compass. Now I am lost and I don't know how to get out of the wilderness. Since it would be irrational to try to nurse him back to health...because I a rational act must be one that pays no regard to others, I guess I will just keep walking. Damn, I have no idea how long I will be in the woods...and though I can find food and water it is never quite enough, not enough to sustain me indefinitely. Finally,the weather turns bad, as weather often does in Alaska, and my last night is spent freezing to death, lost in the woods.

You pose this as an example where the advice "act in your own interest" fails, yet what is the proof you offer? You show that somethings that may not appear to be in one's interest if one limits oneself to the range of the moment may actually be in one's self-interest if one looks 4 days ahead. You use self-interest as your standard to say that self-interest does not work? Do you see that you're actually not making an argument against self-interest at all, but only against short-term action that does not look at longer-term consequences?

Further, there is much to be gained from other human beings. (In fact, that's a huge understatement.) Society as we know it would be impossible without division of labor and trade. Here too, one has to look for our long-term interests. It makes sense to build trading relationships where we can trust and be trusted.

Also, friendship is a high value to almost all human beings. To help a friends because he is a friend is radically different from helping some random stranger merely because I some sense of duty pushes me to do so.

Finally, an ethical system has to be designed based on real-life. If the facts of life were radically different, we might well need a different ethical system. it is fine to test ethical systems against so-called "life-boat scenarios" (or, lost in snow, as in your example). However, since these are extreme situations, it is possible to construct such an example in a way that makes the context too different from real life. At some stage, one has then created a fictional context in which one would need to come up with a completely different ethical system.

[HollowApollo]

First of all, remember that "self-interest" is a LONG term prospect.

The bold part is incorrect:

As a matter of fact, it does - as long as the "paying no regard to others" means "not putting their needs and interests above your own".

This is where you really start to go off the rails - the position is that you should not sacrifice yourself or others - sacrificing others isn't limited to murder.

So the scenario you come up with is an unusual, extreme hypothetical situation which is basically a "lifeboat scenario" with a slight twist. This, to you, seems rational?

Stop here.

It is in your interest for your friend to survive because YOU VALUE YOUR FRIEND. He is your friend for a reason - because you DO care about him. This doesn't mean putting his interests above yours - but it does mean recognizing that the world is a better place for YOU with him in it.

Further, unless you're an idiot you recognize that EVEN IF YOU HATE THE OTHER PERSON, you need a navigator to escape your situation - so not only do you value your friend, you NEED your friend's ability to navigate, but even if he wasn't a friend, he's necessary to your long term self interest, so keeping him alive until you escape the emergency is in YOUR interest.

And thus your hypothetical falls apart.

Ultimately you should re-title this thread to "A poorly conceived example of Rational Selfishness"

People get lost in the woods every day. That is not unusual. Those who are lost alone...die much more often than those who are lost in groups. The fact remains...these things do happen. To say they don't is incorrect...and to say they don't happen often is also incorrect. You should Google it. Don't try to pretend situations like this are fictional, just to win an argument. They are actually very common. Not just in AMERICA but around the world. Furthermore, without civilization, we would all be living like this.

"Not putting other people's needs and interests above your own" does not mean the same thing as "paying no regard to them."

"Not putting other people's needs and interests above your own," logically means that you can regard those needs to some degree, or disregard them, but you just cant place them above your own."

HAHA

You see how that works right? I hope for your sake you do.

"Disregard" is the equivalent of "paying no regard," because NO regard, means the absence of all regard.

Disregard: to pay no attention to : treat as unworthy of regard or notice (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

Since selfishness is defined as having concern for yourself with NO REGARD FOR OTHERS, then it must be concluded that this is what Rand meant by Selfishness. She defined it herself in "The Virtue of Selfishness."

She also said "you are not required to give in order to exist."

The assertions that I used in my post, were straight from Rand. I did not alter them at all. All I did was put the definitions in place of the terms. She said those things not me. Those statements are hers.

You are calling me foolish, but you are contradicting her statements in your argument. The statements are set in stone. Sorry.

RAND SAID "THE ONLY RATIONAL ACTION IS THE ACTION THAT SERVES YOUR OWN SELF-INTEREST.

Define SELF-INTEREST...and you will finally understand that term.

SHE ALSO SAID "ALL RATIONAL BEINGS ARE SELFISH," meaning all rational beings ONLY THINK ABOUT THEIR OWN WELL-BEING AND PAY NO REGARD TO OTHERS, IF YOU PAY REGARD, YOU ARE IRRATIONAL

Now to address your statements about sacrifice:

If you believe that one should not sacrifice,

and you believe that not feeding my friend is the same as sacrifice, then you must believe that not paying taxes so the poor to can have health care is also sacrifice. Right? Same concept. Having the means to help some one, but not helping them. "AYN RAND SAID YOU HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO SHARE."

SHE DIDN"T SAY "YOU HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO SHARE< EXCEPT WHEN NOT SHARING RESULTS IN SACRIFICE" Right?

AND DON'T INSULT ME.

THANKS

Edited September 5, 2011 by HollowApollo

[Craig24]

Dictionary time:

Selfishness - seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being, without regard for others(Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

.....

The only rational action is one that serves your own superiority of position or condition

(AND)

The only rational action is one that is made with no regard for others (this is rational selfishness broke down to definition)

.. and then there is this in Ayn Rand's own words:

The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.

In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.

Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.

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

You are quoting from a different dictionary than she did. That is creating a conflict between what you think she means and what she actually meant by "selfishness". To act in one's own interests requires recognizing that there are others to consider and that assistance to others can be in your interest.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Craig24

[HollowApollo]

.. and then there is this in Ayn Rand's own words:

You are quoting from a different dictionary than she did. That is creating a conflict between what you think she means and what she actually meant by "selfishness". To act in one's own interests requires recognizing that there are others to consider and that assistance to others can be in your interest.

That is not the dictionary definition of the word. LOOK IT UP. If Rand said that, you have proven that she does not know the complete DICTIONARY definition to a term in her own lexicon. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfishness. Did she sight her definition? No. I win.

Edited September 5, 2011 by HollowApollo

[DonAthos]

How is acting, with NO regard to others, to serve my own well being and gain a Superior position or condition, considered the only rational action, when that action decreases my chance of survival?

Howdy and welcome.

The crucial thing where selfishness is concerned is not to act with "no regard to others," but "to serve my own well being." If an action decreases your chance of survival, that's not likely to be the "rational action" in terms of "rational self-interest." Consider that Objectivists, Ayn Rand included, have friendships and get married and enter into business projects with others and etc. It's not an orgy of taking the other man's food for a temporary boost in our own nutrition, or whatever. We cultivate those relationships because they pay enormous dividends in ways both spiritual and physical. That's rational self-interest.

Where your scenario specifically is concerned, work backwards. By allowing your friend with the survival skills to die, you severely hurt yourself; is that the rationally selfish thing to do -- to hurt yourself?

[HollowApollo]

That is not the dictionary definition of the word. LOOK IT UP. If Rand said that, you have proven that she does not know the complete DICTIONARY definition to a term in her own lexicon. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfishness. Did she sight her definition? No. I win.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/selfishness

This one says ....regardless of others.

[DonAthos]

That is not the dictionary definition of the word. LOOK IT UP. If Rand said that, you have proven that she does not know the complete DICTIONARY definition to a term in her own lexicon. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfishness. Did she sight her definition? No. I win.

By the way, this thread is already running out of control with animosity. Please don't make me regret replying to you; it's possible to talk about these things civilly, and we should try to do it.

On definitions, don't get caught up in one dictionary versus another. Dictionaries are written by people, and those people are coming from different philosophical backgrounds which colors (read: biases) the way that they choose to formulate their definitions. I could, if I wished, write and publish my own "dictionary" on my own website. Then use my "authoritative source" to "win" my arguments for me.

Dictionaries are often useful tools, but they are not the sum and substance of our philosophical discussions.

[Craig24]

That is not the dictionary definition of the word. LOOK IT UP. If Rand said that, you have proven that she does not know the complete DICTIONARY definition to a term in her own lexicon. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfishness. Did she sight her definition? No. I win.

You ignored what I said. Let me repeat: She is quoting from a DIFFERENT dictionary than you are. There are multiple dictionaries in the world and the definitions found in them can and do change over time. She wrote those words in the 1960's which is well over 40 years ago.

[HollowApollo]

Howdy and welcome.

The crucial thing where selfishness is concerned is not to act with "no regard to others," but "to serve my own well being." If an action decreases your chance of survival, that's not likely to be the "rational action" in terms of "rational self-interest." Consider that Objectivists, Ayn Rand included, have friendships and get married and enter into business projects with others and etc. It's not an orgy of taking the other man's food for a temporary boost in our own nutrition, or whatever. We cultivate those relationships because they pay enormous dividends in ways both spiritual and physical. That's rational self-interest.

Where your scenario specifically is concerned, work backwards. By allowing your friend with the survival skills to die, you severely hurt yourself; is that the rationally selfish thing to do -- to hurt yourself?

So youre saying acting in other people's self-interest is a rational thing?

[brianleepainter]

HollowApollo,

Perhaps you will find it helpful, in understanding selfishness, to also consider the antithesis of selfishness: altruism

You're new to understanding Objectivism, your definitions need to be updated, and this takes time to integrate ideas. The Ayn Rand Lexicon is wealth of information at your fingertips as you gain more understanding.

Edited September 5, 2011 by brianleepainter

[HollowApollo]

So youre saying acting in other people's self-interest is a rational thing?

are you saying an action that provides other people with supremacy of position is condition is also a ration action?

or acting to give then an equal position or condition is a rational action?

[DonAthos]

So youre saying acting in other people's self-interest is a rational thing?

No.

I am saying that in the specific scenario you've provided, it would be in your rational self-interest to help keep your friend with the survival skills alive.

[HollowApollo]

Howdy and welcome.

The crucial thing where selfishness is concerned is not to act with "no regard to others," but "to serve my own well being." If an action decreases your chance of survival, that's not likely to be the "rational action" in terms of "rational self-interest." Consider that Objectivists, Ayn Rand included, have friendships and get married and enter into business projects with others and etc. It's not an orgy of taking the other man's food for a temporary boost in our own nutrition, or whatever. We cultivate those relationships because they pay enormous dividends in ways both spiritual and physical. That's rational self-interest.

Where your scenario specifically is concerned, work backwards. By allowing your friend with the survival skills to die, you severely hurt yourself; is that the rationally selfish thing to do -- to hurt yourself?

are you saying an action that provides other people with supremacy of position or condition is also a ration action?

or acting to give then an equal position or condition is a rational action?

Edited September 5, 2011 by HollowApollo

[Craig24]

are you saying an action that provides other people with supremacy of position is condition is also a ration action?

or acting to give then an equal position or condition is a rational action?

An act that benefits other people can be rational. Is there a reason to think otherwise?

[DonAthos]

are you saying an action that provides other people with supremacy of position is condition is also a ration action?

or acting to give then an equal position or condition is a rational action?

I think that these are meant as follow-up questions for me, so I'll respond.

No, I am not saying those things. The rationally self-interested action does not take those things you mention ("supremacy/equality of position or condition") into consideration. It only asks: what is it best for me to do, for myself? In the extreme scenario you've provided, the best thing for a person to do, for himself, is to help keep his friend with the survival skills alive.

[HollowApollo]

No.

I am saying that in the specific scenario you've provided, it would be in your rational self-interest to help keep your friend with the survival skills alive.

So you are saying that in that circumstance it would be wise to feed him because he lacks the skill to find food in the wilderness?

but would that not be an action, made by me, that provides us both with a superior condition because it is a condition more superior than that of not giving him food?

and if I gave both of us that superior condition, it must stand to reason that I gave him that superior condition.

but then Rand said "THE ONLY RATIONAL ACT IS AND ACT THAT SERVES YOUR (OWN) SELF-INTEREST...and self interest is defined as "concern for well-being and superior condition or position)

Edited September 5, 2011 by HollowApollo

[HollowApollo]

I think that these are meant as follow-up questions for me, so I'll respond.

No, I am not saying those things. The rationally self-interested action does not take those things you mention ("supremacy/equality of position or condition") into consideration. It only asks: what is it best for me to do, for myself? In the extreme scenario you've provided, the best thing for a person to do, for himself, is to help keep his friend with the survival skills alive.

So RAND didn't use the term correctly? She didn't use the dictionary definition? If my friend did not have skills, would it then be okay to let him die?

[DonAthos]

So you are saying that in that circumstance it would be wise to feed him because he lacks the skill to find food in the wilderness?

but would that not be an action, made by me, that provides us both with a superior condition because it is a condition more superior than that of not giving giving him food?

I fear that crucial meaning/understanding might be getting lost in trying to translate these things into the terms you seem determined to use. Because I don't want to confuse things any more than they already are, I'll stop here and not try to relate what I mean into "conditions," superior or otherwise.

I hope, at least, that your initial question has been answered to your satisfaction: whatever it is that we Objectivists mean by "rational self-interest," it isn't refusing to share your food with your friend in a survival situation when he's your best chance of getting out of it alive, and thereby hurting your own chances to live. That's not rational self-interest... to act that way is just dumb.

Otherwise, I think that others here have shared some valuable links to information. Since it seems like you're just starting with all of this, I highly recommend tracking that information down and spending some time thinking about all of it. I'm certain that other questions will come to you in the process, and when you're ready to ask 'em, we'll be here to answer!

[2046]

I also don't recognize much, if any, of Rand in what you are attributing as her views here. Since you don't want to be accused of creating a straw man, I would suggest going back over some of what your understanding of the concept of rational self-interest means and comparing it with the text, maybe provide some citations, instead of arguing from the dictionary. Rand is good about defining her terms, and her method includes explaining how she arrived at the concept. I will just point out a few differences that I can see:

1. Is it correct to say, "the only rational action is the action that best serves your own self-interest?"

I don't think it would be correct to say this if what we mean by this is some out of context absolute dictum. The moral maxim that establishes an imperative to pursue your rational self-interest obtains in a context of your having chosen to live as a human being, i.e. in the context of the hypothetical imperative that if we accept that living life is the end, then only certain kinds of action will suffice to sustain a human life and contribute to human flourishing. (Cf. Smith, Viable Values, chapter 5 "Morality's Reward: Flourishing" p. 136)

Now, we might be mistaken at what means will accomplish this end, and we might make errors of reasoning, or have faulty knowledge, and Rand would not call this irrational. However, if we deliberately choose means that are incompatible with this end, say, drinking cyanide, and we still expect to live, then we would call this irrational.

2. But what about advantage? […] did Rand mean "things that I like" or did she mean to use self-interest as it is defined in the dictionary?

Well, if you read the Introduction to her ethical work The Virtue of Selfishness, she tells you exactly what she means by self-interest and selfishness: "concern with one’s own interests." You are right to be confused about the word "advantage" because that doesn't play into this, and it would be anathema to Rand's conception of self-interest. Advantage over what? Other people? But why should concern with your own interests necessarily include this as a package-deal?

Rand does not consider human welfare to be a zero-sum game, with your well-being only achievable at the expense of someone else's well-being, such that you have to have some sort of "advantage" over others. (Cf. Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, chapter 4 “The ‘Conflicts’ of Men’s Interests,” pp. 57–65; Peikoff, Objectivism, chapter 7 "The Good" section 4 "The Individual as the Proper Beneficiary of His Own Moral Action" pp. 234–237; Smith, Viable Values, chapter 6 "Principled Egoism: The Only Way to Live," section 3 "Implications for the Relationship Between Individuals' Interests" pp. 174–186; Smith, Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics, chapter 2 "Rational Egoism," section 5 "No Conflicts Between Rational Interests" pp. 38-46.)

3. The, I read more and found that she explicitly presents Objectivism ethics as a morality of rational "self-interest" OR of "rational selfishness." Since the "self interest" is not defined as "selfishness," and "selfishness" is not defined as "self interest," AND since the two terms do not share the same dictionary definition...

Rand would consider these to all be the same things, though, and should would not agree with those definitions. Again, see the Introduction in The Virtue of Selfishness for a discussion of what exactly she means by selfishness and self-interest ("rational" being a redundancy, but a necessary one.)

4. The only rational action is one that is made with no regard for others (this is rational selfishness broke down to definition)

So given the above, the rest of your post is off on a tangent. Rand explicitly rejects this definition, and does not agree that selfishness involves having no concern for others. Couldn't it also be that my interests involve concern for various others? Isn't it to a man's interest to have close friends, romantic relationships, and amicable and respectful dealings and associations with neighbors, colleagues, acquaintances, etc.?

5. Rand informs me of the only reason I should act...and that is to gain a superior position or condition and serve my well being, […] She just says those actions should be made with NO regard for others; that it is the requirement, while acting, but it is not the action itself.

This is all flying in the face of what she has actually written. If all you have done is looked at a dictionary, you are on shaky ground with applying that to someone else's words without looking at that person's words, don't you think? (For example, Bernstein critiques this very definition in Capitalism Unbound, chapter 5 "The Virtue of Selfishness" p. 71-84, and also chapter 6 "Egoism as the Necessary Foundation of Goodwill" pp. 85-90.)

6. but she doesn't tell me what actions I should take.

Right, saying that you should be rationally selfish doesn't specify what is actually good for you, or what your interests actually consist of. You'd have to actually read the book for an explanation of that, which I suppose you haven't done, unfortunately.

7. When dealing in absolutes as Rand does, if the supposed absolute does not work in one single circumstance, then it is not an absolute at all.

This is also a misrepresenting of Rand's moral absolutism. She does not hold that, to be absolute, something must work in all circumstances. This would be intrinsicism, a doctrine Rand soundly rejects. (Cf. Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, chapter 1 "The Objectivist Ethics," p.26, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, chapter 5 "Definitions" pp. 42-43, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, chapter 1 "What is Capitalism?" pp. 21-22.) Rather, she holds to the doctrine of contextual absolutism, which means that to say that something is proper (rationality or honesty or justice, for instance), is to say that it is proper in every particular case of the relevant kind. (Cf. Smith, Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics, chapter 3 "Rationality: The Master Virtue," section 8 "Absolutism" pp. 68-69; Peikoff, Objectivism chapter 5 "Reason" section 4 "Certainty as Contextual" pp. 173-4.)

[softwareNerd]

So RAND didn't use the term correctly? She didn't use the dictionary definition? If my friend did not have skills, would it then be okay to let him die?

It would help people explain things to you if you mention whether you have read Rand? From this question, I assume you have not, else you would know whether you disagree with what Rand said about ethics, or whether you merely disagree on the terminology she used. To understand Rand's Ethics, one ought to read at least one essay, titled "The Objectivist Ethics", from the anthology titled "The Virtue of Selfishness". If you have not read any of Rand's non-fiction, have you read any of her fiction? Perhaps that might offer people a hook to explain aspects of Objectivism? Edited September 5, 2011 by softwareNerd

[HollowApollo]

I fear that crucial meaning/understanding might be getting lost in trying to translate these things into the terms you seem determined to use. Because I don't want to confuse things any more than they already are, I'll stop here and not try to relate what I mean into "conditions," superior or otherwise.

I hope, at least, that your initial question has been answered to your satisfaction: whatever it is that we Objectivists mean by "rational self-interest," it isn't refusing to share your food with your friend in a survival situation when he's your best chance of getting out of it alive, and thereby hurting your own chances to live. That's not rational self-interest... to act that way is just dumb.

Otherwise, I think that others here have shared some valuable links to information. Since it seems like you're just starting with all of this, I highly recommend tracking that information down and spending some time thinking about all of it. I'm certain that other questions will come to you in the process, and when you're ready to ask 'em, we'll be here to answer!

Sorry. I am simply using the definition of the term self-interest, instead of the term itself. Is there something wrong with that? The terms I am using are the terms used to define "self-interest" and "selfishness" in the dictionary. Are you asserting that Rand rewrote these definitions.

Furthermore, Rand said "giving is not required for you to exist," but, in the circumstance I presented, it is required for you to exist. You said so yourself. I don't know why you have a problem with that.

[HollowApollo]

It would help people explain things to you if you mention whether you have read Rand? From this question, I assume you have not, else you would know whether you disagree with what Rand said about ethics, or whether you merely disagree on the terminology she used. To understand Rand's Ethics, one ought to read at least one essay, titled "The Objectivist Ethics", from the anthology titled "The Virtue of Selfishness". If you have not read any of Rand's non-fiction, have you read any of her fiction? Perhaps that might offer people a hook to explain aspects of Objectivism?

Many people argue using questions. Why wont you answer them? Just as you may assume that I ask questions because I don't know the answer, I assume that you wont answer my questions because you don't have an answer. If you asked me a question, I would try to answer it. Yes. I have read Rand. The arguments in here are kind making Rand's philosophy seem slippery and arbitrary, as if her philosophy isn't even worth challenging, or considering. If self interest can mean anything, why should I care? It may as well be reduced to....

Edited September 5, 2011 by HollowApollo

[softwareNerd]

Many people argue using questions. Why wont you answer them?

I did... see post #3. You did not respond to that. Probably, it's because a whole lot of people are replying to you. My advice is: slow down, there's no hurry here. Wait for some replies, focus on essentials, and then respond to the essentials.

Also, I explained why I asked the question about your reading because you started by arguing against the concept of selfishness, but then you were questioning if Rand may have used the term differently from the common usage. If you had read Rand, you would have know the answer to the second question. There's no need to get upset... personally, I respond to philosophical discussion on the assumption that minds will be made up over months, not days, and definitely not hours. Just slow down!

Edited September 5, 2011 by softwareNerd