Rational Selfishness, Personal Experience and Questions

[Trebor]

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!

That's a great point!

[Eiuol]

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.

General advice: definitions from the dictionary are compiled, there is no official definition, so especially when discussing philosophy, dictionaries help with nothing.

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?

You are right that this would not be in your self-interest. It is indeed important to understand what value people can provide you. The focus really is on for whose sake (your own), not who you *disregard*. Other people provide value, which you identify in your scenario. The value provided is a result of how your life is benefited.

[HollowApollo]

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.)

Sorry. You will have to forgive me. I am simply understanding the words as they are defined in the dictionary. Not one term I used was drawn out of thin air.

I find it strange that rand considers self interest and selfishness to be one in the same. I also find it strange that she then defines both of those words as "concern for your own self interest" because she is defining a term with the term itself. Like "a mammal is a mammal." That does not tell me anything. It seems to burn away any concept. This is not enough thought for me. Blending two concepts into one concept that simply means "concern for your own self-interest" then defining "interest" as "whatever your interested in." That's basically what you said she did right? Its like its just an empty game she is playing.

You don't have to have advantage over just people no, you can have an advantage over your environment, for example.

As a physicist, what is absolute is hard to say, however, I find that she is ignorant of the fact that closed systems do not exist. Do you know why I would bring this fallacy of "closed systems" up at this point in time? You mentioned that "contextual absolutism is what is proper only to the relevant kind?" But do you understand that application in physics, physics dealing with all things including the mind? What, in your opinion would Rand say about "singularity?"

Would you say that rands idea of contextual absolutism is absolute? Or is that doctrine also just limited to relative to the relevant kind, like semantic games?

Edited September 5, 2011 by HollowApollo

[HollowApollo]

General advice: definitions from the dictionary are compiled, there is no official definition, so especially when discussing philosophy, dictionaries help with nothing.

You are right that this would not be in your self-interest. It is indeed important to understand what value people can provide you. The focus really is on for whose sake (your own), not who you *disregard*. Other people provide value, which you identify in your scenario. The value provided is a result of how your life is benefited.

I am aware that language is flexible, but Rand defines terms with the same exact terms...and that bothers me. I am not going to believe a term is self evident, as she seems to want me to.

A word of advise to you too, words are not meaningless either. Communication depends on some degree of consensus. You also cant alter words within a an argument and o be taken seriously, or even still be considered logical. Defining a term with a term limits concept....and that I cannot stand for. Ayn Rand herself claims to stick to dictionary terms, so I was trying to play her game, but she seems to only do that when it is convenient for her to do so. She claimed claimed to define selfishness by its dictionary definition, but apparently she only use half of the definition, meaning she lied, or she was ignorant. She invents definitions for words to prevent providing any real meaning. Its strange. I find it deceptive.

[Greebo]

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.

No, you don't, not if you change what Rand herself clarified as her meaning in order to fit your idea of what her words were intended to mean.

[whYNOT]

Sorry. You will have to forgive me. I am simply understanding the words as they are defined in the dictionary. Not one term I used was drawn out of thin air.

I find it strange that rand considers self interest and selfishness to be one in the same. I also find it strange that she then defines both of those words as "concern for your own self interest" because she is defining a term with the term itself. Like "a mammal is a mammal." That does not tell me anything. It seems to burn away any concept. This is not enough thought for me. Blending two concepts into one concept that simply means "concern for your own self-interest" then defining "interest" as "whatever your interested in." That's basically what you said she did right? Its like its just an empty game she is playing.

No, there's no circularity involved since the long-accepted dictionary definition is "concern for one's self." (Not "ones self-interest.")

Notice that this is a morally-neutral definition, not good or bad.

That 'selfish' has been corrupted or hijacked for centuries to indicate something evil, does not mean it can't be retrieved, and, together with "rational", be identified as the rightful state for man.

At least comprehend the entire concept of rational selfishness before you fault it.

(Rand was only interested in the denotations of words, not the accepted connotations, which made her writing totally unambiguous.She was asked why she had to use such loaded words to mean something else - and replied "purely because you don't like hearing them.")

[Greebo]

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.

In alaska, with just two people, one who can get food and one who can navigate.

Sure.

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

You are dropping context. You need to take Rand's full and numerous quotes on the subject in mind when you formulate your argument. You are redefining her position in order to defeat it - you've invented a straw man.

HAHA

Oh, I see - you're not in this to learn, but to win. You don't think you might be wrong and wish to validate your premises, you are out to prove everyone else wrong and want to score points. Is that your idea here? If so, then all you are is a troll.

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."

She wrote a lot more too - you should read it all and integrate it all.

And in normal circumstances the latter is true. Your invented hypothetical is not a "normal circumstance" - it's a fringe circumstance.

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

Correct only if you limit your quotes to the exact ones you cherry picked instead of taking them ALL in context.

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

And I showed you how aiding your friend was in your self interest in two different ways.

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

Use her definition, as she expounded on it multiple times, and stop dropping context, and you will understand what she meant.

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.

You do not understand the terms you are using, again. Sacrifice is voluntary and based on the relative measure of values. Taxes are not voluntary and are based on someone else's of force.

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?

Must you yell? Again - get your definitions correct as Rand meant them.

AND DON'T INSULT ME.

My goodness, temper tantrum much?

[brianleepainter]

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.

HollowApollo,

As others have said, it will take time to integrate these new ideas. Given your interest in her philosophy, why don't you start by reading her works? Some people are first introduced to Objectivism through her art, and then move onto her non-fiction work to better understand her philosophy, but since you are questioning her philosophy through her non-fiction, why don't you start reading OPAR(Objectivism the Philosophy of Ayn Rand) written by Dr. Leonard Peikoff. OPAR

Forums can be surely helpful and a tool for critical thinking, but I think they are secondary to having first read her works.

Edited September 5, 2011 by brianleepainter

[HollowApollo]

No, there's no circularity involved since the long-accepted dictionary definition is "concern for one's self." (Not "ones self-interest.")

Notice that this is a morally-neutral definition, not good or bad.

That 'selfish' has been corrupted or hijacked for centuries to indicate something evil, does not mean it can't be retrieved, and, together with "rational", be identified as the rightful state for man.

At least comprehend the entire concept of rational selfishness before you fault it.

(Rand was only interested in the denotations of words, not the accepted connotations, which made her writing totally unambiguous.She was asked why she had to use such loaded words to mean something else - and replied "purely because you don't like hearing them.")

was she joking, or did she mean that? I think it is an assumption to say that people believe selfishness is evil. I never thought that. Many people in history have expressed an acceptance of "selfishness." Rand was not the first. It seems "rightful state of man," however, is a bit of a stretch. Unless you mean to include it in a long list of "rightful states of man," being pretty much anything man is capable of. I call it a valid state of man, but "rightful" is an arbitrary value judgment. If Selfishness is simply "concern for one's self-interest" and the interest is left up to the individual and one recognizes that a rational self interest can be an interest in benefiting the species...and a self interest in dominating the species or gaining advantage over it...can be seen as irrational, then I have no problem with "selfishness."

Being selfishly selfless or selflessly selfish is more accurate than anything...because selfish and selfless are conceptually spectral, they are relative...microcosms, if you will. They only seem like separate concepts, but they are singular....however...the concept is large. Objective and subjective are spectral, a matter of degree. They are not independent of each other. Another way to put this is..."selfish" points to "selfless" the two depend on each other to exist. So if selfishness is the correct state of man, the same must also be true of selflessness, for each micro-concept points to what the other isn't. Even when Rand wrote of selfishness, she could not speak of it without also speaking of selflessness, thus she dependent on its existence. She had to be anti-selflessness in order to be pro-selfishness. Thus both are a rightful state. They are both the equal parts of one beast.

Think of it this way, if all were selfless, would we also achieve freedomPlease give more credit than having to explain what morally neutral means. I ma not against the concept of self-interest alone, but I am against it being valued as something

[HollowApollo]

In alaska, with just two people, one who can get food and one who can navigate.

Sure.

You are dropping context. You need to take Rand's full and numerous quotes on the subject in mind when you formulate your argument. You are redefining her position in order to defeat it - you've invented a straw man.

Oh, I see - you're not in this to learn, but to win. You don't think you might be wrong and wish to validate your premises, you are out to prove everyone else wrong and want to score points. Is that your idea here? If so, then all you are is a troll.

She wrote a lot more too - you should read it all and integrate it all.

And in normal circumstances the latter is true. Your invented hypothetical is not a "normal circumstance" - it's a fringe circumstance.

Correct only if you limit your quotes to the exact ones you cherry picked instead of taking them ALL in context.

And I showed you how aiding your friend was in your self interest in two different ways.

Use her definition, as she expounded on it multiple times, and stop dropping context, and you will understand what she meant.

You do not understand the terms you are using, again. Sacrifice is voluntary and based on the relative measure of values. Taxes are not voluntary and are based on someone else's of force.

Must you yell? Again - get your definitions correct as Rand meant them.

My goodness, temper tantrum much?

I am sorry I cant provide you with a million different possible scenarios. All I had to do was provide you with one. its weird that you don' thin that is possible. I am wondering how. It is a possible scenario and you cant reasonably deny that. Bush pilots crash in Alaska, all the time and there are many stories about survival. In all survival circumstances a loner is more at risk than in a group is. THAT IS A FACT because a loner has to do all the work himself to survive. He has to navigate, find food, water, make a shelter, keep away from danger, he must divide his concentration and there for he becomes less efficient...and if he gets hurt in a place like ALASKA he is DEAD. Sorry you don't understand that.

You don't try to back your assumption with reasoning. I want to hear your ideas. I don't want to hear unsupported statements. When you say something like my "hypothetical is a fringe circumstance," I want to know how you came to that conclusion. If you cant give me a reason...your not really making a valid argument and therefore your statements are not worth considering. Sorry, just saying.

"Sacrifice is voluntary and based on the relative values because.............................................." see how the most important part is missing.

"Taxes are not voluntary and are based on someone else's force because....................................." the important part is missing again, the only part that is worth reading.

If taxes are based on democratic consensus, how is that force? It might be force to the minority, but it is not force to everyone because many people want to contribute because they believe that benefiting their community benefit's themselves. More kids with educations and health-care and places to go after school, less kids in gangs, less desperate and ignorant acts. You probably disagree, but we don't care, we will force you to do it anyway because we are the majority and we can. I'm not saying that to be a troll, really. Its just a fact.

But philosophically, those who do not compromise at all can not be considered a rational benefit in the the collective interest toward strengthening civilization because those who do not compromise place all their desires above all else. They are not content to have some, or many of their desires met, they want all or nothing....and thus these people do not contribute to the progression of their species. They do not see themselves as a part of it, yet, still they dwell inside of it and do not concern themselves with whole that they effect. They just stubbornly defy those who wish not to take, but to give and take, but those who do not wish to give are actually the ones taking because they use civilization, yet they never allow civilization to use them. This is not and even trade and thus they are not an asset, but a liability, ironically expecting the same altruism that they claim to despise. There is nothing more ironic than hearing a man ask "why should I pay taxes," as he drives down a public free-way in large truck, spewing black exhaust.

Edited September 5, 2011 by HollowApollo

[Greebo]

was she joking, or did she mean that? I think it is an assumption to say that people believe selfishness is evil.

Do you mean to suggest you have never heard anyone, ever, say "he/she/you are so SELFISH" in a manner that implies that selfishness is anything but good?

[Greebo]

You don't try to back your assumption with reasoning.

I have presented you with a conclusion, not an assumption. That I have not spelled out every detail for you in little dots you can easily follow is not the same as no such logical connection existing. This is an online forum - it is not an effective medium for teaching the whole of Objectivism - it is an effective medium for elaborating on specific points.

If you want the full argument you can find it in "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" - concisely and directly spelled out for you point by point. If you ask me what the reasoning is, I might take the time to spell it out FOR You - but if you just decide I'm assuming with your first statement, then I'm not going to waste much time on this because you're still jumping to conclusions instead of checking your premises.

I want to hear your ideas. I don't want to hear unsupported statements. When you say something like my "hypothetical is a fringe circumstance," I want to know how you came to that conclusion. If you cant give me a reason...your not really making a valid argument and therefore your statements are not worth considering. Sorry, just saying.

It is a fringe scenario because the majority of people by and large on a daily basis do NOT get lost in the woods and depend on one other person's talents combined to make it out. Less than 1/10 of 1 percent of people on a daily basis end up in that situation. Ergo - fringe.

"Sacrifice is voluntary and based on the relative values because.............................................." see how the most important part is missing.

You mean you don't know that sacrifice is voluntary, or why it's based on relative values? The latter is simply the definition - a sacrifice is giving up something of value for something else of less or no value. The former should be self evident.

"Taxes are not voluntary and are based on someone else's force because....................................." the important part is missing again, the only part that is worth reading.

Again - self evident. Fail to file your taxes for a few years if you don't believe there's force involved.

If taxes are based on democratic consensus, how is that force? It might be force to the minority, but it is not force to everyone because many people want to contribute because they believe that benefiting their community benefit's themselves.

So if the majority of whites believe that blacks should be enslaved and imprison, torture and/or kill those who fail to comply, that's not force, because the majority so voted?

Pure Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch.

More kids with educations and health-care and places to go after school, less kids in gangs, less desperate and ignorant acts. You probably disagree, but we don't care, we will force you to do it anyway because we are the majority and we can.

Thank you for proving my point.

I'm not saying that to be a troll, really. Its just a fact. But anyway...I prefer philosophy, over politics.

That you think the two can be separated reveals a big big flaw in your epistemology.

[whYNOT]

was she joking, or did she mean that?

when Rand wrote of selfishness, she could not speak of it without also speaking of selflessness, thus she dependent on its existence. She had to be anti-selflessness in order to be pro-selfishness. Thus both are a rightful state. They are both the equal parts of one beast.

She meant it. There is no better way to encourage a person to check their premises, than to present them with their own misconceptions due to an unconscious acceptance of fallacious thinking.

"Thus both are a rightful state"? "Equal parts"? In other words, to be solid, is also to be liquid?

Try telling a rock that!

I take your point though - I agree - to fully understand the nature of one extreme, one needs to explore the opposite extreme.

I haven't seen this whole thread, but I get the impression you started with the Ethics of Objectivism - and have not yet read up on the Metaphysics and Epistemology. These are the roots of rational selfishness.

Good luck with your studying!

[Eiuol]

She claimed claimed to define selfishness by its dictionary definition, but apparently she only use half of the definition, meaning she lied, or she was ignorant.

Or that she had a different dictionary, and an edition probably not in print anymore. I believe her preferred dictionary was one by Random House. Of course communication depends on some degree of consensus, but oftentimes when discussing philosophy the best thing to do is talk about particulars, or about the ideas. For now, it would be best not to talk in terms of what selfishness is defined as, but rather, what Rand explains to be in your own interests. Linguistic analysis won't get us anywhere, nor does it help in understanding any writer.

[Craig24]

She claimed to define selfishness by its dictionary definition, but apparently she only use half of the definition, meaning she lied, or she was ignorant. She invents definitions for words to prevent providing any real meaning. Its strange. I find it deceptive.

Let's try this again: She wrote these words in September of 1964 (47 years ago):

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

Quoting a current online version of any dictionary to make your case is useless and futile. You need access to the dictionaries (particularly the one she used) available in 1964 when she wrote the words.

[Dante]

But philosophically, those who do not compromise at all can not be considered a rational benefit in the the collective interest toward strengthening civilization because those who do not compromise place all their desires above all else. They are not content to have some, or many of their desires met, they want all or nothing....and thus these people do not contribute to the progression of their species. They do not see themselves as a part of it, yet, still they dwell inside of it and do not concern themselves with whole that they effect. They just stubbornly defy those who wish not to take, but to give and take, but those who do not wish to give are actually the ones taking because they use civilization, yet they never allow civilization to use them. This is not and even trade and thus they are not an asset, but a liability, ironically expecting the same altruism that they claim to despise. There is nothing more ironic than hearing a man ask "why should I pay taxes," as he drives down a public free-way in large truck, spewing black exhaust.

You seem to think this has some relevance to Objectivism. It doesn't. I highly recommend that you go to Rand's primary works and attempt to understand her on her own terms so as not to post irrelevant diatribes when attempting to criticize her ideas.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Dante

[CptnChan]

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?

I would actually venture to say that the dictionary doesn't use the term correctly. Nor do most people when they use the word selfish. The fact is that the English lanuage is almost a living thing. It's always changing and growing. New words are formed, and some words take on different meanings. Rand was essentially (IMO) trying to change people's view of that word, because that is a crucial step in changing their mindset.

It's obvious that when the word selfish is used in general, it's refering to someone who is trying to screw other people over, or is just plain being a jack-ass. But when Rand would use it, she was using it in contrast to what she considered to be its opposite, "self-less" which is to deny your feelings, health, mind and entire self altogether.

I would recommend attempting to take her word usage into context, instead of trying to apply it to other people's usage of the word.

[Trebor]

So RAND didn't use the term correctly? She didn't use the dictionary definition?

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

[HollowApollo]

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.

You misunderstand. I was not making an argument against self-interest, I am not against self-interest. It is the objectivist who claims to be against selfless acts. I am arguing agaisnt the false dichotomy that objectivists promote. It is the objectivist, who claims that rational self interest is the correct state of man. However I am argiung that rational selflessness is a part of that concept and thus must also be a correct state of man. One cannot speak of selfish without indavertently referring to selflessness. Half of the argument promoting rational selfishness is an argument denouncing selflessness. Objecivism is an anti/pro philisophy. It is just as equally concerned with selflessness as it is with selfishness, therefore selflessness is half of your philosophy. Withouth your false dichotomy, you would not have a philosophy at all, therefore your whole state of being an objectivist depends on the very existence of that which you denounce. Objectivism is the act of distinguishing between, therefore you are inadvertently emphazing both, though you claim to be against one. "AGAINST" is a tricky concept to use as a foundation because come to rely on that which you are against. Selflessness is irnonically a part of you, more than it is a par of any other philosophy. Funny how that works.

Do you understand how that works?

I promote the idea that selflishness and selflessness are spectral...and exist in degree. I was trying to pose an example of how one interdependent micro-concept dies with out it's other. If the world suddenly stopped being selfless all together, we would no longer know of the concept of either selfishness or selflessnes. Objectivism is the act of distinguishing between. The only way for use to understand the both concepts is to accepts that it is a singularity. An act of selflessness can be a selfish act, niether side of the coin crushes the other into oblivion. Showing "heads," only reminds us there is a "tails."

"Real Life" is another concept you use. This idea of "Real." Do you claim that my story is somehow not possibe? Do you claim that this can only happen in fiction? Do you think that similar things cannot happen? Do you claim that people do not die alone in the woods more often than groups do? This summer 15 people died in just Yosemite, but explaining this to you is not really my goal. The fact is that people's way of life in Alaska is far different than yours. I can tell you about things I experienced in Italy, Germany, France, Japan, Norway, Greece, Spain that wouldn't even imagined in your "reality." From the way you speak, I am willing to bet I have seem more of reality thant you have. People's way of life in Africa is far different from yours as well. Is it irrational to think that? There are people getting lined up and shot against walls, as we speak in some third world countries. More people are starving around the world right now, then their are American Citizens. To them, your way of life is a dream. If it happens in real life, it is real life. The fact that you would judge the rest of the world from your little microchism only tells me that you havent experienced the world at all. I have. There is no way you could travel like I have and still believe as you do. Sorry....its a hard truth.

[softwareNerd]

Do you understand how that works?

Do you seriously think I will deign to answer your Wikipedia-based pretentiousness?

[HollowApollo]

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

That quote is an example of an assumption with new evidence. It is a generalization and an accusation, Rands claim that she knows what all people are thinking but I do not believe in your your false dichotomy. You do not see that your philisophy would crumble without selflessness. You need it to promote selfishness. Your ideas are incompatible with scientif evidence found in the physicical world. I do not deal in dichotomy. You selfish archetype will always point to its other because that is the only way it can prove its validity. You need your altruist to be the whipping Boy in order to validate you "philosophy," you depend on contrast.

A except the valdity of both. I am selfishly selfless..meet the new breed. Science is currently studying biological evidence of the ALTRUISM COEFFICIENT of VARIATION in EVOLUTION, you will not grasp this concept because you will only recognize it in Randian terms. You buy the definitions that Rand changed for her own ends, so your belif system is incompatible with this scientific concept, much like Mormonism. The above state of progressive evolution, regarding a rejection of homogeny is why scientists and the academic world scoff at objectivism. You will have a hard time accepting this. It has already out-dated you.

Edited September 6, 2011 by HollowApollo

[HollowApollo]

I would actually venture to say that the dictionary doesn't use the term correctly. Nor do most people when they use the word selfish. The fact is that the English lanuage is almost a living thing. It's always changing and growing. New words are formed, and some words take on different meanings. Rand was essentially (IMO) trying to change people's view of that word, because that is a crucial step in changing their mindset.

It's obvious that when the word selfish is used in general, it's refering to someone who is trying to screw other people over, or is just plain being a jack-ass. But when Rand would use it, she was using it in contrast to what she considered to be its opposite, "self-less" which is to deny your feelings, health, mind and entire self altogether.

I would recommend attempting to take her word usage into context, instead of trying to apply it to other people's usage of the word.

Exactly my point, your philisophy hinges on a false dichotomy. You depend on the "selfless" to define the "selfish" You depend on that which you denounce, to promote your hero. Your championed archetype cant exist without selflessness because, then who would he fight? You need your altruist to define your hero, to make him a hero, proving that the two are not seperate but interdependent, a singularity, ONE IDEA. Once one is gone...the other goes too, thus they must constantly be in bed togther having rough, hateful sex. You are dependent on the existence of your altruist....and that is your big flaw. This is your fallacy: denouncing the very thing you need, the very thing Ayn created to validate her belief system. Your altruist is not a part of me or society, it has always only been apart of you and your belief system. Your altruist and your selfish hero are just another god and devil, playing a kinki game of dress up, nothing more.

I know both of your characters dont even exist.

Rand was noting new. You reason like a christian.

Edited September 6, 2011 by HollowApollo

[brianleepainter]

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.

With each new post you write, you show just how unwilling you are to read her philosophy.

You say that you plan on putting effort into your posts and comments? Why not apply that effort into reading a book instead?

Edited September 6, 2011 by brianleepainter

[Eiuol]

Exactly my point, your philisophy hinges on a false dichotomy. You depend on the "selfless" to define the "selfish"

Basically, you did this:

(from here )

Edited September 6, 2011 by Eiuol

[Dante]

...It is the objectivist, who claims that rational self interest is the correct state of man. However I am argiung that rational selflessness is a part of that concept and thus must also be a correct state of man. One cannot speak of selfish without indavertently referring to selflessness. Half of the argument promoting rational selfishness is an argument denouncing selflessness. Objecivism is an anti/pro philisophy. It is just as equally concerned with selflessness as it is with selfishness, therefore selflessness is half of your philosophy. Withouth your false dichotomy, you would not have a philosophy at all, therefore your whole state of being an objectivist depends on the very existence of that which you denounce. Objectivism is the act of distinguishing between, therefore you are inadvertently emphazing both, though you claim to be against one. "AGAINST" is a tricky concept to use as a foundation because come to rely on that which you are against. Selflessness is irnonically a part of you, more than it is a par of any other philosophy. Funny how that works.

And it is the liberal, who claims that freedom is the correct state of man. However I am argiung that slavery is a part of that concept and thus must also be a correct state of man. One cannot speak of freedom without indavertently referring to slavery. Half of the argument promoting freedom is an argument denouncing slavery. Liberalism is an anti/pro philisophy. It is just as equally concerned with slavery as it is with freedom, therefore slavery is half of the philosophy. Withouth the false dichotomy, the liberal would not have a philosophy at all, therefore their whole state of being an liberal depends on the very existence of that which they denounce. Liberalism is the act of distinguishing between, therefore they are inadvertently emphazing both, though they claim to be against one. "AGAINST" is a tricky concept to use as a foundation because come to rely on that which they are against. Slavery is irnonically a part of them, more than it is a par of any other philosophy. Funny how that doesn't make sense at all.