Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How to explain why you are selfish?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

There's really no quick and easy answer one-paragraph answer that will satisfy someone who thinks conventional morality is right.

For the formal exposition, you'd have to give them the detailed explanation from the essay "The Objectivist Ethics" in the "Virtue of Selfishness". However, if the context is more informal and conversational, then a good approach is to start by giving some concrete examples that are meaningful to you rather than giving abstract reasons. If you do so, the other person will soon change the question to: "Why is it good to be extremely selfish?"

E.g.

"I think it would be faking it to say I love everyone equally, that I love a bum I've never met just as much as I love my sweetheart. Imagine telling her that I love her just as much as the bum. I know some people say that's good; I think it's wrong."

"I don't see why I should make my kids eat crappy food and walk around in rags and live in a hovel while I give all my money to poor people who don't even try to get a job."

"I don't like forcing people who are richer than me to pay for my upkeep."

"I don't like to pretend I like something just because everyone else does."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that can help in such discussions is to try to eliminate the negative connotations that inevitably come along with the word "selfishness." People who believe in conventional morality can NEVER seem to accept selfishness as a virtue as long as you use that word.

Try starting out by saying, "The word selfishness has such negative connotations, I prefer the term 'rational self-interest.'" Then discuss things in terms of your belief in rational self-interest, as opposed to selfishness. I find that this small steps allows your listener to be much more open to your ideas.

I also like to point out the difference between "selfishness" and "self-destructive selfishness." Even if you read the bible, a lot of the examples of "sinful" selfishness are really a condemnation of self-destructive selfishness or hedonism, which is not seflishness at all. (And I'm certainly NOT defending the bible here --- just finding common ground.) To give in to every "sinful" pleasure I might desire in a given moment is not in my rational self-interest. To treat my family and friends like dirt because I "feel like it" is also not in my rational self-interest, therefore it is not truly selfish. True unselfishness is by definition self-destructive (i.e. acting against your own self-interest). This exercise in semantics can help make sure everyone has their definitions straight. Often, when they hear the word "selfishness", people assume you mean "do whatever you feel like it, treat everyone else like dirt, and do whatever feels good."

Another technique is to draw attention to the fact that everyone is far more selfish than they realize. Even the altruist who spends time volunteering at a soup kitchen does so because it makes them feel good, or it alleviates guilt they might have. You could consider this selfish. Even acting on empathy can be described as selfish. If you feel empathy for someone who you see suffering, that means that you feel their pain. So you act to alleviate their suffering. But would you have acted if you had no empathy? No, you wouldn't have. Therefore, your action was because of YOUR suffering (empathy), not theirs.

A big part of accepting the morality of selfishness is to understand and accept the selfish motivations you already have for many things you do. Of course there will be changes to the way you act as well, but accepting yourself and your natural, moral drive for rational self-interest is an extremely important part of it.

There was an excellent article the ARI put out around valentine's day about so-called "selfless love" and what a crock it is. I found it an excellent piece for discussion with traditional moralists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found OPAR very useful. It builds everything from the base. Very logical and consistent. I suggest you read it, instead of asking it on forums.

P.S. OPAR = "Objectivism: Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Peikoff, it is available in public libraries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another technique is to draw attention to the fact that everyone is far more selfish than they realize. Even the altruist who spends time volunteering at a soup kitchen does so because it makes them feel good, or it alleviates guilt they might have. You could consider this selfish.

I don´t see how could be wasting time considered selfish...

That is exactly what you refuted paragraph above. Selfish isn´t something that you just do because you feel like doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When someone asks you, "Why is it good to be selfish?" - what do you say?
Basically Felix's answer: "whadda ya mean by 'good?". The idea of abstract and absolute "good" is meaningless, as shown by contradictions (fire is good for cooking, bad for houses). Once you have the idea of "good for...", then you have to decide how to finish the clause.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically Felix's answer: "whadda ya mean by 'good?". The idea of abstract and absolute "good" is meaningless, as shown by contradictions (fire is good for cooking, bad for houses). Once you have the idea of "good for...", then you have to decide how to finish the clause.

If someone asks: "Why is selfishness good for making oneself happy and successful? How can being selfish be a better way to accomplish this than being altruistic? Was Mother Teresa not happy and successful?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Mother Teresa not happy and successful?"

No, she wasn't. She may have been happy, because she thought she was going to Heaven--but she didn't go to Heaven, so she was not successful. She endured a lot of hardship and privation in her life, thinking God was going to reward her for it--and then all she got was a lousy coffin.

That's not what I call success!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don´t see how could be wasting time considered selfish...

That is exactly what you refuted paragraph above. Selfish isn´t something that you just do because you feel like doing it.

Thanks, Blinky, I agree. Excellent point. My point in stating that was to give ideas for finding common ground with someone of traditional moral values. These are ways to begin a conversation about the virtue of selfishness in a way that will help to open the other person's mind, challenging traditional thought. And what one would be pointing out to that person is that the traditional concepts of selfishness and unselfishness are full of contridictions. According to how most people think of "selfishness," i.e. do what you feel like, many actions traditionally thought of as "unselfish" (such as working at a soup kitchen because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling) really are "selfish" according to the traditional concept. It would be important to update this thinking through the course of the discussion to a more reasonable definition of "selfishness" (i.e. rational self interest), differentiating it from the traditional view of selfishness.

Thank you for helping me to clarify that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that can help in such discussions is to try to eliminate the negative connotations that inevitably come along with the word "selfishness." People who believe in conventional morality can NEVER seem to accept selfishness as a virtue as long as you use that word.

It will never work to try to sneak selfishness in through the back door by calling it another name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another technique is to draw attention to the fact that everyone is far more selfish than they realize. Even the altruist who spends time volunteering at a soup kitchen does so because it makes them feel good, or it alleviates guilt they might have. You could consider this selfish. Even acting on empathy can be described as selfish. If you feel empathy for someone who you see suffering, that means that you feel their pain. So you act to alleviate their suffering. But would you have acted if you had no empathy? No, you wouldn't have. Therefore, your action was because of YOUR suffering (empathy), not theirs.

I disagree. Nathaniel Branden's article "Isn't Everyone Selfish" and Leonard Peikoff in "Objectivism Through Induction cover this nicely. These people are NOT being selfish. Selfish does NOT mean being motivated by any value at all; this is a subjectivist definition. Why does the person who feels guilt actually feel guilt? Because he is NOT being altruistic. The motivation for the feeling is an altruistic one, so the person you described is not selfish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can being selfish be a better way to accomplish this than being altruistic? Was Mother Teresa not happy and successful?"
If your choice is to end your life and to not exist, then being altruistic is not a good choice -- quick suicide is better (more efficient).

The Mother Teresa question is really low on the list of questions to be considering: she was evil, and I don't see the point of going off about evil people when there are other questions to address. Also, remember that happiness isn't a primitive emotional state: happiness is the emotional state that arises when you realise how your actions integrate to achieving your ultimate goal. The nun's ultimate goal was death, not life, and she was lousy at reaching her goal (it took her 87 years to finish the process of dying).

Well before you get into any questions about making others happy, you have to decide one thing: shall I exist? If not, then you can kill youself and be done with it. If you've decided to exist, then you have to discover how to exist, meaning for example how to keep the rain off your head, to feed yourself, to protect youself from wild animals and forest fires, and so on. Me, me, me, it's all about me.

Egoism does not mean that you must not act in a way that benefits others, it simply means that you should not destroy part of your life. Very simply, do not trade something of greater value for a lesser value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. Nathaniel Branden's article "Isn't Everyone Selfish" and Leonard Peikoff in "Objectivism Through Induction cover this nicely. These people are NOT being selfish. Selfish does NOT mean being motivated by any value at all; this is a subjectivist definition. Why does the person who feels guilt actually feel guilt? Because he is NOT being altruistic. The motivation for the feeling is an altruistic one, so the person you described is not selfish.

Again, I agree with you completely. I am NOT saying that a person who works at a soup kitchen is actually selfish. Thank you for the clarification, though. It is an important point that you make.

The question that began this thread was:

When someone asks you, "Why is it good to be selfish?" - what do you say?

I was merely trying to show a way you could discuss the issue and bring into question conventional definitions of selfishness and unselfishness. By pointing out the contradictions inherent in the traditional way of thinking about selfishness, you may open the person up to thinking about it in a new way. Please see my response to Blinky above.

And JMeganSnow, I don't consider calling selfishness "rational self-interest" as sneaking it in the backdoor. Aren't they one and the same thing? I wouldn't deny that the term selfishness applies, I would just gravitate toward the term which will cause less defensiveness and cognitive dissonance while maintaining all of the meaning. Or are you saying that this method won't work because people will see through it? I may be misunderstanding what you're saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(konerko14 @ Jul 26 2006, 09:17 PM)

Was Mother Teresa not happy and successful?"

No, she wasn't. She may have been happy, because she thought she was going to Heaven--but she didn't go to Heaven, so she was not successful. She endured a lot of hardship and privation in her life, thinking God was going to reward her for it--and then all she got was a lousy coffin.

That's not what I call success!

Not to harp on the Mother Theresa thing, but it's really interesting to me that she should be brought up, because last week, Objectivism was discussed in my Intro. to Philosophy class. My professor used Mother Theresa as an example, saying, in essence, that MT could be acting selfishly and with rational self-interest in mind because of the warm fuzzies she could have recieved from behaving altruisticly, and that doing altruistic acts was more important to her than anything because of the warm fuzzies.

This didn't sound quite right to me at the time--MT was a nun, so she was living for God, not herself, so his example kind of falls apart-- at least now I know I was right. :pimp:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a slightly different formulation...

If Mother Teresa was "selfish" because she was doing what she wanted to to and felt "happy", then we'd have to say that a hopelessly drug-addicted person is "selfish" if he's doing what he wants to do and if he's "happy". The underlying assumption is that anything might be good, as long as the actor thinks it is good.

If one takes an objective view of morality then one assumes that man has a certain nature and that there are specific values that are good for man. It follows that one cannot conclude that something is good for a person merely by asking that person what they think. It follows that one may not realize what is good for one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt even that. All the interviews I saw of her, she came across as a mean, bitter old hag.

Here's a wikipedia article on a critical book. It basically says that Mother Theresa used these people's suffering to get financing for spreading her catholic cult.

He argues that Teresa's own words on poverty proved that her intention was not to help people and cites a 1981 press conference in which she was asked: "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" She replied: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one takes an objective view of morality then one assumes that man has a certain nature and that there are specific values that are good for man. It follows that one cannot conclude that something is good for a person merely by asking that person what they think. It follows that one may not realize what is good for one.

Thank you. I hadn't thought of it in those terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a wikipedia article on a critical book. It basically says that Mother Theresa used these people's suffering to get financing for spreading her catholic cult.

Thanks for that. That's really interesting. It reminds me of how many activists in the US (such as Jesse Jackson) are doing the same thing with their "victims." That is, using the "victims" in order to push a political agenda and raise money. Jesse Jackson and those like him have nothing to gain if racism and injustice end. But by perpetuating it, they keep their wallets full and their faces on television.

I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.

What a contemptible, miserable statement to make.

Of course, in the irrational view of Christians, what is 80 years of suffering in order to gain eternal bliss? What is 80 years of pleasure if you end up in eternal suffering? In such a view, Andrea Yates (recently found "not guilty") was fully justified in drowning her five children in order to send them to heaven instead of hell. Such is the anti-life creed of the Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Isnt selfishness different from rational self-interest? Selfishness is essentially "concern with ones own interests". Meaning, if an interest of his was life-after-death(Heaven) and all his acts were based on altruism, then that would be a selfish act- not something that fits into rational self-interest though. Or if he acted on random pleasures because he valued hedonism, then it would be selfishness but not rational self-interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isnt selfishness different from rational self-interest? Selfishness is essentially "concern with ones own interests". Meaning, if an interest of his was life-after-death(Heaven) and all his acts were based on altruism, then that would be a selfish act- not something that fits into rational self-interest though. Or if he acted on random pleasures because he valued hedonism, then it would be selfishness but not rational self-interest.

In the context of self-interest, "interest" means what's good for the person (m-w.com says "advantage, benefit"), not subjective "interest" as in when you say something is "interesting" (m-w.com says "a feeling that accompanies or causes special attention to an object or class of objects : CONCERN b : something that arouses such attention").

You can be concerned with the afterlife rather than being concerned with what's in your own interests, but preoccupation with the afterlife can't be in your interests (assuming the alternative of rationality is open to you), since there is no afterlife in reality.

Note that if you use the second definition I mentioned of "interest," which is "concern," then "concern with what is in your own interests" would be a tautology, because it would mean "concern with what concerns you," and everyone would be selfish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...