Also to be considered is what Ayn Rand had to say about the actual meaning of selfishness:
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.
Also to be considered is what Ayn Rand had to say about the actual meaning of selfishness:
(a little more from same the link)
"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."
And I agree… selfishness itself is amoral. Whether what we are selfish about is good or evil is determined by our own actions and the consequences they spin into motion.
It’s saying the concept alone is not going to tell you it is in fact good. Ethics is the way to then establish if selfishness is in fact good or bad. That is, you have to figure out if selfishness is moral or immoral. Later on, one may evaluate selfishness as good. So, again, it is not amoral. I don’t know what your point is. I just want to emphasize though that the context of discussion here is Objectivism. It’s cool if you want to discuss the validity of the ideas, just like Kangaroo is doing, just be careful not to take the stance of a philosophy free for all where everything goes.
I wonder if this will be helpful. I just made this entry in the Principle of two definitions thread:
Is it possible to do the same thing for selfishness?:
A1 objective selfishness - pursuit of a value from a self serving motive.
A2 normative selfishness - pursuit of a value that sustains or furthers your life.
I’m open to any adjustments if this is not exactly right.
As I replied in the other thread, I would take out any mention of motive.
A1. acting on one’s own values, where value is whatever one chooses to gain or keep
A2. acting on one’s own values, where values are chosen rationally, to further one’s own life
In contrast, altruism is acting on others’ values, and utilitarianism is disregarding personal evaluations altogether, like moralist seems to be doing (I guess he thinks whatever Middle Eastern shepherd came up with the Ten Commandments was way more qualified in deciding what the right values are for someone living in the 20th century, than he would be. He’s probably right, too. I just wish he’d leave the rest of us out of it.)
As I replied in the other thread, I would take out any mention of motive.
A1. acting on one’s own values, where value is whatever one chooses to gain or keep
A2. acting on one’s own values, where values are chosen rationally, to further one’s own life
In contrast, altruism is acting on others’ values, and utilitarianism is disregarding personal evaluations altogether, like moralist seems to be doing (I guess he thinks whatever Middle Eastern shepherd came up with the Ten Commandments was way more qualified in deciding what the right values are for someone living in the 20th century, than he would be. He’s probably right, too. I just wish he’d leave the rest of us out of it.)
(scratch the previous reply)
Let’s rephrase:
A1 objective selfishness: The action to gain/keep a self serving value
A2 normative selfishness: The action to gain/keep a self serving value that is pro life.
Reference to motive removed. After some thought, I realize it’s not necessary to know the motive. (copied of reply to the other thread)
(scratch the previous reply)
Let’s rephrase:
A1 objective selfishness: The action to gain/keep a self serving value
A2 normative selfishness: The action to gain/keep a self serving value that is pro life.
Reference to motive removed. After some thought, I realize it’s not necessary to know the motive. (copied of reply to the other thread)
Pro -whose- life?
ruveyn1
Another rephrasing:
A1 objective selfishness: The act of achieving one’s own values
A2 normative selfishness: The act of achieving one’s own rational values
Basically the same thing Nicky says but in my own words. I was not sure if values pursued selflessly can be called “one’s own values” or not.
After some thought, I realize it’s not necessary to know the motive.
Yes.
It is only our behavior which makes the world what it is… not our intentions.
Yes.
It is only our behavior which makes the world what it is… not our intentions.
You missed the point completely. Motive is irrelevant because it’s a definition. Definitions aren’t statements about what makes the world what it is, they’re statements about what is.
You missed the point completely. Motive is irrelevant because it’s a definition.
Motive is even less than that. It’s only an unrealized potential. Only actions are real. Which is why, as a behaviorist, I couldn’t care less why people do what’s morally right.
Motive is even less than that. It’s only an unrealized potential. Only actions are real. Which is why, as a behaviorist, I couldn’t care less why people do what’s morally right.
The *why* is the most important part because it is the method which one uses to determine what is right or wrong. Removing the why is intrinsicism, because it would declare that the good is separate from you as an individual. Things aren’t good regardless of your motivation, things are good based on how they further your life according to one’s knowledge. Motive is not only a potential, but is also a causal factor in which actions that occur. Indeed, you are taking an extreme behaviorist position: the mind/what one thinks is irrelevant when judging. There is also consequentialism: the measurable consequences are all that count, why is irrelevant. I addressed this before, one liners get no where.
The *why* is the most important part because it is the method which one uses to determine what is right or wrong.
Well, I view that differently. The consequences of our actions are the final judge of whether we do right or wrong. The best of intentions are never an excuse for evil acts.
Removing the why is intrinsicism, because it would declare that the good is separate from you as an individual.
Yes. No one is the good. People can only make the good a reality in this world through their actions.
Things aren’t good regardless of your motivation.
People can freely choose not to act on their thoughts and emotions… and in many situations it’s in their own best interests that they don’t.
things are good based on how they further your life according to one’s knowledge.
Again we differ. Good is good regardless of what anyone thinks or feels it is.
Motive is not only a potential, but is also a causal factor in which actions that occur.
Yes. An unrealized potential. But motives are not always a causal factor. Everyone is free to choose to act contrary to their motives at any time.
Every livng human pursues. It’s essential to life just as is breathing.
It is a choice to pursue what you think is right. I can think going to work today is right yet not do it. If morality deals with defining the correct actions to choose to further one’s life, surely choosing to pursue what you’ve concluded as right is a moral issue.
Yes, what one believes is right could in fact be hurtful to their life. However, choosing to disconnect one’s mind from their actions by choosing not to pursue what they think is right is equivalent to choosing to not use your tool of survival - seems like a moral issue.
No. Morality depends on whether pursuing what you evaluate as right… actually is right.
So if one makes a mistake in their evaluation, they are immoral?
Could someone explain selfishness to me a little more?
Especially with this example: People around are just irrational. It would be easy to start a cult or religious sect where people would give me money. Why is that not selfish? I know it is not. But I am somehow superficial in my understanding.
Thanks!
There’s a good book that relates to this question: Comrade John, by Samuel Merwin. (The story starts off a bit odd, but gets pretty good. I forget who, but someone on here recommended it.) The antagonist is a man who starts a religious group to gain money and power.. the protagonist (John) is an architect who builds the community in which the converts are supposed to live and work. He didn’t care why he was building or who he was building for, he just wanted to build. Long story short, John learns the hard way that this viewpoint was wrong, and almost loses the woman he loved to the power-hungry preacher. And the preacher- if memory serves me right- he gets what he deserves.
I think the important point here is that work serves a purpose.. but you have to choose what purpose your work should serve. John was wrong by building for the power-hungry preacher because he chose to do work that served an evil purpose- knowingly decieving and stealing from weak people.
Edit:
So if one makes a mistake in their evaluation, they are immoral?
@bert: No- that makes them human. The important thing is what you do once you find out you’ve made a mistake. Do you admit the error and find a way to correct it? Forget about your new knowledge? Lie to yourself and act as if you’re right?
@bert: No- that makes them human. The important thing is what you do once you find out you’ve made a mistake. Do you admit the error and find a way to correct it? Forget about your new knowledge? Lie to yourself and act as if you’re right?
Right - this was more of a rhetorical question geared towards moralist who seemed to imply one couldn’t make mistakes without being immoral.
Now I get it, that is the reason for such a forum as this ,reasonable discussion of ideas of O’ism, not a soapbox .
@bert: No- that makes them human. The important thing is what you do once you find out you’ve made a mistake. Do you admit the error and find a way to correct it? Forget about your new knowledge? Lie to yourself and act as if you’re right?
You just answered better than I ever could have. 
Life is all about finding out if what we think is right actually is right.