“Considerate Selfishness” may exclude the foul element of concern.
I don’t much care for it, however, because it is defensive right out the gate and not getting at what Rand was illustrating in The Fountainhead, which was various sorts of characters whose behaviors are commonly regarded as selfish, but are not, due to absence of definite self or are not because they are, furthermore, predatory, which is not self-sufficient. In contrast to those, she has a model selfishness of Howard Roark, which, for one having read the novel and not for other people, could sensibly be called “model selfishness” / “genuine selfishness” / “objective selfishness.” These are what Nathaniel Branden was getting at in his writings “Counterfeit Individualism,” in his answer to the question Isn’t everybody selfish? and in his distinction between being selfish and being self-centered. And Rand’s preference for “egoistic” over “egotistic” and her later essay “Selfishness without a Self.”
“Considerate Selfishness” may exclude the foul element of concern.
I don’t much care for it, […]
That is kinda like “compassionate” conservative… And you’re right that it sends the wrong message.
I think it is more about communicating as clearly as possible that selfishness is not the equivalent to the disregarding of rights. People tend to assume selfishness must include a victim. It does not.
In future discussions, I’ll try using something along the following lines when somebody uses an improper example of selfishness: “No, that’s not a selfish person, that’s a victimizer. I’m just as much anti-victimization as I am pro-selfishness.”
I thought I would create a venn diagram to describe the mainstream vs Objectivist view of selfishness. There is disagreement on what selfishness is and some agreement as well as disagreement on what is selfish. Of course a portion of the mainstream _does _support capitalism but does not define it correctly or support for the right reasons.
Is that really all that would be overlapping? Hmmm… I’d have to think about that for a while… I think there is a big distinction on the timeframe and whether or not something LEGITIMATELY is beneficial to individual. Mainstream probably actually thinks being selfish is bad for the self… i think…
This makes me think there is another possible strong contender for the word… although I’m not sure yet whether this also comes with baggage. What about:
Victimizer
Victimization
I can imagine it being a cleaner and a more clear explanation to say something along the lines of, “Yes, I’m always in favor of selfishness, but I’m never in favor of victimization.”
…still trying to figure this out…
Also, oppressor and/or oppression is another English word for this concept which is not inherent to selfishness.
Also, oppressor and/or oppression is another English word for this concept which is not inherent to selfishness.
I would steer clear of the ‘oppressor’ language, both because it has other political connotations, and because there is no real power dynamic in either of the situations OP raises.
Sacrificing others to oneself seems like the best description. (Thanks @Doug Morris) Maybe there are even other ways of seeing these kinds of actions as wrong?:
> The woman is not paying attention to the task at hand, she is making others dependent on her, she is blocking their freedom of movement unnecessarily, she is placing the lower value of applying makeup above the higher value of getting where she’s going, she is endangering herself and the rights of others by stopping her car on an open motorway… (there may also be things leading up to this situation that were irrational/unethical: Why is she doing her makeup in the car?)
