Objectivism's "self" focus

The purpose of this thread is to question the wisdom of placing self as an ultimate value. Please note that I did NOT say ultimate standard of value. It is not my purpose to question self as the only logical standard of value.

I have seen a general theme in (some of) Rand's writings, on this board, and elsewhere where Objectivists in general are more concerned with themselves - that is, they are both the standard of value, and the ultimate value. Again, I am talking about a general trend and not the whole, so avoid the human tendency to get defensive. My argument is simple, so don't get carried away.

I believe that things only have value in reference to myself. If I help someone else, it is because I desire a favorable outcome. That outcome may be a good feeling, a good relationship, or anything else. The mistaken assumption that too many make is as follows: "if things are only important to me insofar as they make me happy, why should I care about others?"

Such an idea would be an extreme, but I notice that doing things for other people is not a focus of Objectivism. I argue that a focus on others rather than self is more beneficial to one's self. In other words, if I place the well-being of my wife above my own well-being, I will tend to be happier.

I must qualify such a philosophy: one must rationally choose what values should be placed above one's self. i.e. arbitrarily putting a stranger above one's self is dangerous, detrimental, and foolish. But, if I see that my wife has every quality that I admire, and each to a greater degree than I do, there may be some justification for placing her above myself. There are a number of other factors (beyond her personality) that should influence my decision on any given subject, but it isn't my intent to discuss the technical details.

Think of the most miserable person that you know. Is this person concerned with others, empathetic, and looking for the best in them? Or are they critical, self-centered, and constantly complaining about the incompetency of others? My experience is that the most miserable people are those who think about themselves more than they do about others. It is well for us to find as many things as we can that are greater than self. This doesn't mean that I disregard self - how can I, as my own standard of value?

I don't think what I'm saying here necessarily contradicts what Objectivism teaches at its core. It may, however, contradict most Objectivist's orientations. I believe the best thing one can do for one's own happiness is to make others happy and find things of greater value than one's own self.

Post 1

Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 4:56pm

I believe the best thing one can do for one's own happiness is to make others happy and find things of greater value than one's own self.

And no one here will try to stop you.

Post 2

Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 9:54pm

Joseph Funk writes,

[I]f I see that my wife has every quality that I admire, and each to a greater degree than I do, there may be some justification for placing her above myself.

Why? In placing your wife above yourself, you are saying that in spite of the value that you have for her, you should consider her interests above your own. But this makes no sense, because it would involve an act of self-sacrifice on your part. You would be sacrificing yourself for her sake. Now I assume that you love your wife as your most significant other, and that you would want to see her happy, but that's because her happiness is vital to your happiness. There is no conflict of interest here. It isn't an issue of her happiness or yours. If that were the choice facing you, which of course it isn't, then it would be immoral to place her interests above yours.

Think of the most miserable person that you know. Is this person concerned with others, empathetic, and looking for the best in them?
No, because normally a sincere interest in others is an extension of one's self-interest, not a negation of it. You used the term "empathetic," which means identifying with the interests of others. Well, of course, you can't do that without first valuing yourself. Empathy is not altruism, but instead involves a genuinely selfish interest in the welfare of another person.
Or are they critical, self-centered, and constantly complaining about the incompetency of others?
You say "self-centered" as if it were a synonym for self-interest. Is that how you are using it? I would say that "self-centered" normally means something closer to narcissism, and narcissism is not a healthy state psychologically; it is certainly not synonymous with egoism.
My experience is that the most miserable people are those who think about themselves more than they do about others.

I don't know what you mean when you say "think about themselves more than about others." Egoism does not say that you should think about yourself more than about others; it says that you should view your own interests as the ultimate goal of your action -- that you should never sacrifice your legitimate interests for the sake of others.

It is well for us to find as many things as we can that are greater than self.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. If Howard Roark devoted his life to architecture, does that mean, according to you, that he was placing architecture above himself -- that he regarded his own profession as greater than himself? If you would, then I'd say that you don't understand what Rand means by selfishness or egoism. How familiar are you with her writings, because I get the impression from reading your post that your understanding of Objectivism is superficial at best.

This doesn't mean that I disregard self - how can I, as my own standard of value?

But if your self-interest is your own standard of value, then how on earth can you justify placing others above yourself? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? (Btw, Rand would say that your own life -- and self-interest -- is the purpose of morality but not the standard.)

I don't think what I'm saying here necessarily contradicts what Objectivism teaches at its core. It may, however, contradict most Objectivist's orientations. I believe the best thing one can do for one's own happiness is to make others happy and find things of greater value than one's own self.

As you've put it here, your statement is self-contradictory. You're saying that the best thing you can do for yourself is to find things of greater value than yourself. This is incoherent. If you're simply saying that the best way to make oneself happy is to make others happy, then Objectivists would challenge that statement. They would say that the best way to make yourself happy is to be a self-sustaining producer and to practice the Objectivist virtues. Of course, this is not incompatible with contributing to the happiness of others, because in a free market one survives best by trading one's products for the products of others and in so doing gives value for value. But one's primary goal economically is not to give others the best deal; it is to obtain the best deal for oneself. In so doing, one will of course try to give others the best deal, but as a means to one's own profit, not as an economic end in itself.

If, on the other hand, people were to approach production as though it were a charitable activity by giving away their products rather than selling them to the highest bidder, everyone would be worse off. If I hold out for the highest bidder, I'm giving my products to those who value them the most. I'm also rewarding those who are willing to pay the most and thus encouraging productivity and economic achievement. Conversely, if I were to sell my products to the lowest bidders or give them away free of charge, I would be doing just the opposite and would fail to encourage productivity and economic success. We have already seen what "social welfare" does to poor people's incentives and self-responsibility; it destroys them, and in the process produces a miserable underclass of dependents.

Greedy, money grubbing, materialistic capitalism increases people's welfare, whereas "social welfare" and indiscriminate charity does just the opposite. So, I would say that if one is really concerned about the happiness of others, the best way to achieve it is to pursue one's own selfish interests by trying to make as much money as possible in a job or profession that one enjoys.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 11/18, 10:44pm)

Post 3

Monday, November 19, 2007 - 10:41am

Teresa - I wasn't really asking for your permission. Do you think I post on message boards to make sure that my ideas are ok with you? No. I'm attempting to sort out the truth by challenging assumptions - firstly my own assumptions, and secondly the assumptions of others. Your personal attacks, sarcastic one-liners, and meaningless posts interfere with that. I weary of your nasty posts, Teresa, but I do appreciate it when you actually take the effort to make a real response. Please limit your posts to well-thought attacks on my ideas. Of course... I won't stop you either way.

Thank you for your comments, William. Let me paraphrase what you've said, and then respond to it. If I misrepresent what you are saying please correct me:
1) There is no conflict of interest between someone I love's interests and my own. If there were, it would be immoral to put the other's interest above my own.
2) Looking for the best in others and being concerned with their interests is an extension of self-interest.
3) It is a contradiction to say that self-interest is my standard of value and then place other things above myself.
4) "Rand would say that your own life -- and self-interest -- is the purpose of morality but not the standard"
5) Economics with regard to #3

In response I would say:

1) I agree that there is usually no conflict between my own interests and the interests of my wife. We may differ as to what constitutes a conflict between interests. Some types of conflict are likely to occur between two rational people - I am likely to disagree with the goals that are to be achieved, and how. What if my wife and I are both stubborn Objectivists who think it is wrong to compromise, since one goal/method is perceived to be in one's own interest, and the other in the other party's? Perhaps you would say that it is in one's interest to compromise. You may offer any justification you like as to why that is so.

It may be said that keeping another's interests in mind is in one's self interest. This brings up an ugly question about semantics. Let me give you an example: Something is of little or no importance to me, but is of extreme importance to my wife. I would be a fool not to compromise. You can call it collaboration if it makes you feel better. Suppose I give her what she wants, and feel better for it.

Did I place the interest of my wife above my own interest (type B) , because it was in my self interest (type A)? Or was it in my self-interest all along - because it was in her self-interest? Or am I narcissistic, and only gave in so that you could get something out of her later? I am attempting to show that it may be a matter of semantics when I say I put her interest above my own, and you say that I don't.

2) When I say self-centered, I do not mean self-interest. I mean someone who literally spends more time thinking about themselves than they do about others. I should have said "..spends more time thinking about others.." My point is that focusing on me and mine all day will not make me happy. That is, unless you add other people's interests as part of my own interests.

3) The point about compromise above touches on this. Do you think that I've gone astray on the meaning of Objectivist terms, or is there an actual conflict of philosophy? It's always best to know exactly what one is arguing about before responding.

4) Huh? That sounds like a key to the discussion, but I don't know what you're saying.

5) You miss my point. I'm not advocating charity to strangers. I am advocating service to friends and loved ones. I am not advocating laws that steal from the producers and give to the leeches. I guess it boils down to the fact that I see the things that bring me happiness, and usually they come from others. I browse the threads here often, and I see a good deal of time spent on self-interest - with disregard for others. It's that disregard for others that I have a problem with, and that will bring sorrow.

Let me ask you personally, William. Do you see disregard for others as a problem? Do you see it as a problem for Objectivists? Do you think that there are many people who use Egoism as a justification for unethical acts? I'm not trying to find something to shove in Objectivism's face. I'm just curious.

You could probably say that I don't have the deepest knowledge of Objectivism. I've read Atlas Shrugged, and read a dozen or so of Rand's essays, but that's about it. I would prefer that you mention specific points and problems, though, rather than speak vaguely. "You don't get Objectivism" is worthless to me. "You don't get x point about self interest" is something I can use.

Post 4

Monday, November 19, 2007 - 11:51am

Joseph,

What I hear you saying, in so many words, is that placing others above self is in one's self-interest. The reason I say that your understanding of Objectivism is superficial is that, for Objectivism, that statement is a contradiction in terms. Placing others above self is placing the interests of others above the interests of self, which is not in your self-interest by definition.

Compromising with your wife or doing what she wants instead of what you want in a given situation may be placing a particular interest of hers above a particular interest of yours, but it is not placing her happiness (as such) above yours, which is what Objectivism opposes. Let's say that she wants to see movie X and you want to see movie Y, but she wants to see her movie more than you want to see yours. So, you go to her movie instead of yours. This is not placing her interests above yours, because you see it as in your mutual self-interests to accede to the other partner's wishes in cases like this. If the shoe were on the other foot, she would see it as in her interest to go to your movie.

You write,

When I say self-centered, I do not mean self-interest. I mean someone who literally spends more time thinking about themselves than they do about others. I should have said "..spends more time thinking about others.." My point is that focusing on me and mine all day will not make me happy. That is, unless you add other people's interests as part of my own interests.

I don't know why you frame it in these terms. It's not an issue of focusing on your interests all day versus focusing on the interests of others all day. I don't know anyone who does either of these things; in any case, they have nothing to do with the issue of egoism versus altruism. Rand would say that what you should focus on are your real values -- your job or profession, your marriage, your recreational activities, your health, etc. Why? Because it's in your interest to do so. She wouldn't say that you should "focus" on yourself, whatever that's supposed to mean, or on others, whatever that's supposed to mean.

Do you think that I've gone astray on the meaning of Objectivist terms, or is there an actual conflict of philosophy?

I suspect it's a little of both. You don't understand what Objectivism means by "self-interest," and your view of what is actually in a person's self-interest doesn't sound like it accords with Objectivism's. Obviously, helping your friends and close acquaintances can be a selfish value when they need it, but to make helping them a priority in your life -- a central organizing purpose -- is definitely not something Rand would have endorsed.

When I said that, according to Rand, your own interest is the purpose of morality but not the standard, I was referring to her distinction between standard and purpose. A standard is a guide for achieving a concrete, specific purpose. So her standard of morality is man's life as man -- as a human being -- which one would follow in order to achieve one's own happiness. It's like a general standard in medicine, which is used to evaluate the health of a particular patient.

You miss my point. I'm not advocating charity to strangers. I am advocating service to friends and loved ones. I am not advocating laws that steal from the producers and give to the leeches. I guess it boils down to the fact that I see the things that bring me happiness, and usually they come from others. I browse the threads here often, and I see a good deal of time spent on self-interest - with disregard for others. It's that disregard for others that I have a problem with, and that will bring sorrow.

Please show me what threads you see as "disregarding others." Are you referring to people who are talking about their own lives and the things that are important to them?

Let me ask you personally, William. Do you see disregard for others as a problem? Do you see it as a problem for Objectivists?
What do you mean by "disregard for others"? Could you give me an example? If someone is interested in, say, economics, and spends his time studying it instead of "servicing" friends and loved ones, is that disregarding others? Should he abandon his study of economics, and spend his time servicing others? This sounds bizarre, so I must not understand what you mean.
Do you think that there are many people who use Egoism as a justification for unethical acts?

I have no way of knowing. And just to be clear, what do you mean by "unethical acts"? If one is an egoist, then an unethical act is one that involves self-sacrifice.

- Bill

Post 5

Monday, November 19, 2007 - 2:34pm

I am continually disappointed that my discussions in Objectivism return to the meaning of Objectivist lingo. Terms often seem nonsensical. Self-interest apparantly cannot be confused with particular interests. The interests that I have are entirely particular interests, the summation of which I would call self-interest. Doesn't this muddy the waters a little?

I'll go with the example of the movie. One of my interests is to watch my movie. Another of my interests is to live in harmony with my wife. My interests conflict. Self-interest isn't a very useful guide now, since pretty much anything can be said to be in my self-interest. What, then, is the standard for evaluating what I should do? How do I decide what is "more selfish?" The best thing that I can think of is my happiness. I will be happier if I watch her movie. If happiness is not the measure, please be very specific about what is.

If it is happiness, Objectivism goes with Pragmaticism better than I ever imagined. How can we judge the objective rightness/wrongness of another's actions? We could argue all day about what would make me happier and what would not. Is that the point? Is that what all these posts are here for - to decide what would or would not make me happy in the end?

Post 6

Monday, November 19, 2007 - 3:44pm

Do you think I post on message boards to make sure that my ideas are ok with you?

Uh, well, yeah, I kinda do. Isn't that why you posted this thing, to see if we were all cool with it?

Post 7

Monday, November 19, 2007 - 5:22pm

Joseph wrote,

I am continually disappointed that my discussions in Objectivism return to the meaning of Objectivist lingo. Terms often seem nonsensical. Self-interest apparantly cannot be confused with particular interests.The interests that I have are entirely particular interests, the summation of which I would call self-interest. Doesn't this muddy the waters a little?

My point was that it was a particular interest that was subordinate to more important interests. My mother had a tooth pulled without any anesthesia, because she was allergic to novocaine. (This was back when there were no other alternative anesthetics.) The pain of having her tooth extracted was not in her interest. But it was more in her interest to have her tooth out, so she was willing to endure the pain for that reason.

I'll go with the example of the movie. One of my interests is to watch my movie. Another of my interests is to live in harmony with my wife. My interests conflict.
Not really. Living in harmony with your wife is a more important interest, wouldn't you agree? So giving up the less important interest for the more important one is in your self-interest, just as enduring the pain to have her tooth extracted was in my mother's self-interest.
Self-interest isn't a very useful guide now, since pretty much anything can be said to be in my self-interest.
Not true! People can act in ways that are demonstrably against their self-interest, such as getting drunk and driving recklessly, acting on impulse to the detriment of their long-term interests, etc.
What, then, is the standard for evaluating what I should do? How do I decide what is "more selfish?" The best thing that I can think of is my happiness. I will be happier if I watch her movie. If happiness is not the measure, please be very specific about what is.

The standard is that which is appropriate to the life of a rational being, which includes the seven Objectivist virtues: rationality, honesty, integrity, productivity, independence, pride, and justice. In other words, the standard is what is good for man's life and well-being. If you apply that standard to your own life, it will help you achieve happiness. On a less abstract level, happiness is your goal, but achieving it means that you have to assign priorities to your values by recognizing that some are more important than others. Harmonious relations with your wife may be jeopardized if you never compromise with her on activities of mutual interest -- if you always insist on having your own way. Or you may enjoy sleeping late, but if doing so means that you won't get to work on time and will risk losing your job, then it's in your interest to get up earlier, whether you feel like it or not.

If it is happiness, Objectivism goes with Pragmaticism better than I ever imagined.
"Pragmatism," as Objectivism uses that term, means expedient, unprincipled behavior, which according to Objectivism isn't practical. :-)
How can we judge the objective rightness/wrongness of another's actions? We could argue all day about what would make me happier and what would not. Is that the point
Well, certain things are in your objective self-interest, right? -- such as being productive and self-responsible, taking care of your health and the needs of your children, and treating others with respect if you want to be treated similarly. As Rand would say, selfishness is not whim worship. If you ignore your real needs, you won't achieve happiness.
Is that what all these posts are here for - to decide what would or would not make me happy in the end?

Not necessarily. This is a philosophy forum. If you've read the posts here, you know that we cover other issues besides ethics.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 11/19, 5:26pm)

Post 8

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 4:02pm

Joseph:

In other words, if I place the well-being of my wife above my own well-being, I will tend to be happier

How do you reconcile this with how your wife places her well-being to yours? Is she happier when you are sadder? Why? Why is her happiness dependent on her well being placed above yours? Do you prefer women who think your well-being as an inferior priority to her own?

Post 9

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 10:12am

Joseph wrote, "In other words, if I place the well-being of my wife above my own well-being, I will tend to be happier."

John replied, "How do you reconcile this with how your wife places her well-being to yours? Is she happier when you are sadder? Why? Why is her happiness dependent on her well being placed above yours? Do you prefer women who think your well-being as an inferior priority to her own?"

Of course, he's saying that he will tend to be happier, not sadder, when he places her well-being above his. But that just illustrates the contradiction in his statement. In placing her well-being above his, he is placing her happiness above his, which if anything would make him sadder instead of happier. So, you are certainly correct in criticizing him the way you have and in pointing out that his position would imply a preference for women who regard his well-being as subordinate to their own. Excellent observation!

There is another problem with what he is saying. If he is happier placing her well-being above his, then that means that he'd be happier if she placed her well-being above his. But if she shares his philosophy, then (according to him) she'd be happier placing his well-being above hers, which means that their respective goals would come into conflict -- with each partner's desiring that the other's happiness take priority. Such is the contradiction of altruism: They both want the other's well-being to supersede their own, but that means that they must place their own well-being above their partner's in order to satisfy their partner's desire, while simultaneously placing their partner's well-being above their own.

In fact, as you imply, benefiting their partner does not necessitate placing their partner's happiness or well-being above their own, since their partner's well-being is properly an extension of their own.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 11/21, 10:40am)

Post 10

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 10:32am

Bill;

John, he's saying that he will tend to be happier, not sadder, when he places her well-being above his. But that just illustrates the contradiction in his statement. In placing her well-being above his, he is placing her happiness above his, which if anything would make him sadder instead of happier.

Bill that was actually what I was hoping he'd understand. That number one it is a blatant contradiction, as he couldn't possibly be happier by placing his well-being below his wife's. And even if one were to ignore the last bit of his sentence about him tending to be happier and only took his desire to place his happiness below his wife's, why would any self-respecting man want a wife that places her well-being above her husband's? Or for that matter what self-respecting woman would want a man that places his happiness below hers?

Post 11

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 10:47am

John,

I sanctioned your post #8, and editing my reply to it (#9) in order to give you the credit that I think you deserve for your excellent observation, which you expanded on in your latest post (#10).

- Bill

Post 12

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 11:03am

Thank you Bill! :)

Saturday, June 14, 2008 - 9:02am

On Joseph Funk�s topic, with use of Rand�s specific texts on the topic: A, B.

Post 14

Thursday, June 19, 2008 - 6:41pm

Funk writes:

I have seen a general theme in (some of) Rand's writings, on this board, and elsewhere where Objectivists in general are more concerned with themselves - that is, they are both the standard of value, and the ultimate value. Again, I am talking about a general trend and not the whole, so avoid the human tendency to get defensive. My argument is simple, so don't get carried away.

I believe that things only have value in reference to myself. If I help someone else, it is because I desire a favorable outcome. That outcome may be a good feeling, a good relationship, or anything else. The mistaken assumption that too many make is as follows: "if things are only important to me insofar as they make me happy, why should I care about others?"

I respond:

R. Hillel wrote in Perke Avot (Sayings of the Fathers) the following:

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
If not now, then when?\

An interesting thought, yes?

Bob Kolker

Post 15

Friday, June 20, 2008 - 12:09pm