On Selfishness, Selflessness, and Rational Self-interest

I was tempted to place this in the dissent board but it since it is a question, here goes:

When discussing ethics why didn't Ayn Rand use the perfectly good word self-interest and, instead, insist on using the word selfish. Many would claim the term 'rational self-interest' says very clearly and very succinctly exactly what Ayn Rand meant. Instead, we are asked to use the word selfish - a word that usually has a much more general definition and, in typical parlance, has the meaning of acting excessively or exclusively for oneself without regard for others.

Further, when we redefine selfish to mean rational self-interest we lose that term to speak about those who act without regards for others. By redefining the term selfish and moving it from a more general and encompassing definition to a more narrow and specific definition we destroy a whole range of meanings. Does this not lead us to some type of false dichotomy? We are either 'selfless' (which is bad) or selfish (which is good) and we start to loose the ability to differentiate between acting in our own self interest with due regard for others and acting in our own self interest with no regard for others (or even at the expense of others). Indeed I say a whole range of human action has been neatly done away. In reality, we can act exclusively for others to our own detriment; we can act for our own benefit and for the benefit of others; we can act for our own benefit with no regard for others except that we don't harm others; and we can walk across a pile of corpses to get what we want.

It really looks like Ayn Rand is replacing one false dichotomy - that people are given the choice between sacrificing themselves for the good of others, or others for the good of themselves - with another - where we can only talk about people sacrificing themselves for others or people acting in their own rational self interest. Oddly, those who sacrifice others for their own ends are called second-handers and are, by Objectivist definition, selfless. This is made all the more confusing when we realize that this second-hander version of selflessness means no true sense of self. This really looks like an equivocation on the term selfless. In one instance we are speaking of the realm of acting for or against others, in the next we are speaking about self-reliance and independence vs. dependance and reliance on others.

Thanks,
Joshua C

Post 1

Sunday, June 5, 2005 - 2:16pm

Ayn Rand gave her explanation for the use of "selfish" at the very beginning of the introduction to "The Virtue of Selfishness." I don't think her explanation can be improved on.

Joshua,

I read your description and I think you've found the right place. There are some Joe Rowlands articles that address the questions that you raise in your post. Try the first three of four on this page:

http://solohq.com/Articles/Author_0.shtml

I think your questions are good. Welcome from a fellow soloist.

Post 2

Sunday, June 5, 2005 - 4:51pm

Joshua,

I agree with you about the use of 'selfish.' The problem, as I see it, comes from the fact that most people associate selfishness with malevolence and narcissism. Rand knew this and used the term anyway, which I think was a mistake. Writing to one's audience is just as important as maintaining one's integrity if one seeks to convince as well as explain.

I also see the point you raise about the no-sense-of-self selflessness and independence versus dependence. On the matter of dependence most advocates of independence simply mean a zero net dependence where nothing of value is received without something of equal value given in return. The other camp takes independence to mean isolation. These are just two among many examples of miscommunication that lead to endless debates with each side attacking straw men.

Sarah

Post 3

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 5:48pm

The Virtue of Selfishness has the advantage of getting people's attention, which was badly needed at the time. Unfortunately, there are many words that have been hijacked because bad philosophical viewpoints have become commonly held by many. Ayn Rand did not always want to let them get away with this. Even the concept of self-interest was then held to be evil and still is by many. Logically, selfishness should mean "concern with one's own interests" as Ayn Rand said in her Introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness. It does carry some connotative baggage however. I see no reason why you should not use the concept of self-interest instead.

If one tries to use the word selfishness to mean "excessive concern for one's own interest and insufficient concern for the interests of others", as many people do, then the concept is internally contradictory. This is an invalid concept. An Objectivist would say there is no such thing as an excessive concern for one's own interest, though it is certainly possible to have insufficient concern for the interests of others. Even most non-Objectivists would agree that those they describe as being selfish are very often not really acting in their own interest. They are deluded instead.

There is a need for a concept for insufficient concern for the interests of others, but that concept should not sully self-interest or the self by being based on the word self. Perhaps the word misanthropy would work, though it is usually defined as hatred and distrust of all mankind. This is a little too strong, so the word gets little use. Perhaps it should be defined to mean "insufficient concern and respect for others and their interests." Or maybe someone can suggest another word for the concept.

Post 4

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 5:43pm

I don't think Ayn Rand expected that her re-definition of 'selfish' would replace the popular usage. She did it to make a point, to get her readers to think about what the 'self' is. Her idea of the primary importance of and exaltation of the self is critical to her philosophy and sense of life. When I first read Ayn Rand, that contrast of the conventional definition with the 'real' definition, that radical idea, is what really drew me in. I was amazed and delighted that I had found a serious writer that shared my sense of life. I think it is a critical point in the development of an individual when you realize ownership of your life, and all that implies.

That is Ayn's gift to those who can understand its importance.

Post 5

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 6:28pm

Charles,

Many people aren't overtly logical, or at least they don't spend a great deal of time thinking about what the logical meaning of a word should be. Words are laced with emotion and Rand knew it. As you said, she used 'selfish' as an attention getter. It did that, but it also shot her in the foot when it comes to prima facie arguments which, like it or not, are what give people first impressions about a topic. She is creating an unnecessary uphill battle for herself. It was a foolish move in my eyes.

Sarah
(Edited by Sarah House
on 6/07, 6:29pm)

Post 6

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 8:58pm

Charles,
I've been giving the issue you raise (the need for a concept for "insufficient concern for the interests of others") some thought lately, since I think it is one of the major moral problems today -- equal, at least, to the excess of what Rand called altruism.

I don't have a stellar candidate, but 'inconsiderateness' isn't the worst one could do. Of course, that doesn't say much more than
"insufficient concern for the interests of others", but it's short and most people know what you mean, roughly, when you say it. The definition, after all, doesn't have to contain a treatise about what the definiens is, what qualifies, what doesn't, what grounds it, etc.

(Added in editing: By the way, I don't think 'benevolence' captures it. I'm not particularly interested in whether someone is kindly to me or whether they act nice. I'm interested in them being aware and considerate enough to avoid harming me or thoughtlessly slowing me down, interrupting my pursuit of values, etc.)

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 6/07, 9:02pm)

Post 7

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - 3:17am

Aren't you confusing the word benevolence with beneficence?

Post 8

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - 8:45am

Robert M.
Not according to Oxford's. In any case, neither of those words would exactly capture my meaning.

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 6/08, 8:46am)

Post 9

Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:18am

I can understand Rand's fight in trying to clarify the word "selfish." In a sense, she's trying to redefine or rather correct the common connotation. If she allowed the word to retain its popular meaning, which is decidedly negative, she loses the territory she fighting for in the first place. Or she's purposely retaining the perception of negativity to make her point. Defiance seems to be her banner. What value in delineating a new philosophy if it doesn't boldly fly in the face of convention. She asserts vainly, "I am appropriately and intelligently selfish."

One problem (the same problem deSade, Nietzsche, and Crowley run into) is their apparent failure to recognize (as ugly as it is) that life is a team game. I apologize for the trite beginning, but an excellent view of this idea can be found in Capra's Web of Life.

Reading Atlas Shrugged, one wonders how her world could actually "work." If the spoils of life simply went to the most talented and intelligent, what chance would those lessor sentient beings have? Especially if these "better" people adopted a zero-tolerance policy for the "lessor." (sp?)

In our paradigm, the lesser assist the better: factories, lesser jobs, etc. So, what we see, bird's eye view, is the reality of the "web", "matrix", the system of life in all its ugly reliance on stupid people to actually maintain the landfills etc. And after their shifts are over, the ugly, small-minded garbage men look towards the educated to assist them with their deficencies. All levels use each other, benefit each other, etc.

It seems that Rand's chief complaint in Shrugged is annoyance with "small minds." She doesn't seem to recognize that small minds comprise the lion's share of this planet. It's a hard lot for genius but "large minds" simply must suffer and fight of course, which is what Rand is doing (however blindly). Struggle is the lot for both small and large minds --each to their own type of torture.

It's incumbent upon large minds to assist small minds; unless they wish to cut themselves off completely. But that is impossible. All minds (large or small) begin as the "projects" so to speak, of other minds in the process known as child rearing. Parents with minds small or large, make it a commitment to raise Ayn Rand, for instance. Without a commitment to the infant Ayn Rand...the infant deSade (even better) -- though deSade would later learn to live by the old: "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me," carried and twisted further in de Sade's case (out of sheer ennui it would seem): "Fool me once..you had better! -- If not I'll fool you! (fool = torture] But there's no fooling an infant that you want to grow into a healthy adult.

At this level, we can see the essential empathy required in all levels of humanity. DeSade, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, seems to overlook what it took to make a deSade. It takes fools and genius, after all, it would seem.

DeSade's fight (struggle) is against something that, because of its relative nature, will never go away. There will always be ignorance/evil relative to that which is the measure of its opposite. In other words, barring mere disagreement, there will always be someone who knows more than another; therefore, the latter comes out ignorant compared to the former. Is this evil? Or does Rand have a formula, and level to reach, a grouping of some sort that can be described as having made the grade, in the club of the informed (no doubt this club will be a club of agreement.) Did Rand respect those who disagreed with her, or were they all idiots?

I obviously don't fully understand Ms. Rand, someone help me.

Post 10

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 1:31pm

Rand did not have contempt for "small minds", only minds that refused to use all of their potential (no matter how great or small). She recognized that those of lesser intelligence made important contributions to the functioning of steel mills, railroads, motor companies, etc., but it was precisely the works and visions of the greater intelligence that made the mills, railroads, and factories possible. Without greater minds, lesser minds would have less to do.

Post 11

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 8:05pm

John wrote:
>It's incumbent upon large minds to assist small minds; unless they wish to cut themselves off completely.

"In my course I have known and, according to my measure, have co-operated with great men; and I have never yet seen any plan which has not been mended by the observations of those who were much inferior in understanding to the person who took the lead in the business". - Edmund Burke

>Did Rand respect those who disagreed with her, or were they all idiots?

On the surface, it seems she mostly thought they were all idiots, at least in terms of philosophers. She fell into a deep depression, however, when the cognoscenti of the time did not praise 'Atlas Shrugged', so perhaps it was not true at bottom.

- Daniel

Post 12

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 9:40pm

Objectivism is very attractive in its essential points, except for 'selfishness' -- I just can't get some connotations out of my mind -- viz., a pie is plonked down on the table, four children tuck in, one child carves out half for self. Unclear on the concept of sharing the spoils.

I can't yet get past a notion that formal Objectivism is not particularly well-acquainted with human nature -- by way of example, I am still searching for some extended Objectivist notes on present-day studies in altruism (e.g., thorny and unresolved questions for Evolutionary Psychology -- why altruistic behaviour in animal groups and human society, how selected; why primate compassion/empathy, etcetera).

Imagine, three identical desert islands, with 100 marooned Objectivists on one, 100 marooned islanders (say Andamanese) on another, 100 marooned nobodies on a third.

Who prospers, who exemplifies the highest values, who furthered the human enterprise when we visit some hundred years later?

(what puzzles me about Objectivism in practice is that it occasionally sounds nasty, mean, inhuman, and out of touch with reality. I gotta say that what attracted me to Objectivism and to SOLO in this past year was David Holcberg's article about government aid & the Boxing Day Tsunami . . . much publicized at the time. Wondered if Holcberg was representative of much thinking in the O-world, wondered how much Holcberg's remarks increased any ick-factor already attached to Objectivism . . . at first glance, thought, hmmm, if Holcberg was on my overloaded 'lifeboat,' I would not hesitate to urge the group to pitch him over. "Have a nice, rational day, Dave. We hear the nearest non-taxed society is about 8 fathoms down. Bye now.")

WSS

"When there is no hero, you be the hero." -- said some dead sage

Post 13

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 9:31am

The concept of "sharing" (for its own sake) is an altruistic one; meaning that the "spoils" of one's endeavors should benefit those who have no stake on them. Being generous with one's earned excess, and only to those one values, is completely rational and good; in your example of the child taking half the pie, one must ask if s/he has earned that half? If s/he did, then that half is his/hers to do with as s/he pleases. If s/he values his/her siblings (and cares for their well-being) then it would very well be selfish to give part of his/her excess to them. Even giving his/her whole share would be just if that is truely his/her wish (and not "social pressure" to do so).

What are "nobodies"? If you mean it in the popular sense (i.e. people of no importance) then why discuss them? If you mean it in the literal sense (i.e. of having no "body") then why discuss them? If you mean it in the philosophical sense (i.e. of having no sense of "self") then why discuss them?

You might want to re-form your equation because your exponents are not of equal nature. They are all examples of different category of people, but the categories are not themselves comparable. First you use a people of a particular philosophical system (Objectivists), then a people of a particular geographical nature (Islanders), and lastly a people of no particular definition at all (Nobodies). Since your aim here is to ask "which philosophical system would better survive this particular situation", you should present different examples of philosophical systems.

Such an example as the "desert isle" is highly improbable, so it is highly superfluous to consider. Objectivism is about living in reality, not hypotheses. Superfluous as it may be, however, I will entertain the idea. The ones who prosper and grow are the ones able to adapt to reality, the ones able to properly adjust to whatever their surroundings require. Think of Gilligan's Island for a moment; there's a reason that a character such as The Professor was put on that island with the rest: so that the rest could survive. I'm not sure if he was meant as a model of Objectivism in itself, but he was a model of a rational man. He was the thinker, the creator, the man who could build any simple electronic device out of a couple of coconuts. So, my bet would be on the Objectivists (if they are true Objectivists, and not just posers). They are the ones who would look past mere "survival" and begin "living" to the best of their abilities. They would deal with each other on an individual, selfish nature (i.e. by trade). They would earn everything they consumed either by their own ability or through whatever system of trade they would develop.

In addition, I don't really care what "stigma" Objectivism holds to the world-at-large. I know what I know about it, and that's all that matters.

Post 14

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 6:40am

Todd Sanderson writes:

The concept of "sharing" (for its own sake) is an altruistic one; meaning that the "spoils" of one's endeavors should benefit those who have no stake on them.

Yes, sharing one's own spoils (in the sense of plunder, or prey) seems irrational: I brought down this hog, I'm a gonna eat it all myse'f.

I should have made clear that in my visual lure, the pie was plonked down deus ex machina by a big old Ma, or by an auntie on the back porch, a spoil (in the sense of incidental benefit accruing to an individual) of the adult world: I cain't finish all this hog myse'f right now, and the fridge is broke, and it sure is hot out here, so the hog will rot, so I guess I better feed the kids. And oh yeah, Auntie brought over pie to share later.

Or imagine it's all adults on the back porch, and it's Uncle Festhock what carves that pie before the assembled social group. Why, I had a mind to holler him down, the pig-eyed greedy hog, but you know Auntie gets to cryin' if folks holler at each other. We jest shook our heads.'

One might also imagine the children as monkeys cooperating for mutual benefit (as with recent 'cheat-detector' experiments) and watch the *other* three kids' faces. My scant reading of Rand suggests that honed calculations and appraisals of reality [ought] inform emotion. Watching varied species quite-rationally respond with anger at being cheated tells me that support for Rand comes in surprising places, and delivers surprising implications.

Still, what possesses a pie-grabber? I dare say not the SOLO spirit.

You might want to re-form your equation because your exponents are not of equal nature. [ . . . ] Since your aim here is to ask "which philosophical system would better survive this particular situation", you should present different examples of philosophical systems.

Right. Good point. How about Objectivist's Island (Classic Rand), Liberal's (Classic Bentham), Pragmatist's (Classic Peirce), and Andaman (Classic 1200 BCE) Islands?

: )

[I find the Andaman Islanders fascinating, and mentioned them not because they are doomed to extinction, but for their pre-historic philosophy . . . these remnants, decimated by the Boxing Day Tsunami, occupy a rare place in anthropology: utterly not of the modern world, illiterate, core way of life thought to be unchanged since their isolation 14,000 years ago. In my imagination, they were the only marooned group for which we could likely infer the outcome: survival and stasis. By 'nobodies,' I could have written 'bell-curve sample of world philosophical adherence,' and of the Andamanese 'sample weighted by pre-historic philosophic adherence,' and of the Objectivists 'sample weighted by philosophical adherence to Objectivism,' (with demographics held constant across the three marooned groups). But I didn't, so thanks for the critique. I still stand by my emotion of ick with regard to Holcberg's article.]

I appreciate your reply, Todd. How's about "Survivor Objectivist Island"?

WSS

"If you aren't trying to find out the truth about whatever-it-is, you aren't really inquiring. Genuine inquiry seeks the truth with respect to some question or topic; pseudo-inquiry seeks to make a case for the truth of some proposition or propositions determined in advance." -- Susan Haack "Preposterism and Its Consequences"

Post 15

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 8:52pm

John Shannon,

Reading Atlas Shrugged, one wonders how her world could actually "work." If the spoils of life simply went to the most talented and intelligent, what chance would those lessor sentient beings have? Especially if these "better" people adopted a zero-tolerance policy for the "lessor." (sp?)
This seems like an economics question... and the answer is: The solution is a free market, where people are free to trade or not trade what they value at the price they choose-- AKA capitalism. In capitalism, individuals are rewarded to the extend that they themselves are productive, since they themselves have full ownership (control) over the products of their own labor. Some people will have, produce, give, consume, etc more then others... all by mutually consented trade. Question: Who wouldn't benefit from this system?

Now as to your zero tolerance policy... zero tolerance for what? Murdering? Making mistakes in arithmetic? Please explain what you mean.

Post 16

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 5:46am