Why did Ayn Rand call her vision of ethics "selfishness"?

I've always wondered if selfishness is really the word for what Ayn Rand had in mind in ethics. I agree that rational people do not sacrifice others to themselves, but it seems to me so far that doing so could sometimes be necessary if the only criterion for what one should do is what benefits oneself. In those cases where one could sustain one's life best by taking advantage of others, the selfish thing would be to do just that, I think; yet I could not imagine an Ayn Rand hero doing so even if his own life required it. So then, would selfishness be a general rule for the Objectvist, or would the basic rule for the Objectivist be something else, with selfishness only being appropriate when it agreed with that other principle?
I know that most of my question involve ethics and politics, but that is where the meatiest questions I have about philosophy lie. I hope you guys don't mind my bringing up a question which has probably been discussed by newbies to Objectivism many times before; if any of you are tired of this type of question (which I know is asked a lot by people investigating Objectivism), but know of links to other discussions or articles on this issue, please let me know about them.... I'm looking for anything I can get my hands on regarding this topic.
Incidentally, I almost wish that I COULD call my views on ethics "selfish"; for then I would perhaps be more able to convince others to share my views on ethics, and hence be able to create what I think would be a better world.... everybody deep down would like to know that what was in their best real interest is actually what ethics consists of after all. If they had reason to be told that what ethics consisted of, as Rand saw ethics, was being selfish, then that would be all the more reason for them to accept that vision... and that vision is something I think the world desparately needs to adopt.

I'd appreciate any feedback any of you have on this topic.... thanks.

Post 1

Thursday, July 23, 2009 - 8:30pm

Objectivism isn't free. The price of admission is that you have to think. One thing you have to think about, and actually comprehend, is that sacrificing the selves of others to your self is not selfishness. It is the most craven form of dependence there is.

Of course if people can't be bothered to understand this, we could always water down Objectivism to make it more easily marketable. Why exclude fools from salvation when, by using a less controversial word, we could trick them into becoming egoists without them even knowing it? Doing this would help them, and it would make us feel good about ourselves, because that's what ethics is all about, doing good for others even if we have to sacrifice our own integrity and the truth in order to benefit those who cannot help themselves.

Post 2

Thursday, July 23, 2009 - 8:57pm

I find myself, when talking to the great unwashed (non-Objectivists), leaning on the expression "self interest" instead of selfishness. Selfishness is certainly accurate, but there are so many connotations associated with it, I feel it's use impedes getting my arguments across, adding layers of explanation that could be avoided. In fact, I rarely speak of "self interest" without the adjectives "rational" or "enlightened" plunked down in front.

There is a great (useful) controversial value to using the term "selfishness", but when those not initiated to the Objectivist philosophy hear the word, it does not have the same meaning to them as it does to us.

I don't have to think twice about the meaning when anyone here (posting) mentions selfishness - it is mutually understood. However, if we want to make ourselves clear to non-Objectivists, I do think "rational self-interest" or "enlightened self interest" better drives home the message that there are values and responsibilities - thought - that must go into making personal decisions.

jt

Post 3

Friday, July 24, 2009 - 3:20am

I think the most extensive of Rand�s investigations of the concept of selfishness is in The Fountainhead. There she is using the word selfishness all over the place. She marshals a string of minor characters who would conventionally be said to be selfish, then says why they are not, why theirs is a false, incoherent selfishness. She does the same for the major characters Peter, Catherine, Toohey, and Wynand. The story tackles the questions of what is the self; what kind of self should I what to become; what type of self comports with creation and happiness.

The concept of self-interest may go far enough for political dialogue. But just like Plato in the Republic, Rand�s quest is not only for the correct constitution of the city, but the correct constitution of the soul.

The theme of Atlas Shrugged is the role of the mind in the life of man. The author says that the self is the mind. Saying a great deal in this book about the nature of the mind, she is also speaking on the nature of the self. The ethical virtues set out there are all about the right constitution of the self.

Christopher, if you have not already done so, you might like to read Rand�s essay �Selfishness without a Self� which is an extension of Branden�s earlier essay �Counterfeit Individualism.�

Jesus said �love your neighbor as your self.� Rand�s picture of the human being does not take for granted that he will love himself automatically. She argues a foundation and structure of ethics that embraces the idea that one should love oneself. She has some things to say about love of neighbor, and for my part, I don�t think she got entirely stabilized on how that is to be integrated into her ethics of self. Enough is settled, however, to know one should think about when and how far one should love ones neighbor. Two related threads: yours and mine.

It is appropriate for Rand to call her ethics an ethics of selfishness at times, rather than always and only an ethics of self-interest. The former calls attention to the fact that her ethics is more comprehensive of human existence than goes with the common currency self-interest.

(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 7/24, 1:40pm)

Post 4

Friday, July 24, 2009 - 3:27am

Friday, July 24, 2009 - 7:59am

Teresa,

I think his talk is well intended, but, doesn't really connect the dots to get his message across.

The greatest bulk of his argument is that being selfish does not mean that the selfish person "wants to do harm others". Two thirds of the way through, he finally describes that concept as childish - which it is. So why spend the first two-thirds of the essay repeating one argument against what is an easily deposed concept.

The biggest weakness in the video is that he never defines what selfishness truly is. He talks around it some towards the very end, but doesn't make it clear. He would've benefitted greatly from having practiced a prepared script.

Speaking to an Objectivist audience on Objectivism requires no great effort*. Speaking to a non-Objectivist audience, I think, demand we use much greater precision with our words. Non-Objectivists may have some resistance because of religious upbringing. Non-Objectivists may have already bought in (intellectually) on the morass of collectivist politics, and be wary or even aggressive in defending their views.

Anytime we fail to make ourselves - make Objectivist principles & epistemology - clear, we give detractors the opportunity to make their voices louder than ours.

Hate to be a grump, but I think it's worth saying. : (

jt

*Unless one is a little loose with one's words. No question, Objectivists are quick to point our when one's interpretation leaves a door open for a contradiction.
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 7/24, 8:05am)

Post 6

Friday, July 24, 2009 - 9:42am

I never really saw the problem in that - she said, right from the start, that selfishness meant, properly, merely 'self interest' without any connotation involved for or against... it would be easy from that to point out the biological imperative that this applies to any living organism as a necessity to survival, and the alternative, existing for others [other interest] is suicidal... further, that the doctrine of Otherism [altruism] is a slaver's doctrine, for that is what a slave does, however it may be euphemistically claimed differently - and further yet, that the alternative is NOT the brute [the animal], as usually claimed, but the human way - enlightened rational self-interest which posits mutual benefit with non-coercion [the trader mindset] and the respect of others as also self-interested human individuals [not as brutes, animals]...
(Edited by robert malcom on 7/24, 9:44am)

Post 7

Friday, July 24, 2009 - 12:30pm

Yet one more step removed, when I remember to, I like to say "own interests" instead of "self-interests." It makes it easier to explain how caring for others (not the self) of value to you accords with Objectivism.

Jordan

Post 8

Friday, July 24, 2009 - 1:23pm

Christopher,

I agree that rational people do not sacrifice others to themselves, but it seems to me so far that doing so could sometimes be necessary if the only criterion for what one should do is what benefits oneself. In those cases where one could sustain one's life best by taking advantage of others, the selfish thing would be to do just that, I think; yet I could not imagine an Ayn Rand hero doing so even if his own life required it.

My first question to you is to ask you why do you think it is that rational people do not sacrifice others to themselves. You agree that they don't, that they refrain from sacrificing others, but for what REASON do they refrain? I would ask you this:

Do you benefit from other peoples' individuality? From their individual rights?

If you say yes, then that is because you acknowledge that other people, acting selfishly, will benefit your life because they are a wellspring of value -- because it is natural, proper, right and good for humans to benefit from each others' selfishness (in general). Man qua man does best that way. From this view, looking back on unselfishness reveals a gross inefficiency -- man can't get what man values by adopting unselfish behavior.

There are the humans (us), and there are the things that are good for humans (values), and there is the best manner in which those things get achieved (selfishness). The selfishness is the link or the bridge to the values. The 'unselfishness' often preached at us is, in retrospect, a pit-fall with respect to values.

That wasn't a great answer, but do you "get" what I'm driving at?

Ed

Post 9

Friday, July 24, 2009 - 2:56pm

Christopher,

I have another related question. Would you rather be born into the world as it is, or would you rather be born into a world where:

(1) the right to the freedom of self- (read: selfish) determination was totally respected
and
(2) you were the only human with that right

?

In this imagined world, you'd be left alone to do as you please. But the downside is that you would not have any of -- or would at least have very much less of -- the benefits of others acting in their own self-interest. The world would be very different. Other folks -- all other folks -- wouldn't have and wouldn't respect individual rights (except when it came to you).

Folks with new ideas, or folks doing things better than others do, would not be allowed to utilize their ideas -- or to freely reap the benefits of a job done better (think, for instance, of a car or a house that worked better than other cars or other houses). Vaccines might not be discovered, because scientists wouldn't be able to benefit from the discovery. Cars might not be made, because car manufacturers wouldn't be able to benefit from making them. Art would be poor or destroyed or simply non-existent. Etc, etc.

Ed

Post 10

Friday, July 24, 2009 - 4:23pm

Jay,

So why spend the first two-thirds of the essay repeating one argument against what is an easily deposed concept.

It was clear to me that he spent all that time because that is exactly how most people view the concept; "as necessarily hurting others in order to benefit one'self." He presented it in so many ways I lost count, but the point was the absurdity.

The biggest weakness in the video is that he never defines what selfishness truly is.

I didn't watch the whole video again, but from memory, I'm pretty sure that Brandon defined selfishness correctly as only meaning "I benefit in some way." Is that definition lacking? Why? Why are other's always assumed to be involved, and always in a negative way?

He would've benefitted greatly from having practiced a prepared script.

Brandon doesn't work that way. He's a teacher and enjoys thinking on his feet. I'm not privy to his email exchanges, but I'm willing to bet they're brilliant. (I'm very very jealous of his girlfriend, Bobbi Sue, and begged Brandon to marry me instead, but alas... ;)

Anytime we fail to make ourselves - make Objectivist principles & epistemology - clear, we give detractors the opportunity to make their voices louder than ours.

Where wasn't he clear? Or is this just a wholesale insult to his effort? Sure reads that way, Jay, but I know you're not the type.

Post 11

Friday, July 24, 2009 - 8:36pm

Teresa,

Knew I was sounding grumpy. I like what he's doing. I just felt he focussed too long on making one point that he'd already adequately expressed in the first minute. Maybe this was just an impromptu video of him talking, which would help explain the pacing.

I felt he did more debunking of a popular but wrong idea, than explaining of a misunderstood, but right idea. Anyhow, my opinion is undoubtedly flavored by my own personal preferences and priorities, and so should only be taken with a grain of salt.

Of course, Brandon also passed up on your exceptionally attractive proposal, which does seem an indictment of his sense of judgement. ; )

jt

Post 12

Saturday, July 25, 2009 - 10:03am

One question all this begs is what word should Objectivists use to mean stepping on others when non-Objectivists would use selfish? I usually use thoughtless or inconsiderate, although this comes across as a bit formal. Anyone have any helpful suggested wording?

Post 13

Saturday, July 25, 2009 - 10:49am

Probably depends on the specific objectionable action.

I'd use "liar, thief, con, user, mooch, murderer, violent abuser, molester, cheat," etc. depending on the context and circumstances.

There isn't a "catch all" word to describe any or all of these.

Edit to change my mind. There is a "catch all word": Sociopath/Psychopath

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 7/25, 1:56pm)

Post 14

Saturday, July 25, 2009 - 11:13am

Thanks guys.
I did some thinking about what I posted recently, and determined that I keep changing my stances on ethics and politics. I determined also that, so far, I think I keep doing this because I want two things in an ethical philosophy which aren't compatible with one another, and because I have a hard time seeing how either of these things that I want in an ethical philosophy could be implemented in politics.
The two things that I want in an ethical philosophy are: 1.) nobody sacrificing others to themselves ever (under no conditions whatsoever), and 2.)the idea that one should always be selfish, no matter what the circumstances.
I think that part of the best solution I can think of to this problem of mine consists of recognizing that selfishness can sometimes involve sacrificing others to oneself, but that it does not usually consist of that. The over-riding principle should be objective self-interest, and the harmony of interests principle is then seen to apply under normal circumstances, but not under all circumstances. This doesn't leave room for always being able to be selfish and being able to respect others lives as well, but it would involve the recognition that the two usually go together.
Of course, I'm not 100% sure that this is the ethical solution that I'm looking for, and I still have to think about how such ethical ideas should be implemented politically, but--so far--I think I'll probably have to accept that the selfishness principle (from above) is more important, more primary, than the harmony of interests principle.
Well, I've got to go right now.... I'll write again later... Thanks again for your responses.

Post 15

Saturday, July 25, 2009 - 11:26am

Ethics, properly, deal with the individual... when ye wish to engage in politics, properly ye engaging in aggregates of individuals... if you can look at it that way, then there is no conflict - it is only when politics is assumed as dealing tribally that there arises problems of conflict...
(Edited by robert malcom on 7/25, 11:27am)

Post 16

Saturday, July 25, 2009 - 2:11pm

It occured to me today that what I'm asking about is very closely related, for me, to what I talked about in the thread I started before this one. In that thread, I asked essentially whether one should respect other's greatness for its own sake, or whether one should only respect it if one thinks that one can, oneself, expect to gain from it materially. Should we even esteem others unless they can first be expected to benefit us, in other words? Or is it rather the case that we have to see how they can benefit us, before we can properly esteem them.
The reason I see a connection between these two threads is that if we should value greatness for its own sake, whether it is our own or that of others, then it would not be right to sacrifice others to ourselves. If, on the other hand, we should only pay attention to what we ourselves need, then we can morally sacrifice others to ourselves--it seems to me--whenever it would be required for our own lives.
Whenever I'm around intelligent, competent people, I always admire those qualities in them... However, I've wondered if I've learned to do so only by having benefitted directly in my life from other's greatness.
Perhaps one can esteem others for their virtue itself, before one shrewdly calculates how it might benefit oneself.... perhaps, sometimes, the emotional fuel of finding someone who shares our values is enough itself. Thats usually all I'm after in such transactions at least.
I still wonder, however, why it is that I look up to others that are virtuous without expecting to benefit myself from their virtues... sometimes the only value I gain from them is "emotional fuel", and I don't even know why it is that I get that from them. They certainly aren't increasing my own knowledge or material gain... at least, not that I'm aware of.

Post 17

Saturday, July 25, 2009 - 2:13pm

Psychological visibility...

Post 18

Sunday, July 26, 2009 - 11:14am

Christopher,

I don't understand the problems you're having. The only time it is ever justified to sacrifice another to oneself is in the case of a dire life-and-death emergency. In that context, every other consideration is of secondary importance.

- Bill

Post 19

Sunday, July 26, 2009 - 5:20pm