Why “Selfishness” Doesn’t Properly Mean Being Shortsighted and Harmful to Others
Everyone must learn how to be properly selfish: it is not automatic. Indeed, a great many people never learn it, and spend many years slowly destroying themselves through irresponsibility and vice.
I found the opening analogy a little strange, but I understood what you were saying. One thing I've noticed about Ayn Rand is that she often writes in a very extreme way. Sometimes I think this is on purpose, to illustrate the extreme black/white nature of the issue. Sometimes I think it is just a writer's technique to get the reader's attention.
But from the beginning I noticed that she uses words differently than we, or at least I, commonly do (did). This includes value, virtue, morality, and of course, selfishness, I suspect even altruism. Probably others. I think this is probably what causes even many otherwise sympathetic readers to misunderstand and dismiss her. Unfortunately.
It is important to understand the statement that there are no contradictions. If you find such in language and understandings of the definitions of words, it's critical to check and determine for yourself what a word means versus what some common usage says.
I think AR used the words she chose to purposely eliminate misinterpretation in her philosophy and the logic that underlies it for those that can understand and grasp it. And while it's true that many won't be able to comprehend due to their lack of ability to understand the definition of a lot of words and concepts, it also leads to greater clarity and makes it more difficult to misstate the concepts and ideas, though many try.
Would it not be wonderful if all people used the same clarity of meaning with all vocabulary?
But she wasn't always so careful. The first thing I read by her was Atlas Shrugged (and I've read it and studied it several times now). I still remember the first time going through the process you described ("wait a minute, that can't be what she means; she must be using the term differently"). Her definitions became clearer as the story progressed, and even more so when I've read other of her more academic books. I strive to be a critical thinker, and I found it confusing at first; many people will not be reading as carefully as I do.
For example, I typically thought of ‘value’ as, generally, a custom which we typically classify as good or bad (e.g., family values); Rand means a technical ethical sense: a ‘value’ is that which one acts to gain and keep. We typically think of ‘virtue’ as moral goodness (e.g., a virtuous man has morally good values); Rand says, “‘Virtue’ is the action by which one gains and keeps” (926; P3C7) one’s values. We typically think of ‘morality’ as ethics or the study of right and wrong; Rand says morality is simply means the system of values one chooses. Unfortunately, though she defines some terms differently than I normally use them, sometimes she does use them the way we are used to. For example with the term "moral," (I don't have page numbers off hand), I recall this occurring to me as I read AS (and re-read it). I recall thinking, "No wait a minute, she defined it differently back here, but now she is using it commonly."
I agree that she is generally precise and clear. My point is that, even though she defines them (eventually), she uses several terms differently (usually) than most of her readers do. For someone like myself who is disposed to understand her, that's fine. Even for those who misunderstand her, we can point to where they misrepresent her, and we can do this just because she has defined her terms. All I'm saying is that the casual reader (and many people who pick up a novel are just that, casual readers) may be "derailed" just because of this.
In the Introduction to her book The Virtue of Selfishness Ayn Rand wrote:
"The title of this book may evoke the kind of question that I hear once in a while: 'Why do you use the word 'selfishness' to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?'
"To those who ask it, my answer is: 'For the reason that makes you afraid of it.'
"But there are others, who would not ask that question, sensing the moral cowardice it implies, yet who are unable to formulate my actual reason or to identify the profound moral issue involved. It is to them that I will give a more explicit answer.
"It is not a mere semantic issue nor a matter of arbitrary choice. 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.
"The ethics of altruism has created the image of the brute, as its answer, in order to make men accept two inhuman tenets: (a) that any concern with one's own interests is evil, regardless of what these interests might be, and (b) that the brute's activities are in fact to one's own interest (which altruism enjoins man to renounce for the sake of his neighbors).
...
"Yet that is the meaning of altruism, implicit in such examples as the equation of an industrialist with a robber. There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level (see 'The Objectivist Ethics')
.
"If it is true that what I mean by 'selfishness' is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites—that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men—that it permits no concept of justice.
...
"To rebel against so devastating an evil, one has to rebel against its basic premise. To redeem both man and morality, it is the concept of 'selfishness' that one has to redeem."
I believe a good writer needs to be clear and consistent. Rand is pretty good at that. But also a good reader ought to understand what the writer is saying (hopefully before rejecting the writer). Most readers are not good at that.
Her Objectivist oath is an example of her writing in an extreme manner: “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." I affirm this. I understand this. But it is extreme. There are senses in which we do "live" (or share the fruit of our lives) with others. Recall her lecture on Emergencies.
Or this: "Miss Taggart, we have no laws [really, NO laws?] in this valley, no rules [really?], no formal organization of any kind [....]. We come here because we want to rest. But we have certain customs [which are not organized?], which we all observe, because they pertain to the things we need to rest from. So I'll warn you now that there is one word which is forbidden in this valley: the word 'give.'"
Okay, I understand what she is saying. You understand what she is saying. They don't have laws like we do. (But they would say it violates moral law to initiate violence, right?) And when they "give," it is because it helps them achieve their rational values. But don't tell me she does not write in "extreme" ways to get the reader's attention. I actually found it to be very effective. But others, who are disposed to disagree with her for one reason or another, find it as an easy excuse to reject her. In my opinion.
She was a very clear writer who is seldom debated on the basis of what she said by those trying to bury her ideas. Those looking for an excuse to reject ideas will find a way to do that without having to confront her philosophy for what it is.
We agree that those who disagree with her over this are alone to blame. She is clear where she needs to be. The reader ought to understand her before disagreeing with her. I've said this already. My point is very simple: some of these extremisms and inconsistencies cause people to reject her superficially. We agree that these people are without excuse for this. I don't understand why this is controversial.
That being the case, I am a little lost with this whole selfishness is OK argument because while you can certainly be a good person while predominately looking out for your own self interest...it is not necessary. In fact, if you have the social tools you will be more successful by being destructive to others. So I seriously want to know how you can argue for selfishness unless you somehow condition it with the understanding that you will not be destructive to others regardless of whether or not it is in your long term interest. This is where the Libertarian philosophy seems clearer...there seems to be more of an understanding that you are free to do as you wish but only if it does not force others (I would consider deceptive destruction a type of force).
???
Your last sentence seems to be putting Libertarianism down. I hope not. I would certainly disagree with your thought that they do not have a philosophy. They are just as philosophy based as objectivism (though I certainly did not state it well in my original reply). I would say they are brothers.
If you draw a straight line between 'my self interest which has no intent to harm others' and my 'goal', and you lack perceptive qualities, then you will often end up running over other peoples' toes.
Jan
I have engaged many conversations on Rand's ethics and find that many people are put off by the word "selfish." Those that engage in some basic thinking finally get it.
I think part of the problem is that there isn't a word that captures the concept precisely enough that Rand wanted to denote. It seems that "selfish" will have to do and we will have to continue looking for better ways to explain its use - what it integrates and what it does not.
This whole discussion reminds me of a quote: "If you don't have the word, you can't think the thought." Not sure who said this - George Orwell, perhaps. There is another quote that nearly captures the same idea: "If you do not know the words, you can hardly know the thing" - Henry Hazlitt.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Txs for finding and posting.
First it reminded me of a LED light system I designed for Halloween lighting. You can use 200 of my LED lights for the same amount of power as 1-100W flood light. I sold them on eBay and I did not MAKE anyone buy them. It didn't hurt anyone and I didn't take advantage of anyone.
The other was when Ted Kennedy died and the Democrat Congress suspended the inheritance tax.
As a 1st responder you are trained to stop and make sure that the situation is safe for you to enter, else the 2nd responder is rescuing 2 victims.
It is rational self interest at it's finest.
I wonder why you've got to get to college before this is taught?
1) Game theory tends to assume zero-sum and that the goal of people's behavior is "winning," rather than getting the most benefit for themselves, even if others get as much or more.
2) Experiments in game theory artificially restrict people's options, such that their behavior is not an accurate reflection of what it would be in the real world, with it's wide open options.
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/c...
Entrepreneurial games are the subject of the study of spontaneous order. These are games where part of the strategy is to make the "pie" bigger by taking advantage of the process of random sequences resulting in stable systems that survive.
To the extent our political situation looks like a Nash Equillibrium, it is an illusion. A few hundred powerful players have reached a near-equillibrium fighting each other, and they try to convince everyone else that it isn't worthwhile to fight the status quo. But the rest of us are screwed if we buy the lie.