Position:Home>Philosophy> Why is selfishness misunderstood and condemned when...?
Question: Why is selfishness misunderstood and condemned when!.!.!.!?
"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!.
“Introduction,” The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn RandWww@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
Rand likes to take words and reinvent a definition for them!. While I love her politics, her philosophy can get very confusing because of this habit of hers!.
When people say selfish, they do not mean selfish as someone with "rational self interest"!. The term is usually used in a different context and can in fact refer to the moocher who takes and gives nothing back!. Take any cheap soap opera villainous capitalist and you would find someone who got to the top not because of his ability to produce but because of some insidious schemes!.
Rand's capitalist heroes were in fact self-interested but not selfish!. They understood and respected the rights of other people!. When they owe something they pay it!.
In Atlas Shrugged (where you've obviously played a part John Galt), you said that it is not wrong for a mother to go hungry to feed her child because it is still under Rand's definition of selfishness!. It is not the altruistic act she condemns!. What she condemns is the altruistic act of letting your own child go hungry in order to feed another!. That is, when you let your own values be subordinate to the values of another!.
Edit: Looking at the other answers, I think will show that I am right!. Rand created an impression that there is no room for loving your neighbor!. What she was trying to counter is the notion that when you love someone, you must be willing to self-destruct!. The bible would say, love your enemy, and when someone strikes your right cheek offer your left!. She would disagree with such "heroic" notions because it would eventually reward the sinner and punish the good!. How cruel is it for the world to impose this on another!. Those who have sympathies for the guilty have none for the innocent!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that everyone should look upon his neighbour without any exceptions as "another self", above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity!. No legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of truly fraternal societies!. Such behaviour will cease only through the charity that finds in every man a "neighbour", a brother!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Youre wrong and right about a few things!.
Youre interpretation of selfishness is your own!.!.!. I dont think of corpses or brutes!. Rather, I think America!. I think of every capitalist society on the planet!.
It is morally decayed!. Concern for ones self is emphasized, yes!.!.!. but it must necessarily be that other peoples interests are deemphasized!. This IS immoral when people go out of their own way for their own benefit without concern for how it effects others!. One does not need to murder for selfish gain for their selfishness to suddenly be immoral
No dictionary will carry a moral evaluation!. Why!? Because morality isnt a part of the definition!. The definition is what categorizes it as moral or immoral; the definition itself doesnt categorize it for you!. The dictionary doesnt define murder as immoral either!. So whats your point!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
Right!. Nothing wrong with pursuing self interest as long as you're not completely trampling on other people!. If your self-interest leaves no room for empathy, then you are at risk of losing your humanity!.
The exact definition is irrelevant!. If you want to use the word and be clear as to what you are saying, you need to be aware that it carries negative connotations and is often undertood to mean someone who does not maintain a "proper" balance of self-interest vs concern for his/her fellow!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Of course a dictionary is not going to take a moral view on word!. It is merely there to define only with cold hard truth!. The people then give the word power and morality is thusly born!. These traits are good things to have but are easily taken too far!. Such as concern with one's own interest without concern for others!. Selfishness carries the weight of warning and bitterness and to admonish others of the power we have given it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
For the moral evaluation bit; Simple answer selfishness is natural behaviour that requires no courage, it may affect loyalties whether it was to nation or to a family, on the other hand selflesness requires great courage and high morality to be concern for the others before yourself thus by default selfless behaviour is loyal to the otherWww@QuestionHome@Com
The "selfish gene" is what makes humans survivors!. Selfishness does NOT mean only out for ones self-- just only out for ones self interest!. It is in my self interest to pass on my genes and protect my family!. It is in my self interest to make sure the world is a good place for my children to grow up in!. IT is in my self interest to join social compacts that ensure my basic rights will be protected from duress!.
It is in all of our interest to keep America Free!.
Rand was a genius!. Liberty or death!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
i love ayn rand XD i wrote a thesis about her!.
well, selfishness is condemned because of the words we ascribe into it!. we mostly associate selfishness with Self-centered people who disrespects others!.
I believe that ayn rand actually gave us an objective way of looking into things!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
I think selfishness become good or evil only when we measure its degree!. Short-sighted, narrow minded selfishness - similar to that of little children is significant when evaluated under the measuring tape of morality!. When selfishness expands and encompasses the greater mass of people - like "keeping America free" - it requires more wisdom and more sacrifice and is "less immoral" than other forms of localised selfishness!.
"Less immoral" reminds me a little of George Orwell's "More Equal" such that we can say, "Americans are more moral or more 'good' that non-Americans" and hence all of America's acts can be forgiven as long they are in America's own interests!.
But then again there are wiser Americans who would object to some acts!. Such citizens would say that even though this or that appears to be in America's best interests in the immediate present - there is still something very wrong with it in the long-term perspective!.
Thus morality - the moral implications of selfishness are always in a dynamic balance between what is practically required and what could have been the ideal solution!.
As mortals we are always short of time!. We need to make quick decisions, we need to "expedite matters", we need to "get on with life"
In this way we can only aspire to our moral ideals - but selfishness will always be a practical person's virtueWww@QuestionHome@Com
Rand's selfishness is not misunderstood but is condemned by people who realise that the kind of complete freedom in capitalism she advocates is the freedom for those who have money and power to tread on those who do not!.
In Game Theory there are two strategies which win the game Prisoner's Dilemma!. The first is Tit For Tat, an enlightened self interest strategy where the "player" chooses to be nice to everyone unless they are nasty!. This is the strategy I play by, as it maximizes altruism and makes the world a nice place to live in for all nice people!. The other winning strategy is Master/Slave, where a selfish master uses many slaves to gain points!. Master/Slave is a better strategy (scores more points) than Tit For Tat, it is the best strategy for those who are most concearned about their own score and little about society!.
I think we need to be protected from such people, we need rules and laws to prevent the Master/Slave strategies from taking hold in society and hogging all the resources!. This is why I advocate socialist constraints on capitalism and object to both Rand's philosophy and her politics!.Www@QuestionHome@Com