Self-Interest = Selfish?

Ayn Rand said that pursuing one's own self interests is the "proper and most efficient" method of securing a happy life. Isn't that just selfishness? If everyone subscribed to that idea, wouldn't that just cause people to be greedy and constantly fight with each other?

I do not think selfishness is the same as being self-interested. That is because we can be made happy by doing good for other people, so we would be working for our own happiness but in an unselfish way.

Ayn Rand said that pursuing one's own self interests is the "proper and most efficient" method of securing a happy life. Isn't that just selfishness? If everyone subscribed to that idea, wouldn't that just cause people to be greedy and constantly fight with each other?

First off, Ayn Rand that pursuing one's own Rational Self-Interest is the most proper way to achieve one's own happiness. And I always remind people to put rational self-interest because leaving out the rational tends to leave a loaded area full of hedonistic interests that are not based on rationality.

Also, selfish means to be concerned with one's own self-interest. The word selfish has no moral context at all. Ayn Rand was also never against people helping other's as long as there was some sort of self-interest involved. She did not believe in altruism whatsoever because it involves having no self and no self-value.

Furthermore, if people subscribed to rational self-interest, there would be no conflict between anybody...because the keyword is RATIONAL...and no rational man will get in a conflict with another rational man...since they learn how to deal with each other rationally rather than in the way we tend to with each other now.

I agree with NSUSA, doing good for others in pursuit of happiness is much better for everyone than just pursuing your own happiness.

Helping others makes us happy. You can be both self-interested and philathropic.

People are free to choose whatever they wish. If they choose to help others, they have to understand it is no one's DUTY to help anyone else nor should they be required to and that it isn't their own duty. It just happens to be something that makes them happy and enjoying helping others. And Kyle22 is correct. You can pursue your own self-interest and be philanthropic.

However, learn also not to cast some moral judgment such as evil towards those who do work and pursue their own *rational* self-interests. It's not evil to live for oneself. It's not evil to be selfish. It is evil to be hedonistic about things...but not evil to live for one's own rational self-interest.

[Scott]

A wolf generally pursues its own self-interest when it attacks, kills, and eats one of us. What pleases the one creature may cause harm and displeasure to other creatures.

I do not assign a moral value to philanthropy or selfishness. I especially do not assign any value to selflessness because the idea itself seems contradictory and nonsensical to me.

As a society, we want to make it not in the self-interest of anyone to harm us. The emotion of anger naturally causes to lash out at those who do us harm so as to make it more in their interest to not harm us. In civilization, discouragement has developed into many forms. We threaten predators to make it in their interest to not harm anyone. Back to nature, we also naturally have empathy and compassion. This generally makes it in the individuals interest to help his fellow human (and all living creatures for that matter). Through empathy and compassion, we gain pleasure from the pleasure of others.

Thanks,
Scott

Ayn Rand said that pursuing one's own self interests is the "proper and most efficient" method of securing a happy life. Isn't that just selfishness? If everyone subscribed to that idea, wouldn't that just cause people to be greedy and constantly fight with each other?

askalot,

Self interests is unavoidable, for in order to react to any given situtation the will of the subject must be engaged, thus making whatever action/reaction is to follow the will of that subject, in other words, whatever he/she does is a fulfilment of the will of that subject. An act/reaction can be selfless in that the subject is sacraficing to another, putting his will in serves to the welfare of another, but this is still fulfilling the will of the subject who is doing acting/reacting. One cannot preform any activity without the will behind it, even the action of picking up a glass of water must be willed, the actual deed is the fulfilment of that said will. So in a rather odd sense, any action whatsoever is selfish in this sense, it is the fulfilling of the will of the subject, and in this sense one always serves oneself first before serving another, for you have made the serves to another your will.

I'm of the belief that there's no such thing as a truly selfless act. Here's a discussion Homicidal Pacifist and I had a while back in the Accountability is Still the #1 Virtue thread...

I would argue there is no such thing as selflessness. The only reason people commit selfless acts is for selfish reasons (i.e. it makes them "feel good", they "want" to, etc.)

That statement is not true. I do many things simply for the good of other people. The fact that I get enjoyment out of it is neither the cause of my action nor is it a characteristic of selfishness.

How does a human body function, HP? I guess that's the question at hand here. My understanding of it is that chemicals are released by neurotransmitters in the mind. Among those chemicals are seratonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine. These chemicals are released based on various stimuli, among those are visual and auditory input. However, the body reacts as a result of the brain's desire for MORE CHEMICALS.

It is presumably "selfish" for a being to act solely in order to feed it's own need for "another hit", is it not? We're basically all just addicts, begging for a release of more chemicals from a neurotransmitter to a synapse, on and on, millions of times over every second. So stands my argument.

Selfishness leads to all other acts, including selflessness, and it should be the core sentiment of Accountability; because if you did it, you should be proud of it, and stand up for what you did.

We should not be proud of everything we do for many things we do should not have been done. Remember remorse?

I should ammend that statement, agreed. If you did it, you should take responsibility for it. That's better, isn't it? Although I'm remorseful for some of my past acts, they are now a part of who I am, so I must accept them for what they are; past choices I have made. I should not be ashamed of what I have done. I should apologize, learn from my mistakes, and prove that I have grown by utilizing the lessons learned in your future acts.

In the end, I don't think there is such a thing as a "selfless" act. Everything you do, you derive some kind of benefit from [if only a chemical/neurological/psychological "high"].

e.g.

doing good for others in pursuit of happiness is much better for everyone than just pursuing your own happiness.

You are obtaining "joy" in the chemical sense when you "pursue happiness" regardless of how "altruistic" you claim your motives are.

When Rand used the term "selfishness", she meant "rational self-interest", which she believed to be a virtue.

I agree, by the by...

Ayn Rand said that pursuing one's own self interests is the "proper and most efficient" method of securing a happy life. Isn't that just selfishness? If everyone subscribed to that idea, wouldn't that just cause people to be greedy and constantly fight with each other?

Ayn Rand said that pursuing one's own self interests is the "proper and most efficient" method of securing a happy life. Isn't that just selfishness? If everyone subscribed to that idea, wouldn't that just cause people to be greedy and constantly fight with each other?

I don't think so. Simply, a person who pursues the objects of their rational self-interest [HUGE emphasis on rational] are attempting to benefit themselves.

However, they will likely not do this to the detriment of those around them, as their 'neighbors' are largely responsible for their health, wealth, and overall well-being in the long-run.

You wouldn't steal from your roomate if you knew he was going to be living with you for the rest of your life, would you?

So long as you remained rational, I think you would ultimately determine that relationships are necessary for your self-interest, so maintaining healthy ones would be extremely important if you have any desire to achieve your goals.

whitetrshsoldier,

I agree there is no such thing as a purely selfless act or reaction. Nietzsche's the wheel that rolls from its centre comes to mind here. When actiing out of compassion we fulfil our will according to our self defination, if one thinks of themselves as a decent human being, a compassionate person, one needs to act or not act in accordence with the acts ability to maintain our self defination.

There is a conditon established perhaps a concept or series of concepts which informs our will in accordance with what we wish to think of ourselves as, this needs to be fulfilled if it is not we begin to feel uncomfortable with ourselves, and at the next opportunity we will correct any mistake of failing to maintain the image that is most dear to us.

Actually Mark Twain wrote something on this that would be most helpful in understanding this, it is really quite a delight. It is called, "What Is Man." find link below. It deals with this topic about the half way into the essay but the proceeding material is not unrelated.

What is Man? - Mark Twain

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/twain/wim.txt

I agree there is no such thing as a purely selfless act or reaction...

If that is the case, then what do most people mean by the word/concepts "selfishness", and "altruism"?

Keith,

Selfishness I would assume to be a self-interested act which is either indifferent to the welfare of others or even directly oppossing the interests of others. With altruism it is a very fine line, when one puts ones will into the service of another out of compassion, this indeed is altrusim, but it can never be pure altruism. As long as you have made that service the property of your own will, the fulfilment of that will through the act, first serves the subject in question, he/she gains fulfilment of their will.

It seem to me a small distinction and does not really devalue the act or the modivation for that said act for in acting out of compassion you have identified with a another self, another life. One cannot act/react but by having the will behind it, and even an act of compassion is the fulfilment of the will of the person performing the said act. This does not change in the least the fact that the act is of a virtuous nature and really only discribes how given behaviours come about or how human functionality works. Perhaps it helps to, to realize that identification with is the bases of all morality.

[Scott]

I agree there is no such thing as a purely selfless act or reaction...

If that is the case, then what do most people mean by the word/concepts "selfishness", and "altruism"?

In the thread I started, Is Selfishness Compatible with Kindness?, I explained that I think most people promoting selflessness or altruism simply use the terms to mean kindness and compassion.

To again address the question asked in the OP of this thread, I do think it would be destructive and lead to many social problems if people behaved more selfishly using the common, everyday meaning of the word selfish. But that is not what I think pro-selfishness philosophers like Ayn Rand meant when they support selfishness, as pointed out in that other thread.