Quick and Dirty Rational Self-Interest

[Danneskjold]

Ok, I need a quick and dirty way to explain rational self-interest to some of these people who insist that it is in their self-interest to put everyone before self. I lose them around the time that they say "well what if I like giving to other people" because I generally regress to a lecture at this point instead of a quick explanation. Any help?

[Victor Pross]

Ok, I need a quick and dirty way to explain rational self-interest to some of these people who insist that it is in their self-interest to put everyone before self. I lose them around the time that they say "well what if I like giving to other people" because I generally regress to a lecture at this point instead of a quick explanation. Any help?

Nathanial Branden has a very interesting article in The Virtue of Selfishness called “isn’t everyone selfish?” This speaks directly to your query.

[BAMF]

Well, if they LIKE giving to others, then isn't that really selfish?

[Reidy]

See also Branden's "Benevolence vs Altruism" in VoS.

The fundamental point here, which Branden makes in "Isn't Everyone Selfish?", is that what's good or bad in fact isn't necessarily the same as what you want or don't want to do; that's part of what the word "Objectivism" means. Ideally the two will coincide, but that isn't a matter of definition.

The difference (between what one wants to do and what's objectively, as a matter of fact, right) can show up especially clearly in cases of giving and generosity. This can come from bad motives (such as the desire to make them feel somehow obligated), and, if it facilitates their evildoing, can be distinctly reprehensible, even if it makes you feel good.

[Victor Pross]

Dan, drawing your attention again to Nataniel Branden's article, "Isn't Everyone Selfish?" in VOS: He makes the case that a chosen action is not necessarily selfish merely because it is chosen. What matters is the motivation behind the choice. For instance, Peter Keating chose to become an architect, but he chose that career over becoming an artist merely to please his mother. His natural inclination and first love was to be a painter, but his mother had other plans for him. He sacrificed his love to his mother’s wishes. That was selfless. Branden makes a very compelling argument and I recommend the article.

Victor

[Victor Pross]

Dan,

A professor argued once that Mother Teresa achieved happiness through helping people and therefore she was actually being selfish. I don’t agree with this.

Happiness has a specific nature, and can only be achieved by certain means. It is not subjective and whim driven. This is the flaw in the idea of the "selfish" person who goes around stealing and killing because all he cares about is his own happiness. Even if you really “feel” that something would help you achieve happiness---that does not necessarily make it so. Keep this in mind: "Selfishness" simply means concerned with one's own interest, but by no means does the word "concern" have any correlation with the concept of being "rationally concerned" or "objectively concerned." So, one can said to be concerned with one's own interest and simply be misguided as to what they ought to regard as their own interests.

In some circumstances, helping certain people can contribute to my happiness, but I don't think that it makes sense to generalize that it makes me happy to help other people. It depends. It seems to me that generous or charitable acts are sometimes against my interests.

It comes down to this: The difference is in the Objectivist egoism and Hobbesian egoism. Thomas Hobbes argued that everything one does is selfish because one "wants" to do it. However, the selfishness of an action is more objectively determined in why one wants to do it. The Hobbian philosophy is the expediency philosophy of a brute, really. 'I want it, therefore it’s right.'

Ayn Rand and other Objectivist intellectuals use this more descriptive term: rational self-interest. I discover first what is in my interests, then I pursue that--instead of thinking of what would make me happy and then call pursuing that self-interested. Emotionalism, irrationality and reationalization is not in my self-interest. That’s why it is called RATIONAL self-interest—and in that order. First--RATIONAL and then--SELF-INTEREST.

-Victor

Edited December 22, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Jeff,

Did you get the "Quick and Dirty" on Rational Self-Interest from Branden? I'm curious.

Victor

[Danneskjold]

Nope, I'm really inexperienced in most of the Objectivist actual philosophic writing but intend to fix that. Quick and dirty, as far as I'm concerned, is just a haphazard explanation of something complex in layman's terms. (That's my quick and dirty definition at least)

[studiodekadent]

Ok, I need a quick and dirty way to explain rational self-interest to some of these people who insist that it is in their self-interest to put everyone before self. I lose them around the time that they say "well what if I like giving to other people" because I generally regress to a lecture at this point instead of a quick explanation. Any help?

Unfortunately its hard to explain it, because most people are so corrupted by the altruist false-dichotomy that it requires a paragraph long explaination. I usually just say "Acting in your rational self-interests, neither sacrificing yourself to another OR others to yourself."

If they say "I like giving to other people," ask them "why?" Tailor the rebuttal or endorsement to their reply. The fact is that giving to other people is in many contexts self-interested. If their motivation is self-interested, then he is being self-interested by giving. However, if the reply is "I dont know why I like it, I just do" then you have to interrogate further. Just remember that most idiots do not understand their subconscious premises.

Edited December 27, 2006 by studiodekadent

[Chris Grieb]

Andrew; Good reply! My one objection would be the reference to idiots but I suspect asking people about their reason for helping is an excellent way to start.