3 ms·

Ethics? Deliberate life-long selfishness isn't ethical. Regardless of the window dressing. Every villain in history has had moral window dressing that claime

• Semiapies 17y ago
  Trust me, unless you've got your asbestos longjohns on, this is not something you want to get into with Objectivists around. Especially so if you don't happen to be versed in Rand's particular redefinition of the word "selfish".
  • jbooth 17y ago
    Don't even get me started on redefining words in order to make your argument. :)
    • Semiapies 17y ago
      Agreed. Though Rand's interest in the-thing-that-she-should-have-just-made-up-a-word-for actually makes aspects of her philosophy appealing to me. I just tend to think more in the terms of the everyman who shouldn't be crushed in the name of The People, rather than the Great Man. Great Men tend to fend for themselves very well...
• maxharris 17y ago
  "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." "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."
  • jbooth 17y ago
    Yeah, and if you ever wake up, you'll realize that your own interests are enormously bound up with the interests of society at large. You drove to work today on a public road or public transit, were kept safe by publicly funded police departments and most likely hold a knowledge-worker job that you're capable of doing in large part because of public education (probably). But, yeah, you're a self-reliant rugged individualist. I get it.
    • maxharris 17y ago
      Well, that's how things are right now, but that doesn't bother me as much as it used to. Rand's best quote on that is, "anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today." Rand shows that the world doesn't have to be the way it is right now; she presents a logically consistent philosophy, which we can use to guide ourselves to much greater heights of achievement.
      • philwelch 17y ago
        How does a monopolistic government survive without initiating physical force against its rivals?
        • maxharris 17y ago
          Who are its rivals? Foreign governments? Or "citizens" who want to overthrow the government? A fully legitimate government protects individual rights (as defined by Rand); foreign governments or local "revolutionaries" are the initiators of force if they attack such a government. Remember that they would be attacking an entity that does not take anything forcibly from anyone (as it would be funded by voluntary contract insurance sold for individual transactions), and exists only to arbitrate between disputes and protect individuals from being deprived of their property. Governments come at the end of a very long process - people constantly evaluate, adopt and reject philosophical ideas. These ideas, whatever they may be, are the ultimate determinants of history, and they matter. It's not a given that governments will always grow more corrupt, or that they always need to expand unnecessarily. That those things have always happened to every government in the past is really a stain on the political repercussions of altruistic philosophy rather than men (as they could and should be) or the concept of a legitimate government. Ideas matter. Anyone who wants to live happy, fulfilling life needs to take philosophy seriously. When a majority of the populace doesn't do this for a long stretch of time, tyranny results, no matter what the government or its laws may have been.