Selfish is good

[Vladimir Lenin]

The dictionary definition of selfish is as follows,

Selfish; Holding one"s self-interest as the standard for decision making.

What is wrong with this? For making your own self-intrest to be the standard of your decisions?

[Problem Sleuth]

Because the impoverished family may need the money for food more than you need it for a swimming pool in your backyard or a Ferrari.

[Vladimir Lenin]

Because the impoverished family may need the money for food more than you need it for a swimming pool in your backyard or a Ferrari.

Alright,

Let's take this as an example:

You decide not to get a car and give the money to the impoverished family. Even then you still get a pay off. You feel better about yourself, you get to "save" the poor impoverished family.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Selfishness is animality. Human beings are different because of empathy, sympathy, society, state services.

But everything feeds the ego, subconsciously.

[Vladimir Lenin]

Selfishness is animality. Human beings are different because of empathy, sympathy, society, state services.

But everything feeds the ego, subconsciously.

No.

Selflessness is animality. Acting like cavemen giving and sharing. In that barbaric fashion selflessness is animality. It's primitive, and morally wrong.

Human Beings are different because we are smarter, and more intelligent. Also look at wolves, they are animals yet they give and share in a society.

True everything does feed the ego subconsciously.

[Problem Sleuth]

No.

Selflessness is animality. Acting like cavemen giving and sharing. In that barbaric fashion selflessness is animality. It's primitive, and morally wrong.

Human Beings are different because we are smarter, and more intelligent. Also look at wolves, they are animals yet they give and share in a society.

True everything does feed the ego subconsciously.

How is selflessness morally wrong?

[Vladimir Lenin]

How is selflessness morally wrong?

In an ethical context, "selflessness" means devoid of, or untainted by, self-interest. To behave selflessly is to act without concern for any benefit to oneself. This is commonly regarded as the essence of morality, especially in mystical traditions. It is held to be the way that spiritually evolved people behave. Indeed, such behavior is sometimes taken as evidence of one's spirituality. By contrast, selfishness is commonly regarded as evidence of one's non-spirituality.
Observe, first of all, that in equating unselfishness with morality, the implication is that self-interested actions are either immoral or nonmoral. That is, they are either bad or without moral significance. If, for instance, Iprotest paying taxes to support welfare programs of which I do not approve, then according to this code I am being selfish and therefore immoral. If I work to support myself, that is not immoral but neither is it admirable; it is ethically neutral.
This doctrine takes for granted as self-evident a clash between self-interest and morality: We can pursue our self-interest or we can be moral, but we can't be both. And it upholds self-sacrifice as the ideal. Sometimes this ideal is expressed as "a life of selfless service."
As one transpersonal psychologist puts it:

As [spiritual] awakening begins, motivations inevitably shift from the egocentric toward the desire to serve others. This kind of service is seen as absolutely necessary if the awakening and development are to continue; [spiritual] growth requires a life of service. [1]

What is significant about this viewpoint concerning the evil of "selfishness" is in how many versions it has appeared throughout human history. Don't be selfish -- subordinate your interests to those of the tribe. Don't be selfish -- subordinate your interests to those of the family. Don't be selfish -- sacrifice for the Pharaoh, Emperor, King, Church, Country, Race, State, Proletariat, Society, or Globe. Remember: Service is your noblest goal; selfishness is the root of all evil. In this doctrine, selfishness is presumed to be narrow, petty, small-minded, materialistic, immature, narcissistic, anti-social, exploitative, mean-spirited, arrogant, ruthless, indifferent, cruel, and potentially murderous. These traits are evidently regarded as being to one's self-interest, since they are labeled as expressions of selfishness. It is interesting to speculate about the psychology of those who believe this. By my own understanding I would say that these traits are self-destructive and that self-destruction is not to one's self-interest.

An Excerpt from, Reflections on the ethics of selflessness by Nathaniel Branden

http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/...flessness.html

[Problem Sleuth]

In this doctrine, selfishness is presumed to be narrow, petty, small-minded, materialistic, immature, narcissistic, anti-social, exploitative, mean-spirited, arrogant, ruthless, indifferent, cruel, and potentially murderous. These traits are evidently regarded as being to one's self-interest, since they are labeled as expressions of selfishness. It is interesting to speculate about the psychology of those who believe this. By my own understanding I would say that these traits are self-destructive and that self-destruction is not to one's self-interest.

Since when were they "self-destructive"? I could've sworn getting as much money as possible from others was beneficial to your person, but, y'know, I guess becoming wealthier and better off harms you.

You decide not to get a car and give the money to the impoverished family. Even then you still get a pay off. You feel better about yourself, you get to "save" the poor impoverished family.

Because people generally don't give a significant amount of their income to them, and lose essentially nothing and gain that feeling in return. Giving a hundred bucks when you make 40k per yer is hardly "saving" the impoverished family, and it's not denting your income. At all. See how many people will be willing to give, say, 4k - that's saving the family, and it actually harms you. How many people are willing to do it?

The feeling of being good person for most people is neglible when compared to giving a minimum of 10% of your income to help someone out.

Observe, first of all, that in equating unselfishness with morality, the implication is that self-interested actions are either immoral or nonmoral. That is, they are either bad or without moral significance. If, for instance, Iprotest paying taxes to support welfare programs of which I do not approve, then according to this code I am being selfish and therefore immoral. If I work to support myself, that is not immoral but neither is it admirable; it is ethically neutral.
This doctrine takes for granted as self-evident a clash between self-interest and morality: We can pursue our self-interest or we can be moral, but we can't be both. And it upholds self-sacrifice as the ideal. Sometimes this ideal is expressed as "a life of selfless service."

Are you trying to tell me putting yourself above society and others is somehow better than going to great lengths to help humanity as a whole, not just yourself? Because that's what I'm getting right here. One helps one person. The other helps many people.

2. No. You're wrong. We are superior because we left the herd mentality behind, and we're being more individualist.

By doing things like pooling our money together to create infastructure, police services, firefighters, etc, for the good of society. Is that the "individualist" kind of thing you're talking about?

3. Military, I agree with, every one could pay 100$ to keep the military because everyone does get that surface.

That's not individualistic; why have a military? That's selflessness, paying money out of YOUR pocket to benefit OTHERS. I imagine it would be much better for yourself to buy a private army, which will attack who and what you want when you need it to.

4. No, you keep assuming that class polarization will magically happen when we switch to pure Capitalism.

And what's to stop it from occuring? Once we introduce full Capitalism, wages everywhere will drop as quickly if not more so than prices. It's common sense. After all, what are the workers going to do? When everyone pays piss-poor wages for the sake of themselves, they can go from earning barely enough to survive to barely enough to survive. Prices will drop, too, but more to the benefit of the business owner; they'll be making more than ever, and things will cost half as much to boot.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

No.

Selflessness is animality. Acting like cavemen giving and sharing. In that barbaric fashion selflessness is animality. It's primitive, and morally wrong.

Human Beings are different because we are smarter, and more intelligent. Also look at wolves, they are animals yet they give and share in a society.

True everything does feed the ego subconsciously.

Selfishness and selflessness are, if I may add, human qualities. Selfishness is animalistic in many ways as is selflessness, but neither are. But society in human scale and herds or packs on smaller scales are very different.

[bushbush]

Selflessness is animality. Acting like cavemen giving and sharing. In that barbaric fashion selflessness is animality. It's primitive, and morally wrong.

Human Beings are different because we are smarter, and more intelligent. Also look at wolves, they are animals yet they give and share in a society.

wolves give and share? I didn't see wolves saying "you first" "no you first" when eating. They bite and fight each other for the last piece of meat.

humans are superior because MANY of us learned that if we work for a collective wellbeing of an entire society, at the end of the day, we will be better off too.

that's why we have government, we pay taxes. Essentially the money is going to build roads, school and military to help everybody, instead of just myself. At the end of the day, I live in a better, safer and cleaner society rather than just I live in my luxurious castle while others stare at me with hungry eyes and ready to kill me for food.

[Vladimir Lenin]

wolves give and share? I didn't see wolves saying "you first" "no you first" when eating. They bite and fight each other for the last piece of meat.

humans are superior because MANY of us learned that if we work for a collective wellbeing of an entire society, at the end of the day, we will be better off too.

that's why we have government, we pay taxes. Essentially the money is going to build roads, school and military to help everybody, instead of just myself. At the end of the day, I live in a better, safer and cleaner society rather than just I live in my luxurious castle while others stare at me with hungry eyes and ready to kill me for food.

1. The meat is brought collectively, by a wolf and then shared among other wolves.

2. No. You're wrong. We are superior because we left the herd mentality behind, and we're being more individualist.

3. Military, I agree with, every one could pay 100$ to keep the military because everyone does get that surface.

4. No, you keep assuming that class polarization will magically happen when we switch to pure Capitalism.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

We've all seen the Friends episode.

[Da Skinna]

It's all based on survival. We're vested in our interests because they affect our survival ability.

A poor man with a starving family will rob the rich man with the swimming pool. Is that self-interest? Is it also selflessness to feed others using your own gains?


So while there's nothing wrong with being self-interested, it's our ability of selflessness that we collectively term as "civilized".

[Vladimir Lenin]

It's all based on survival. We're vested in our interests because they affect our survival ability.

A poor man with a starving family will rob the rich man with the swimming pool. Is that self-interest? Is it also selflessness to feed others using your own gains?


So while there's nothing wrong with being self-interested, it's our ability of selflessness that we collectively term as "civilized".

It's not self-intrest to do that. Because you have to acknowledge rights. They have the same rights that you have.

You are mistaken, it's our selfishness that we can be termed as civilized.

[Mythos]

You decide not to get a car and give the money to the impoverished family. Even then you still get a pay off. You feel better about yourself, you get to "save" the poor impoverished family.

Thank evolution for that. You feel good when you are altruistic because this helps create functioning complex social networks.

Human Beings are different because we are smarter, and more intelligent. Also look at wolves, they are animals yet they give and share in a society.

Chimpazees are also altruistic. More intelligence leads to more altruism.

[Icefrisco]

I see we have an Ayn Rand supporter in these forums.....I was hoping twcenter.net was an "Ayn Rand free zone".

[Vladimir Lenin]

I see we have an Ayn Rand supporter in these forums.....I was hoping twcenter.net was an "Ayn Rand free zone".

Really? I've been here for quite awhile. Well sorry to ruin your hopes. Also Ayn Rand has an amazing philosophy.

[Icefrisco]

Really? I've been here for quite awhile. Well sorry to ruin your hopes. Also Ayn Rand has an amazing philosophy.

I have only read Anthem which was a pretty good book. However, I think she takes individualism to the extreme. Also, Clarence Thomas bases his beliefs on those of Ayn Rand. That really makes me like Ayn Rand a lot less. Of the selfish intellectuals I like Adam Smith the best. I think he was less extreme and his beliefs were more practical.

[Vladimir Lenin]

I have only read Anthem which was a pretty good book. However, I think she takes individualism to the extreme. Also, Clarence Thomas bases his beliefs on those of Ayn Rand. That really makes me like Ayn Rand a lot less. Of the selfish intellectuals I like Adam Smith the best. I think he was less extreme and his beliefs were more practical.

http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/...ndHazards.html

The article above shows a good guide to what to follow and what not to follow in Objectivism. Also i'd suggest the Atlas Society, they are much more open and much less dogmatic.

Ayn Rand was a good philosopher, but she was a human, and improving upon her philosophy is'nt bad it's actually good.

[Vladimir Lenin]

I think we're getting a little off the topic of whether or not using selfishness as a value is wrong.