Is there non-rational self-interest?

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I have been thinking about the concept of rational self-interest. If there is no such thing as non-rational self-interest, then the word "rational" seems redundant. Just the word self-interest is all that is needed, it seems.

But if there is non-rational self-interest, why would we privilege rational self-interest over non-rational self-interest?

It is like people are saying that things like intuition either have no proper role in decision making or must be subjugated to reason before decisions are made.

I am inclined to let my powerful intuitions be my guide.

 

[quatona]

I have been thinking about the concept of rational self-interest.

Where have you come across this term/concept, and how is it defined in that context? It doesn´t seem to be an awfully wide-spread term in philosophy.

 

[AECellini]

i think he means rational egoism, but what he is describing doesn't sound like it.

if you are talking about rational egoism, the "rational" bit refers to actions taken, they are rational if and only if they are in ones self interest.

 

[variant]

I think you can come to some self interested positions without being rational (thinking about it or understanding it).

 

[variant]

Where have you come across this term/concept, and how is it defined in that context? It doesn´t seem to be an awfully wide-spread term in philosophy.

Usually economics.

 

[Paradoxum]

I have been thinking about the concept of rational self-interest. If there is no such thing as non-rational self-interest, then the word "rational" seems redundant. Just the word self-interest is all that is needed, it seems.

I'm not totally sure how the words are being used, but an example of non-rational self-interest might be throwing money in the toilet, so that the toilet fairies might bring you more money than you had before.

But if there is non-rational self-interest, why would we privilege rational self-interest over non-rational self-interest?

Probably because it is more effective at providing for one's self-interest.

It is like people are saying that things like intuition either have no proper role in decision making or must be subjugated to reason before decisions are made.

I am inclined to let my powerful intuitions be my guide.

Otherwise known as making stuff up?

 

[Received]

I think there is such a thing as irrational self-interest: it's the self-interest that leads a person to irrationality and/or decadence, self-destructiveness. A virtuous person, OTOH, knows how to love himself in such a way where rationality and flourishing result.

 

[pjnlsn]

Nothing wrong with self-interest, it's part of our nature. But irrational self-interest is by definition not in your interest, or has a good chance of being, in effect, not in your best interests.

Religious virtues are in effect ways for certain people to control other groups of people, and people being virtuous isn't necessarily in their best interest.

 

[RDKirk]

Nothing wrong with self-interest, it's part of our nature. But irrational self-interest is by definition not in your interest, or has a good chance of being, in effect, not in your best interests.

Religious virtues are in effect ways for certain people to control other groups of people, and people being virtuous isn't necessarily in their best interest.

Irrational self-interest is not necessarily not in your interest--it's simply a self-interested act that was not planned.

That last paragraph is an ax-grinding non-sequitur.

 

[pjnlsn]

Irrational self-interest is not necessarily not in your interest--it's simply a self-interested act that was not planned.

That last paragraph is an ax-grinding non-sequitur.

In general such values as were referenced are not necessarily what's best for each individual but for groups of people to be influenced in some way.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It is like people are saying that things like intuition [...] must be subjugated to reason before decisions are made.

Good advice.

I am inclined to let my powerful intuitions be my guide.

That's your choice, but I think that you are making a mistake. Even my intuition tells me so.

Intuitions are fine as an advisor to reason, but not as its king. Reason should be king.

Reason gives you your best chance to fully understand and justify why you ought to act in certain ways and not in others, is much better for reality-checks and self-correction, and is much easier to articulate to others and even to yourself.

Yes, you should listen to your intuitions as to a trusted advisor, and rationally consider what they have to say, but know that intuitions can be wrong just as often as they are right. You still need the king to make a fully wise and aware decision.

A need to make split-second decisions might be an exception, but doesn't overturn the basic principle. If you get a bad "vibe" about a stranger, perhaps because of body language, it may be a good idea to avoid that person. Still, this is a rational thing to do. One can rationally know that we can subconsciously pick up on subtle cues about the personalities and motivations of others from their body language. The king may act quickly out of safety, and reflect later on whether or not that was a good decision. But the king should never simply give up his crown to the advisor. It's not good for the kingdom.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think there is such a thing as irrational self-interest: it's the self-interest that leads a person to irrationality and/or decadence, self-destructiveness. A virtuous person, OTOH, knows how to love himself in such a way where rationality and flourishing result.

Calling self-destructiveness a form of self-interest sounds odd to my ears. They seem more like a contradiction in terms.

I suppose that you are talking about perceived self-interest, where rational (or enlightened) self-interest properly perceives one's good, and irrational (or misperceived) self-interest may be done for the sake of an evil that was incorrectly perceived to be a good.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

My fave theme in ethics at the moment is deontic logic or the logic of oughts. I think that the traditional logic is good for argumentation on the objective level, but if we want to go from "is" to ought in a theoretical setting we probably need a non-classical deontic logic (although we seem as a rule to make our way on a daily basis without it admittedly). And there may be need for some axiological logic too. Also there is doxastic logic or the logic of beliefs, with principles like do not hold inconsistent beliefs at once.

With this broadened view of logic it is more likely that it will be part of the package of phenomenon that will serve us, i.e. help us reason more fully in the emergent zones (of morality, thought etc) that are of deep importance to mankind, but are not covered in the framework of Aristotolean, standard propositional or standard predicate logic.

 

[RDKirk]

I suppose that you are talking about perceived self-interest, where rational (or enlightened) self-interest properly perceives one's good, and irrational (or misperceived) self-interest may be done for the sake of an evil that was incorrectly perceived to be a good.

Irrational self-interest may not be misperceived and it may still be for one's good. "Irrational" does not mean "erroneous." It means "unplanned, not intellectually conceived." Even a rational act can actually be in error, just as a logical argument by definition is rational, but may yet be in error.

Many animals operate in irrational self-interest all the time.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Irrational self-interest may not be misperceived and it may still be for one's good. "Irrational" does not mean "erroneous."

I'm just trying to make some sense out of the quirky term "irrational self-interest".

I agree that "irrational" does not literally mean "erroneous", but that makes the most sense in this context. The irrational person has been distanced from reality by abandoning reason. Perhaps at times the irrational person will do the right thing, but for the wrong reasons and with the wrong understanding, making everything that "works" an accident rather than an accomplishment.

Even a rational act can actually be in error, just as a logical argument by definition is rational, but may yet be in error.

Of course. A rational person, even using exceptional logic, might not have all of the facts, and thereby make mistakes.

But the term "rational self-interest" does, I think, imply being correct or nearly so, since it would not be in one's self-interest to pursue a rationally-conceived course of action where one had made a serious error. So, the point behind the term is that reason has closed the gap between reality and one's understanding of reality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[RDKirk]

But the term "rational self-interest" does, I think, imply being correct or nearly so, since it would not be in one's self-interest to pursue a rationally-conceived course of action where one had made a serious error. So, the point behind the term is that reason has closed the gap between reality and one's understanding of reality.

Let me go Godwin early: Irrational self-interest is what Fascism was as described explictily by Mussolini and Goebbels. The concept was that the will of the nation was expressed through the leader, and that the populace was to respond in irrational self-interest to the dictates of that leader.

In other words, the leader performs all the rationalizatoin, and it is in the self-interest of the populace to respond in non-intellectual--irrational--obedience.

The real problem was that Hitler and Mussolini, though rational in the strict sense, were wrong.

 

[Received]

Calling self-destructiveness a form of self-interest sounds odd to my ears. They seem more like a contradiction in terms.

I suppose that you are talking about perceived self-interest, where rational (or enlightened) self-interest properly perceives one's good, and irrational (or misperceived) self-interest may be done for the sake of an evil that was incorrectly perceived to be a good.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I actually have an awesome section from the Nichomachean Ethics in mind when I made my point. Aristotle was like, there are many people whose selfishness really does result in self-destruction and vice; and there's also people whose virtuousness makes their self-interest a good thing, even helping other people. Therefore, he said, people who are vice-ridden shouldn't be selfish whereas people who are virtuous should be. Commensurate with his virtue theory, Aristotle is basically saying that vicious selfish people need training in virtue before they can be non-destructively selfish.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I actually have an awesome section from the Nichomachean Ethics in mind when I made my point.

I kinda figured you might. It did sound like an Aristotelian point. I wasn't quite sure.

Aristotle was like, there are many people whose selfishness really does result in self-destruction and vice; and there's also people whose virtuousness makes their self-interest a good thing, even helping other people. Therefore, he said, people who are vice-ridden shouldn't be selfish whereas people who are virtuous should be. Commensurate with his virtue theory, Aristotle is basically saying that vicious selfish people need training in virtue before they can be non-destructively selfish.

Okay, I see what you are saying, and I agree.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

I'd add to that by saying that people who are self-interested AND virtuous have a better understanding of the good and the beautiful to want to care for other people as well. And it gets tricky, because if you find personal gratification from the self-unconscious act of caring for other people, is that really selfish? Not in the same way as the vicious person whose selfishness is stuffed with their own selves.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

That's your choice,...

It is not a choice. I said that it is an inclination.

Intuitions are fine as an advisor to reason, but not as its king. Reason should be king...

I did not say intuitions. I said my powerful intuitions.

My experience has been that people use reason like this

...but I think that you are making a mistake.

and then after hearing years and years of criticism I discover that reason coincides with what my powerful intuitions were telling me. Afterwards, reason has helped me see that pattern. Afterwards, reason tells me that I should haved trusted my powerful intuitions in the first place.

Reason, my experience seems to suggest, is at best a learned tool to be used to serve one's unlearned drives, callings, intuitions, etc.

Reason gives you your best chance to fully understand and justify why you ought to act in certain ways and not in others, is much better for reality-checks and self-correction, and is much easier to articulate to others and even to yourself...

That sounds like saying that one can derive an ought from an is.

Yes, you should listen to your intuitions as to a trusted advisor, and rationally consider what they have to say, but know that intuitions can be wrong just as often as they are right...

But if experience tells one that his/her most powerful intuitions are always right then it seems like a rational person would see a pattern and decide that he/she ought to trust those intuitions. Again reason follows non-reason, not the other way around.

You still need the king to make a fully wise and aware decision...

It seems to me like full wisdom and full awareness includes being in tune to one's intuitions and fully appreciating and recognizing their power.

I do not see how treating any valuable resource available for decision making like it is inferior is good.

A need to make split-second decisions might be an exception, but doesn't overturn the basic principle. If you get a bad "vibe" about a stranger, perhaps because of body language, it may be a good idea to avoid that person. Still, this is a rational thing to do. One can rationally know that we can subconsciously pick up on subtle cues about the personalities and motivations of others from their body language. The king may act quickly out of safety, and reflect later on whether or not that was a good decision. But the king should never simply give up his crown to the advisor. It's not good for the kingdom...

Vibes, cues, etc. from external sources are not the same thing as internal non-rational resources.