Is there non-rational self-interest?

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

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...

Then we are back to square one. If only the rational is in one's self-interest then "rational" is redundant. All that is needed is to say that one ought to act according to his/her self-interest.

The presence of the word "rational" in rational self-interest suggests that other things are being implied.

 

[Steve Petersen]

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.

Rational self-interest is the notion that reason is our means of survival and that the highest goal for humanity is individual happiness.

This seems essentially existentialist.

'Rational self-interest' is the foundational principle of Objectivism.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

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

It seems to me that I have heard people suggest that allowing one's self to do so is insane.

I do not understand this demand that everybody constantly consciously intervene in their own lives with reason. It seems like if one is being honest with himself he will see that reason itself tells us that reason has limits, that reason itself tells us that we have resources available to us other than reason, that reason itself tells us that some decisions--including the most important ones--therefore can be or may have to be made with resources other than reason.

I think that all of that misses the point anyway. It sounds to me like a bunch of utilitarianism disguised as arguments about who has the right epistemology.

Maybe the concept of self-interest is inherently flawed and the only way to rationalize it is to drag other issues like the value of reason into the conversation.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Rational self-interest is the notion that reason is our means of survival and that the highest goal for humanity is individual happiness.

This seems essentially existentialist.

'Rational self-interest' is the foundational principle of Objectivism.

I personally wouldn't describe Objectivism as existentialist since it does not have the premise that "existence precedes essence", though it does view human beings as having the ability to choose their values in life, so I can see how it would be similar in some ways.

Or did I misunderstand how you are using the term existentialist?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[pjnlsn]

It seems to me that I have heard people suggest that allowing one's self to do so is insane.

I do not understand this demand that everybody constantly consciously intervene in their own lives with reason. It seems like if one is being honest with himself he will see that reason itself tells us that reason has limits, that reason itself tells us that we have resources available to us other than reason, that reason itself tells us that some decisions--including the most important ones--therefore can be or may have to be made with resources other than reason.

I think that all of that misses the point anyway. It sounds to me like a bunch of utilitarianism disguised as arguments about who has the right epistemology.

Maybe the concept of self-interest is inherently flawed and the only way to rationalize it is to drag other issues like the value of reason into the conversation.

There are no inherent flaws in the way you mean.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

There are no inherent flaws in the way you mean.

Maybe the self is not an autonomous whole. Maybe the self is only a part of a whole. In that context the assertion that a self ought to calculate what is in his/her/its best interest and act accordingly is absurd. The self's existence and identity would be tied to the whole. Therefore the only "rational" thing is whatever is best for the whole.

That is just one example of how the concept of self-interest may be inherently flawed.

 

[quatona]

Maybe the self is not an autonomous whole. Maybe the self is only a part of a whole. In that context the assertion that a self ought to calculate what is in his/her/its best interest and act accordingly is absurd. The self's existence and identity would be tied to the whole. Therefore the only "rational" thing is whatever is best for the whole.

I do not disagree with this - but then again it works vice versa, too: What´s best for the self is also good for the whole (because the self is part of the whole).

That is just one example of how the concept of self-interest may be inherently flawed.

Of course it is, just like the concept of selflessness is.

 

[pjnlsn]

Maybe the self is not an autonomous whole. Maybe the self is only a part of a whole. In that context the assertion that a self ought to calculate what is in his/her/its best interest and act accordingly is absurd. The self's existence and identity would be tied to the whole. Therefore the only "rational" thing is whatever is best for the whole.

That is just one example of how the concept of self-interest may be inherently flawed.

Well, you're just redefining the word. But there's nothing inherently wrong with self-interest ("self" as it's regularly defined) it's just that by definition irrational self-interest may not lead to things which are actually good for you. Rational self-interest, again by definition, is specifically what is in your best interests, or is likely to be.

If you refer to the subconscious as apart from the conscious, well, it's all you, just different parts of you, although what is repressed in the conscious mind may be fully known, as it were, to the subconscious.

 

[RDKirk]

There seems to be a presumption that "rational" will lead to "correct" and "irrational" will lead to "wrong." Neither is necessarily so.

I know people who can give you thirty minutes of explanation of how they rationalized horribly wrong decisions. People who aren't using accurate information or who are making wrong presumptions can be rational all day long and be wrong every time.

 

[pjnlsn]

There seems to be a presumption that "rational" will lead to "correct" and "irrational" will lead to "wrong." Neither is necessarily so.

I know people who can give you thirty minutes of explanation of how they rationalized horribly wrong decisions. People who aren't using accurate information or who are making wrong presumptions can be rational all day long and be wrong every time.

This doesn't really change anything. To rephrase what I wrote; Given a set of information, rational pursuit of a goal is more likely than irrational pursuit of the goal to achieve it.

 

[RDKirk]

This doesn't really change anything. To rephrase what I wrote; Given a set of information, rational pursuit of a goal is more likely than irrational pursuit of the goal to achieve it.

So what happens if the "information" is selected irrationally?

 

[pjnlsn]

So what happens if the "information" is selected irrationally?

Yes.....while you may think you're making some important point, the statement was just that rational pursuit of a goal is more likely to achieve the goal than irrational pursuit of the goal, and similarly for other states and combinations of states.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

...the statement was just that rational pursuit of a goal is more likely to achieve the goal than irrational pursuit of the goal, and similarly for other states and combinations of states.

Here is what Wikipedia says about Objectivism:


"Objectivism's central tenets are...that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest),..."


Therefore, assuming that that is an accurate description of Objectivism, reason dictates either:

1.) There is no non-rational self-interest and the adjective "rational" is redundant.

2.) There is non-rational self-interest but Objectivist morality excludes it.

3.) The "rational" in rational self-interest really means the noun "rationality"; it is bad grammar. It really means rationality and self-interest.


I can see how somebody might say that rational self-interest yields better outcomes than non-rational self-interest. But that is not what people seem to be saying--people seem to be saying that only rational self-interest is appropriate for decision making (see above).

I still do not understand this "rational self-interest". It does not make any sense the way that it is worded, in the contexts that it is used, etc.

 

[pjnlsn]

Here is what Wikipedia says about Objectivism:


"Objectivism's central tenets are...that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest),..."


Therefore, assuming that that is an accurate description of Objectivism, reason dictates either:

1.) There is no non-rational self-interest and the adjective "rational" is redundant.

2.) There is non-rational self-interest but Objectivist morality excludes it.

3.) The "rational" in rational self-interest really means the noun "rationality"; it is bad grammar. It really means rationality and self-interest.


I can see how somebody might say that rational self-interest yields better outcomes than non-rational self-interest. But that is not what people seem to be saying--people seem to be saying that only rational self-interest is appropriate for decision making (see above).

I still do not understand this "rational self-interest". It does not make any sense the way that it is worded, in the contexts that it is used, etc.

Well, it's true both ways, I should think.

 

[quatona]

Here is what Wikipedia says about Objectivism:


"Objectivism's central tenets are...that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest),..."


Therefore, assuming that that is an accurate description of Objectivism, reason dictates either:

1.) There is no non-rational self-interest and the adjective "rational" is redundant.

2.) There is non-rational self-interest but Objectivist morality excludes it.

3.) The "rational" in rational self-interest really means the noun "rationality"; it is bad grammar. It really means rationality and self-interest.


I can see how somebody might say that rational self-interest yields better outcomes than non-rational self-interest. But that is not what people seem to be saying--people seem to be saying that only rational self-interest is appropriate for decision making (see above).

I still do not understand this "rational self-interest". It does not make any sense the way that it is worded, in the contexts that it is used, etc.

Maybe the "rational" is added just to emphasize that "self-interest" should not be confused with "selfishness"?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Here is what Wikipedia says about Objectivism:


"Objectivism's central tenets are...that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest),..."

Objectivism is not summarizable in a sentence, and nitpicking its terms isn't really all that helpful.


eudaimonia,

Mark