What is wrong with self-interest?

[Maxwell511]

I see that he didn't insult me after a reread. My bad! Sorry Max,

No worries.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I disagree completely. I love Ayn Rand - she may not be 100% correct, but she is a fun read.

No, she really is not. I mustered a WHOLE lot of goodwill and suspended judgment, plowing through the first hundred pages of "Atlas Shrugged", trying desperately to see it as an entertaining read filled with challenging ideas, but in the end, it was still a badly written piece of propaganda filled with hateful and unrealistic cardboard characters serving as mouthpieces for the deluded ideas of a clinical narcissist.

A great many people help others in order to gain praise, were that not to be the case - people would not have scholarships, endowments & etc. named after themselves... if they didn't want praise all charitable donations would be anonymous...

And yet, if we witnessed a small child falling into a well, nearly all of us (safe for the most disturbed, sociopathic fringe) would rush to the kid's aid without a second thought. We wouldn't do it in order to receive a reward from the thankful parents, or to gain status and prestige. We'd do it in order to help a fellow being in desperate need.

In an "Objectivist" world, however, we'd ponder the fact that our expensive clothes might get dirty, wouldn't feel any obligation or urge to help, and walk away, arguing that others might get paid for doing that kind of work.

We are not naturally altruistic... we are naturally selfish need machines who are socialized to accept that we don't ultimately get what we want if we hurt and/or refuse to help others repeatedly. Take a look at any 2 year old for example.

Socialization, however, is a natural process: other social species go through it as well. And acting socially, ultimately, is in our own best self-interest.
An egotist is basically a person who's too stupid to see that cooperation would bring him to places that he could never reach on his own; who's too self-centred to realize how much others contribute to his education, career, and way of life; who, like a two-year-old, only sees his desire for large amounts of sweets without pondering the effect they might have on his digestive apparatus.

 

[LouTheWicked]

Just about every species relies on selfishness to ensure their own survival. We can deny it as much as we like but it's who we are. Even when we commit "selfless" acts it's usually for selfish reasons such as gaining recognition to gain rewards for doing them.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Just about every species relies on selfishness to ensure their own survival. We can deny it as much as we like but it's who we are. Even when we commit "selfless" acts it's usually for selfish reasons such as gaining recognition to gain rewards for doing them.

I disagree. UTTERLY disagree. We are not Hobbesian monsters, or Randian atomist individuals.


So tell me, how would you react in the following situation?

You and a close friend are out in the wild. Unfortunately, you are confronted by an angry bear. Both you and your friend are lightly armed (let's say with spears), but your equipment may not suffice to drive off the maddened ursine opponent, let alone kill it. Thus, you decide to make a run for it. After a while, you notice that your close friend starts to hang back, obviously not managing to run as fast as you. He asks you to stay with him and help him make a stand, for he cannot run any longer.
Abandoning him would almost certainly ensure that you get away unscathed, but would doom your friend.
Staying your ground might mean that you both die, or sustain grievous wounds, but there's a chance that you'd both make it through.

In the universe envisioned by most contemporary economists, you'd abandon your friend without looking back.
However, that's not what most people would do. And for a good reason.

 

[ApostateForGoodReason]

I did include a (generally) part to my post. Sometimes people act in such a manner. I just believe that that is an exception and not the rule.

I believe the opposite - most people expect at least an acknowledgement of their efforts, even if it is just a thank you. Heck people in the U.S. seem to expect a thank you for a job badly done, just because they tried. If acknowledgement was not an expectation; then why would it be considered rude to not give it?

2 year olds can't understand ideas of perspective. Their brains are far from fully formed.

Proves my point, I said we are not "naturally" altruistic - a 2 year old has not yet learned it.

 

[ApostateForGoodReason]

No, she really is not. I mustered a WHOLE lot of goodwill and suspended judgment, plowing through the first hundred pages of "Atlas Shrugged", trying desperately to see it as an entertaining read filled with challenging ideas, but in the end, it was still a badly written piece of propaganda filled with hateful and unrealistic cardboard characters serving as mouthpieces for the deluded ideas of a clinical narcissist. .

Wow, we don't have to agree...I still think she is a fun read. But I read her fiction (I don't own any of her "objectivist" essays or whatnot) and enjoyed aspects of her portrayals that were missing in other fiction I'd read at the time. It didn't affect me emotionally.

And yet, if we witnessed a small child falling into a well, nearly all of us (safe for the most disturbed, sociopathic fringe) would rush to the kid's aid without a second thought. We wouldn't do it in order to receive a reward from the thankful parents, or to gain status and prestige. We'd do it in order to help a fellow being in desperate need.

In an "Objectivist" world, however, we'd ponder the fact that our expensive clothes might get dirty, wouldn't feel any obligation or urge to help, and walk away, arguing that others might get paid for doing that kind of work..

Hmmm, some people would rush to the child's aid without thought for their own welfare. Some business might donate goods or equipment hoping for good PR & free advertisement. A few news crews might hope to get there first to aid their careers. A multitude of people will eventually arrive on scene craning their necks to see if they can end up on T.V. I've seen this happen, have you? BTW, my initial questions had nothing to do with Objectivist philosophy.

I would run to the child's aid because it would be a violation of my moral code not to. It would have a negative affect on my emotionally to not help as well as the danger to the child.

Socialization, however, is a natural process: other social species go through it as well. And acting socially, ultimately, is in our own best self-interest.
An egotist is basically a person who's too stupid to see that cooperation would bring him to places that he could never reach on his own; who's too self-centred to realize how much others contribute to his education, career, and way of life; who, like a two-year-old, only sees his desire for large amounts of sweets without pondering the effect they might have on his digestive apparatus.

I don't really understand the difficulty here. Socialization is natural, the ideas behind it are typically artificial. Cooperative societies teach cooperation, otherwise not.

 

[ApostateForGoodReason]

I just haven't seen any examples here of selflessness. There is typically always a payoff for us in the decisions we make - which makes them motivated by self-interest.

Even if I do good for another, whether they honor that deed or not - I am paid off in my knowledge that I have done good and in the belief that I have held up my own moral code.

Were I to wrong another in a way that was purposeful and avoidable; I would feel an equal amount of personal dissatisfaction and emotional turmoil related to my immorality - which is why I prefer to do good. Not because I am so good; but because I'd rather not have the stress and distress of being immoral.

Therefore, I consider all of my behavior to be selfish, in that it is derived from my own self-interest. I don't understand why some are praised for what they do out of their own self-interest and others are condemned for the same thought process (unless of course harm is actually done)...

 

[ApostateForGoodReason]

I disagree. UTTERLY disagree. We are not Hobbesian monsters, or Randian atomist individuals.


So tell me, how would you react in the following situation?

You and a close friend are out in the wild. Unfortunately, you are confronted by an angry bear. Both you and your friend are lightly armed (let's say with spears), but your equipment may not suffice to drive off the maddened ursine opponent, let alone kill it. Thus, you decide to make a run for it. After a while, you notice that your close friend starts to hang back, obviously not managing to run as fast as you. He asks you to stay with him and help him make a stand, for he cannot run any longer.
Abandoning him would almost certainly ensure that you get away unscathed, but would doom your friend.
Staying your ground might mean that you both die, or sustain grievous wounds, but there's a chance that you'd both make it through.

In the universe envisioned by most contemporary economists, you'd abandon your friend without looking back.
However, that's not what most people would do. And for a good reason.

This is an odd example... I'd most likely stay because it would be an emotional minefield for me to abandon my friend; - however, I wouldn't condemn my friend for leaving me behind. I don't have any children and no one who is dependent on me for care - were that not to be the case- I might not stay because my primary responsibilities would be elsewhere. Either way, stay or go- both would be decided based on my own self-interest.

 

[sk8Joyful]

I just haven't seen any examples here of selflessness.

There is typically always a payoff for us in the decisions we make - which makes them motivated by self-interest.
Even if I do good for another, whether they honor that deed or not - I am paid off in my knowledge that I have done good.

Were I to wrong another in a way that was purposeful and avoidable; I would feel an equal amount of personal emotional turmoil - which is why I prefer to do good. Not because I am so good; but because I'd rather not have the stress and distress.

Therefore, I consider all of my behavior to be selfish, in that it is derived from my own self-interest. I don't understand why some are praised for what they do out of their own self-interest, and others are condemned for the same thought process (unless of course harm is actually done)...

Are you saying, that because GOD created us Limited, in our soul-mind abilities, we can't be really selfless?
and
also in what Contexts?, because context often defines the meaning.

You already mentioned GOD/Jesus creating in us an internal "pay-off" method, such that everytime we help someone, in a way constructively pleasing them, immediately we are rewarded with pleasurable feelings.

For example, when a person teaches other people mind-skills (they were led to believe are impossible, yet
evidently GOD did create us with such abilities) - and they are guided in using such, for their own empowerment & life-enrichment... (before even fait accompli ) the teacher perceives an immediate pay-off. Then, as the student realizes their goals, in the student's success lies the seconday pay-off, AND as students then share their successes with yet others , the original one-pebble pay-off continues spreading like ripples, in the pond. -
is this where you are coming from, too? and
Is this what you meant, by both selfish & selflessness?
.

 

[Maxwell511]

I believe the opposite - most people expect at least an acknowledgement of their efforts, even if it is just a thank you. Heck people in the U.S. seem to expect a thank you for a job badly done, just because they tried. If acknowledgement was not an expectation; then why would it be considered rude to not give it?

While I'll agree that recognition fulfils a certain need I don't think that it is the primary motivator. While it may be an expectation after the fact, it is not a motivator (generally).

Proves my point, I said we are not "naturally" altruistic - a 2 year old has not yet learned it.

I would assume that if I said that we don't naturally walk on two legs you would think that is absurd. But using your logic a baby without a fully formed legs shows that naturally we don't do such a thing.

The processes that form the human brain like the legs don't stop at birth, the brain continues its natural formation well after birth into the toddler years. That is what I mean by the fact that toddlers don't have fully formed brains. It is not a learning issue, its a natural growth issue.

 

[ApostateForGoodReason]

Are you saying, that because GOD created us Limited, in our soul-mind abilities, we can't be really selfless?
and also in what Contexts?, because context often defines the meaning.
.

No, I stated I don't believe that humans behave selflessly because there is always a payoff; whether it be external or internal.

You already mentioned GOD/Jesus creating in us an internal "pay-off" method, such that everytime we help someone, in a way constructively pleasing them, immediately we are rewarded with pleasurable feelings. .

I did not mention a spiritual being creating the internal payoff; I don't believe such a payoff is innate, it is learned through early socialization - and it is not universal. If a person is not taught through experience that cooperation is beneficial; then, they are less likely to find helping others without external recognition to be internally pleasurable.

For example, when a person teaches other people mind-skills (they were led to believe are impossible, yet
evidently GOD did create us with such abilities) - and they are guided in using such, for their own empowerment & life-enrichment... (before even fait accompli ) the teacher perceives an immediate pay-off. Then, as the student realizes their goals, in the student's success lies the seconday pay-off, AND as students then share their successes with yet others , the original one-pebble pay-off continues spreading like ripples, in the pond. -
is this where you are coming from, too? and
Is this what you meant, by both selfish & selflessness?
.

No.

 

[ApostateForGoodReason]

While I'll agree that recognition fulfils a certain need I don't think that it is the primary motivator. While it may be an expectation after the fact, it is not a motivator (generally).

I don't believe I ever said it was a primary motivator. My point was that there is a payoff for our behavior, whether external or internal.

I would assume that if I said that we don't naturally walk on two legs you would think that is absurd. But using your logic a baby without a fully formed legs shows that naturally we don't do such a thing.

The processes that form the human brain like the legs don't stop at birth, the brain continues its natural formation well after birth into the toddler years. That is what I mean by the fact that toddlers don't have fully formed brains. It is not a learning issue, its a natural growth issue.

I apoligize for poor word choice; I meant innate, not natural. The brain continues to develop after birth and in terms of behavior a great many of the connections made are do to environment and experience. Children learn acceptable behavior and cooperation to obtain desired ends is a part of that.