are any of us really different?

[Gloom]

Originally Posted by ArgoSG

All Gloom is trying to say is there is no such thing as a selfless act. As long as there is something to gain(including in the sacrifice of life), the act is not selfless. It doesn't mean it can't be great or incredibly noble. But everything is done with a certain real amount of self interest. This is the way all life works.

This

Originally Posted by ArgoSG

In many contexts this is possible. A context where you don't value your existence over whatever would be achieved by you ending your existence is one example.(Saving the lives of others while putting yours in jeopardy)

There are numerous other contexts, like where you believe your existence does not end with your life ending, personal satisfaction is still a drive in these instances.

& this.

@ L Rag, if you didn't want to help someone, would you? If you didn't want to sacrifice your life for another, would you? If you desire to help someone else when they are in trouble, what do you find yourself doing? What you don't want?

[L Rag]

Originally Posted by ArgoSG

In many contexts this is possible. A context where you don't value your existence over whatever would be achieved by you ending your existence is one example.(Saving the lives of others while putting yours in jeopardy)

There are numerous other contexts, like where you believe your existence does not end with your life ending, personal satisfaction is still a drive in these instances.

I agree that in cases where people believe that ending ones life does not end their ..soul or whatever; then that's a grey line there. But apart from that, there is still no self-interest in sacrificing ones life for another. Even if one doesn't value their existence over the existence of the person they are saving, there is still no self-interest.

Originally Posted by Gloom

@ L Rag, if you didn't want to help someone, would you? If you didn't want to sacrifice your life for another, would you? If you desire to help someone else when they are in trouble, what do you find yourself doing? What you don't want?

It's not about wanting. It's got nothing to do with wanting! It's how ending ones existence (for the sake of argument, someone sacrificing their life for the life of another; this person not believing in an afterlife of any kind) possibly an act of any self-interest at all?

Sure, the world could gain from that action; but not the actual person, so how could it be self-interest?

Basically what I'm looking for is any, any example of a self-gain that one would achieve by doing that action.

[ArgoSG]

Originally Posted by L Rag

Basically what I'm looking for is any, any example of a self-gain that one would achieve by doing that action.

Personal satisfaction. I think you're having trouble because you aren't looking at this objectively. It's a value judgment involving the weight you place on the loss of your life versus the means achieved.

[L Rag]

Originally Posted by ArgoSG

Personal satisfaction. I think you're having trouble because you aren't looking at this objectively. It's a value judgment involving the weight you place on the loss of your life versus the means achieved.

But how could one possibly experience personal satisfaction if they cease to exist?

I realize that it's a value judgement. But the 'means achieved' seems to me to be someone else's interest, not ones own.

[Kush Lord]

Originally Posted by ArgoSG

Personal satisfaction. I think you're having trouble because you aren't looking at this objectively. It's a value judgment involving the weight you place on the loss of your life versus the means achieved.

but see, its a silly thing to point out...

for example, if you offer help to your dying mother, youre going to feel personal satisfaction and so will your mother and everyone who loves her, there is no way around it...youre not going to feel resentment unless youre a horrible person.

[Kush Lord]

Originally Posted by L Rag

But how could one possibly experience personal satisfaction if they cease to exist?

I realize that it's a value judgement. But the 'means achieved' seems to me to be someone else's interest, not ones own.

theres nothing wrong if its for the interest of the one sacrificing himself to begin with. Because it wasnt solely done for his own interest, but for anothers. If the person sacrificing himself would feel no interest in helping the other, then the sacrifice wouldnt happen in the first place.

This is such a stupid arguement.

[Hudini]

The Virtue of Selfishness
Ayn Rand

The title of this book may evoke the kind of question that I hear once in a while: "Why do you use the word 'selfishness' to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?" To those who ask it, my answer is: "For the reason that makes you afraid of it." But there are others, who would not ask that question, sensing the moral cowardice it implies, yet who are unable to formulate my actual reason or to identify the profound moral issue involved. It is to them that I will give a more explicit answer.

It is not a mere semantic issue nor a matter of arbitrary choice. 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.

The ethics of altruism has created the image of the brute, as its answer, in order to make men accept two inhuman tenets:

(a) that any concern with one's own interests is evil, regardless of what these interests might be, and

(b) that the brute's activities are in fact to one's own interest (which altruism enjoins man to renounce for the sake of his neighbors).

For a view of the nature of altruism, its consequences and the enormity of the moral corruption it perpetrates, I shall refer you to Atlas Shrugged-or to any of today's newspaper headlines. What concerns us here is altruism's default in the field of ethical theory.

There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into one "package-deal":

(1) What are values?

(2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance.

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value-and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes. Hence the appalling immorality, the chronic injustice, the grotesque double standards, the insoluble conflicts and contradictions that have characterized human relationships and human societies throughout history, under all the variants of the altruist ethics.

Observe the indecency of what passes for moral judgments today. An industrialist who produces a fortune, and a gangster who robs a bank are regarded as equally immoral, since they both sought wealth for their own "selfish" benefit. A young man who gives up his career in order to support his parents and never rises beyond the rank of grocery clerk is regarded as morally superior to the young man who endures an excruciating struggle and achieves his personal ambition. A dictator is regarded as moral, since the unspeakable atrocities he committed were intended to benefit "the people," not himself.

Observe what this beneficiary-criterion of morality does to a man's life. The first thing he learns is that morality is his enemy: he has nothing to gain from it, he can only lose; self-inflicted loss, self-inflicted pain and the gray, debilitating pall of an incomprehensible duty is all that he can expect. He may hope that others might occasionally sacrifice themselves for his benefit, as he grudgingly sacrifices himself for theirs, but he knows that the relationship will bring mutual resentment, not pleasure -and that, morally, their pursuit of values will be like an exchange of unwanted, unchosen Christmas presents, which neither is morally permitted to buy for himself. Apart from such times as he manages to perform some act of self-sacrifice, he possesses no moral significance: morality takes no cognizance of him and has nothing to say to him for guidance in the crucial issues of his life; it is only his own personal, private, "selfish" life and, as such, it is regarded either as evil or, at best, amoral.

Since nature does not provide man with an automatic form of survival, since he has to support his life by his own effort, the doctrine that concern with one's own interests is evil means that man's desire to live is evil-that man's life, as such, is evil. No doctrine could be more evil than that.

Yet that is the meaning of altruism, implicit in such examples as the equation of an industrialist with a robber. 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.

If you wonder about the reasons behind the ugly mixture of cynicism and guilt in which most men spend their lives, these are the reasons: cynicism, because they neither practice nor accept the altruist morality-guilt, because they dare not reject it. To rebel against so devastating an evil, one has to rebel against its basic premise. To redeem both man and morality, it is the concept of "selfishness" that one has to redeem. The first step is to assert man's right to a moral existence-that is: to recognize his need of a moral code to guide the course and the fulfillment of his own life.

For a brief outline of the nature and the validation of a rational morality, see my lecture on "The Objectivist Ethics" which follows. The reasons why man needs a moral code will tell you that the purpose of morality is to define man's proper values and interests, that concern with his own interests is the essence of a moral existence, and that man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions. Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men's actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the non-actors, of the moral to the immoral. Nothing could ever justify such a breach, and no one ever has. The choice of the beneficiary of moral values is merely a preliminary or introductory issue in the field of morality. It is not a substitute for morality nor a criterion of moral value, as altruism has made it. Neither is it a moral primary: it has to be derived from and validated by the fundamental premises of a moral system.

The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life-and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self-interest. It is not a license "to do as he pleases" and it is not applicable to the altruists' image of a "selfish" brute nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims.

This is said as a warning against the kind of "Nietzschean egoists" who, in fact, are a product of the altruist morality and represent the other side of the altruist coin: the men who believe that any action, regardless of its nature, is good if it is intended for one's own benefit. Just as the satisfaction of the irrational desires of others is not a criterion of moral value, neither is the satisfaction of one's own irrational desires. Morality is not a contest of whims. (See Mr. Branden's articles "Counterfeit Individualism" and "Isn't Everyone Selfish?" which follow.)

A similar type of error is committed by the man who declares that since man must be guided by his own independent judgment, any action he chooses to take is moral if he chooses it. One's own independent judgment is the means by which one must choose one's actions, but it is not a moral criterion nor a moral validation: only reference to a demonstrable principle can validate one's choices.

Just as man cannot survive by any random means, but must discover and practice the principles which his survival requires, so man's self-interest cannot be determined by blind desires or random whims, but must be discovered and achieved by the guidance of rational principles. This is why the Objectivist ethics is a morality of rational self-interest-or of rational selfishness.

Since selfishness is "concern with one's own interests," the Objectivist ethics uses that concept in its exact and purest sense. It is not a concept that one can surnder to man's enemies, nor to the unthinking misconceptions, distortions, prejudices and fears of the ignorant and the irrational. The attack on "selfishness" is an attack on man's self-esteem; to surrender one, is to surrender the other.