Selfishness, Defined

The First Creation ^ | May 28, 2007 | William Dvorak

[Raymann]

Egoism is a state of mind where a person values all things in terms of their value to the self. Egoism and selfishness are virtues, in fact the greatest of all virtues, as they enable life.

All living beings are selfish. To survive, they must be. Without fulfilling one's basic needs of water, food, or protection, one would cease to exist. Although selfishness is a necessity, many people hold selflessness as their goal in life, and this altruistic thinking is a dominating and corrosive mainstay of today's society. If one were to give all of his money to charity or devote all time to a selfless cause, there would be no opportunity for survival. He may as well commit suicide. The altruists of today hold any action for the benefit of others as the moral ideal. If one were to follow strictly the basic tenets of altruistic thought, he would perish. But how can the epitome of a philosophy be suicidal? By maintaining an intrinsic contradiction in the philosophy. Many people live this contradiction, reaching for an ideal that they know not is impossible. They think that any time they purchase an SUV, a house, a new stereo system, or bread, they are doing wrong—they are taking for the self and not giving of the self. The contradiction of the philosophy of altruism is the belief in self-deprecation, self-sacrifice, self-destruction. An individual, let alone a society, can not prosper where all actively seek death.

Selfishness enables life and allows for happiness. As stated, all beings are selfish to a certain degree; the ideal, however, is complete selfishness. To care only for what enables and furthers one's life. This perfection is know as rational egoism—constantly acting only in one's best interest. Few people strive for this ideal, let alone actualize it. Some hold a fog, an undeveloped presage, of this ideal as their goal. These people struggle constantly with decisions between pursuing personal goals and giving in to immediate demands (that are opposed to the person's rational self interest) of friends or family. They fear for the opinion of others, or worse, recognize an inherent obligation of the self to others. Fear not, and stand proudly. This life is yours, and the degree to which you hold this as true is proportional to the life you will enjoy. Egoists may stand alone, or they may choose to stand together—egoists are not antisocial. An egoist is often interested in others. Spending time with friends who share or embody an excellence of spirit (used here not in the non-material sense but as a passion for life) is often a rewarding experience. Synergy experienced by enthusiastic groups benefit all individuals in a selfish way; a rationally interested individual would choose to engage with others for this purpose. Selfishness and egoism are not egotism (expecting or seizing the unearned) or hedonism (yielding to the expediency of the moment)—two other concepts it is often confused with.

To live consistently (without contradiction) requires an explicit and relentless exercising of one's capacity to determine and fulfill one's rational self interest. This is the only means for life at its highest.

[Misterioso]

Who told you Christians have no self?

Why? Is it supposed to be a secret?

[Misterioso]

Well stated, Dave.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Whatever is not of faith is sin.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Doing right doesn’t guarantee a great mood, though doing wrong is very likely to bring about a lousy mood. Don’t dis the achievements of modern medicine, when used in a rightful way.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Being generous is inborn; being altruistic is a learned perversity.
No resemblance.

LAZARUS LONG

[Cicero]

“Altruism” was a term that became popular during the eighteenth century, when religion was in eclipse and it was argued that you could construct a society by persuading people to behave reasonably. The more traditional term was morality, based in turn on religion.

The problem with altruism based on reason is that the motivations are not strong enough. Some people will behave reasonably. They will treat others well so they will be treated well. But plenty of others will act differently, and the system will break down. So, as Hobbes pointed out, in the state of selfish nature you need a strong monarchy and magistrates to keep order. Criminals are hanged or deported, and that encourages the others to stay out of trouble because they fear the consequences of disobedience.

The American system was better: a citizenry who were basically religious and who valued freedom enough to control themselves, rather than have a monarch to control them. As Toqueville noticed, American freedom relies on religion and morality to keep it working. Remove those, and you will descend into a police state.

Because of the inherent orneriness of most people, or original sin as Christians call it, there will always be at least some criminals and troublemakers. The question is, how many? Few enough to control with a reasonable number of police and courts, or enough to upset the politics of the state and make it impossible to have a free people? Experience shows that without religion, the only solution is overwhelming state power—not a satisfactory solution for people who have been bred in freedom.

[William Terrell]

God and His law always has to be the basis of a free society; only He is present in the darkness away from the sight of others when you are sorely tempted and know you will never get caught.

But even for believers, when the original sin of the body's inbuilt demand for personal survival, from which all sins against others springs, I believe, there must be the enlightened use of the survival firmware.

I've seen, and am seeing, as much and more destructive results from attempts to be altruistic in the face of the foundation of original sinful nature - to survive at all costs - than I do from firm selfishness with respect for others' self-interest.

When working a business deal, I trust self-interest before I trust expressed motivations to do me good at the expense of the doer.

[RightWhale]

Relativity as it pertains to morality is nothing like relativity as it pertains to physics. Relativity in physics is that the law remains the same regardless of the relative viewpoint of the observer. Moral relativity means something completely backwards.

[Cicero]

Yes, certainly, put in those terms. Economics is, and should be, driven by self interest—or by interest in providing for one’s family, or donating to charity. But donations should be free.

It is precisely the problem that “altruism” as it has appeared since the eighteenth century has no real underpinnings, except religion. So it can include all sorts of false or faulty versions. Or it can be used by Communist apparatchiks as a way of concealing their own drive for power.

Aristotle was able to define moral behavior reasonably by his theory of the virtues, but he was likely a religious man, who believed in a God who was First Mover. So it can be done by philosophy, but for most people it needs the appeal of religion to make it worth pursuing.

What you are criticizing is varieties of false, mistaken, delusional, or opportunistic altruisms, of which the welfare state is one example. I don’t think we disagree about that. But it’s part of why a purely rationalistic altruism won’t work, any more than purely rationalistic selfishness will work.

[William Terrell]

In other words, selfishness, to work properly, requires the fear of God.

[Texas Songwriter]

Phil. 2:3 In lowliness of mind, let each esteem other better than himself.

Deny self, take up the cross and follow Him.

I am always amazed at folks saying "If the Lord loves me I must love myself." That is straight out of Maslows heirchy of self actualization. Maslow, a Godless atheist, perverts the word of God to twist the meaning of scripture to his own end. To assert that I must first love myself before anyone else can love me is deceitful,....then to ascribe as ordered from Jesus Himself. So.....the logical conclusion is that the price paid by Jesus on the cross defines my value. I don't think so. Jesus love me, not because of me, but In Spite of me.....not because of who I am,....but because of who He is.....God is love, God is kind, God is longsuffering, God is just,....but God is a consumminng fire bringing vengence on those who know not God.

What saves a Christian in this context, or any context, is the shed blood of Jesus and his death, burial, and resurrection, conquering death, hell, the devil and the grave. No exceptions.

The problem is not that we do not love ourselves enough, as the New Agers teach, but that we love ourselves too much. Call it selfishness or self-idolotry. Confound yourselves if you wish, but no man ever yet hated his own flesh. Get a STrongs' Concordance and exegete "hating his own flesh". It is really very simple.

And yes, Jesus did say, "Love your neighbors as yourselves." Love the Lord God with all of your heart, mind, soul, body, and spirit." He also says, "Love not the World, neither the things in the world. If any man love the world the love of the father is not in him. For all that is of the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life is of the world and the world passeth away, but the things thereof, but he doeth the will of God abitheth forever.

[HangnJudge]

Correction accepted

[HangnJudge]

&t&&

C.S. Lewis would have had a few clarifications also

He argued strongly that there was within a person Desire.
It’s existence cannot be denied, it is a part of us.

Efforts to direct desire to the things of this earth,
such as possessions, errors of the flesh, greed, and pride,
invariably lead to injury, harm, and a deterioration of self.

In my life on Earth, I have a 100% correlation coefficient with this.

If, after a long path of attempting to find meaning to Desire,
one comes to the realization that directing
Desire to things that are HERE invariably leads to harm,
one eventually concludes, using Reason, that this thing,
which cannot be denied, Desire, has no meaningful target HERE,

and either one finds Despair,
or one finds that the meaningful target for Desire is NOT HERE

The only meaningful target for Desire in our hearts is, as Jesus is recorded to say;
Love the Lord God with all of your heart, mind, soul, body, and spirit.

And the meaningful use for Love in this Earthly frame is also recorded from Jesus;
Love your neighbors as yourselves.

We cannot learn to meaningfully love ourself or others
Or do so withour error,
without turning all of ourselves to the Lord God.

Once we are taught and cleansed from error,
An act requiring surrender of our damaged self,
Self Love, and Love of Others, are actually the same thing,
a projection of Our Lord’s Love for us

(my interpretation, be it as it may)
Scripture is not my strong suit
This awareness however leaves no place for believing
I am "Good" or "Worthy" of Love
From this standpoint Love is a free gift
Not a thing earned, deserved, or demanded,
Or expecting anything in return, except Love.

Yup, that works

[FreeKeys]

The movie, “The Fountainhead,” based on the individualistic novel by Ayn Rand, will be shown on Turner Classic Movies at 11am Pacific / 2pm Eastern today, Saturday

[theFIRMbss]

>The movie, “The Fountainhead” ... will be shown on Turner Classic Movies at 11am Pacific / 2pm Eastern today, Saturday

Yeah, the book is great, the movie is only good at a sci-fi con at three a.m. with lots of beer and a whole room of drunk, smart people...

[Hoodat]

I already own the video. Thanks for the ping though.

"In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."

-Ayn Rand-

[Anti-Bubba182]

Thanks for the ping. I forgot how bad the dialogue was. It is worse than a Star Wars movie.

It is still fun, but nobody talks like that.

[gorush]

"Ayn Rand held a similar philosophy I believe. Some Rand fans feel free to correct me. "

You are correct. I am a Randian and a strict-constructionist...a pariah where ever I go, even here on FR when I express my surprise that Ron Paul is so vilified. :{)

[gorush]

"Yeah, the book is great, the movie is only good"

I'm not a Gary Cooper fan, but he stars in two of my favorite movies..."Sgt. York" and "The Fountainhaed" (List also includes "The Quiet Man" and "Harold and Maude")

[beavus]

“Ayn Rand held a similar philosophy”

SAME philosophy. Dvorak is an Objectivist.