[Floribama]

You make my point, thank you. It is impossible to suggest that anyone can guess what is in the self interest of each of the men on your proverbial sinking ship. However, in my case it would be my highest interest that my wife and children survive a sinking ship; as a society this desire for spreading one's seed, as it were, has resulted in a behavioral norm (you say tradition) wherein we protect the lives of our our children and women (who typicaly serve as their caretakers). So back to your case, if a man on board a ship wanted to save himself and I insisted that he remain on board to allow the women and children to be saved, who is imposing his self interest upon whom? I am, although society would commend me for my selfless act. My action would be as selfish as that of a man hoping to save his own skin. The problem for Rand critics is that they think that one's self interest is obvious and it isn't. Only I can know what is in my self interest. No individual or committee will ever be able to guess what's best for me.
That is why government should back out of our lives and allow us to pursue our own self interest, since they have no idea what they can do for us to make us happy, even if our happiness was important to them, which it isn't.

[LibertyJihad]

Wow, you have objectively proven that objectivism is nonsense. In your world, a man who would, despite all of his self-preservation instinct, give his life for another, could be deemed selfish. I’m sorry, but nobody on a sinking ship is thinking about “spreading one’s seed”. Objectively, it is never is someone’s best interest to die.

Morality is that thing that tells us to do something against our self interest or instinct. My instinct is too take what I please from whom I please. My instinct is to cheat for monetary gain.

Morals tell me not to do those things, not self-interest.