[deleted] t1_j2466et wrote
Reply to comment by SetentaeBolg in Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand by gothiclg
Not the OP, but I'd be interested in why you think so. I agree with you that altruism exists, but I've always believed at the root of any action is some selfishness. When I do things for others, I base that action in what I think should be or what makes me feel good. Since humans often have overlapping interests, this tends to benefit everyone. I don't consider this naive, but necessarily honest.
SetentaeBolg t1_j253dxu wrote
Defining "selfishness" as "doing what you think is right" or "doing what you think will make you feel morally good about yourself" robs the word of its usual meaning. Selfishness is pursuing your self interest regardless of others.
When our self interest is tied into the good of others, it's absurd to use the same term - it robs us of a meaningful distinction between two very different motivations for our actions.
A stranger risks her life to save a child - only the cheapest moral outlook can shrug its shoulders and equate that with a miser robbing his employees of their due. The only connection is that both acted as they wished to act. Equating them morally is a profound absurdity.
[deleted] t1_j2599tb wrote
Mostly down to semantics then. I don't think anyone is saying saving a child and theft are the same, just that the deepest underlying motivator is a selfish one. But you are right, there is much more nuance and other motivation and I would think the OP would agree.
SetentaeBolg t1_j25a4qk wrote
It's not a "selfish" motivator to give up your happiness or well being for another.
Semantics is not an irrelevance. Words carry meaning. When you use the word "selfish" to mean "self chosen" you, deliberately it seems, rob the word of its usual meaning.
The "deepest underlying motive" of giving one's life for another is not selfish. It's selfless. Redefining those words is a choice whose effect is to blur the moral value of the act in exactly the way Ayn Rand would like.
"Selfish" does not mean "anything done through free will". As the vast majority of people understand the term, it means doing what you want regardless of the effect on others. Choosing to define it differently is choosing to misunderstand the common meaning of the term without any benefit.
[deleted] t1_j25f97g wrote
>Choosing to define it differently is choosing to misunderstand the common meaning of the term without any benefit.
You know, If you can come up with a better word for me, that would be great. In normal every-day conversation, I use the words selfish and selfless like you suggest. In this specific type of conversation, I feel like it's okay to use it, because we're talking about something very specific. Every act a person does, even sacrificing yourself for others, pleases you on some level, which means it has a selfish component. That doesn't make it entirely selfish, if we are judging the act in other, more practical ways.
In other words, this is mostly semantics.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments