Was Rand correct
Is selfishness a virtue in the absence of God.
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
10 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I think she was correct.
For her, reason was her only absolute, and she based her philosophy accordingly.
In her words, here is the way she looked at morality, "The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?... ...Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all — and why?" And, she then goes on to formulate a morality based upon the nature of humans.
I think most people get their morality like they get their religion, which is from their parents and other early influences. Most of us hear from a very young age, "Don't be selfish", "share", and other dictates. These become ingrained in us and we shudder when we hear of someone being selfish. But ask yourself, "WHY?" What is the reason? Throughout most of history, man was taught that his life belonged to another, either a god, a king, a nation, a tribe, the bourgeois, the poor, or some other collective, and that his purpose was to serve that group. This forms the basis for much of modern morality. But, why should our purpose be to serve others. It is our life and our purpose should be to make the most of it.
For Rand, "selfishness" is a word that she fought to protect. One early definition of selfish was something simple, like, "putting one's interests first." What other word in the English language means that? Most people think of selfish as putting only one's interest first at the expense of others. That is not what Rand taught. She taught that one should not violate the rights of others. She taught that one should not sacrifice to others and not ask others to sacrifice to us. You may think that is evil, but look deeply into how you came to that belief.
sfvpool
Level 7
Feb 6, 2019
0
"Is selfishness a virtue"?
It depends on what is meant by "selfishness", if you don't care for yourself, then it is difficult to see how you could possibly care for another. So selfishness in this sense is foundational, although this is probably not how Rand meant it.
cava
Level 7
Sep 12, 2018
1
This is just a variation of the fallacious "without god, nothing is forbidden" argument.
Morality is based on empathy, and empathy is mediated by mirror neurons. The real question is, does religion automatically make a person more empathetic? And of course the answer is no. Some forms of religion encourage people to develop and hone whatever empathy they already have, but there's no evidence religion can turn a sociopath into a saint. And there's the problem that if you claim god commands something, it doesn't really matter if it's moral or ethical or fair or compassionate or not. So religion provides an excuse to override empathy. It's not always used, of course, but it's used often enough to be dangerous.
mordant
Level 8
Sep 11, 2018
3
One might also ask:. Isn't selfishness promoted voa the example of a God who demands total, thoughtless obedience, claims to be the one good, yet demands that no other God's be worshipped?
Bravo, on your response, btw. Remarkably deft.
@Happyonearth You've hit upon one of the ironies found in many religious claims. The deity behaves a certain way, but when his creatures—who it is said were made in his image—behave similarly, they are sinful, unless of course their behavior was condoned, if not commanded, by the deity! @mordant’s point about the excuse to override empathy calls to mind the observation of Steven Weinberg:
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
BTW, I've found @mordant to be one of the more deft (as opposed to daft) members of this site. 
Yes, by entirely fallacious reasoning she came to the right conclusion, or rather observed the right conclusion and then tried to explain it in terms she found acceptable to her philosophy.
Humans like all life are imperitively driven to survive, reproduce and perpetuate their particular genetic line of the species.
In this we are subject to imperative programming, hard wired if you will, at every level from our macroscopic societies to our microscopic DNA.
Acts of cooperation only become necessary and desirable to us when they achieve this end by acting as a group.
When people act in a perceived socially moral way it in order to protect the genetic line to ensure the continuation of the line and species.
LenHazell53
Level 9
Sep 11, 2018
1
Their are some distinct differences in how Ayn Rand defines selfishness and how we understand selfishness from a "selfish ape" (evolutionary science) understanding.
Ayn Rand was looking at selfishness as a consequence of an economic drive. The selfishness she purports refers to an individuals drive to get ahead economically with material gain as the engine powering the motivation. The selfishness is a conscious decision.
Evolution also purports that organisms are essentially selfish. However, evolutionary theory suggests that organisms act out of selfishness, not for individual gain, but for the betterment of the species. The goal of organisms selfishness is to achieve maximum fitness of the species to last ad infinitum into the future. The species is all important, and not the indivual. Therefore, there is a significant difference between how Rand viewed selfishness, and how science implies a selfish motivation.
t1nick
Level 8
Sep 11, 2018
2
Very true.
And then we have mutation...lol. Sorry just thinking of trump
No it is never a virtue & wouldn't be even if gods existed.
Carin
Level 8
Sep 11, 2018
0
Actually she did argue that perceived unselfish acts have as their basis self interest. And to an extent we all behave selfishly. We eat when others starve, we buy cars when others walk...but I'm sure you get the point.
rand is correct once in a long while, definitely by accident. this isn't one of those times. he dead wrong, as usual.
g
genessa
Level 8
Sep 11, 2018
1
Thought they were quoting Ayn Rand.
Actually it was Ann Rand who wrote the fountainhead, the virtue of selfishness, atlae shrugged and several other books which were thought provoking. Notwithstanding the fact that she died while receiving public assistance, an irony I enjoy.
@Carin not quoting but attempting to discuss. Thank you for your literacy, lol
@Happyonearth I guess I'm not literate enough to spell her name right, huh? I tried.
in my defense, i didn't see the tag, so when my mind gravitated to the delusional and much-weaker-than-ayn rand paul, i had no clue i was going to the wrong rand, until i was happily corrected.
g
@Carin I did spell her name incorrectly didn't I, lmao
@Happyonearth I really don't know!
@genessa, @Happyonearth "she died while receiving public assistance" The closest truth to that statement is that she accepted Social Security benefits, which she deserved, since she paid the taxes. She actually died relatively well off.
@sfvpool from the ayn rand institute: "In fact, Social Security is not insurance. It merely seizes income from working Americans and dispenses it to retirees, with a vague (but legally unenforceable) assurance that younger Americans will someday get to reach into the pockets of their kids and grandkids. We shouldn’t hide that fact with euphemisms. “Contributions” should be called “taxes.” “Benefits” should be called “handouts.” Social Security shouldn’t be described as “social insurance” but as welfare."
now i don't AGREE with the ayn rand institute but we must assume that the institute got its attitude from rand herself, in which case SHE believed social security was welfare, and yet, while railing against welfare, she did willingly receive it. in light of this, whether or not she needed it is irrelevant. her hypocrisy is clear.
g
@genessa The Ayn Rand institute's statement you quoted was also her belief, and I agree with her.
In her words, written in 1966, "The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration."
Oh, that's an easy question.
No, that's stupid.
Dietl
Level 7
Sep 11, 2018
1
Just curious, what is it about the argument she made that selfishness is actually a drive that encompasses the so-called virtues of selfless acts, do you find as being "stupid". Seriously, just using an adjective to describe a comment leaves me to wonder wtf do you think you are discussing. I personally believe her arguments to be thoughtful and reasoned, wrong, but rational.
- Selfishness is simply the opposite of morality. Only looking after oneself is the opposite of a virtue, it is a vice. But that isn't really what she meant, right? This reminds me of Jordan Peterson advocating "enforced monogamy" and then trying to clarify that he meant something completely different than what people normaly understand using those words. I think that's stupid.
- Redefining the word to mean something nobody else means instead of just using 'self-care' or a new word, that's stupid, as I said, because it creates confusion.
- Even under that definition calling self-care (I'll just use this word for now) a virtue is stupid because it leads to people being able to justify every possible action and makes people selfish (under the definition of what i really means).
- A virtue is something that if you strive for and make it central in your morality, it makes you a better person like wisdom and maybe discipline (you can argue about most virtues). That is not the case for self-care. We don't call washing yourself a virtue, because that is just a basic thing you have to do to be accepted in society.
- One argument you could use is that self-care inplies that you have to strive for wisdom and to be a valuable member of society in your own interest. And because it implies that you have to do virtuous things it must also be a virtue. But you can act virtuous for vicious reasons and this just a bad argument.
Maybe calling it stupid is not the best way to criticize a philosophy but sometimes I can't help myself. I feel better if I can let some swear words out. It's in my best interst, it's just for my...self-care
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.