The Virtue of Selfishness vs. The Morality of Altruism

[GenSeneca]

Let me begin by defining the terms:

Selfishness denotes the precedence given in thought or deed to the self, i.e., self interest or self concern. It is the act of placing one's own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others.


Altruism is unselfish concern for the welfare of others. Altruism is the polar opposite of selfishness.

I am selfish. Note the definition, being selfish does not mean that I lie, cheat and steal as is popularly believed to be atributes of those who are selfish. Quite the contrary, such actions would not be in my self interest, they would be self destructive. Being selfish does not mean that I sacrifice others for my benefit, or that I never share, or that I'm never charitable, or that I do not act in ways that benefit others... it simply means that I place a priority on that which I value and I do not sacrifice what I value for something I do not.

That is the meaning of a sacrifice, giving up something of value for something of little to no value in return.

There is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.

The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material. It is the principle of justice.

A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. He does not treat men as masters or slaves, but as independent equals. He deals with men by means of a free, voluntary, unforced, uncoerced exchange—an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgment. - The Virtue of Selfishness

I am a trader. My associations are acts of volitional consent that are based on mutual benefit. I have no interest in being a master of, or a slave to, any other individual or group. I expect only one thing from my fellow man, respect for my individual rights. Any society that does not respect individual rights is a society of cannibals that will only last until they have consumed their last victim.

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force.

The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense.

Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his. - John Galt, Atlas Shrugged

The Altruist code of morality is not a morality of life, it is the morality of death. If that sounds like an absurd statement, note the definitions, specifically the fact that Altruism is the polar opposite of Selfishness.

The degree by which an Altruist can remain alive is based on the degree by which he violates his own Altruist morality. To live by the Altruist code of morality without breaking it will result in death because an unselfish concern for the welfare of others is a rejection of your own selfish welfare.

Altruism is not a moral code that can be practiced in a system of mutually beneficial exchange, such an exchange would be a violation of the Altruist morality.

Altruism is not a moral code compatible with a civilized society. It's code states that individuals are expected to sacrifice their own welfare for the welfare of others. Such a moral code cannot eliminate need, it will only generate greater needs and do so exponentially.

Altruism is not compatible with respect for individual rights. Rights are freedoms of action required by a human being in order to perpetuate their life by their own efforts, without imposing obligations on others. Societies that operate on the Altruist morality declare it is immoral to perpetuate your own life, by your own efforts, because it would be selfish for you to do so. Your efforts, your labor, your life, belong to everyone but yourself. It is your duty, your obligation, your moral purpose for existence to deny your own personal welfare in order to provide for the welfare of others.

The Collectivist morality is Altruism and Collectivist governments operate based on the morality of Altruism. Such governments do not protect individual rights, they violate them and do so in the name of the greater good, the common good, or the good of society. Morality ends where a gun begins and violating the rights of those who have violated no ones rights is not an act of morality, it is an act of tyranny.

Whether it is a group, a nation, or a society, all are comprised of individuals and when a government uses its monopoly on the use of force to impose upon every individual the Collectivist morality of Altruism, the society will cannibalize itself in a downward spiral toward despotism until it achieves the ultimate goal of the Altruist morality, death.

Morality is a code of values that must be earned, you cannot lie, cheat, or steal your way to achieving my morality. My morality is the morality of life and it can only be earned by way of virtues, values and a selfish pursuit of personal achievement.

Achievement is mans highest virtue and selfishness is the only means by which man can achieve, not by taking advantage of others but by engaging in mutually beneficial exchanges with those whom he associates. It is only by his own achievement that man can gain his own values, by his own effort, not by force or fraud, and upon achieving his own values, man has a right to keep, or dispose, of his values as he sees fit.

Death is the reward, and the purpose, for following the morality of Altruism.
Life is the reward, and the purpose, for my morality, the virtue of selfishness.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Let me begin by defining the terms:

Selfishness denotes the precedence given in thought or deed to the self, i.e., self interest or self concern. It is the act of placing one's own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others.

See: Richard Shelbyhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35340595

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Let me begin by defining the terms:

Selfishness denotes the precedence given in thought or deed to the self, i.e., self interest or self concern. It is the act of placing one's own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others.


Altruism is unselfish concern for the welfare of others. Altruism is the polar opposite of selfishness.

I am selfish. Note the definition, being selfish does not mean that I lie, cheat and steal as is popularly believed to be atributes of those who are selfish. Quite the contrary, such actions would not be in my self interest, they would be self destructive. Being selfish does not mean that I sacrifice others for my benefit, or that I never share, or that I'm never charitable, or that I do not act in ways that benefit others... it simply means that I place a priority on that which I value and I do not sacrifice what I value for something I do not.

This may be the crux of the matter right here in bold. It is what one value's. Other people's lives, needs, or whatever MIGHT be important to some, just not you. I can see where this would rot your socks if you were forced to contribute to these people whom you do not value. I feel much the same way about wealthy people.

 

[dogtowner]

This may be the crux of the matter right here in bold. It is what one value's. Other people's lives, needs, or whatever MIGHT be important to some, just not you. I can see where this would rot your socks if you were forced to contribute to these people whom you do not value. I feel much the same way about wealthy people.

It is possible to value the person but not the perceived lack they have.

Do you not consider the weathy person of equal value to the poor one ? Do they have a differeing intrinsic value ?

Gen may ascrbe to the teach a man to fish concept while you perfer the give a man a fish one.

 

[ktucan1]

It is possible to value the person but not the perceived lack they have.

Do you not consider the weathy person of equal value to the poor one ? Do they have a differeing intrinsic value ?

Gen may ascrbe to the teach a man to fish concept while you perfer the give a man a fish one.

Nothing wrong with being selfish however I have one question to ask of anyone who believes in that philosophy? Have any of you ever called someone else Selfish for whatever reason and if the answer is yes then please explain? I know I have and I don't regret calling people out when they are. I do agree it's better to teach a man how to fish but let me ask you is there anything wrong with giving him one anyways out of the kindness of your heart? I mean yeah your still teaching him how to fish but at the same time I figured you would want to share in the rewards would you not?

 

[dogtowner]

Nothing wrong with being selfish however I have one question to ask of anyone who believes in that philosophy? Have any of you ever called someone else Selfish for whatever reason and if the answer is yes then please explain? I know I have and I don't regret calling people out when they are. I do agree it's better to teach a man how to fish but let me ask you is there anything wrong with giving him one anyways out of the kindness of your heart? I mean yeah your still teaching him how to fish but at the same time I figured you would want to share in the rewards would you not?

I have no problem with slipping him that fish if you also provide him the means to provide for himself. But if you do it right, he gets that fish right then and it becomes moot.

And if you prefer to just provide the fish and leave it at that then I have no issue with that either.. I just prefer the fishing model for me.

 

[ktucan1]

I have no problem with slipping him that fish if you also provide him the means to provide for himself. But if you do it right, he gets that fish right then and it becomes moot.

Good Answer. I like where you are coming from DT thank you for your response.

 

[dogtowner]

Good Answer. I like where you are coming from DT thank you for your response.

I live to serve

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It is possible to value the person but not the perceived lack they have.

Do you not consider the weathy person of equal value to the poor one ? Do they have a differeing intrinsic value ?

Gen may ascrbe to the teach a man to fish concept while you perfer the give a man a fish one.

Life has intrinsic value, people are of equal value utlimately. I don't know what you mean by "value the person but not the perceived lack they have."

No, I'm good with teaching people how to make a living, but I see a lot of people who will not be able to accomplish that without help. Nobody NEEDS millions of dollars and until the needs of all the equally intrinsically valuable people have been met I see no reason to allow greedy people to hoard wealth.

There are people who are geniuses at what they do. Mike Tyson, Muhammad Ali were both world class at what they did, but we--as a culture--didn't allow them to use that skill to take what they wanted from the general public. They were allowed to practice their skills in a very limited venue. Why should we allow a financial genius to take what he wants from the public? Why should we let a financial genius work with a legal wizard to work the law to their advantage so that they can just take what they want?

It used to be that there were places that a person could go, away from the everyday world and live more simply. That time has largely passed and now everyone is required to live and work in our financial system or they end up living under a bridge. There are people who are just as valuable as you and I who will never be able to function in our fast-paced, greed-based, fierce competition world. Where do they go? Have you seen the movie AVATAR?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I live to serve

Funny thing, you've never mentioned volley ball before.

 

[GenSeneca]

Other people's lives, needs, or whatever MIGHT be important to some, just not you.

I understand and agree, that is why it is so important to allow people the freedom to choose how to live their own lives, and that includes the freedom to control the products of their labor.

I can see where this would rot your socks if you were forced to contribute to these people whom you do not value. I feel much the same way about wealthy people.

That is correct, and why it is so important to eliminate governments ability to legally use force to violate the rights of any individual.

 

[GenSeneca]

Gen may ascrbe to the teach a man to fish concept while you perfer the give a man a fish one.

Two things here...

First, yes, I would be one to teach the man to fish but if I chose to give him a fish so that he could eat while learning how to feed himself, it again would be by choice, not compulsion.

Second, people such as Mare are not simply offering their own fish, they are offering the people with need YOUR fish and making it illegal for you to refuse.

 

[dogtowner]

Two things here...

First, yes, I would be one to teach the man to fish but if I chose to give him a fish so that he could eat while learning how to feed himself, it again would be by choice, not compulsion.

Second, people such as Mare are not simply offering their own fish, they are offering the people with need YOUR fish and making it illegal for you to refuse.

YES on both counts

 

[GenSeneca]

Have any of you ever called someone else Selfish for whatever reason and if the answer is yes then please explain?

That is a result of people misusing the word. It's a fallacy of terminology, most of the time when people use the word selfish, they are actually referring to actions that are self-destructive or narcissistic. As I said in the OP, being selfish has nothing at all to do with lying, cheating, stealing (self destructive behavior), or greed, conceit and arrogance (narcissistic behavior), although such behaviors are often attributed, wrongly, to selfish behavior.

is there anything wrong with giving him one anyways out of the kindness of your heart?

Not at all. Being selfish does not mean you cannot be charitable, it is entirely your choice.

My problem with Altruism is that you are not given a choice. To follow that morality, you must give away your fish, even if it means you starve so that others may live. What makes the morality tyrannical is when it is imposed on everyone by the force of government, as opposed to voluntarily followed by people who choose to follow it.

I mean yeah your still teaching him how to fish but at the same time I figured you would want to share in the rewards would you not?

Sure... besides, if he doesn't know how to fish, you will also have to teach him how to scale, gut, fillet and prepare the fish for consumption.

 

[dogtowner]

Life has intrinsic value, people are of equal value utlimately. I don't know what you mean by "value the person but not the perceived lack they have.

No, I'm good with teaching people how to make a living, but I see a lot of people who will not be able to accomplish that without help. Nobody NEEDS millions of dollars and until the needs of all the equally intrinsically valuable people have been met I see no reason to allow greedy people to hoard wealth.

and yet you provide a perfect example

allow ? thats the entire point of this country.

There are people who are geniuses at what they do. Mike Tyson, Muhammad Ali were both world class at what they did, but we--as a culture--didn't allow them to use that skill to take what they wanted from the general public. They were allowed to practice their skills in a very limited venue. Why should we allow a financial genius to take what he wants from the public? Why should we let a financial genius work with a legal wizard to work the law to their advantage so that they can just take what they want?

there are any number of lines of work that they cound pursue but prize fighting was the most lucrative.

the other pair are not taking anything, they are earning it.


/quote]It used to be that there were places that a person could go, away from the everyday world and live more simply. That time has largely passed and now everyone is required to live and work in our financial system or they end up living under a bridge. There are people who are just as valuable as you and I who will never be able to function in our fast-paced, greed-based, fierce competition world. Where do they go?[/quote}

where ever they wish and that they can afford.

Have you seen the movie AVATAR?

no.