Rational selfishness

[Anonymous No.11627483]

Brainlet ITT: Why is selfishness considered by so many to be a priori immoral? It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that one can be altruistic for selfish reasons and therefore do things that are considered "good" without forfeiting their self-interest.

I am getting the impression Rand was literally the first one to follow through with the idea of moral egotism, but that doesn't seem right.

[Anonymous No.11627506]

>>11627483
This is a large debate in psychology. Do people really have free will to consiously act altruistically? Or have they been brainwashed by group pressure, and only commit altrustic acts because it pleases them.

I know that Kant would say that acting altruistic purely because it is in your self interest (e.g. working in a soup kitchen because you get a warm bowl of soup and something to mention in a university application) is not a moral act, because moral acts must be done out of a sense of duty. You have a duty towards upholding the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is the idea that an action is only moral if it is universally applicable to everyone. (e.g. you would never selfishly steal from a shop keeper because if you were a shopkeeper you woudl not wish your goods to be stolen from you). This is a pretty dilletantish summary. I have't read a lot of Kant. He's a major philospoher who would contest that acting morally, only because it suits your self interest, isn't enough.

[Anonymous No.11627530]

Selfishness is rational when you live in a shitty society.

[Anonymous No.11627532]

>>11627506
But given that acting morally by definition means doing what one should do, why is it not enough to do it out of self-interest? If in the end the action is the same as if one was upholding the imperative, what is the problem?

[Anonymous No.11627544]

>>11627532
It suggests a lack of agency and only doing what you felt like. For Kant it is not enough to be raised a docile, non agressive child who would not dream of harming someone. You must consiously recognise that random acts of violence are morally wrong. If the moral good happens to align with our own self interest, that's just a side benefit. Thankfuly it mostly does.

[Anonymous No.11627555]

>>11627544
Makes sense.

[Anonymous No.11627912]

>>11627483
>Rand was literally the first one to follow through with the idea of moral egotism
Nah. Stirner came before her, and you could argue that Nietzsche was an egoist too.

The Kantian in this thread brought up some good points.

From a utilitarian POV (not a utilitarian, but it's worth bringing them up for the sake of completeness), selfishness is bad when it conflicts with the greater good. For example, I might enjoy torturing people, but because torture is more bad for them than it is good for me, it's a no-no.

Theologians all have their own ideas about this, but you seem like you're not super interested in God, so suffice it to say that God said not to be selfish (many times, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly).

Personally, I just think "selfishness" is a flawed way of living life. It's in reaching for things outside myself — family, friends, community, art — that I think there's the most meaning. I'd probably enjoy myself more if I were a hermit who did nothing but masturbate, but that wouldn't quite be the same.

[Anonymous No.11629047]

people are biologically programmed to dislike anybody they can't gain something from. selfishness degrades our societal structure and treats everything like a zero sum game, where instead of working together and both reaping the rewards only one can take everything. we are all very selfish, evident by our hate of selfishness in others; if we were truly more altruistic than selfish we would prefer them to succeed and take all the rewards. the reason we act unselfish is because most of life is a positive sum game: we usually gain more from collaborating than competing. because of this, when underlying human morality evolved the people who naturally worked together and stayed away from those who didn't survived better.

[Anonymous No.11629470]

>>11627912
Thanks for the detailed reply. I shall check out Stirner to see what he had to say.

I wonder if the scarcity of serious egotistical morality viewpoints is to do with the prevalence of Christianity, even in secular environment

I don’t think it’s mutually exclusive to be selfish and to reach out. Reaching out the way you said feels good, first of all, but also benefits our individuality since through other people and aesthetic action we come closer to reforming the world in the way we like it.

So it seems like it’s in my self interest to do these things, ultimately

[Anonymous No.11629477]

>>11629047
So your point is that selfishness is... best?

[Anonymous No.11629529]

>>11627483
Many Greeks, including Aristotle, more or less took egoism for granted, which is probably one reason Rand claims inspiration from him. But then Christianity came along with its emphasis on sacrifice and that's had a huge influence on all subsequent ethical philosophy in the west. Just one more reason to start with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.11629629]

>>11629047
Butt if you realize you can take something from anyone, then you can be properly selfish

[Anonymous No.11630124]

ni,[

[Anonymous No.11631520]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11631543]

Helping out people feels great. If helping other people left you with a bad taste in your mouth, people wouldn't do it. Free will doesn't factor into this.

[Anonymous No.11631937]

>>11627483
Buddhism consider selfishness to be mainly a product of ignorance, not "immorality" of any kind. Modern science considers the idea of "selfhood" to be a either an emergent property or simply a delusion concocted by the brain.

With that said, there could be an argument made for "rational" selfishness. But to what extend would that rationality extend towards? Would helping clean the neighborhoods be considered "wrong" by Ayn Rand? But in the rational egotistic sense, helpin clean the neighborhood means your streets are more eye pleasing to you. What about helping the poor? Empathy is considered a form of egotism as it is a mental simulation of what one might experience. So in such, helping the poor and the needy would in "rational" egotism be a logically consistent thing to do.

[Anonymous No.11633362]

>>11627483
Read Stirner

[Anonymous No.11633413]

>>11627912
>I'd probably enjoy myself more if I were a hermit who did nothing but masturbate
I don't think you would.