I found this immensely clarifying WRT the appeal of Rand’s philosophy. It would be better stated as “the virtue of honest selfishness”. Thank you!
That said, I think you’re making the same logical error that Rand and Objectivists often make, which is putting things into categories that truly exist on a spectrum.
Every human being is selfish, but most are also altruistic some of the time, toward some people.
Every human being wants to be right, but most are also doing collaborative truth seeking some of the time, to some degree.
As an aside, another problem with obviously wanting to be right is that it’s simply irritating. Humans don’t form their beliefs purely through logic; their emotional biases come into play. When you irritate your audience, you’re making it hard for the to believe your true claims. The emotional biases of rationalists often align with truth-seeking, but we’re still vulnerable to being irritated out of believing the truth.
Every human being is selfish, but most are also altruistic some of the time
What, in your estimation, would be a difference between actual altruism, and “altruism” done for the sake of selfish emotional fuzzies?
Lets say I pass a beggar on the street. If I give him a dollar because he needs it, its altruism. If I give him a dollar because I want to feel like Im a Good, Charitable Guy, and genuinely enjoy his thanks, then its selfishness.
About the only true altruism I can think of that is not essentially a form of egoism, is when you absolutely HATE the fact that you act charitable, and get zero pleasure from it, not even masochistically. If you so much as get a single second of warm fuzz in your heart from your charitable act, thats just roundabout selfishness. If you pay the beggar 1$ and then feel emotionally better, he is essentially your low-budget therapist, and you just performed a completely selfish act of capitalist exchange.
When I say that people are altruistic, I mean they do it for the internal warm fuzzies.
You can call it a form of egoism, but it still does the exact same good in the world and is as trustworthy as if it were real in some deeper sense (although I don’t think there actually is a deeper sense when you go digging through it).
It is trustworthy and genuine in that some people are wired to get more warm fuzzies, and to know they do, so they reliably act charitable. It’s sort of a capitalistic exchange, but it’s not carefully considered in the way that would imply.
This, along with honesty and I’m sure some other stuff, is what we call “being a good person” and it is pragmatically useful because it gets you loyal friends. That’s why it’s built into most humans at an instinctive level. We can choose whether to cultivate or suppress this instinct and so to become more selfish or more altruistic.
I found this immensely clarifying WRT the appeal of Rand’s philosophy. It would be better stated as “the virtue of honest selfishness”. Thank you!
That said, I think you’re making the same logical error that Rand and Objectivists often make, which is putting things into categories that truly exist on a spectrum.
Every human being is selfish, but most are also altruistic some of the time, toward some people.
Every human being wants to be right, but most are also doing collaborative truth seeking some of the time, to some degree.
As an aside, another problem with obviously wanting to be right is that it’s simply irritating. Humans don’t form their beliefs purely through logic; their emotional biases come into play. When you irritate your audience, you’re making it hard for the to believe your true claims. The emotional biases of rationalists often align with truth-seeking, but we’re still vulnerable to being irritated out of believing the truth.
What, in your estimation, would be a difference between actual altruism, and “altruism” done for the sake of selfish emotional fuzzies?
Lets say I pass a beggar on the street. If I give him a dollar because he needs it, its altruism. If I give him a dollar because I want to feel like Im a Good, Charitable Guy, and genuinely enjoy his thanks, then its selfishness.
About the only true altruism I can think of that is not essentially a form of egoism, is when you absolutely HATE the fact that you act charitable, and get zero pleasure from it, not even masochistically. If you so much as get a single second of warm fuzz in your heart from your charitable act, thats just roundabout selfishness. If you pay the beggar 1$ and then feel emotionally better, he is essentially your low-budget therapist, and you just performed a completely selfish act of capitalist exchange.
When I say that people are altruistic, I mean they do it for the internal warm fuzzies.
You can call it a form of egoism, but it still does the exact same good in the world and is as trustworthy as if it were real in some deeper sense (although I don’t think there actually is a deeper sense when you go digging through it).
It is trustworthy and genuine in that some people are wired to get more warm fuzzies, and to know they do, so they reliably act charitable. It’s sort of a capitalistic exchange, but it’s not carefully considered in the way that would imply.
This, along with honesty and I’m sure some other stuff, is what we call “being a good person” and it is pragmatically useful because it gets you loyal friends. That’s why it’s built into most humans at an instinctive level. We can choose whether to cultivate or suppress this instinct and so to become more selfish or more altruistic.