In reply to his comment I began (scroll down from his comment):
One could argue that the English language wasn't made by God, but by men. It may be the case that what the Bible writers meant, when they were condemning selfishness is not exactly the same thing as what modern English speakers mean.
The word "selfish", as commonly used, has quite a lot of meaning packed into it. And, as such, it is indeed objectionable.
Let me continue by unpacking the common meaning a bit. Looking for a dictionary definition I found a recent article from The Times of India, by Alan Cohen, author of Why Your Life Sucks:
You Must be Selfish
[ SUNDAY, MAY 23, 2004 12:07:17 AM ]
Subtitle:
Your first priority in life has to be yourself
It seems to me that a good starting point would be to define ‘selfish'. Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary Second Edition states: caring only or chiefly for self; regarding one's own interest chiefly or solely; proceeding from love of self; influenced in actions solely by a view to private advantage; as, a selfish person; a selfish motive.
Most practitioners of sacrifice do not insist that you uphold their ideals consistently, only when it is feasible or practical. But when you hold something as an ideal and fail to practice it, you are condemned to Original Sin and a life of guilt. Although you know that you must fulfil your duty to that ideal regardless of the cost, you often pursue your self-interest instead. Any compromise or middle ground between selfishness and sacrifice is destined to failure, at the cost of your sanity.
That's almost a perversion of the doctrine of Original Sin as I learned it, but I'm not signing on as the guy's editor right now. Elide that sentence and you have a lot of Ayn Rand's argument. She also derides Original Sin - condemnation for the simple fact of having been born a human isn't Justice - but Cohen is trying to get it said, in his own words, in a short op-ed. Cohen is also not presenting himself as an Objectivist, though this article is very much in line with her teachings.
I propose a simple alternative to this life of suffering and guilt. To decide whether an action is right or wrong, use logic and reason to deduce its consequences on yourself alone. If the action benefits you, it is proper; and if it harms you, it is wrong.
This paragraph sounds more like Stirnerian S.E. Parker in a discussion with Freedom School founder Robert LeFevre (here's a good opinion piece by him).
The "Stirnerite," egoist standpoint is that a "right" action is simply one appropriate to the end desired, and a "wrong" action one inappropriate to the end desired. In other words, there are expedient and inexpedient actions for an egoist--nothing more. There is no question of moral "guilt" involved if an egoist makes a mistake and recognizes that he has done so. He merely corrects it if he can, and if he cannot he takes more care next time. How, from a logical angle, it follows that if there is no real "right" or "wrong" then a "Stirnerite" is "by definition" always "right" I fail to see.
Ayn Rand's defines selfishness as "concern with ones own interests," which I understand to be about the same as "mind your business." I left out "own" because MYOB has a narrower connotation, though that meaning is included in my phrase. "Mind your own business" and "take care of business" just about cover it.
Ayn Rand called herself a "radical for Capitalism," and ferociously attacked any doctrine that undercut purely free (and open) markets. That was her open agenda. Her argument was that the duty of government is to protect that freedom and enforce openness by prosecuting acts of force and fraud swiftly and certainly. Trying to protect people from acts that might be committed in the future is opening the door to tyranny. She believed that if people are taught logic, economics and history and the skills required to understand them we could handled fraud prevention ourselves. And prosecute when we discover otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment