Ayn Rand

[ruckman101]

I referenced that in an effort to point out the inherent selfishness of laissez-faire capitalism.


neal

[BellePlaine]

I think that we need to come to a conclusion on whether or not it is moral or immoral to be selfish. That is, assuming that it is done ethically, is it wrong to serve the self's needs only?

If it is immoral to be selfish and it is moral to share, why isn't it (or is it) immoral to not share everything?

[ruckman101]

I think that we need to come to a conclusion on whether or not it is moral or immoral to be selfish. That is, assuming that it is done ethically, is it wrong to serve the self's needs only?

If it is immoral to be selfish and it is moral to share, why isn't it (or is it) immoral to not share everything?

Well, that's a sticky wicket of a question alright.


neal

[BellePlaine]

I think that we need to come to a conclusion on whether or not it is moral or immoral to be selfish. That is, assuming that it is done ethically, is it wrong to serve the self's needs only?

If it is immoral to be selfish and it is moral to share, why isn't it (or is it) immoral to not share everything?

Well, that's a sticky wicket of a question alright.


neal

Totally.

Further, if it is immoral to be selfish is it also immoral to take selfish pleasure in the love from your spouse?

[steve74baywin]

I think that we need to come to a conclusion on whether or not it is moral or immoral to be selfish. That is, assuming that it is done ethically, is it wrong to serve the self's needs only?

If it is immoral to be selfish and it is moral to share, why isn't it (or is it) immoral to not share everything?

Well, that's a sticky wicket of a question alright.


neal

The funny thing about this is, when I have listened to Ayn Rand and interviews on this, I do see tons people getting hung up on and missing things.

She was against "putting others above yourself", self sacrificing.
Well, for starters, as much as most people jump at that like OMG, how selfish, it is what everyone does anyway. Really, who on here has given more to others on a regular basis than they keep for themselves? That is where I say doublethink comes in again. People act like she is so selfish for that, but in reality that is how everyone is anyway. She is pointing out that when teachings want you to totally give to others, self sacrificing yourselves to others, that is bad, even though no one hardly does that anyway, it guilt trips people into socialism, collectivism and communism.
Did you catch that, it is the fact that Altruism gets people to put up a bad mommy gov via guilt. That is the point being made, no one or very few of us gives more to others than we keep for ourselves, no one is self sacrificing, giving up their livelihood for others. So it is like a false good feeling people take on, but don't really do it, yet give up rights for it.
And the funny thing is, people point to her like she is so very selfish for not being for the "self sacrifice of self for others", yet no one is doing that.
I'm not sure I could explain that into words, now maybe I know why Ayn had a hard time too.

Chee, Anyone with a better house and or cars than me, let's trade. Give them up, to me and for me. Where are all the Anti Rands now?

[ruckman101]

I think that we need to come to a conclusion on whether or not it is moral or immoral to be selfish. That is, assuming that it is done ethically, is it wrong to serve the self's needs only?

If it is immoral to be selfish and it is moral to share, why isn't it (or is it) immoral to not share everything?

Well, that's a sticky wicket of a question alright.


neal

Totally.

Further, if it is immoral to be selfish is it also immoral to take selfish pleasure in the love from your spouse?

lol, well, personally, I'm not sharing that selfish pleasure with anyone but my spouse.

I think the answer is personal. A balance, and of course human nature tends to get to the sharing part once personal needs are met. So where is the line? My personal needs don't include a yacht or lear jet. If there were no personal property, it wouldn't be an issue.


neal

[ruckman101]

Steve, I have personally done a ton of sacrificing what I don't have to corporate profits. I wouldn't call it sharing, because I had no choice in the matter. Theft would be the better term. Some use a gun, some use a fountain pen, lobbyists and $ free speech to guise the theft in law.


neal

[steve74baywin]

I think that we need to come to a conclusion on whether or not it is moral or immoral to be selfish. That is, assuming that it is done ethically, is it wrong to serve the self's needs only?

If it is immoral to be selfish and it is moral to share, why isn't it (or is it) immoral to not share everything?

Well, that's a sticky wicket of a question alright.


neal

Totally.

Further, if it is immoral to be selfish is it also immoral to take selfish pleasure in the love from your spouse?

lol, well, personally, I'm not sharing that selfish pleasure with anyone but my spouse.

I think the answer is personal. A balance, and of course human nature tends to get to the sharing part once personal needs are met. So where is the line? My personal needs don't include a yacht or lear jet. If there were no personal property, it wouldn't be an issue.


neal

Yes it is personal. That is why you don't make a group or gov force something from someone because you think someone else should have it. Who can define what is enough, what someone else should have, etc, etc.
That is why there is what most of us feel is right. That is that we govern our bodies and property, property is our body and anything we put together, make, buy or possess.
That is why we set up a government to protect those rights. Everything else is opinion, and to use gov force to take from others based upon an opinion is treading on thin ice.
Everyone acts like the selfish person Ayn Rands mentions, she is against the belief that you must sacrifice yourself for others, that is a ridiculous thing that leads to disaster and socialism, low self esteem, etc, etc, and the thing is no one actually does it anyway, it is just a guilt trip to get them to give up rights, but in everyday life every acts in their own self interest anyway.
Where are the Anti Rands? Can they step up and make sure I have as much as or more than them? I doubt I will be getting checks in the mail from them. But that is the point she makes, despite what anti Rand BS someone has read.

[BellePlaine]

And the funny thing is, people point to her like she is so very selfish for not being for the "self sacrifice of self for others", yet no one is doing that.
I'm not sure I could explain that into words, now maybe I know why Ayn had a hard time too.

I think that she is saying that sharing is not self-sacrifice if you take selfish benefits from it. Like your spouse; you selfishly love your spouse and so it is not a sacrifice to share possessions. Here you are both sharing and being selfish at the same time. It's moral because you do it willingly.

lol, well, personally, I'm not sharing that selfish pleasure with anyone but my spouse.

What? Where's the love, man!

I think the answer is personal. A balance, and of course human nature tends to get to the sharing part once personal needs are met. So where is the line? My personal needs don't include a yacht or lear jet. If there were no personal property, it wouldn't be an issue.


neal

Where's the line is a good question. Your needs might not include a Lear jet (great now I've got Dark Side of the Moon on the brain!) but why should that be an issue of anyone’s? If selfishness is moral but only up until the point of basic personal needs being met and anything deemed excessive is it immoral, then is it moral to limit parents to only one child?

[RussellK]

maybe I know why Ayn had a hard time too.

Her philosophy wasn't embraced because it was flawed. It had nothing to do with communication skills.

[ruckman101]

"Rand's heroes must continually fight against "parasites", "looters", and "moochers" who demand the benefits of the heroes' labor."

I still see it as justification for classism. The elites, and the poor. Because of course the poor are poor because they are lazy parasites looters and moochers, not because their labor is stolen for a dime to further enrich the coffers of the elite.


neal

[RussellK]

I went to school with a person that argued against welfare by stating "the poor are poor because they want to be" I don't know if she was a Rand follower, in fact at the time I'd never heard of Ayn Rand, but instinctively I knew she was wrong.

[BellePlaine]

because their labor is stolen for a dime to further enrich the coffers of the elite.


neal

If you are saying that this is why we need a federal government, I agree. No one's labor should be stolen be it from the poor or the rich.

[BellePlaine]

I went to school with a person that argued against welfare by stating "the poor are poor because they want to be" I don't know if she was a Rand follower, in fact at the time I'd never heard of Ayn Rand, but instinctively I knew she was wrong.

It's not about a group of people, it's about the individual. Back to the morality question; is it immoral to be selfish? To have an income over $250K?

[steve74baywin]

And the funny thing is, people point to her like she is so very selfish for not being for the "self sacrifice of self for others", yet no one is doing that.
I'm not sure I could explain that into words, now maybe I know why Ayn had a hard time too.

I think that she is saying that sharing is not self-sacrifice if you take selfish benefits from it. Like your spouse; you selfishly love your spouse and so it is not a sacrifice to share possessions. Here you are both sharing and being selfish at the same time. It's moral because you do it willingly.

Yes, that one point she makes, that it is for ones own selfish needs that we love or give to our spouse, it is similar to what I heard her say in an interview.
I would say these are some missed points.
1)It's not self sacrifice if you take selfish benefits from it.
2)Most people do things for this reason now, today, all the time, anyway.
3)She was against the teachings making people sacrifice themselves for others, whether the teachings came from a religion, gov or society, it is not a good thing. She explained once why she uses the word sacrifice, cause it means to give up your life.
4)Almost nobody sacrifices their life for others anyway, and if they did, lurking is probably a selfish motive.

maybe I know why Ayn had a hard time too.

Her philosophy wasn't embraced because it was flawed. It had nothing to do with communication skills.

I disagree.
Tons of people embraced her philosophy, not everyone will.
Those who didn't I think don't understand it. IMHO
Chee, whenever I speak of it someone chimes in with something that clearly shows me a lack of understanding it. What else I am to think?

"Rand's heroes must continually fight against "parasites", "looters", and "moochers" who demand the benefits of the heroes' labor."

I still see it as justification for classism. The elites, and the poor. Because of course the poor are poor because they are lazy parasites looters and moochers, not because their labor is stolen for a dime to further enrich the coffers of the elite.


neal

In a system with a King, or in one like we have now, that can be the case. When I say one like we have now I mean one that helps big corps, and it does, most obvious is bailouts, then rules and regs that keep us out of most business, too much red tape needed, a team of lawyers needed to make sure you don't break a rule, have all licenses, etc, etc.

In one like I say we should have, no. It is more natural, not every is going to have all things equal, and using guns to spread the efforts and accomplishments of men doesn't really work.