Selfishness is a necessary measure for a productive society. Ayn Rand put it well: “The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.”
That's a bit of sophistry as even saints imagine themselves as a vehicle for God. If that's not overweening egoism, nothing is. Selfishness does not equal self-worth. The flaw in Brook's argument is the excluded middle. It is certainly possible to view self-interest as beneficial within bounds. When it exceeds those bounds it is rightly called selfishness.
Speculator Well Rand considered selfishness a direct extension of reason (in fact, her ethics is often called “rational egoism,” a title she would consider technically superfluous).
soapbxprod Why do you keep reposting that quote as if Rand was unequivocably against "greed"? She named a chapter in Atlas "The Utopia of Greed" after all. There is probably a context to that quote which implies a specific meaning of the word which is necessary to understand it. It is not true that according to Objectivism, greed is either defined by desiring the unearned nor does it necessarily imply it. "Greed" involves wanting "too much" to be morally warranted, and so on an egoist interpretation it means wanting too much for one's own good. Read Tara Smith for clarification
All of these comments get right to the heart of it. We all know that it is important to be self interested but not necessarily at the expense of others. But the word selfish is simply a terrible usage to define such a thing. Selfishness is not a virtue, but neither is selflessness. What Yaron means to be a virtue is self interest without externalities, which is not defined as selfishness. Is there a single word for this?
In four years as a philosophy student, including a two-semester ethics course w/a Jesuit priest and many discussions in professors' offices, I neither heard nor read any rational defense of selflessness or any refutation of selfishness. Rand's selfishness is discussed in many university intro ethics texts, with no refutation and _always_ with the claim that Rand contradicts popularity and "intuition." One philosophy professor admitted that those ethics texts were intellectual frauds. Selfishness is the morality of the main enemy of mainstream philosophy, man's independent mind. Virtually all people would rather suffer than think for themselves.
@@crusty7208 Yes. After thinking about this for a while, I decide I needed to investigate objectivism more. I read Atlas Shrugged and I think there's a lot to the Ranian approach. Ultimately I still don't *quite* think she makes it all the way to "the virtue of selfishness", but she gets a long way towards it. There's a video review of Atlas Shrugged on my channel that explains my view.
@@dannyduchampshe perfectly explains the virtue of selfishness and WHY it is a virtue at all. Maybe you are the hindrance to why it isn’t “quite” there. Evading and blocking your own vision because you just don’t want it to be not because it is
I think Epstein missed the mark here. The reason that it is important to answer the question posed in the debate is to determine the best strategy to engage with those who believe that is that free markets are bad and that individual rights should be subordinate to the wellbeing of “society.” Epstein is afraid that the use of the word “selfish” is off-putting to these people and potentially alienates them from seeing the good in the free market system because they latch onto implied moral disapproval in the term. I think that this stance shows a lack of understanding for the other side (I’ll call them collectivist for brevity). Collectivists ALREADY believe that business/business men are selfish. They believe that the capitalist system is inherently selfish. I think that Yaron Brook is correct that in ceding the linguistic territory to the collectivists (by accepting their categorization of selfishness as wrong) is to implicitly accept a set of values which free-market advocates don't actually hold. What I mean by that is that if we grant that selfishness is immoral, then our opponents have only to show that capitalists behave selfishly (easy enough) to “prove” the claim that capitalism is immoral. If selfishness is immoral and capitalism is selfish it follows that capitalism is immoral (If A=B and B=C then A=C). Having thus implicitly accepted this formulation, we can conclude that the free-market is only morally acceptable insofar as it results in "the greater good." In fact, you can even see this conceptualization in Epstein’s position. For example, he says (quoting Adam Smith) “through the market, the interests of the selfish are channeled to meet the needs of others.” This statement indicates that the value of the market is to be thought of in terms of its utility to the public at large, and not in terms of the freedoms granted to the individuals participating in that market. This essentially means that proponents of the free-market are reduced to arguing for their beliefs ONLY in terms of practicality, while conceding the moral argument to the collectivists.We already see this phenomenon in the public discourse and it is more damaging then it at first appears. There are, after all, plenty of practical arguments for the free market. However, what separates the capitalists from the collectivists isn’t that they envision different paths to achieve the same goal; it’s that they have different goals, different “highest goods.” For the capitalist, the highest good is freedom, while for the collectivist it is happiness (usually articulated in terms of financial wellbeing) for the masses. To the collectivist, freedom is only desirable insofar as it furthers the goal of happiness for the greatest number, and therefore the curtailment of individual freedoms is desirable if it leads to “happiness” for more people. If we accept the definition of selfishness as immoral, we willingly concede to the subordination of our highest virtue (freedom) to the virtue of our ideological opponents and we are forced to voice our objections to any potential incursions on our freedoms only in terms of practical outcomes and never in terms of moral principle.This is why I believe Epstein is wrong to say that Rand made a mistake in using the word “Selfish.” When he says, “[the word] always meant to convey moral disapproval,” he is right, at that’s precisely the point. That’s exactly what Brook means when he says, “I don’t think the WORD is ever the problem.” The whole CONCEPT of what we believe - namely that people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want and not be forced to sacrifice for other people - has been associated with moral disapproval and that is the reason why they word “selfish” has the negative connotation in the first place. That is why Rand chose to use the word “selfish” and not some other word, as Epstein suggests. To use the word "selfish" is to take back the right to make moral arguments for capitalism, not just practical ones. A businessman (or anyone else for that matter) should never have to justify his decisions by explaining how he intends to help other people. If he just wants to make a pile of money, then he should go out and try to make a pile of money. That’s selfish and that’s a virtue. Where I think Brook lost the momentum of the argument is that while he agrees that selfishness is a virtue, he never explains that alone, selfishness is not a sufficient principle to govern a righteous life. Moral actions are constrained by the non-aggression principle and by a commitment to acknowledging objective reality (since a lie is an attempt to subvert reality, this principle is the basis for honesty). In other words, one can be selfish and moral, but not by lying, cheating, or steeling, because those actions are precluded by other moral virtues. I think this idea is seen in the definitions that I found for “selfish.” It does not mean “pursuing self-interest AT THE EXPENSE of others,” it means “pursuing self-interest WITHOUT REGARD for others.” Those are very different things indeed.
18:34 Epstein is suggesting that Ayn Rand did not think her way to egoism but that she came to it via an emotional response. Epstein is suggesting that everybody that is convinced by Ayn Rand didn't think about egoism but merely accepted it because Ayn Rand said so. Epstein is mindreading and thinks the worst of Ayn Rand and Yaron Brook.
if it serves your self interest to be. there are times where you can and should be generous and forgiving, and times were it would be counterproductive to your own well being.
@@TeaParty1776 I know you approve of Rand's ethics. Why is commenting like this 'selfish' to you? What value are you trying to pursue by this attitude?
@@leeuwbama9433 I want a culture that values the focused mind. This benefits me intellectually, psychologically, politically , economically and esthetically. Its a value, not an attitude independent of values.
"I have always found it quaint, and rather touching, that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough. " Christopher Hitchens
@@Iandar1 Not so. America was set up to be a land in which selfishness is effectively a cultural virtue, yes, but this has probably not been the actual predominant cultural mentality for over a century now.
@@lordgrishnakh1148 I don’t know the intricacies of early American history seeing how I’m not an historian, but I honestly doubt that. However we have made moral progress since then.
@@Iandar1 Ever since the "new deal" with FDR (and there are many strong cases to make for even earlier periods, but this one is pretty undeniable), self-sacrificing altruism has been a largely predominant cultural mentality in the US, much to its own detriment. Of course, though, that's just speaking of the aggregate, because it's always actually a mix of both directions. So in some ways we have become more virtuous (such as in the growing *proper* influences of objectivism and libertarianism) and in other ways we have done the complete opposite (as exemplified in the currently still-very-mainstream political, economic, and philosophical worldviews stemming from such immoral sources Keynesianism and Marxism)
I can't believe how this guy dared to say that "Ayn Rand didn't bother to do her homework". I don't know who he is, maybe he is a responsible man in his business but, in this case, HE is the one who didn't bother to do his homework. Prof. Epstein, if the definition of "selfish" in any dictionary contains a moral evaluation, then that definition is not objective. It is your task, as a rational person, to jettison the subjective evaluation of the publishers and grasp the concept of living for your own sake like Ayn Rand did and like Yaron is trying to explain. If the dictionary definition is in conflict with the concept, then the dictionary definition is wrong and you should have the honesty to accept that and act accordingly.
Giving to charity is a selfish endeavor. You did it for you so you could feel good. And that’s okay. There’s nothing wrong with that. Idk why selfish has to have a positive/negative connotation
You depend on your tribe for your well being and to defend you from attacks from other tribes, so wanting to help your tribe (saving the baker who provides you with delicious cup cakes from being attacked by a racoon with rabies), qualifies as self interest. Letting the racoon kill you so the baker can live and keep making those delicious jelly donuts is irrational sacrifice.
So Gene's argument is essentially that Yaron has good ideas about egoism which he agrees with, but he thinks that 1) Yaron overplays their importance and 2) miscommunicates them by his choice of words, which 3) contradict common dictionary definitions (even in Ayn Rand's time - her statements to the contrary). The best counterargument I can personally think of is that: 1) Gene's failure to see the importance of the ideas behind the words that Yaron is communicating, and even to some extent countering them, is what is most significant in his position. It is a sign that he does not understand that capitalism is motivated by profit, and that large sections of the voting public Hates this. (Perhaps bringing this last point up with some nice references to polls etc. would force him acknowledge at least more of this idea's importance.) 2) Ayn Rand was for using and changing the meaning of the word "selfishness," as is explained in the book "a companion to ayn rand", because it is the most effective method for changing people's concept of, and evaluation of, self-interested motives. Calling an act such as theft "selfish" intends to explain the act's immorality by reference to its ultimate motive: achieving one's self-interest. But this relies on a concept of "self-interest" which runs contrary to the facts of human nature, and is more fitting to some other animal species. Also: if a new word were to be used ("self-ist"?), the thinking which previously motivated the use of the word "selfishness" would remain, and self-interested motives might still be conceived of as being necessarily at the expense of others. And this is what Rand wants to change. 3) This last point has to be partially conceded: unfortunately, according to the Companion, it seems that Ayn's definition of selfishness as mere "concern with one's own interests" without it mentioning either others or an evaluation, was not referenced by herself, nor can Rand scholars find such a dictionary definition. They therefore opt to say that her definition reflects what she thinks the dictionary ought to say, rather than what it in fact did say. Maybe she thought it was the one common denominator between dictionaries or something, but it seems that no one can find it as it is stated.
Virtueman1 nope. You just seemed hung up on definitions in point 3. In philosophy the first thing you do is define your terms, so I don’t find any problem with non-popular definitions. It just goes with the territory of trying to be specific.
The point of the debate was not to debate self-interest. All libertarians agree on the point that rational self-interest is good. The debate was purely semantics, on whether or not it is appropriate to use the term "selfish" in place of the work "self-interested". Yaron kept trying to change the definition of selfish to include mutually beneficial self-interested behavior. This is not how the word is used, nor is it the definition of the word, nor did his examples prove his point. A successful businessman, such as Steve Jobs, is never referred to as selfish when referring to his drive to create and distribute iPhones. Nor has Michael Phelps been referred to as selfish for the training he committed to in order to win gold medals. The examples he uses are all false. People only use and understand the word selfish when used to describe taking unfair advantage over someone else. By using the word in place of self-interest, he confuses the libertarian argument and makes it appear as though he is promoting immoral behaviour. It is this type of ideology that can actually promote bad behaviour, because someone who is acting selfishly (in an immoral way) may justify their behaviors by using this word play. I see no issue in using the correct word "self-interest", and the costs of substituting it with the word "selfish" cause more harm than good for the arguments that libertarians make. edit: typo
Every selfless fool claims that different versions of selflessness are really selfish. Eg, the Catholic-Protestant wars which murdered more people relative to total population than WW2.
Not really. Gene is way too concerned with taking care of the needy. Like Yaron points out, this is fine if they deserve it and the action truly makes you happy, but it's not a major virtue.
1:01:05 Muy interesante respuesta, la diferencia entre sacrificio e inversión. Es la segunda palabra la que verdaderamente denota la intención que se busca en la gran mayoría de los comportamientos que párecen ser sacrificio.
30:58. I wanted to go see it so I bookmarked where I was in the debate in reply to you. Woah that was an awesome laugh you’re right and it is unmistakably Judge Napolitano.
Spoiler Alert: results of voting below. 1:20:32 Results: Affirmative 47%->57%=10% Negative 20%->35%=15% Affirmative wins the debate but negative picks up 5% more votes than positive from predebate to postdebate.
Great job Yaron. The result indicates the state of popular morality. You debated a very clever opponent . A few thoughts Gene and Yaron do not differ on approach to self-interest. Yaron himself speaks entirely from himself as an individual. I’m sure the Yaron would have picked another fight, he inherited this particular word as the pivot for the morality of a society. Gene speak from some greater whole or collective and says to Yaron “Do not piss people off”. Yaron is claiming the field for the single individual, every single individual. Gene, please, give him a word. You do not have to be fully individual your self, just let Yaron be. Self is good! Don’t let the collectivists destroy the word.
Why trust someone who demands self-denial from you and others? Yet that is what the dominant moral basis of altruism demands. This conflict is the core of the moral/political conflict we see today and all through the past.
Both of them are speaking about living to make your life as best you can. Yaron says thats what selfishness is, and Gene says that's what self actualization is.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner but from their regard to their own interest (selfishness)". - Adam Smith /... / "The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice-which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction-which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good. Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.” #BOOM #micdrop :-D
The I, the me, the self, the ego, the so-called True Self or Higher Self, is the invention of the past conditioning of the brain. It acts as a filter that colors, shapes, and limits all perceptions. It is an inner tyrant over the brain/body, telling it what to think, how to feel and what to do. It is the very movement of fear, which is the movement away from what is, the isness, the fact, the act, the actual, what is actually taking place. All this breeds a sense of division, separation, and distance, between the me and the not me. This illusion is the origin of all conflict, violence, and suffering. Total Freedom from the illusion of the I, the me, the self, the ego, the so-called True Self or Higher Self, is the beginning of i. i is Inner Silent Space. It is the very movement of Love, Peace, Joy, Beauty, and Creativity. Then and only then is there Communication, Communion, Connection, Relationship, with everyone and everything, for the very first time, in each and every moment of daily life.
Do Jacob's Ladder. There's no reason why anyone need waste another day trapped in the Matrix of self-deceptions. Total Enlightenment NOW! facebook.com/groups/1551365565178063/
Right off the bsat, Yaron Brook's argument appears to be predicated on terminology that I don't think reflects the terminology used by Epstein or the general populace. "Selfish" does not refer to mere self-interest, at least not in the day-to-day usage of the term. The common use of the word carries the morally negative connotation of ** disproportionate preoccupation ** with one's own interests, to the point of callous disregard for other people. That is distinct from the generic "self-interested".
To understand Yaron, I think it takes a certain level of self awareness. Enough so that you are able to be aware of your gains/losses in any situation. So that you can analyze your wants to see that selfishness is necessary or you won’t eat
It would be interesting to hear Yaron and Jordan Peterson talk about sacrifice. Jordan’s points have been that sacrifice is actually self beneficial in the sense that you sacrifice something now for greater reward later.
@@lordgrishnakh1148 A simple recognition of the false dichotomy fallacy that objectivists usually fall for and usually what prompts them to distance themselves from the philosophy thanks once they’ve made that realization. This also comes with the destruction of cognitive dissonance.
No one before Rand ever defined Sacrifice as giving up a greater value for a lower value. That is simply called waste. Sacrifice literally means "making separate," and has traditionally meant giving up something that has value in order to serve an even higher value. The whole point of sacrificing to a deity is to show that you love the deity more than the things of this world. The point of Jesus's sacrifice was that he loved humanity enough to do anything to save us.
magister343 she is defining the term properly because sacrifce was looked at as a noble action. Jesus giving up his life for the sake of no good men he doesn't know is by definition giving up a greater value for a lesser one
magister343 Come on. Are you saying the life of Jesus was worth LESS than that of sinful humanity? That's your God you're talking about, the highest of the high, the greatest value of all in your system. Don't be asinine. Look at the Greek mythology too. The sacrifice of Iphigenia is literal murder for the sake of favourable sailing patterns. Look at the Mayans. They literally ripped people's hearts out as human sacrifices. All this is condemning enough. Worst of all, there is no proof there is such a thing as God. Sacrificing to God is literally sacrificing to an artificial, unestablished postulate. THAT'S more important than your life and well-being?
umm is that your only issue with rand? because you know you can just substitute whatever you want in place of a single word right? especially since she DEFINED it. doesn't really have a huge impact on the argument...
Here are inductions from observation. Living organisms must value their life to continue living. Beyond life, there are no values, only inanimate matter. Matter is eternal. Life is conditional upon valuing life. God-lovers, Jesus and heroin addicts hate themselves, regardless of their fantasies. You rationalize the evasion of self-responsibility, i.e., of morality.
The crux of this argument is whether "selfishness" is merely the idea of promoting one's self-interest, or if it means promoting one's self-interest AT THE EXPENSE of - or to the DETRIMENT of others. The difference between these two meanings is the entire crux of the issue. It is obvious that acting in one's self-interest meets the definition of having high moral standards (being virtuous). To do otherwise would lay the burden of caring for you at the feet of others, which every rational person would agree is immoral and therefore NOT virtuous. Few rational, moral people would argue that promoting one's interest by *lying and cheating* is a virtue, so if selfishness is *defined* as taking care of self at the EXPENSE of others, then NO - selfishness is NOT a virtue, in spite of what Ayn Rand might think. So, what IS the definition of "selfishness"? Yaron defined selfish as: taking care of self, at the expense of others. Epstein said selfish is defined as "concern with one's own interests to the detriment of others, or at the expense of others." BOTH of them are wrong. Ayn Rand defined selfish as "concern with one's own interests." Is she right? The source that Gene Epstein claimed he used for his INCORRECT definition was Samuel Johnsons Dictionary. In it, the word "selfish" is defined as "attentive only to one’s own interest; *void* of regard for others " (1755 and 1773). Note the difference: Epstein AND Yaron both inaccurately stated the definition included the idea that selfishness required the act be "at the expense of others" or "to the detriment of others" which is NOT included in ANY definition I have found thus far. *Merriam Webster Dictionary:* Selfish: _concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others_ *Oxford Language Dictionary:* Selfish: _lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure_ *Cambridge Dictionary:* Selfish: _caring only about what you want or need without any thought for the needs or wishes of other people_ *Britannica Dictionary:* Selfish: _having or showing concern only for yourself and not for the needs or feelings of other people_ There are likely many more definitions I could cite, and some MIGHT have the words noted by both Mr Brook and Mr Epstein that defines selfish as something done *to the detriment of others....* but it is clear that that is NOT the mainstream meaning of the word. Despite the actual definition not including any reference to a selfish act requiring the act be at the expense of to the detriment of others - our culture nearly ALWAYS falsely interprets the word as a vilification. Ayn Rand was correct in her definition. The word "selfish" does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil. It is very disappointing that these two intelligent individuals did such insufficient preparation for this event that they missed the most important aspect of the debate: "define your terms"
I used to be a libertarian till I found a better way in objectivism. Keep reading brothers, if you want a rational complete philosophical system that defends capitalism and individual rights, keep reading. Ayn Rand
Reason’s debate metric is flawed: The score should reflect how many *available* people are converted. Eg, an increase from Yaron’s 50% to 57% agree VS Gene’s 20% to 35% agree, isn’t really 7% vs 15%, but more like 7/50 to 15/80 Convert % = 100 * increase / (100-start) 57/50 = 14% Yaron gains 35/20 = 18.75% Gene gain Gene still gained more converts from the remaining people available to convert, but by a smaller margin than the original uncorrected Reason formula
I'm glad I was born seeing life the way it is presented as otherwise I would of been brainwashed into being a ignorant soul living w/ miserable ambiguity
My old macquirie dictionary defines selfish as "devoted to or caring only for oneself, one's welfare, interest, etc." Based on his own arguement, does this not mean Gene automatically loses?
Selfishness is essential to a degree. It's certainly part of our nature but cooperation is far more productive and profitable. I would think Brooks finds team sports immoral.
SUMMARY: Rational selfishness is good (America First!). Irrational selfishness, when you hurt other people to satisfy your desires, like invading Iraq to maintain your selfish desire to force use of the petrodollar, is bad because in the long run it will hurt you.
Miscommunication happens because people don't use words in the way others understand. Without a common understanding of words, people are literally speaking different languages. By the time Yaron makes his point, and defines his word, it means something completely different. How can selfishness mean reason without calling all charity irrational? I've never heard of dictionary companies conspiring against us.
A wealthy man once offered Ayn Rand a large sum of money if she would just rework her philosophy to incorporate religion. In other words, just "give up the atheist stuff." Now we have Mr. Epstein offering hordes of libertarians and others who will flock to Objectivism if we just "give up the selfishness stuff."
They are not acting in their best interest, because they are not examples of people with integrity pursuing abstract principles for living a good life long-range. They are examples of amoral mindless people who do not follow any moral code.
Virtueman1 Oh contraire. Most narcissists are renowned for living long, productive lives precisely for their lack of grasp on reality, empathy, or humility.
Self interest does not consist in mere outcomes of one's actions but also in what kind of actions one takes and what kind of person one thereby becomes. If one makes onself into a person which is an enemy of mankind, and an enemy of oneself (because one lives as a parasite so can't take care of oneself) then one has become a person of such an essential nature that one is against one's own life. Is that good for anyone, just because they may happen to get away with a few crimes here and there?
I suggest you go here and learn an alternative viewpoint then: campus.aynrand.org/ Morality can be scientific if it is based on means-end relationships, and prescribes actions required for living, given that that is one's pursued choice. Such prescriptions (moral principles) can apply to all humans scientifically if they are based on common needs which we all have as a matter of observation. The common needs which are relevant here being the need to make long-term decisions about one's life and priorities in order to live happily, by virtue of the fact that we as humans live by means of our thinking and reason.
To say that money doesn’t factor into this is so disingenuous. In living one’s life, one encounters/earns money. That money is exchanged for nearly everything they possess. “Money” in this context could mean anything that is exchanged for goods and services, even labor itself. Of course a philosophy exalting selfishness would affect the way someone handles, organizes, and distributes the resources they have access to and/or control over. I also find it interesting that in the pro-selfishness argument, family is conflated with the self. Where are the boundaries there? What about dear friends who you essentially consider family? Etc. To say that criminals “destroy themselves” and therefore aren’t selfish is pretty freaking reductive. Words do have meanings used in common parlance, so to the average person actively living their life, how would they concretely draw the boundaries between selfish behavior and violent behavior, criminal behavior, etc, if they were fulfilling and satisfying themselves, not necessarily thinking about the future consequences of those actions (socially, economically, etc)? The fundamental difference between their opinions exists in whether individual human beings are or are not positively impacted when they go out of their way to help others (sometimes to the point of self sacrifice). Wound up within that is a question of whether compassion & empathy are part of the development of a fully enlightened human being, which... I sure fucking hope so.
Language is a philosophical battle. Epstein makes this out to be a semantic issue but it is far more serious. Definitions are contextual. They depend upon all the known relevant knowledge that goes into a particular concept. Concepts and definitions are often built on other concepts/definitions. Concepts built on concepts are dependent on the validity of the concepts that they are built upon. And a concept’s ultimate validity is based on observations of reality. At any point a weak definition can poison a whole series of concepts. It is for these reasons that objectivists acknowledge the contextual nature of concept formation and chose to argue for the better positive definition of selfishness which encompasses far more relevant data than the accepted conception of selfishness which is merely used as an insult. As i said above, language is a philosophical battle. Whether through common misunderstandings for lack of relevant data or from a conspiracy, language can have the effect of poisoning the mind if it loses its connection to reality. This can and has been used as a weapon to keep people confused, obedient and divided. Language subversion is a highly effective tactic that has been used very effectively to turn functioning concepts into hanging abstractions. A few other important examples of this subversion are: liberty, rights, freedom, justice, inflation etc. Here are the correct definitions of the terms above: Liberty is the Ability to reason and act. Rights are the inherent, inalienable, self-assertive moral principles that it is (1) Right for each individual to use their Liberty and (2) Wrong for any individual or group (especially government) to unjustly and without due process infringe on the liberty of any individual or group of individuals. Freedom is when government is limited to the protection of rights by punishing wrongs through due process. Justice is the process by which wrongs are punished and made right. Due process is the protocol for subduing and prosecuting crime which recognizes the rights of the accused in order to protect the wrongfully accused. Crime is the unjust infringement of one individual’s (the victim) liberty by another individual(criminal) or group of individuals (criminals). Inflation is an increase in the quantity of credit and money. The effect of inflation is a delayed loss of purchasing power I.e. a general rise in prices. The ideal of democracy is the tyranny of the majority. The ideal of a constitutional republic is freedom. Liberty is not something that needs to be gained. It is something that you have by virtue of your existence. All humans have liberty. Rights are moral principles which deal with the proper way for beings which have liberty to interact, thus rights too apply to all humans. Freedom, on the other hand, is a social situation that has never fully fruited because it has been under attack by control freaks for all of time and because the concepts have not been properly formed or have been contorted into meaningless pretty fluff that nobody can define when pressed. Liberty and rights are inherent they do not require anyone’s consent or approval. Freedom though is something to be fought for and defended. And you defend freedom by recognizing rights and punishing wrongs. I included inflation in this because it is a hot topic these days. People have been conditioned to think of inflation in terms of the effect inflation has, I.e the general loss in purchasing power of the currency that was inflated. But this leads to unneeded confusion as to the cause of the loss in purchasing power. By changing inflation’s meaning from the cause to the effect it lets people act like there are other reasons for a general in prices, which buys the government and the central bank time to continue to inflate while acting as if it is trying to fight the loss and pof purchasing power that it caused and continues to cause.
I agree with both Epstein and Brook. Why? Because it is Selfish to be Compassionate. It is in all of individual our self interests to be compassionate and empathetic towards others, it elevates your individual standing socially.
I looked up Selfishness in the Oxford as well as the Websters dictionaries. Neither said that selfishness was "at the expense of others". I don't know what dictionary Epstein used. So, the debate is lost on his side right there.
"(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure." en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/selfish
Yes, that is what I said. Nothing says "at the expense of others". I can do many things only concerned with my own profit and pleasure that benefits others. Not taking others into consideration is not necessarily damaging other people. Even if you think it does, he reported the definition inaccurately or possibly even dishonestly.
The more interesting debate, which is somewhat addressed, is whether categorizing selfishness as a virtue helps the liberty movement. I appreciate Yaron's position in that the consistency might permit capitalists to feel less at odds with themselves, but it does not seem like the appropriate way to grow the movement. I abhor the redefining of words, like social scientists often do, because while it can semantically bridge conversion, it may also breed postmodern ambiguity towards truth, or nihilism. I do not think Randians should expect the public education system to endorse this redefinition. Yaron's is a "hail mary" play, that I would expect to fail, but as he points out, we are losing anyway. Gene critiques a cult of Rand philosophy, but capitalist critics would deride Smith's "invisible hand" theory as equally faith-reliant and disconnected from reality. I think ignoring the obvious success of freer markets and focusing on limiting collective interference and promoting voluntary exchange via traditional moral principles would be superior olive branches for capitalist skeptics: autonomy and do no harm, would be good common ground.
Random thought here... You should not celebrate the praise of wealthy people giving to charity. Not unless those givers happen to suffer, to actually sacrifice. If a billionaire invests in charity so that they become an earner of some 100k a year...that would be worth some praise.
I didn't understand. Yaron got majority vote with a 10% increase while Gene gets the lower vote but a 15% increase? Did I get it right? If so how come Gene won?
The reason that selfishness IS a virtue is because you can't help others if you don't care for yourself. Thinking of others is good, but, just like selfishness, it can be twisted and taken to dangerous extremes. Think of it like this: When taking your child onto a plane, they instruct you that, should an emergency arise and the masks fall, put YOURS on before the child's mask. If the child passes out before you, you can still put their mask on for them. If YOU pass out, your child's screwed if they need help. As pointed out, in the case of people like Bill Gates, it's good that he wants to help people, but, by the current morals of society, he can never be "good" because he still has more money than he needs to survive. The thing is that the "extra money" that he has can always help build more business. That business will hire more people, meaning less people who need help. Those businesses also bring in money that keeps the business running AND provide funds that can go into the charity work. If Gates got rid of all of that "excess money" and only had what he needed, it would only take one bad fiscal year to destroy all of that business…meaning that many people lose their jobs (and now are in dire financial straights) and all of the people utilizing the help from those charities won't get ANY help.
Molly O'Kami Your first line still places self-sacrifice as a higher virtue than selfishness, as the one is only good in that it is a means to then other. This, so you know, is fundamentally different than Yaron’s (and Rand’s) argument for selfishness.
There is no such thing as ''selflessness''. Everything you do is for yourself. Every action you take is for your own benefit. You do not act unless the end result will benefit you. A mother does not protect her children because of selflessness, she do it because of sense of ownership, and expectation that something good will happen to her. You do not feed your pet because of selflessness, but because you believe if you do good for them, something good will happen to you. If doing something for someone else will give you pleasure, you will do it, not because you care for them, but because you want to feel pleasure. It's biology.
We live in a family society not an individual society. The creation and establishment of a family is what mainly drives people. Do you see people spend all of their money needlessly after they retire/get older? No they leave things for their family. Based on what you think, are you saying a 100% inheritance tax would not change how people spend their money during their life? That's a laughable opinion. Of course it would change how people spend their money because people are motivated by building their family and legacy.
I don't know what you mean by individual or family oriented society, i know that you act only when you have determined that the act will give you pleasure, or be the least unpleasant. The way your decision making works is similar to the way electrical charge works. You electrify a lot of what i call ''info paths'', which is like a chain of actions, you take into account a lot of information, and whichever end result of all the paths will give you the most pleasure, you take it, and you act upon it. Establishing a family could give some people more pleasure than anything else, in such case, they would want to do it, if becoming a lonely scientist gave them more pleasure, they would not want to have a family. I don't want to have a family because it doesn't give me any pleasure, or at least not as much as doing other things. People ''care'' and ''love'' their family for the same reason they ''care'' and ''love'' their pets, they feel a sense of ownership and constant positive reinforcement. I do something that makes you feel happy, i expect something good to happen to me. This is the source of my pleasure, and happiness, so i keep doing it for my entire life. It's usually people who have nothing else that will give them pleasure, having a family and someone to care for is an easy way to reinforce yourself. For people engaged in other activities, caring for someone else is not a major source of pleasure for them. Most ''real'' scientists like Nikola Telsa never even had a relationship with a women, they had so many other sources to reinforce themselves, they didn't need a relationship with anybody.
ザ・リバタリアン Please read the chapter “Isn’t Everyone Selfish?” from The Virtue of Selfishness. The idea you’re expressing is called “psychological egoism,” and it is not especially useful, intuitive though it seems.
My explanation is not an idea or a theory, it is an explanation of how the brain works. What do you mean its not useful? What do you mean by that. Even in this case, you choose to comment as oppose to doing something else, because you want me to have your information that this is not useful and for me to read that book, because me having it will reinforce it in you, and that will causes pleasure. Although in this case we are also dealing with cognitive dissonance as well. Also, when i say ''choose'' or ''decide'' or ''determine'' i don't mean ''you'' making that decision knowing what the result will be like when you choose to buy a chocolate ice cream, there really is no decision making, people do not make decisions, all actions are outcome, you do not control your actions or the process by which actions are decided. Humans are like very powerful machines, we only react to an information we are given based on the information we have.
It depends on the definition of selfishness, is it selfish to pursue your aspirations rather than ones someone else has for you, I'd say no. Is it selfless to send your kid to college or sacrifice for them, I'd say yes, just because someone is close to you and you want to help them, and it may as a side affect give you a sense of accomplishment or joy doesn't mean that was your mean that was your sole reasoning for what you did. The argument that we should not help others as a virtue is just wrong and I think a misinterpretation of Randian philosophy, people who volunteer or are mostly selfless people enjoy what they're doing and are chasing their own interests but their interests are helping others but the gratification felt would have to outweigh the benefits to the other individual for it to be true selfishness otherwise you would be saying absolutely everything is selfish. I don't appreciate these bitter people telling me everything I do is solely for my benefit and anything I list of me doing something for someone else was just me trying to make myself feel better and so I can virtue signal maybe I just don't like to see other people suffer so I'm willing to sacrifice a little bit of my prosperity so that someone else doesn't suffer. Also if me feeling good for helping someone is me being selfish, if I give a homeless man money but regret giving him as much as I did, is that me being selfless for helping someone and not personally benefiting from it or selfish for regretting giving him as much money as I did?
Virtueman1 Why not? Unless your goal from your child's birth is to ride off the curtails of their success I (not having kids but being a kid to two loving parents) don't think a parent has any plans to benefit off of their kid but rather just wants to see them be happy. Is that selfish? But fiscally it does work towards a loss in life because couples without children are statistically better off. So why else would you have a child and why would you take care of it over yourself, other than you are being selfless by taking care of something bigger than yourself. I don't like objectivism because it's just as bad as communism except it is the polar opposite, it doesn't promote chasing your own desires it promotes chasing your own self interest and if something doesn't benefit you physically in the here and now then why do it? Objectivism isn't Libertarianism because instead of telling you to do what makes you happy it tells you to do what is in your best interest which is impossible to enforce, therefore an ideology that shits on community as much as communism shits on individualism is just as shit.
Stefin Hough If we now use Yaron's definition of selfishness: action aiming at the ultimate goal of one's own self-interest, which often includes caring for others as a constituent part and means to it. Then yes, caring for one's kids for nothing but the spiritual (emotional) reward it gives is selfish. A human beings self-interest (or good or wellbeing) does not consist of mere material wellbeing. Just consider all the unhappy rich people, overdosing on drugs or with depression, their lives may be good materially but not fully because a human being has a mind with needs.
Virtueman1 I didn't mean monetary selfishness but physical selfishness which means your own happiness and mental well-being takes priority over everyone else and I don't know one person who is entirely selfish, which is the goal of objectivism. To have everyone worry about themselves, then no one has to worry about anyone else, which as I said is just as misguided as having everyone lookout for everyone else so no one has to worry about themselves. The answer I feel is somewhere in the middle where families and small parts of the community work together out of self interest for each other rather than government action, as far as objectivism goes it's not as dangerous of an ideology because there is no force behind it but because there is no force behind it, it is as impossible as communism. Life, Liberty, and Property should be the only things government worries about, and society should be left on its own to make its own decision leaning one way or another.
Stefin Hough Hey dude, it IS normally in everyone's actual self-interest to care for other people, but not for all people on earth all the time, or for everyone who may need it all the time, that's part of the egoism that Yaron arguing for.
*Speaking of dictionaries. Hey Epstein?* Self centered or Selfish. The key is '-ish'. This means mostly, not entirely. Welcome Back Mr. Kotter. Who gives a crap about what Rhand said about selfish you tool. She is not a part of this debate, Sunshine ! Did I miss the part about 'What would Anh do?"
Rand almost always redefined words in reference to her own preferences. Her whole philosophy seems to be based on intentionally using English words in ways very different from their vernacular meanings.
Rand's definitions are abstractions from concrete reality, not from books, emotions, society or tradition. See her _Intro. To Objectivist Epistemology_.
Yaron misses a critical limitation of objectivism. Human certainly do have a lot of "software" that we can write ourselves. But evolutionary psychology shows that human beings also have "hardware" that cannot be rewritten. Those who attempt to do so create many problems in their lives. Objectivism is a valuable philosophy, but it needs to integrate aspects of inborn human nature. We are not born tabula rasa.
Excuse me? You are telling me that the audience apparently was swayed in the direction away from yaron brook? There is no way that anyone thinks that rational selfishness is not a virtue after listening to this
The only way to resolve this hard question is through linguistics. Any debate that could be resolved only by that is probably interesting but probably in the end stupid and unnecessary!
ogogo ogpgpg Greed is good because your helping other people in the process as Adam Smith said. Selfishness means you only care about yourself. The rich are greedy, the.poor are selfish.
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
Selfishness is a necessary measure for a productive society. Ayn Rand put it well: “The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.”
That's a bit of sophistry as even saints imagine themselves as a vehicle for God. If that's not overweening egoism, nothing is. Selfishness does not equal self-worth.
The flaw in Brook's argument is the excluded middle. It is certainly possible to view self-interest as beneficial within bounds. When it exceeds those bounds it is rightly called selfishness.
Speculator Well Rand considered selfishness a direct extension of reason (in fact, her ethics is often called “rational egoism,” a title she would consider technically superfluous).
"Greed is the desire for the unearned." -Ayn Rand
soapbxprod Why do you keep reposting that quote as if Rand was unequivocably against "greed"? She named a chapter in Atlas "The Utopia of Greed" after all. There is probably a context to that quote which implies a specific meaning of the word which is necessary to understand it.
It is not true that according to Objectivism, greed is either defined by desiring the unearned nor does it necessarily imply it. "Greed" involves wanting "too much" to be morally warranted, and so on an egoist interpretation it means wanting too much for one's own good. Read Tara Smith for clarification
All of these comments get right to the heart of it. We all know that it is important to be self interested but not necessarily at the expense of others. But the word selfish is simply a terrible usage to define such a thing. Selfishness is not a virtue, but neither is selflessness. What Yaron means to be a virtue is self interest without externalities, which is not defined as selfishness. Is there a single word for this?
In four years as a philosophy student, including a two-semester ethics course w/a Jesuit priest and many discussions in professors' offices, I neither heard nor read any rational defense of selflessness or any refutation of selfishness. Rand's selfishness is discussed in many university intro ethics texts, with no refutation and _always_ with the claim that Rand contradicts popularity and "intuition." One philosophy professor admitted that those ethics texts were intellectual frauds. Selfishness is the morality of the main enemy of mainstream philosophy, man's independent mind. Virtually all people would rather suffer than think for themselves.
Yaron Brook is my hero.
that's very sad
I have to admit, Yaron Brook makes some *very* good points. I have some rethinking to do...
Read Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff. For ethics read Virtue Of Selfishness for an overview of Objectivism read Objectivism the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.
It’s been 2 years, have your views changed? Just curious 🧐
@@crusty7208 Yes.
After thinking about this for a while, I decide I needed to investigate objectivism more. I read Atlas Shrugged and I think there's a lot to the Ranian approach. Ultimately I still don't *quite* think she makes it all the way to "the virtue of selfishness", but she gets a long way towards it. There's a video review of Atlas Shrugged on my channel that explains my view.
@@dannyduchampshe perfectly explains the virtue of selfishness and WHY it is a virtue at all. Maybe you are the hindrance to why it isn’t “quite” there. Evading and blocking your own vision because you just don’t want it to be not because it is
I give blood because it makes ME feel good to help others. Yep, that's a selfish motive that helps others. Amazing how that works.
Hit em' up!!! Huh? How is that similar?
Hedonism, as Rand stresses, is selfless. You evade reason for emotion.
Man's life as a whole is the concern of morality. Me is the part that judges and feels.
I dont think doing things emotionally is comparable to being selfish rationally
@@dancingbanana627 Then it must be your opinion every action must take into account other people.
This is the funniest sohoforum event I've seen. The back and forth between Yaron and Gene is entertaining.
I would have called Ayn Rand's book The Virtue of Self-Interest, but I admit that the Virtue of Selfishness is a more provocative title.
I think Epstein missed the mark here. The reason that it is important to answer the question posed in the debate is to determine the best strategy to engage with those who believe that is that free markets are bad and that individual rights should be subordinate to the wellbeing of “society.” Epstein is afraid that the use of the word “selfish” is off-putting to these people and potentially alienates them from seeing the good in the free market system because they latch onto implied moral disapproval in the term. I think that this stance shows a lack of understanding for the other side (I’ll call them collectivist for brevity). Collectivists ALREADY believe that business/business men are selfish. They believe that the capitalist system is inherently selfish. I think that Yaron Brook is correct that in ceding the linguistic territory to the collectivists (by accepting their categorization of selfishness as wrong) is to implicitly accept a set of values which free-market advocates don't actually hold. What I mean by that is that if we grant that selfishness is immoral, then our opponents have only to show that capitalists behave selfishly (easy enough) to “prove” the claim that capitalism is immoral. If selfishness is immoral and capitalism is selfish it follows that capitalism is immoral (If A=B and B=C then A=C). Having thus implicitly accepted this formulation, we can conclude that the free-market is only morally acceptable insofar as it results in "the greater good." In fact, you can even see this conceptualization in Epstein’s position. For example, he says (quoting Adam Smith) “through the market, the interests of the selfish are channeled to meet the needs of others.” This statement indicates that the value of the market is to be thought of in terms of its utility to the public at large, and not in terms of the freedoms granted to the individuals participating in that market. This essentially means that proponents of the free-market are reduced to arguing for their beliefs ONLY in terms of practicality, while conceding the moral argument to the collectivists.We already see this phenomenon in the public discourse and it is more damaging then it at first appears. There are, after all, plenty of practical arguments for the free market. However, what separates the capitalists from the collectivists isn’t that they envision different paths to achieve the same goal; it’s that they have different goals, different “highest goods.” For the capitalist, the highest good is freedom, while for the collectivist it is happiness (usually articulated in terms of financial wellbeing) for the masses. To the collectivist, freedom is only desirable insofar as it furthers the goal of happiness for the greatest number, and therefore the curtailment of individual freedoms is desirable if it leads to “happiness” for more people. If we accept the definition of selfishness as immoral, we willingly concede to the subordination of our highest virtue (freedom) to the virtue of our ideological opponents and we are forced to voice our objections to any potential incursions on our freedoms only in terms of practical outcomes and never in terms of moral principle.This is why I believe Epstein is wrong to say that Rand made a mistake in using the word “Selfish.” When he says, “[the word] always meant to convey moral disapproval,” he is right, at that’s precisely the point. That’s exactly what Brook means when he says, “I don’t think the WORD is ever the problem.” The whole CONCEPT of what we believe - namely that people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want and not be forced to sacrifice for other people - has been associated with moral disapproval and that is the reason why they word “selfish” has the negative connotation in the first place. That is why Rand chose to use the word “selfish” and not some other word, as Epstein suggests. To use the word "selfish" is to take back the right to make moral arguments for capitalism, not just practical ones. A businessman (or anyone else for that matter) should never have to justify his decisions by explaining how he intends to help other people. If he just wants to make a pile of money, then he should go out and try to make a pile of money. That’s selfish and that’s a virtue. Where I think Brook lost the momentum of the argument is that while he agrees that selfishness is a virtue, he never explains that alone, selfishness is not a sufficient principle to govern a righteous life. Moral actions are constrained by the non-aggression principle and by a commitment to acknowledging objective reality (since a lie is an attempt to subvert reality, this principle is the basis for honesty). In other words, one can be selfish and moral, but not by lying, cheating, or steeling, because those actions are precluded by other moral virtues. I think this idea is seen in the definitions that I found for “selfish.” It does not mean “pursuing self-interest AT THE EXPENSE of others,” it means “pursuing self-interest WITHOUT REGARD for others.” Those are very different things indeed.
You write " the debate is to determine the best strategy to engage with those who believe that is that free markets are bad"
Very nicely put
Yaron is a beast
When man sacrifices his mind, he becomes a beast.
"Cult of Ayn Rand?" How many times was Adam Smith quoted by Epstein?
lmao deadass
If taking care of someone is a virtue and selfishness means to take care of ones self. Then yes, selfishness is a virtue.
Hey, Epstein: "Greed is the desire for the unearned." -Ayn Rand
I feel i got ahead by hearing both of these guys talk. As a side note, the judge seems pretty cool as well, he has a free laugh.
I'd like to change the word "anarchy" back to its true meaning, "no govt," instead of its current meaning instigated by statists, "chaos."
Technically it means "no rulers". A voluntarily financed limited state that only defends individual rights is not a ruler.
Pham Nuwen how do you limit the state
No govt = chaos
@@alfstewart2592 government =\= state they are two completely different things an actual anarchist would know this. You neofeudalists know nothing.
@@Mr.Witness Read "The Production of Security" by Gustave De Molinari.
I prefer the phrase "Rational Selfishness." By adding the word rational, the meaning becomes clear.
No, opponents claim reason is subjective or merely another word for purpose. Rands systematic view is needed.
Adam Smith v. Ayn Rand
18:34 Epstein is suggesting that Ayn Rand did not think her way to egoism but that she came to it via an emotional response. Epstein is suggesting that everybody that is convinced by Ayn Rand didn't think about egoism but merely accepted it because Ayn Rand said so. Epstein is mindreading and thinks the worst of Ayn Rand and Yaron Brook.
I love both of these guys a lot, and this video deserves more views
Being generous and forgiving is the most selfish way to be.
You're rationalization of selflessness is noted.
if it serves your self interest to be. there are times where you can and should be generous and forgiving, and times were it would be counterproductive to your own well being.
@@TeaParty1776 I know you approve of Rand's ethics. Why is commenting like this 'selfish' to you? What value are you trying to pursue by this attitude?
@@leeuwbama9433 I want a culture that values the focused mind. This benefits me intellectually, psychologically, politically , economically and esthetically. Its a value, not an attitude independent of values.
@@leeuwbama9433 test
"I have always found it quaint, and rather touching, that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.
" Christopher Hitchens
Hitchens wasn't interested in arguing things rationally. It's pathetic.
@@boliussa Hitchens had his problems but, he’s right when it comes to this.
@@Iandar1 Not so. America was set up to be a land in which selfishness is effectively a cultural virtue, yes, but this has probably not been the actual predominant cultural mentality for over a century now.
@@lordgrishnakh1148 I don’t know the intricacies of early American history seeing how I’m not an historian, but I honestly doubt that. However we have made moral progress since then.
@@Iandar1 Ever since the "new deal" with FDR (and there are many strong cases to make for even earlier periods, but this one is pretty undeniable), self-sacrificing altruism has been a largely predominant cultural mentality in the US, much to its own detriment. Of course, though, that's just speaking of the aggregate, because it's always actually a mix of both directions. So in some ways we have become more virtuous (such as in the growing *proper* influences of objectivism and libertarianism) and in other ways we have done the complete opposite (as exemplified in the currently still-very-mainstream political, economic, and philosophical worldviews stemming from such immoral sources Keynesianism and Marxism)
I can't believe how this guy dared to say that "Ayn Rand didn't bother to do her homework". I don't know who he is, maybe he is a responsible man in his business but, in this case, HE is the one who didn't bother to do his homework.
Prof. Epstein, if the definition of "selfish" in any dictionary contains a moral evaluation, then that definition is not objective. It is your task, as a rational person, to jettison the subjective evaluation of the publishers and grasp the concept of living for your own sake like Ayn Rand did and like Yaron is trying to explain. If the dictionary definition is in conflict with the concept, then the dictionary definition is wrong and you should have the honesty to accept that and act accordingly.
Giving to charity is a selfish endeavor. You did it for you so you could feel good. And that’s okay. There’s nothing wrong with that. Idk why selfish has to have a positive/negative connotation
@Robert Tevault you’re right, I could’ve made my statement clear. Selfishness doesn’t have to have a positive/negative connotation. It simply is.
How great is Judge Andrew Napolitano? He is always such a positive presense.
You depend on your tribe for your well being and to defend you from attacks from other tribes, so wanting to help your tribe (saving the baker who provides you with delicious cup cakes from being attacked by a racoon with rabies), qualifies as self interest. Letting the racoon kill you so the baker can live and keep making those delicious jelly donuts is irrational sacrifice.
Agreed, within a selfish limit.
If you do it correctly, selfish is the most loving way to be. You reap what you sow.
Looking forward to this :)
Zero sum is irrational sacrifice. Win win is rational sacrifice.
Win win, by definition, isn't a sacrifice for anyone.
Yaron Brooks hits it out of the park
Yeah but imagine how peikoff would have done
So Gene's argument is essentially that Yaron has good ideas about egoism which he agrees with, but he thinks that 1) Yaron overplays their importance and 2) miscommunicates them by his choice of words, which 3) contradict common dictionary definitions (even in Ayn Rand's time - her statements to the contrary).
The best counterargument I can personally think of is that:
1) Gene's failure to see the importance of the ideas behind the words that Yaron is communicating, and even to some extent countering them, is what is most significant in his position. It is a sign that he does not understand that capitalism is motivated by profit, and that large sections of the voting public Hates this. (Perhaps bringing this last point up with some nice references to polls etc. would force him acknowledge at least more of this idea's importance.)
2) Ayn Rand was for using and changing the meaning of the word "selfishness," as is explained in the book "a companion to ayn rand", because it is the most effective method for changing people's concept of, and evaluation of, self-interested motives. Calling an act such as theft "selfish" intends to explain the act's immorality by reference to its ultimate motive: achieving one's self-interest. But this relies on a concept of "self-interest" which runs contrary to the facts of human nature, and is more fitting to some other animal species. Also: if a new word were to be used ("self-ist"?), the thinking which previously motivated the use of the word "selfishness" would remain, and self-interested motives might still be conceived of as being necessarily at the expense of others. And this is what Rand wants to change.
3) This last point has to be partially conceded: unfortunately, according to the Companion, it seems that Ayn's definition of selfishness as mere "concern with one's own interests" without it mentioning either others or an evaluation, was not referenced by herself, nor can Rand scholars find such a dictionary definition. They therefore opt to say that her definition reflects what she thinks the dictionary ought to say, rather than what it in fact did say. Maybe she thought it was the one common denominator between dictionaries or something, but it seems that no one can find it as it is stated.
Virtueman1 dictionaries don’t make reality. They just record popular use.
BobWidlefish have I said otherwise?
Virtueman1 nope. You just seemed hung up on definitions in point 3. In philosophy the first thing you do is define your terms, so I don’t find any problem with non-popular definitions. It just goes with the territory of trying to be specific.
"Greed is the desire for the unearned." -Ayn Rand
The point of the debate was not to debate self-interest. All libertarians agree on the point that rational self-interest is good. The debate was purely semantics, on whether or not it is appropriate to use the term "selfish" in place of the work "self-interested". Yaron kept trying to change the definition of selfish to include mutually beneficial self-interested behavior. This is not how the word is used, nor is it the definition of the word, nor did his examples prove his point. A successful businessman, such as Steve Jobs, is never referred to as selfish when referring to his drive to create and distribute iPhones. Nor has Michael Phelps been referred to as selfish for the training he committed to in order to win gold medals. The examples he uses are all false. People only use and understand the word selfish when used to describe taking unfair advantage over someone else. By using the word in place of self-interest, he confuses the libertarian argument and makes it appear as though he is promoting immoral behaviour. It is this type of ideology that can actually promote bad behaviour, because someone who is acting selfishly (in an immoral way) may justify their behaviors by using this word play.
I see no issue in using the correct word "self-interest", and the costs of substituting it with the word "selfish" cause more harm than good for the arguments that libertarians make.
edit: typo
Thanks for the stimulating debate! :)
00:03:13 - Yaron Brook
00:27:08 - Yaron Brook
Selfishness and greed is all socialism is.
Every selfless fool claims that different versions of selflessness are really selfish. Eg, the Catholic-Protestant wars which murdered more people relative to total population than WW2.
So, the sentiment is the same in essence - just not agreeing on semantics...
*eyeroll
Not really. Gene is way too concerned with taking care of the needy. Like Yaron points out, this is fine if they deserve it and the action truly makes you happy, but it's not a major virtue.
1:01:05 Muy interesante respuesta, la diferencia entre sacrificio e inversión. Es la segunda palabra la que verdaderamente denota la intención que se busca en la gran mayoría de los comportamientos que párecen ser sacrificio.
8:08 Judge Nap's laughter cures cancer.
30:58. I wanted to go see it so I bookmarked where I was in the debate in reply to you.
Woah that was an awesome laugh you’re right and it is unmistakably Judge Napolitano.
Spoiler Alert: results of voting below.
1:20:32
Results:
Affirmative 47%->57%=10%
Negative 20%->35%=15%
Affirmative wins the debate but negative picks up 5% more votes than positive from predebate to postdebate.
Great job Yaron. The result indicates the state of popular morality. You debated a very clever opponent .
A few thoughts
Gene and Yaron do not differ on approach to self-interest.
Yaron himself speaks entirely from himself as an individual.
I’m sure the Yaron would have picked another fight, he inherited this particular word as the pivot for the morality of a society.
Gene speak from some greater whole or collective and says to Yaron “Do not piss people off”.
Yaron is claiming the field for the single individual, every single individual.
Gene, please, give him a word. You do not have to be fully individual your self, just let Yaron be.
Self is good!
Don’t let the collectivists destroy the word.
Why trust someone who demands self-denial from you and others? Yet that is what the dominant moral basis of altruism demands. This conflict is the core of the moral/political conflict we see today and all through the past.
This was semantics. Gene's definition of self actualization matches Yarons definition of selfishness.
What is a word for a person who's only focus is to live the best life possible to him? If not selfish then what?
mughat
That's... That's not what I'm talking about haha
I am just curious if you have an answer. Not saying what you are talking about. I don't think it's just semantics. There is a lot of substance.
mughat
What does that have to do with my comment?
Both of them are speaking about living to make your life as best you can. Yaron says thats what selfishness is, and Gene says that's what self actualization is.
Yaron killed it
Brook didn't argue selfishness is a virtue at all, all he did was change the meaning of the word to "not being a tool".
Wow .... it was laid out so basically.. and you still didn't get it. Either you're willfully ignorant... or you're dumb. Choose one.
29:20 Selfishness isn't about money; it's about human flourishing.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner but from their regard to their own interest (selfishness)". - Adam Smith /... / "The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice-which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction-which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.” #BOOM #micdrop :-D
The crowd favored the affirmative initially. Wow. These are my people.
There is I and then there is i.
The I, the me, the self, the ego, the so-called True Self or Higher Self, is the invention of the past conditioning of the brain.
It acts as a filter that colors, shapes, and limits all perceptions.
It is an inner tyrant over the brain/body, telling it what to think, how to feel and what to do.
It is the very movement of fear, which is the movement away from what is, the isness, the fact, the act, the actual, what is actually taking place.
All this breeds a sense of division, separation, and distance, between the me and the not me.
This illusion is the origin of all conflict, violence, and suffering.
Total Freedom from the illusion of the I, the me, the self, the ego, the so-called True Self or Higher Self, is the beginning of i.
i is Inner Silent Space. It is the very movement of Love, Peace, Joy, Beauty, and Creativity.
Then and only then is there Communication, Communion, Connection, Relationship, with everyone and everything, for the very first time, in each and every moment of daily life.
Do Jacob's Ladder. There's no reason why anyone need waste another day trapped in the Matrix of self-deceptions. Total Enlightenment NOW! facebook.com/groups/1551365565178063/
Your choices ,not material brain states, create you.
Capitalism does not require people being selfish. Just freedom to make choices.
Socialism requires people to sacrifice for others. It's institutionalised altruism. Only rational selfishness can counter that.
@@mughat and capitalism requires others to sacrifice for you.
Those who deny self-improvement are not worth much.
Right off the bsat, Yaron Brook's argument appears to be predicated on terminology that I don't think reflects the terminology used by Epstein or the general populace. "Selfish" does not refer to mere self-interest, at least not in the day-to-day usage of the term. The common use of the word carries the morally negative connotation of ** disproportionate preoccupation ** with one's own interests, to the point of callous disregard for other people. That is distinct from the generic "self-interested".
No one has a moral obligation or "duty" to sacrifice themselves for you. Your happiness and suffering are yours alone.
To understand Yaron, I think it takes a certain level of self awareness. Enough so that you are able to be aware of your gains/losses in any situation. So that you can analyze your wants to see that selfishness is necessary or you won’t eat
Yeah most people load onto the term more than should be loaded onto it
What is the principle Yaron Brooks mentions at 10:36? He explains " - the only way to become super rich is to benefit other people through trade."
Yaron Objectively spanked Gene in this debate 😎
Gene Epstein is really incompetent in this situation. Yaron talked about the moral value. While Gene is talking about only semantics.
It would be interesting to hear Yaron and Jordan Peterson talk about sacrifice. Jordan’s points have been that sacrifice is actually self beneficial in the sense that you sacrifice something now for greater reward later.
That is if your interested in the long run unfortunately cult of ayn rand isn’t.
@@Iandar1 how can you say that despite what was said at 1:07:14-1:07:30 ?
@@lordgrishnakh1148 A simple recognition of the false dichotomy fallacy that objectivists usually fall for and usually what prompts them to distance themselves from the philosophy thanks once they’ve made that realization. This also comes with the destruction of cognitive dissonance.
No one before Rand ever defined Sacrifice as giving up a greater value for a lower value. That is simply called waste. Sacrifice literally means "making separate," and has traditionally meant giving up something that has value in order to serve an even higher value. The whole point of sacrificing to a deity is to show that you love the deity more than the things of this world. The point of Jesus's sacrifice was that he loved humanity enough to do anything to save us.
magister343 she is defining the term properly because sacrifce was looked at as a noble action. Jesus giving up his life for the sake of no good men he doesn't know is by definition giving up a greater value for a lesser one
magister343 Come on. Are you saying the life of Jesus was worth LESS than that of sinful humanity? That's your God you're talking about, the highest of the high, the greatest value of all in your system. Don't be asinine. Look at the Greek mythology too. The sacrifice of Iphigenia is literal murder for the sake of favourable sailing patterns. Look at the Mayans. They literally ripped people's hearts out as human sacrifices. All this is condemning enough. Worst of all, there is no proof there is such a thing as God. Sacrificing to God is literally sacrificing to an artificial, unestablished postulate. THAT'S more important than your life and well-being?
kant said that if you gain happiness from a moral act, then it's not really a moral act. He was her antithesis as far as philosophers go
umm is that your only issue with rand? because you know you can just substitute whatever you want in place of a single word right? especially since she DEFINED it. doesn't really have a huge impact on the argument...
Here are inductions from observation. Living organisms must value their life to continue living. Beyond life, there are no values, only inanimate matter. Matter is eternal. Life is conditional upon valuing life. God-lovers, Jesus and heroin addicts hate themselves, regardless of their fantasies. You rationalize the evasion of self-responsibility, i.e., of morality.
The crux of this argument is whether "selfishness" is merely the idea of promoting one's self-interest, or if it means promoting one's self-interest AT THE EXPENSE of - or to the DETRIMENT of others.
The difference between these two meanings is the entire crux of the issue.
It is obvious that acting in one's self-interest meets the definition of having high moral standards (being virtuous). To do otherwise would lay the burden of caring for you at the feet of others, which every rational person would agree is immoral and therefore NOT virtuous.
Few rational, moral people would argue that promoting one's interest by *lying and cheating* is a virtue, so if selfishness is *defined* as taking care of self at the EXPENSE of others, then NO - selfishness is NOT a virtue, in spite of what Ayn Rand might think.
So, what IS the definition of "selfishness"?
Yaron defined selfish as: taking care of self, at the expense of others.
Epstein said selfish is defined as "concern with one's own interests to the detriment of others, or at the expense of others."
BOTH of them are wrong.
Ayn Rand defined selfish as "concern with one's own interests."
Is she right?
The source that Gene Epstein claimed he used for his INCORRECT definition was Samuel Johnsons Dictionary. In it, the word "selfish" is defined as "attentive only to one’s own interest; *void* of regard for others " (1755 and 1773).
Note the difference: Epstein AND Yaron both inaccurately stated the definition included the idea that selfishness required the act be "at the expense of others" or "to the detriment of others" which is NOT included in ANY definition I have found thus far.
*Merriam Webster Dictionary:*
Selfish: _concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others_
*Oxford Language Dictionary:*
Selfish: _lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure_
*Cambridge Dictionary:*
Selfish: _caring only about what you want or need without any thought for the needs or wishes of other people_
*Britannica Dictionary:*
Selfish: _having or showing concern only for yourself and not for the needs or feelings of other people_
There are likely many more definitions I could cite, and some MIGHT have the words noted by both Mr Brook and Mr Epstein that defines selfish as something done *to the detriment of others....* but it is clear that that is NOT the mainstream meaning of the word.
Despite the actual definition not including any reference to a selfish act requiring the act be at the expense of to the detriment of others - our culture nearly ALWAYS falsely interprets the word as a vilification.
Ayn Rand was correct in her definition.
The word "selfish" does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil.
It is very disappointing that these two intelligent individuals did such insufficient preparation for this event that they missed the most important aspect of the debate:
"define your terms"
Let’s just call this new word selflessish.
I used to be a libertarian till I found a better way in objectivism. Keep reading brothers, if you want a rational complete philosophical system that defends capitalism and individual rights, keep reading. Ayn Rand
Steve Jobs is not a viable example. He did NOT say that he didn’t like money until AFTER he made his wealth.
Reason’s debate metric is flawed:
The score should reflect how many *available* people are converted.
Eg, an increase from
Yaron’s 50% to 57% agree VS
Gene’s 20% to 35% agree,
isn’t really 7% vs 15%,
but more like 7/50 to 15/80
Convert % = 100 * increase / (100-start)
57/50 = 14% Yaron gains
35/20 = 18.75% Gene gain
Gene still gained more converts from the remaining people available to convert, but by a smaller margin than the original uncorrected Reason formula
I'm glad I was born seeing life the way it is presented as otherwise I would of been brainwashed into being a ignorant soul living w/ miserable ambiguity
It just depends on what selfishness means. Christians define selfishness and greed very differently to Ayn Rand.
My old macquirie dictionary defines selfish as "devoted to or caring only for oneself, one's welfare, interest, etc." Based on his own arguement, does this not mean Gene automatically loses?
Selfishness is essential to a degree. It's certainly part of our nature but cooperation is far more productive and profitable. I would think Brooks finds team sports immoral.
SUMMARY: Rational selfishness is good (America First!). Irrational selfishness, when you hurt other people to satisfy your desires, like invading Iraq to maintain your selfish desire to force use of the petrodollar, is bad because in the long run it will hurt you.
Not invading Iran and Saudi Arabia was selfless.
Jobs was fired from Apple for being too selfish which led to many of his products failing to sell. In business its a two way street.
Miscommunication happens because people don't use words in the way others understand. Without a common understanding of words, people are literally speaking different languages. By the time Yaron makes his point, and defines his word, it means something completely different. How can selfishness mean reason without calling all charity irrational? I've never heard of dictionary companies conspiring against us.
Dictionaries are based on philosophy.
A wealthy man once offered Ayn Rand a large sum of money if she would just rework her philosophy to incorporate religion. In other words, just "give up the atheist stuff." Now we have Mr. Epstein offering hordes of libertarians and others who will flock to Objectivism if we just "give up the selfishness stuff."
Does Gene really believe Harvey Weinstein is currently happy?
1:53 BLESS YOU!
The short answer is "yes." Narcissists, psychopaths, and sociopaths are good examples.
They are not acting in their best interest, because they are not examples of people with integrity pursuing abstract principles for living a good life long-range. They are examples of amoral mindless people who do not follow any moral code.
Virtueman1 Oh contraire. Most narcissists are renowned for living long, productive lives precisely for their lack of grasp on reality, empathy, or humility.
Virtueman1 And by the by, morality is as much an opinion as religion.
Self interest does not consist in mere outcomes of one's actions but also in what kind of actions one takes and what kind of person one thereby becomes. If one makes onself into a person which is an enemy of mankind, and an enemy of oneself (because one lives as a parasite so can't take care of oneself) then one has become a person of such an essential nature that one is against one's own life. Is that good for anyone, just because they may happen to get away with a few crimes here and there?
I suggest you go here and learn an alternative viewpoint then: campus.aynrand.org/
Morality can be scientific if it is based on means-end relationships, and prescribes actions required for living, given that that is one's pursued choice. Such prescriptions (moral principles) can apply to all humans scientifically if they are based on common needs which we all have as a matter of observation. The common needs which are relevant here being the need to make long-term decisions about one's life and priorities in order to live happily, by virtue of the fact that we as humans live by means of our thinking and reason.
I'll side with the guy who has better posture.
To say that money doesn’t factor into this is so disingenuous. In living one’s life, one encounters/earns money. That money is exchanged for nearly everything they possess. “Money” in this context could mean anything that is exchanged for goods and services, even labor itself. Of course a philosophy exalting selfishness would affect the way someone handles, organizes, and distributes the resources they have access to and/or control over.
I also find it interesting that in the pro-selfishness argument, family is conflated with the self. Where are the boundaries there? What about dear friends who you essentially consider family? Etc.
To say that criminals “destroy themselves” and therefore aren’t selfish is pretty freaking reductive. Words do have meanings used in common parlance, so to the average person actively living their life, how would they concretely draw the boundaries between selfish behavior and violent behavior, criminal behavior, etc, if they were fulfilling and satisfying themselves, not necessarily thinking about the future consequences of those actions (socially, economically, etc)?
The fundamental difference between their opinions exists in whether individual human beings are or are not positively impacted when they go out of their way to help others (sometimes to the point of self sacrifice). Wound up within that is a question of whether compassion & empathy are part of the development of a fully enlightened human being, which... I sure fucking hope so.
Language is a philosophical battle.
Epstein makes this out to be a semantic issue but it is far more serious.
Definitions are contextual. They depend upon all the known relevant knowledge that goes into a particular concept. Concepts and definitions are often built on other concepts/definitions. Concepts built on concepts are dependent on the validity of the concepts that they are built upon. And a concept’s ultimate validity is based on observations of reality.
At any point a weak definition can poison a whole series of concepts.
It is for these reasons that objectivists acknowledge the contextual nature of concept formation and chose to argue for the better positive definition of selfishness which encompasses far more relevant data than the accepted conception of selfishness which is merely used as an insult.
As i said above, language is a philosophical battle. Whether through common misunderstandings for lack of relevant data or from a conspiracy, language can have the effect of poisoning the mind if it loses its connection to reality. This can and has been used as a weapon to keep people confused, obedient and divided.
Language subversion is a highly effective tactic that has been used very effectively to turn functioning concepts into hanging abstractions.
A few other important examples of this subversion are: liberty, rights, freedom, justice, inflation etc.
Here are the correct definitions of the terms above:
Liberty is the Ability to reason and act.
Rights are the inherent, inalienable, self-assertive moral principles that it is (1) Right for each individual to use their Liberty and (2) Wrong for any individual or group (especially government) to unjustly and without due process infringe on the liberty of any individual or group of individuals.
Freedom is when government is limited to the protection of rights by punishing wrongs through due process.
Justice is the process by which wrongs are punished and made right.
Due process is the protocol for subduing and prosecuting crime which recognizes the rights of the accused in order to protect the wrongfully accused.
Crime is the unjust infringement of one individual’s (the victim) liberty by another individual(criminal) or group of individuals (criminals).
Inflation is an increase in the quantity of credit and money. The effect of inflation is a delayed loss of purchasing power I.e. a general rise in prices.
The ideal of democracy is the tyranny of the majority. The ideal of a constitutional republic is freedom.
Liberty is not something that needs to be gained. It is something that you have by virtue of your existence. All humans have liberty. Rights are moral principles which deal with the proper way for beings which have liberty to interact, thus rights too apply to all humans. Freedom, on the other hand, is a social situation that has never fully fruited because it has been under attack by control freaks for all of time and because the concepts have not been properly formed or have been contorted into meaningless pretty fluff that nobody can define when pressed.
Liberty and rights are inherent they do not require anyone’s consent or approval. Freedom though is something to be fought for and defended. And you defend freedom by recognizing rights and punishing wrongs.
I included inflation in this because it is a hot topic these days. People have been conditioned to think of inflation in terms of the effect inflation has, I.e the general loss in purchasing power of the currency that was inflated. But this leads to unneeded confusion as to the cause of the loss in purchasing power. By changing inflation’s meaning from the cause to the effect it lets people act like there are other reasons for a general in prices, which buys the government and the central bank time to continue to inflate while acting as if it is trying to fight the loss and pof purchasing power that it caused and continues to cause.
Words can change meaning, but looking over the words that have done so, it's usually a positive word becoming negative. The odds are against Yaron.
So, how did the dictionary bet go?
I agree with both Epstein and Brook. Why? Because it is Selfish to be Compassionate. It is in all of individual our self interests to be compassionate and empathetic towards others, it elevates your individual standing socially.
So you agree with Yaron and not Epstein?
I looked up Selfishness in the Oxford as well as the Websters dictionaries. Neither said that selfishness was "at the expense of others". I don't know what dictionary Epstein used. So, the debate is lost on his side right there.
"(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure." en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/selfish
Yes, that is what I said. Nothing says "at the expense of others". I can do many things only concerned with my own profit and pleasure that benefits others. Not taking others into consideration is not necessarily damaging other people.
Even if you think it does, he reported the definition inaccurately or possibly even dishonestly.
Look out at reality, not dictionaries. Rand induced selfishness from observation of concrete reality.
The more interesting debate, which is somewhat addressed, is whether categorizing selfishness as a virtue helps the liberty movement. I appreciate Yaron's position in that the consistency might permit capitalists to feel less at odds with themselves, but it does not seem like the appropriate way to grow the movement. I abhor the redefining of words, like social scientists often do, because while it can semantically bridge conversion, it may also breed postmodern ambiguity towards truth, or nihilism. I do not think Randians should expect the public education system to endorse this redefinition. Yaron's is a "hail mary" play, that I would expect to fail, but as he points out, we are losing anyway. Gene critiques a cult of Rand philosophy, but capitalist critics would deride Smith's "invisible hand" theory as equally faith-reliant and disconnected from reality. I think ignoring the obvious success of freer markets and focusing on limiting collective interference and promoting voluntary exchange via traditional moral principles would be superior olive branches for capitalist skeptics: autonomy and do no harm, would be good common ground.
Categorizing selfishness as a virtue helps the rationally selfish liberty movement, not the emotionalist liberty movement.
Random thought here...
You should not celebrate the praise of wealthy people giving to charity. Not unless those givers happen to suffer, to actually sacrifice. If a billionaire invests in charity so that they become an earner of some 100k a year...that would be worth some praise.
Yaron Brook👍👍👍👍
I didn't understand. Yaron got majority vote with a 10% increase while Gene gets the lower vote but a 15% increase? Did I get it right? If so how come Gene won?
The reason that selfishness IS a virtue is because you can't help others if you don't care for yourself. Thinking of others is good, but, just like selfishness, it can be twisted and taken to dangerous extremes.
Think of it like this: When taking your child onto a plane, they instruct you that, should an emergency arise and the masks fall, put YOURS on before the child's mask. If the child passes out before you, you can still put their mask on for them. If YOU pass out, your child's screwed if they need help.
As pointed out, in the case of people like Bill Gates, it's good that he wants to help people, but, by the current morals of society, he can never be "good" because he still has more money than he needs to survive. The thing is that the "extra money" that he has can always help build more business. That business will hire more people, meaning less people who need help. Those businesses also bring in money that keeps the business running AND provide funds that can go into the charity work. If Gates got rid of all of that "excess money" and only had what he needed, it would only take one bad fiscal year to destroy all of that business…meaning that many people lose their jobs (and now are in dire financial straights) and all of the people utilizing the help from those charities won't get ANY help.
Molly O'Kami Your first line still places self-sacrifice as a higher virtue than selfishness, as the one is only good in that it is a means to then other. This, so you know, is fundamentally different than Yaron’s (and Rand’s) argument for selfishness.
The Final Score...Brook 1 Epstein 0
whats with the stand up at the end?
the Christian morality of autism
Rand's use of the term was an obvious marketing gimmick ... then believed her own PR.
Luke Avedon What a profound analysis. Now please donate your smartphone to charity.
There is no such thing as ''selflessness''. Everything you do is for yourself. Every action you take is for your own benefit. You do not act unless the end result will benefit you. A mother does not protect her children because of selflessness, she do it because of sense of ownership, and expectation that something good will happen to her. You do not feed your pet because of selflessness, but because you believe if you do good for them, something good will happen to you. If doing something for someone else will give you pleasure, you will do it, not because you care for them, but because you want to feel pleasure. It's biology.
We live in a family society not an individual society. The creation and establishment of a family is what mainly drives people.
Do you see people spend all of their money needlessly after they retire/get older? No they leave things for their family.
Based on what you think, are you saying a 100% inheritance tax would not change how people spend their money during their life? That's a laughable opinion. Of course it would change how people spend their money because people are motivated by building their family and legacy.
I don't know what you mean by individual or family oriented society, i know that you act only when you have determined that the act will give you pleasure, or be the least unpleasant. The way your decision making works is similar to the way electrical charge works. You electrify a lot of what i call ''info paths'', which is like a chain of actions, you take into account a lot of information, and whichever end result of all the paths will give you the most pleasure, you take it, and you act upon it. Establishing a family could give some people more pleasure than anything else, in such case, they would want to do it, if becoming a lonely scientist gave them more pleasure, they would not want to have a family. I don't want to have a family because it doesn't give me any pleasure, or at least not as much as doing other things. People ''care'' and ''love'' their family for the same reason they ''care'' and ''love'' their pets, they feel a sense of ownership and constant positive reinforcement. I do something that makes you feel happy, i expect something good to happen to me. This is the source of my pleasure, and happiness, so i keep doing it for my entire life. It's usually people who have nothing else that will give them pleasure, having a family and someone to care for is an easy way to reinforce yourself. For people engaged in other activities, caring for someone else is not a major source of pleasure for them. Most ''real'' scientists like Nikola Telsa never even had a relationship with a women, they had so many other sources to reinforce themselves, they didn't need a relationship with anybody.
ザ・リバタリアン Please read the chapter “Isn’t Everyone Selfish?” from The Virtue of Selfishness. The idea you’re expressing is called “psychological egoism,” and it is not especially useful, intuitive though it seems.
My explanation is not an idea or a theory, it is an explanation of how the brain works. What do you mean its not useful? What do you mean by that. Even in this case, you choose to comment as oppose to doing something else, because you want me to have your information that this is not useful and for me to read that book, because me having it will reinforce it in you, and that will causes pleasure. Although in this case we are also dealing with cognitive dissonance as well. Also, when i say ''choose'' or ''decide'' or ''determine'' i don't mean ''you'' making that decision knowing what the result will be like when you choose to buy a chocolate ice cream, there really is no decision making, people do not make decisions, all actions are outcome, you do not control your actions or the process by which actions are decided. Humans are like very powerful machines, we only react to an information we are given based on the information we have.
ザ・リバタリアン deterministic nonsense
It depends on the definition of selfishness, is it selfish to pursue your aspirations rather than ones someone else has for you, I'd say no. Is it selfless to send your kid to college or sacrifice for them, I'd say yes, just because someone is close to you and you want to help them, and it may as a side affect give you a sense of accomplishment or joy doesn't mean that was your mean that was your sole reasoning for what you did. The argument that we should not help others as a virtue is just wrong and I think a misinterpretation of Randian philosophy, people who volunteer or are mostly selfless people enjoy what they're doing and are chasing their own interests but their interests are helping others but the gratification felt would have to outweigh the benefits to the other individual for it to be true selfishness otherwise you would be saying absolutely everything is selfish. I don't appreciate these bitter people telling me everything I do is solely for my benefit and anything I list of me doing something for someone else was just me trying to make myself feel better and so I can virtue signal maybe I just don't like to see other people suffer so I'm willing to sacrifice a little bit of my prosperity so that someone else doesn't suffer. Also if me feeling good for helping someone is me being selfish, if I give a homeless man money but regret giving him as much as I did, is that me being selfless for helping someone and not personally benefiting from it or selfish for regretting giving him as much money as I did?
Stefin Hough It's self-less to take care of one's kids? It works towards a parents personal net loss in life to help their kids? Give me a break.
Virtueman1 Why not? Unless your goal from your child's birth is to ride off the curtails of their success I (not having kids but being a kid to two loving parents) don't think a parent has any plans to benefit off of their kid but rather just wants to see them be happy. Is that selfish? But fiscally it does work towards a loss in life because couples without children are statistically better off. So why else would you have a child and why would you take care of it over yourself, other than you are being selfless by taking care of something bigger than yourself. I don't like objectivism because it's just as bad as communism except it is the polar opposite, it doesn't promote chasing your own desires it promotes chasing your own self interest and if something doesn't benefit you physically in the here and now then why do it? Objectivism isn't Libertarianism because instead of telling you to do what makes you happy it tells you to do what is in your best interest which is impossible to enforce, therefore an ideology that shits on community as much as communism shits on individualism is just as shit.
Stefin Hough If we now use Yaron's definition of selfishness: action aiming at the ultimate goal of one's own self-interest, which often includes caring for others as a constituent part and means to it.
Then yes, caring for one's kids for nothing but the spiritual (emotional) reward it gives is selfish.
A human beings self-interest (or good or wellbeing) does not consist of mere material wellbeing. Just consider all the unhappy rich people, overdosing on drugs or with depression, their lives may be good materially but not fully because a human being has a mind with needs.
Virtueman1 I didn't mean monetary selfishness but physical selfishness which means your own happiness and mental well-being takes priority over everyone else and I don't know one person who is entirely selfish, which is the goal of objectivism. To have everyone worry about themselves, then no one has to worry about anyone else, which as I said is just as misguided as having everyone lookout for everyone else so no one has to worry about themselves. The answer I feel is somewhere in the middle where families and small parts of the community work together out of self interest for each other rather than government action, as far as objectivism goes it's not as dangerous of an ideology because there is no force behind it but because there is no force behind it, it is as impossible as communism. Life, Liberty, and Property should be the only things government worries about, and society should be left on its own to make its own decision leaning one way or another.
Stefin Hough Hey dude, it IS normally in everyone's actual self-interest to care for other people, but not for all people on earth all the time, or for everyone who may need it all the time, that's part of the egoism that Yaron arguing for.
*Speaking of dictionaries. Hey Epstein?* Self centered or Selfish. The key is '-ish'. This means mostly, not entirely.
Welcome Back Mr. Kotter.
Who gives a crap about what Rhand said about selfish you tool. She is not a part of this debate, Sunshine !
Did I miss the part about 'What would Anh do?"
Rand almost always redefined words in reference to her own preferences. Her whole philosophy seems to be based on intentionally using English words in ways very different from their vernacular meanings.
That's one of her strengths.
Obfuscation is not a strength.
Rand's definitions are abstractions from concrete reality, not from books, emotions, society or tradition. See her _Intro. To Objectivist Epistemology_.
Yaron misses a critical limitation of objectivism. Human certainly do have a lot of "software" that we can write ourselves. But evolutionary psychology shows that human beings also have "hardware" that cannot be rewritten. Those who attempt to do so create many problems in their lives. Objectivism is a valuable philosophy, but it needs to integrate aspects of inborn human nature. We are not born tabula rasa.
Jordan Peterson needs to watch this. Christianity makes you weak.
Excuse me? You are telling me that the audience apparently was swayed in the direction away from yaron brook? There is no way that anyone thinks that rational selfishness is not a virtue after listening to this
The only way to resolve this hard question is through linguistics. Any debate that could be resolved only by that is probably interesting but probably in the end stupid and unnecessary!
i selfishly love yaron brook!
So grandpa wants to use another word for the concept of "selfishness" because he can't get used to the idea that words are not their definitions.
51:04 The moment Epstein notices he lost
Except for the minor fact that he “won” lol. But I assume you’re a Randian who decides what words mean so sure Gene “lost”
This is so great; t/y
Awful microphone. :(
wheres the rucka's nuckas?
He doesn't like libertarians.
no, but he would watch Yaron Brook, even if he was debating lamp post.
I know, and the irony is that Yaron is a minarchist libertarian.
Well if objectivists are libertarians then rucka isn't an objectivist. But yeah, the rest of what you said is correct.
Jman TheGreat objectivists are not libertarians
Greed is a virtue. Selfishness is a sin.
ogogo ogpgpg Greed is good because your helping other people in the process as Adam Smith said. Selfishness means you only care about yourself. The rich are greedy, the.poor are selfish.
ogogo ogpgpg The greedier you are, the better the person you. The more selfish you are, the worse of a person you are
ogogo ogpgpg You can't be a good person if you only care about yourself
So being selfish is bad