On Sunday, May 28, 2000 10:19 AM Zero Powers zero_powers@hotmail.com wrote:
> I suppose I can see how her ideas on "egoism" might lead an
others-centered
> person (such as, apparently, yourself) to view her ideas this way. In
fact,
> initially, her ideas struck me as narcissistic and selfish. But I've
> gradually come to believe that narcissism and, particularly, selfishness
> have traditionally gotten a bad rap.
I think certain forms of selfishness and narcissism are bad, though
enjoyment and perfection of one's self, to me, on the whole, are the point
of life.
> Coming from years of fundamentalist Christian indoctrination, I was
heavily
> on board the "love your neighbor as yourself" rap. So when I came across
> Randian egoistic ideas I bristled. But the more I thought about it, the
> more it seemed to me that an openly selfish person would (generally
> speaking) be a more honest and productive member of society than someone
who
> proclaims to be all about loving others, helping the less fortunate, etc.
I see nothing wrong with helping others and most Objectivists would agree.
The thing is this is not a primary source of moral worth, nor should it be
the center of one's existence. Still, I do think it impinges somewhat on
one's self worth. After all, those who are immune to the _undeserved_
sufferings of others are not to be esteemed. (Note the word "undeserved"
there. Generosity and assistance should be aimed at those whose misfortune
is not of their own orchestration and especially when it can improve them --
as opposed to those who are evil or when it will only bring more harm. In
other words, don't buy a drunk a drink.:)
> Why more honest? Well, as I see it, do-gooders one and all are not in the
> business of doing good for others for the sake of others, so much as for
> their own sake. For many people, sacrificing for other people makes
*them*
> feel good. Take me for instance. I work hard all week and make a pretty
> good income and, if I splurged it all on me, I could live a pretty high
> lifestyle. But instead I spend the bulk of my income on educating my
kids,
> providing them (and my wife) with a home, and investing the money (in
part)
> so that my family is financially secure. (Admittedly I'm also saving for
> *me* too, so I don't have to work until I'm 80, but you get the point.)
So
> why do I "sacrifice" my own immediate pleasure for the sake of those I
love?
> Well, primarily because it makes *me* feel good about myself. I would
> feel like a louse if I didn't provide for my kids. Yes, in fact I would
> *be* a louse -- but the point is if I could *be* a louse without *feeling*
> like a louse I just might go for it. But if you ask most people why they
do
> good for others they will most likely tell you they are doing it just to
> benefit others, as opposed making themselves feel better about themselves.
Not ot mention, I would hope, you love them. (I don't mean to hint that you
don't love them are only helping them out to prop up some idealized vision
of yourself.)
> Why more productive? Well this one is explainable with a short analogy:
> Who would you rather have, 100 Bill Gateses or 100 Mother Theresas?
Or 57 Frank Kafkas?
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:52 MDT