It's near impossible to just live for yourself, and NOT contribute to somebody elses life. As humans one thing we want is possitive interaction with others. So by selfishly doing so, one would be fullfilling somebody elses need of the same.

At the same time, living only for the purpose of other peoples benefit is, IMO, quite confusing of an idea. It depends on the benefit first. If someone trying to live this way just wanted to make people happy, well you can't. Happiness is something each person finds for themselves.
Say you wanted to find a cure for aids. That would definately benefit humanity. However, if you were putting everything beneficial to yourself aside, how could you ever gain the knowledge to do this?

Selfishness is a required human trait.

You can't JUST be an individual, nor can you JUST be a tiny ant on the hill. So you would have to be both.

Being helpful to others is something that usually makes one happy as well.

My question is where does it all mesh? What's the right balance? [/font]

Only the individual can know what the best path for that individual is. This includes what clothes to wear, what job to have if any, what he/she does with his/her life. We are necessarily alone in this life, for no other will ever be in our heads experiencing our life with us (if you believe otherwise seek psychiatric help immediately! ) So with this base, only the individual can look out for his or her own interests. So the balance is to do just this. Sometimes the interest of individuals will as you note, coincidentally help others, sometimes even intentionally help others, but never should that interest be abandoned particularlly for the benefit or desires of others.

This latter path is the path to hate as when we act truly altruistically (if that is possible) or at least try to act altruistically, we are by definition harming ourselves for the benefit of others. Thsi harm does not go unnoticed, nor does it exist without consequences. We begin to feel anger and animosity towards those who are benefitting at our expense. We grow to despise them for our choice of action.

That said, understand that sometimes each of us to varying degrees do gain our own pleasure from helping others, ideally in a manner which directly beenfits us, and it is this pleasure which prevents the act from being altruistic. We are acting "selfishly" in having that pleasure and acting upon it.

So the balance if you will, is to know yourself and act so as to benefit yourself knowing that many of your actions will actually benefit others also. As long as you do not get caught up in the hatred inherent to altruism or more correctly in the effort towards altruism, the hatred of others so strong that you hurt yourself to prevent them from getting benefit, then essentially all is well.

I can't argue with TX on this one.

I'd add that it's not really altruism (or "sacrifice") when you do something for someone because that's what you want to do. It only starts being so when you really didn't want to do that, but do so either because of guilt, or because of a law.

Some people, for some reason, seem to believe that an individualist is someone who is incapable of ever helping someone, of lifting a finger for someone, which is wrong.

Ayn Rand once used this example: if a woman doesn't buy herself a new hat because she needs the money to feed her child, it's not really a sacrifice; she's doing what she wants to do. It would be a sacrifice if she actually wanted the hat more, and only fed her child because she felt it was expected of her, if having a new hat was more important to her than her child.

If you do what you want, it's not sacrifice / altruism.

This post was last modified: 11-21-2006 01:11 AM by Pedro Timóteo.

I can't complain either.
I can only add that at times altruism is called for, such ass sacrificing to feed your family.

According to the Ayn Rand definition above, that's not "sacrificing", unless you don't really care about your family and only help them out of "duty" or something.

I am truly trying to understand this philosophy - so take this question with that in mind. I think I understand what everyone is saying. However, what about someone who decides on acting in their self-interest, but that action would bring deliberate harm to someone else. Is this acceptable? Is there something about the philosophy that suggests this is wrong?

An extreme example could be that I have decided that I don't like you and it would be in my best interest if you were dead, therefore I choose to kill you. A not so extreme example (possibly - at least it is so in my eyes) could be that even though I see a woman with two small children in a car, I quickly pull into the spot she was pulling toward because I see that is closer to the store we are both going to.

Any thoughts?

Jim,

Of course acting so as to initiate harm to another is wrong.

What Rand and others have pointed out is that acting in self-interest is itself not inherently evil (as so many assert). It does not follow from this that all actions of self-interest are inherently good. Most are morally neutral or non-moral.

The first example you offer is clearly morally wrong because you are taking action to directly cause harm to innocent moral agents. In the second example that of the car lot, at best the wrost criticism that can honestly be offered to you is that you missed an opportunity to do something nice, not that you have done anything harmful, much less morally wrong. So these two examples are different in type not degree.

I like the second example. One COULD figure it to be a bit harmfull to the woman with kids, as far as conveniance goes... but if it happened in the US, chances are the kids needed exorcize anyway.

Kren,

There is NO harm at all in any fashion whatsoever done to the woman with kids. Let us not fall into the trap of confusing the absence of acting on a potential good to be a harm. For instance, Bill Gates not giving me one billion dollars does not harm me, though if he were to give that sum to me it would be helpful.

So while one can be commended for choosing to let the woman have the space, one cannot be condemned for not taking the extra action of allowing her to have that space. Remember she has no greater claim on the space than any other individual does, nor is she inherently more valuable than any other individual (arguably she is less valuable in some societies given that she takes from the mouths of others etc. but that is another discussion entirely, for this let's assume she refrains from such activiites.. ) Given that, clearly there can be no harm to X getting the spot over Y... That she has children is at best irrelevant..

So how, in this philosophy, does one decide what is right and what is wrong? I don't think this is completely off topic yet as I think it is relevant to the discussion of a balance of individual vs. community. Or are they completely unconnected?

Jim,

I assumed that you were asking about Objectivism, so I was waiting to let others answer as I am not an Objectivist. However as for morality itself, you do not "decide" what is right or wrong, rather you react to what is right or wrong. Just as you do not "decide" upon gravity working on you or not, rather you react to it.

As for how morality is connected to the issues of the individual and other individuals, morality is the science which addresses those interactions specifically. Where harm is involved we have an issue of a violation of the moral rules, or if you prefer a moral negative. Where decreased harm or increased pleasure is involved there is a moral positive. These are not absolutes but rather rough guides. Obviously the doctor causes you harm when he cuts into you, but presumably he does so only to help you and does so at your request so there is no moral issue, or at least no moral negative.

Hope that helps, though as I say I am not describing Objectivism, rather simply reality.

I think this is semantics. When I said decide, I meant how do you know right and wrong (and therefore how to act/react)? If it sounded as if I was trying to say that I was the decider of right and wrong, that was not my intention.

That being said, I understand what you are saying. And it mirrors what I believe. Not to mention very similar to things my Buddhist teacher has said that resonate with me...

Thanks!

there was a great jewish philosopher by the name of hillel, who said "if i am not for myself, who will be for me?... if i am only for myself, what good am i?"