The first thief violates the person who owns the bread, the second thief is stealing stolen goods
Taking ill gotten gains is not necessarily a moral wrong, in the Market Anarchist model this is how the property will be sorted out, basically those who obtained property via theft and violence of the state automatically invalidate their claim to said property. Neither thief has any specific "right" to food, just the "right" to obtain it.
@existentialistcat : As I was saying; well, just let me conclude. At the end of the day, Rand uses her characters like pawns to espouse a philosophy that is as unreal as her characters. That said, I must also say that I enjoyed the read, and I consider it an important study in what I do not wish to do in fiction ;) Cheers!
@existentialistcat Hello. I just watched this video and would like to comment Ayn (she pronounced it Ian) Rand. It struck me as particularly apt that you fastened onto 'orange peal hair,' as being unrealistic. In fact, Ayn was a writer in the Romantic tradition, whose work is supposed to give us an ideal to aspire. However, if you had continued to read, I think you would have been similarly effected throughout the novel; ...
You are clearly interested in ethics. Why not read Leonard Peikoff's book on Objectivism? I think it would help in your questions on ethics, especially since it appears that you know a lot about philosophy in general (i.e. "Kant's moral imperatives").
I have never been a huge fiction reader, but the Fountainhead was an exciting read from a philosophic standpoint. I hope you don't dismiss Objectivism on your account of disliking the novel's literary worth.
To change the subject. I noticed the picture of , I guess, jesus christ, above your right shoulder. There is no real description of christ and anybody with any common sense would know that he couldn't have been that white, light skinned, and lived in the deserts of the middle east. So I find it interesting that pictures would depict a god like entity as light skinned. I think the pictures are printed that way because that is what people want to look at. Any opinions?
all the individuals share the bread in other not to fight each other. In fighting there is wastage of energy. Even if you win the fight, you will lose the cooperation of the other, and perhaps a leg or an arm.
Why am i writing this? Because i care about people and i want to help you. Stop focusing on recording yourself awkwardly and live your life away from the camera. You are not an authority on any subject in your videos. Talking in circles about things you partially understand is a waste of your good energy. You seem like a very kind and gentle person. You should go outside and interact with others. I'll meet you on the corner.
@DRETUBE9 Not to sound like an apologist for her, but how is making a whopping few vids per year living in front of the camera? As for awkward recordings, I make them too. No one complains.. Why? Because I'm not a beautiful young woman many arbitrarily resent. Not to single you out, it just depresses me when she get's penalized for this vid. She wanted to ask me a question. Why does she have to be an authority on anything to do this or to talk about a topic that interests her?
Philosophy is such a crock. When the chips are down, we're no different to the insects. Oh, and incidentally, Howard Roark had hair the exact color of ripe orange-rind.
"Selfishness is defined as concern for ones self." - Ayn Rand. If you are not concerned for yourself, you could not survive. It is not a bad thing. Ayn Rand makes some excellent points, however, there are flaws in her philosophy. It is immoral to steal the bread regardless of circumstance. But, you put your life at a higher value than an ethical premise. Check out this video by lifeishowitis: /watch?v=AOUON0mHa9E I think you will like it, and it is on the subject of 'value scales'.
@Likety Well, thats fine then. Just wanted to clarify since you would be seriously mislabeling me if you were serious. I am about as much a "Randroid" as Murray Rothbard (see Mozart Was A Red.). Have you read him? It may be above your level, but, I recommend giving it a try sport.
Maybe selfishness becomes less primtive and more sophisticated the more one integrates socially. I'm never too sure, LoL. I have read almost all Rand's work; in the end, I think some of the things she said are true. Anyway, I don't think knowing everything would be a good thing necessarily. Heigh-ho... Tace kare :)
1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act)
I'm concerned with myself and the things I do. I had coffee and cerial so I'm selfish. Athough, Selfishness seems to be of a social norm that is NOT being exceptable and being acceptable to others.
AND IT Does exist damit! Some people believe and wrote these big big papers saying it doesn't even exit! That would mean EVERYTHING we do is selfish. So your poster who say's selfishness is wrong BS.
1) Selfishness is not a virtue, but a vice. In fact, love, the self gift of oneself to another is the anti-thesis of selfishness.
2) Fountainhead was very good, but Atlas Shrugged was a powerful book. Sadly Utilitarian in its philosophy, and totally impractical in its conclusions. But much food for thought.
3) Look to Christ. He gave even his own life to live in accord with the mission the Father gave him. This is sacrifice.
u could say that to be selfish effectively we need to care about others also. When we create stabillity for people, we help create stabillity for them which can create stabillity in our own life, such as peace of mind and not needing to support them so much by helping them to become independent.
You are so blessed with looks. I think you should be not too careful of the world's unresolved questions and instead just enjoy yourself. I suppose the funny thing about beauty is anyway you don't really get much out of it yourself - it's onlookers that do. Take care you gorgeous thing x
I'm sorry if I appeared to condemn all forms of individualism. This was not my intention. I was suggesting that some of the forms of individualism that have become ubiquitous in our society are essentially inhumane, and even deeply irrational in the context of a totally integrated and inter-reliant society.
I really do recommend those docs (I have one in a playlist), which are totally legit (bbc) and make use of much fascinating original archive footage.
@TimeTelescope No sweat. I'd also recommend a playlist of my own called Foundations of Libertarian Ethics which is a series of Lectures by Roderick Long, and he addresses the relevance of culture as well.
I'm sorry but apparently you have not actually seen "The Trap" or "The Century of the Self". Neither is primarily concerned with "hedonistic" individualism. They contain numerous insights into the rise of our current political, economic and cultural definitions of individuality, which unfortunately have some sinister ramifications. I strongly suggest you watch both carefully before rushing to condemn them.
@TimeTelescope I wasn't suggesting that the documentaries had no value, they may be very informative. I was criticizing your seemingly blanket condemnation of "individualism". I don't see how an individualistic stance is incompatible with criticizing a culture that gives birth to a particular form of harmful advertisement. I brought up hedonism because I think people who identify themselves solely the way advertisers want them to would end up being hedonistic
Ayn Rand is a certifiable psycho, who defends inhumanity with fiction and abstraction.
For some good info on why our society is so obsessed with individualism an selfishness, check out Adam Curtis's "The Trap" and "The Century of the Self". I have the latter in my playlists.
@TimeTelescope it seems that those documentaries focus on a hedonistic atomistic form of individualism(which isn't the only kind). When you talk about how "our society is obsessed with individualism" you are assuming that how you are using the term is self-explanatory. If we are too weak not to be controlled by advertising then we basically can't change our culture anyway, but if we aren't too weak, advertising doesn't have to be our enemy because our values will be reflected by it. (cont)
@EpistemicDuty Also I think that it is highly debatable that Rand would even embrace the type of individualism you seem to allude too. If you think she does, then how do you explain why Roark from the Fountainhead was willing to live in poverty rather than compromise his values/ He could have made a lot of money if he chose to change his designs. But he rebelled against the culture he lived in. Rand didn't think free exchange by itself was enough. You have to have the right values to go with it
important thing in the Universe. Moral values are always relative. They're intended to defend somebody's interests (or property). I guess Nietzsche talks about it. But if you wanna read something really interesting (and dangerous) about egoism, I'd reccomend you "The Ego and its own" (also translated as "The individual and his property" or "The sole one and his property") by german philosopher Max Stirner. See you.
Hi, young lady. You ask some dangerous questions. They may lead to insanity (just look at me). First of all I wanna tell you that my english is very poor, but I'll try to tell you what I'd do if I was one of those starving men anyway. If I was either of them I would take the bread. Why? Simple: I'm the most important thing in the Universe. But, if I was the owner of the bakery, I'd probably consider the thief as an immoral. Why? Simple: he's taking away something that belong to the most
Anyways, responding the the video you are responding to, since I'm non-selfish I must be irrational. Bull crap.
I'm a highly self sacrificing individual because what I believe in is the whole of the group. If the group does good, then in return I will benefit. It is like a cycle of good will.
Sure, I could be wrong. But if the principles are innate or adopted by those who feel similarly, I would be right.
One thing I've learned is that society is crazy. No joke.
"Anyways, responding the the video you are responding to, since I'm non-selfish I must be irrational. Bull crap."
I argued against excluding any attempt by definition of establishing that pursuing just our interests has a necessary connection to rationality. One cannot legitimately determine if such a course isn't rationally justified if we embrace the common definition of "selfish" which assumes that it isn't. I was neither assuming nor denying selfishness and rationality are connected. (cont)
(cont.)"I'm a highly self sacrificing individual because what I believe in is the whole of the group. If the group does good, then in return I will benefit. It is like a cycle of good will."
"what I believe in is the whole of the group" is ethically ambiguous. This could imply that the ends always justify the means in maintaining the existence of the group. How would one "benefit" from that? Or it can mean that you believe in what the group promotes. Which doesn't require self-sacrifice.(cont)
(cont)"Sure, I could be wrong. But if the principles are innate or adopted by those who feel similarly, I would be right."
I don't think that there are innate principles. I think we are naturally inclined towards empathy. But the principles are abstract constructs we impose on our inclinations later. But one can choose to reject principles without condemning inclinations.
The way I see it, morality is subjective. It is obvious that our morals (and many other things) will vary from others. Morality is self reflective. In other words, it is asking ourselves; "How would we feel in the other person's shoes". In the case of the bread example; "How would I feel if someone stole bread from me" and then in turn think about it before we decide to steal. All your moral conducts usually reflect how you want people to treat you, and in turn how you treat others.
youtube search "This is John Galt Speaking" - done by xcowboy2, that way you don't have to read Rand you can watch some ones well done interpretation.
Your thieves with the bread...how about they perform some beneficial task for the person they are getting their bread from, rather then expanding misery and claiming that their need is a right to some one else's life and bread.
Morality is basically a social contract where everybody agrees to treat each other with respect. Respect requires empathy which is an understanding of other people's selfish needs and desires. Therefore, we can't be moral without also being selfish. In your scenario of the two starving men, they are both immoral because they are both disrespectful. But they are disrespectful due to market failure so, there's plenty of blame to go around. What goes around, comes around, right?
Society's morality is not a universal truth. A change in context changes the preference. Stealing motivated by real hunger is acceptable.. A smarter thief, would only steal half, never take everything. It gives the victim a reason to pursue. So a thief who steals all is unacceptable.. To take more than you need is unacceptable.
You're right, context is critical in determining the morality of a person's actions. In the context of survival, a person may be justified in stealing food but it is still immoral because they do so to the detriment of others. It would only be moral in the context of helping someone, like destroying an addict's drugs or pouring an alcoholic's liquor down the drain. Therefore, a moral code cannot be universal unless it factors in all possible contexts.
I look at the term morality to mean universal or absolute truth. Usually in a religious context.
Others see it as a context base way of living life with the understanding their choice is not universal truth or good or evil. Truth is very relative to ones point of view.
These are very different view.
If the first thief only stole what he needed and not all, this is acceptable morality. Ok, is it moral to let another person die from starvation? Objective ethics say yes, it is moral.???
No, it's not moral to let a person starve to death BUT, in order to do so, you must have complete control over their access to food. They must necessarily be incapable of feeding themselves without your help. It's no fault of yours if someone ends up starving to death because they refused to take responsibility for themselves.
I think the morality with the bread would have to come with the man with the bread. If the man with the bread does not offer tit to others then the bread will be stolen. Therefore the bread must be shared to correct the morality of mankind.
Mirror neurons were necessary for societal interactions between living entities. To know one's intentionality and their reactions. Its a priority for REAL-TIME learning. And real time learning is what make us "a little bit" special. So, this system of empathy structured by mirror neurons, can be developed. Research says that 4yr old kids react physiologically to pain when they see other kid cry or other human being hurt..
The first thief harmed an innocent; the second thief did not. At first glance, this appears to make the first thief worse.
On the other hand, the second thief stole bread from a starving person. Knowingly?If so, he intentionally inflicted as much harm as he was trying to escape. That's purely selfish.
If the victim of the first thief is not also starving, then the first thief might deserve a relatively sympathetic judgement. The second thief is harder to forgive.
Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. Auguste Comte's version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others
Selfishness is defined as: the act of placing one's own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others
Being selfish simply means that you don't hold it as your duty to serve others but you may choose to help others
That would be what I mean by natural temperament. Though to me it doesn't even matter if the behavior has emerged as a reflexive action encoded in our genetic makeup because it helps the species as a whole. or even just me. It's not selfish just as Dawkin's 'selfish' genes aren't really selfish. It's plainly automatic.
I just read my comment and I realized I wasn't entirely clear, so I guess that's not all there is to it.
First thing, I meant to say that there are reasons we feel good about giving. And these are not necessarily just to feel good about doing it. While it's hard to say what these may be in some particular occasion, it's just a simple fallacy to conclude this is the only possible reason.
"First thing, I meant to say that there are reasons we feel good about giving. And these are not necessarily just to feel good about doing it. "
I agree. Happiness shouldn't be defined as finding a successful means of achieving a mental state. Valuing what we are doing is constitutive of our happiness. What gives us the satisfaction isn't just that we value the state of feeling satisfied.
There is perhaps a Best Route for each situation, where damage is minimized and solidarity is best expressed. That's as close as we can probably come to something we may call an absolute morality. I think what we see everyday is this ideal filtered by the stuff in the previous message.
I don't know. I'm sure that's not all there is to it.
-We can upload videos megabytes long, but we can only post up to 500 characters. I know, I know: spam ... There has to be a better solution to that though.
The second thing is perhaps in practice most act ethically somewhat in accordance to the need for and scarcity of some resource and also somewhat in accordance to their 'strength', common word which I use in this instance to mean their mental capacity to find alternate routes to avoid competition and still satisfy their self interest.
I also think selfishness is not intrinsic. To enjoy giving, requires in my mind, an altruistic bent, which could be borne of natural temperament, or philosophical stance. Not everybody enjoys giving.
Regarding the bread. Morality maybe only comes into play when two beings are not in a direct collision course.
When it's possible to act ethically, do so, if that's what you consider fulfilling. Perhaps that's all there is to it.
"I also think selfishness is not intrinsic. To enjoy giving, requires in my mind, an altruistic bent"
I'm not sure I agree with the dichotomy of either selfishness is intrinsic or enjoying giving is altruistic. If it is sufficient to define altruism as enjoying benefiting others wouldn't this imply that all of our interests have to be opposed to consciously intending to benefit others? Shouldn't altruism require that you do good for someone whether you want to or not?
Well, I wouldn't go to extremes myself. You may enjoy giving for the simple fact that you're totally crazy. It's just a configuration that has a certain effect. Or you may not enjoy giving because you think everyone else is selfish, which isn't quite exactly like being selfish oneself, perhaps more like resentful.
"Shouldn't altruism require that you do good for someone whether you want to or not?"
I don't know, depends on definition. If altruism is selfless, but nonetheless concerned equally with all selves, that includes myself :) I'm also part of that equation.
I've tried to follow you on this one, but it is painfully obvious that you're understanding of the of even a simple word like "selfishness" is embarrassingly lacking.
I agree 100% with EpistemicDuty's video.
I hate it when people twist the meaning of 1 word, to compare to another "almost" completely different word.
So yeah, you have a new subscriber EpistemicDuty.
I'm not entirely sure how you agree with me more and her less. We both seem to agree that psychological egoism is false. And I argued in my video that a word can be used in a different sense than it is normally used if it enhances conceptual clarity.
"I never said that I agreed with her less, or you more."
It's the way your comment was structured. After you said that she didn't understand "selfishness" you then said you agreed with my video and that you hated how people twist words.
"And I don't think that her video added anything to the conversation worth noting"
She wanted to specifically ask me a question I was happy to answer. I wish I could have answered it better but oh well.
Check out 'Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs' pyramid. Because the need for bread is at the base physiological level, an 'ethical' or 'unethical' social judgement is immaterial.
It's only "Of course" if you assume that I'm informed. But I only read a couple of lines of hers maybe a month ago after somebody quoted her against me. Once I noticed that she was an ultra-capitalist (right away) I got allergic and left it lying. But I don't think we need to bring that discussion here. ;-p
Selfishness is an efficient strategy to the degree that it has become prevalent in everyday society or it wouldn't be as prevalent as it is. Or at least that would be my reasonable bet. Stealing is not an efficinet strategy if everybody does it, but it is a method that arises from selfishness. In collectivist societies where selfishness is generally less regarded stealing is less common.
I think Ayn Rand might have argued that selfishness is innate or at the very least highly appropriate.
Selfishness as I define it has to do with benefiting oneself on the expense of someone else. Putting oneself first, regret is something many people feel when they realize that they've benefited themselves on the expense of someone else, or that someone else is suffering because of them.
"I think Ayn Rand might have argued that selfishness is innate or at the very least highly appropriate."
Of course she thought it was appropriate, but not how you define it though. She also didn't think it was automatic. In fact she thought most of our intellectual history was in opposition to her philosophy. (cont)
The whole point of her philosophy was to challenge the idea that one couldn't live entirely for oneself without it being at the expense of others. I don't think she entirely succeeded. but whether she's right to reject the common definition of "selfish" it's not relevant to the substance of her thought. Unfortunately it is a knotty semantic issue. But I think Rand was right to challenge the traditional selfish/selfless dichotomy. As for regret, sure, I regret "selfish" acts.
"If selfishness was truly innate, regret would not exist"
1. No one is arguing that selfishness is innate.
2. Regret has to do with you not being able to successfully pursue something you value. This has nothing to do with whether selfishness is innate or not.
There was ambiguity in how the thought experiment was formulated. From what Kim said in later comments I interpreted it as a scenario where there was no right answer.
"If they're selfish, they take it for themselves."
If a person selfishly recognizes the benefit of developing a benevolent disposition in character toward humans in general, out of habit they wouldn't want the person to starve assuming it wasn't a zero sum game. (cont)
"The concept of stealing wouldn't even exist if people weren't generally selfish, due to its efficiency as a strategy."
Stealing isn't efficient at all. It's just easy in the short term. There never would have been a commandment "Thou shalt not steal" if it wasn't for the fact that it wasn't generally recognized that it is a poor long term strategy.
Your anecdote presents the relativity of morality. That what's good for one is not necessarily what's good for another.
Ayn Rand's philosophy, objectivism, asserts that it holds some greater truth, some better morality. If one is to follow another's morality, Ayn Rand's for example, doesn't that undermine selfishness?; your morality was created by someone else i.e. selflessly?
Rand ignores the subjective and relative nature of morality and claims her's is the "right one", which is Christ-like.
Your anecdote presents the relativity of morality. That what's good for one is not necessarily what's good for another.
Objective morality doesnt mean that what is good for one is necessarily good for another. There could be a broad objective good with relative minor goods within its scope. Objective morality doesnt mean people cant have their own career, hobbies, sexual preferences etc. Also Objective doesnt have to mean universally applicable either. Life isnt a trolley situation.
If one is to follow another's morality, Ayn Rand's for example, doesn't that undermine selfishness?
The validity of a position is not dependent on its originator. So if it is rational, its not because Rand said so, and if one were to find a certain degree of agreement with Rand that doesnt mean one must view her as a messiah. A persons self has to decide if a position is rational.
Interesting, I wasn't bored at all while reading The Fountainhead. Seems your only dislike of the book had something to do with the description of the main character, which seems a bit trivial to me. The Fountianhead is possibly the most inspirational book I've ever read, I recomend it very highly Kim, and it offers a view which is unique if you're interested in that.
Also, Selfishness means concern for yourself, it does not mean the willingness to live by taking the property of others
Intrinsic morality doesn't exist. In your example both are being neither moral or immoral. Morality always conflicts with itself, that's why it's a bum concept.
Ayn Rand's husband was a Rosthchild who is extremely corrupt and a freemason.
You could say that this is immoral or moral, but in the broad scope (as I see it) it's the one who creates the most abundance of resources that does the most good. Either through technology or shear numbers if something is readily available the survival aspect is several diminished.
Morality is not universal...it is relative...all that matters is your feeling at the time of the situation...if you truly believe that it is moral to steal bread from someone at the time, but believe it is immoral at another time, that is still possible, and the past action was not immoral, because you believed it was not. If you commit the act, but believe it is immoral at the time, than it is immoral. But morals only matter when you judge yourself.
The same applies to good and evil. All that matters in the person's own feelings. Selfishness is a virtue and inherently human. There is a good video on the AynRandInstitute's channel about how sacrifice is wrong, because like you said, if you help out homeless people, you are not sacrificing your time, because you truly want to be there. That is the reason why you are doing it. It would be "wrong" and "immoral" and "evil" to ignore your own feelings.
You read 3 pages of The Fountainhead and couldn't read any further? That's both strange and unfortunate. Nonetheless, I strongly urge you to give Atlas Shrugged a (proper) try. It is far grander in scope and to me, was far more powerful.
actually only the first guy stole the loaf of bread, the second guy was the actaul baker, the maker of the loaf of bread and rightful owner.
So he just took it back from the thief.
The baker didnt even report the theft to authorities nor did he beat up the thief. So I guess a nice guy like the baker, when approached nicely, would have GIVEN the loaf for FREE!
Here is a theory. Stealing is gaining something you do not deserve. So if a banker got big houses and expensive cars from breaking the economy - that is stealing. If a person starving - they can take from someone who has plenty. Not to care much about what the official authority view is, when you clearly know what is right / wrong better than their system does. But of course to avoid being caught by them. In this def Robin Hood was not a thief.
Reminds me of something, There was a case in which some tribe (I forget which) were told this land does not belong to them. As to them no one owned land. All it meant to them was that if they were on it, the police would come and move them from it.
Yeah, but I still struggle with having tolerance for the intolerant, that is, in my case, fundamentalist christians who don't know what they don't know.
Individuality vs. morality. How about a more rubber-meets-the-road example: an atheist and an evangelical fundamentalist christian. The atheist is tolerant of everyone, though he has trouble with being tolerant of the intolerant. The very basis of the christian's whole world view is that only his way is correct. If the atheist is tolerant of this intolerance, he is moral, by the golden rule. If he lets his opinion be known, he is showing healthy(?) individuality, but isn't tolerant.
I'm sorry the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I'M SORRY :(
But the other comments are very interesting, though responding to some would be like writing an essay. This is not my most shining video and I'm obnoxiously pleased with that fact.
Hey Kim, I thought your video was just fine. I wasn't too pleased with how I acted in my video however. I did take your hypothetical situation seriously, and when I said, "sorry I wasn't more in depth" I realize that I might have come across as sarcastic. I was sincere in wanting to give a better answer. I wasn't clear but I was trying to argue against the deontology/consequentialist dichotomy. I don't think we can be purely either one without it resulting in unappealing consequences.
The situation is simpler than you're making it. Even the man with the bread will starve to death unless he secures more food. Why don't they SHARE the bread, and put their heads together for finding more food? (win/win)
You don't have to read Rand; Stephen Covey covers what I consider to be our false dichotomy between selfishness and selflessness in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. What's bad is self-centeredness; it's MORAL to seek win/win; it's better for both starving men to share.
Natural behavior towards your family at first and later to all other people is the concept of reciprocal altruism: you give, because you can take when in need.
Humans, like any other gregarious animals, are social beings within their own herd. Is it healthy & sane, anti-social personality disordered mutants with enhanced learning disability naturally will be cast out, considered outlaws and therefore can't reproduce; forced to scrape a living in wilderness without its herd's protection.
That all volitional actions are the product of some want of ours is a tautology. If you didn't will to do something, it wouldn't be volitional. Better to look at the intent and actual effect of an action. If someone intends to help someone, it isn't selfish. The effect of the action is important because that is what actually happens, but the intention help us judge how the effect would be different if a person's improved their understanding of how to carry out their intentions. Not enough space.
IMHO, your thoughts on Rand show that you are honest and your sh*t detector is working. People should be free to act, and free to act selfishly. I am not my brother's keeper, but I DO owe every human a DUTY: Conscience driven.
I don't need a writer to soothe my conscience for stepping on people. Greed is a sickness. Example: Mr. X owns eight mansions. He makes money by chaining kids up to sew soccer balls in the dark.
There can be no peace w/o justice, and hungry people have to eat.
"I don't need a writer to soothe my conscience for stepping on people. Greed is a sickness. Example: Mr. X owns eight mansions. He makes money by chaining kids up to sew soccer balls in the dark."
Gaining wealth by means of enslavement is actually incompatible with Rand's philosophy. There is an important quote from the Fountainhead: "A leash is a rope with a noose at both ends."
there should just be a new words for the of selfish helping people, because it is clearly different from the definition of selfish that we traditionally understand. this debate about
what selfish is, is just another debate of word mumbling.
Well, I think we can say that both men were committing an unethical act (stealing must be "wrong" no matter what, because noone likes, wants or enjoys being stolen) but that doesn't make them unethical people. Now they were pushed to stealing because they were both starving, and if they were both starving they weren't living with the dignity all humans should have, so in a sense, they had already been stolen by someone (or something) else. (...)
So, given the context, their actions are fully justifiable and hardly condemnable. At least the first mans are (assuming he stole the bread from someone on an average situation, who wouldnt miss it much), the second man is a slightly harder question. He was stealing from someone who was in the same situation he was in. But if you are starving its harder to think properly, so he might be just as innocent as the first man.
Both of them didnt really had a choice, its the people who let them starve who are unethical. Not wanting to starve is not selfishness is just self preservation instinct.
Rand is to philosophy what Kenny G is to jazz. There is so much great philosophy to study that I simply have no time for Rand. Rand was a very sad, selfish person. I agree with you that she's a terrible writer.
When people criticize Rand on the basis of "she's selfish" it's an extremely vague criticism. It implies that you've only read the title of her book "The Virtue of Selfishness" and made your decision from that. If you "don't have time for Rand" you are basically admitting that you are in no position to assess her philosophy. And as for her writing style, there are those very sympathetic to Objectivism that actually don't like her fiction.
No, I had the misfortune of reading Atlas Shrugged. I've also studied her ideas, and real philosophy (Aristotle, Socrates, Kant, Hume, etc.) and I'll stick to the real stuff.
Accessing Rand's philosophy is not very difficult. She's a pop writer with a big following.
"Accessing Rand's philosophy is not very difficult. She's a pop writer with a big following. "
there is actually an increasing amount of academic attention being devoted to Rand, and secondary literature that clears up many misconceptions. And I apologize if I came across as condescending it's just that many people with your emotional reaction to Rand in my experience have hardly any solid understanding of what her views amount too. I've studied "real" philosophers too. And I list Rand as one.
Selfishness/Self Interest is a virtue. "Altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his own life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others it permits no concept of benevolent co-existence among men it permits no concept of justice"
The key word to use here is to "Rationally" and objectively understand a concept or thought devoid of any external and prejudicial "subjective" input.
Selfish ambition runs deep. It is a primary directive of human beings. The real trick is getting beneath one's own ego to see truth. Wanting is selfish in its nature. Both hungry men were indeed being selfish. That is not to say they are "wrong", however.
well if i must say that was AMAZING haha the details were just fantastic haha honstly i liked it it was great ... you cuaght my attention right at the beginning
I agree on the topic of selfishness. I don't believe pleasure is the object of every seemingly unselfish act. How devoid of meaning existence would be if our sole desire were to better only our own lives.
I think it's become blurred over centuries of elaborate elocution to the contrary and through the attribution of ethics to omnipotent benevolent beings. But however, morality exists FOR survival, else it would not have existed in the first place. Same as language, peace and justice such as it is. It has that as it's base root, but when beholding such a magnificent tree as morality we often forget the unseen roots that led to it's growth. Oh bugger, it's the tired old tree metaphor, sorry!
Was the original keeper of the bread starving? If so, as were the original thief and the second thief, maybe the only way for all involved to justify their morals would be to either share, give or throw away the bread.
what's unmoral is how everyone has to put a price on things. if everything was free, there would be no one starving. the two hungry men who stole the loaf of bread are ethical because they're both hungry and it's not fair that society won't willingly give them food for free IN THE FIRST PLACE. food should be free. lol
the fact that everything has a price makes it seem like the two theives are in the wrong but the reality is, they have a RIGHT to eat.
Comment removed
jbradnidom 3 weeks ago
Jesus image behind her... LOL
notengonickcojones 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FOREVER!
ApologizingRats 2 months ago
False Dichotomy
The first thief violates the person who owns the bread, the second thief is stealing stolen goods
Taking ill gotten gains is not necessarily a moral wrong, in the Market Anarchist model this is how the property will be sorted out, basically those who obtained property via theft and violence of the state automatically invalidate their claim to said property. Neither thief has any specific "right" to food, just the "right" to obtain it.
If orange hair keeps you from a book:eyeroll:
HarryFelker 3 months ago
@existentialistcat : As I was saying; well, just let me conclude. At the end of the day, Rand uses her characters like pawns to espouse a philosophy that is as unreal as her characters. That said, I must also say that I enjoyed the read, and I consider it an important study in what I do not wish to do in fiction ;) Cheers!
poetaanonymous 4 months ago
@existentialistcat Hello. I just watched this video and would like to comment Ayn (she pronounced it Ian) Rand. It struck me as particularly apt that you fastened onto 'orange peal hair,' as being unrealistic. In fact, Ayn was a writer in the Romantic tradition, whose work is supposed to give us an ideal to aspire. However, if you had continued to read, I think you would have been similarly effected throughout the novel; ...
poetaanonymous 4 months ago
Comment removed
TheGoniometer 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheGoniometer 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheGoniometer 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheGoniometer 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheGoniometer 5 months ago
You are clearly interested in ethics. Why not read Leonard Peikoff's book on Objectivism? I think it would help in your questions on ethics, especially since it appears that you know a lot about philosophy in general (i.e. "Kant's moral imperatives").
I have never been a huge fiction reader, but the Fountainhead was an exciting read from a philosophic standpoint. I hope you don't dismiss Objectivism on your account of disliking the novel's literary worth.
AlexanderEBott 5 months ago
To change the subject. I noticed the picture of , I guess, jesus christ, above your right shoulder. There is no real description of christ and anybody with any common sense would know that he couldn't have been that white, light skinned, and lived in the deserts of the middle east. So I find it interesting that pictures would depict a god like entity as light skinned. I think the pictures are printed that way because that is what people want to look at. Any opinions?
kingmike40 7 months ago
all the individuals share the bread in other not to fight each other. In fighting there is wastage of energy. Even if you win the fight, you will lose the cooperation of the other, and perhaps a leg or an arm.
rumbal 9 months ago
am i selfish if i would like you to be my girl?
juliusreea 11 months ago
he fiction is lame as hell
0Adamska 11 months ago
Why am i writing this? Because i care about people and i want to help you. Stop focusing on recording yourself awkwardly and live your life away from the camera. You are not an authority on any subject in your videos. Talking in circles about things you partially understand is a waste of your good energy. You seem like a very kind and gentle person. You should go outside and interact with others. I'll meet you on the corner.
DRETUBE9 1 year ago
@DRETUBE9 Not to sound like an apologist for her, but how is making a whopping few vids per year living in front of the camera? As for awkward recordings, I make them too. No one complains.. Why? Because I'm not a beautiful young woman many arbitrarily resent. Not to single you out, it just depresses me when she get's penalized for this vid. She wanted to ask me a question. Why does she have to be an authority on anything to do this or to talk about a topic that interests her?
EpistemicDuty 1 year ago 6
Philosophy is such a crock. When the chips are down, we're no different to the insects. Oh, and incidentally, Howard Roark had hair the exact color of ripe orange-rind.
ISayAnyoneForTennis 1 year ago
@ISayAnyoneForTennis which is itself a philosophy right?
lookatmepleasesir 1 year ago
"Selfishness is defined as concern for ones self." - Ayn Rand. If you are not concerned for yourself, you could not survive. It is not a bad thing. Ayn Rand makes some excellent points, however, there are flaws in her philosophy. It is immoral to steal the bread regardless of circumstance. But, you put your life at a higher value than an ethical premise. Check out this video by lifeishowitis: /watch?v=AOUON0mHa9E I think you will like it, and it is on the subject of 'value scales'.
Killedkennyagain 1 year ago
@Killedkennyagain RANDROID
Likety 1 year ago
@Likety Why is that? Because I used a quote from her which was relevant to the subject?
Killedkennyagain 1 year ago
@Killedkennyagain No, because I've never in my life been able to call someone a Randroid and I wanted to do it then.
Likety 1 year ago
@Likety Well, thats fine then. Just wanted to clarify since you would be seriously mislabeling me if you were serious. I am about as much a "Randroid" as Murray Rothbard (see Mozart Was A Red.). Have you read him? It may be above your level, but, I recommend giving it a try sport.
Killedkennyagain 1 year ago
Maybe selfishness becomes less primtive and more sophisticated the more one integrates socially. I'm never too sure, LoL. I have read almost all Rand's work; in the end, I think some of the things she said are true. Anyway, I don't think knowing everything would be a good thing necessarily. Heigh-ho... Tace kare :)
seasprayandvinegar 1 year ago
Im so selfish that, when watching this video i was just thinking of screwing that girl!
i dont even care about she is saying, cause im aware of this issue anyway, so i was just thinking of satisfying myself, with her!
MarioGoldgruber1 1 year ago
Definition of SELFISH
1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act)
I'm concerned with myself and the things I do. I had coffee and cerial so I'm selfish. Athough, Selfishness seems to be of a social norm that is NOT being exceptable and being acceptable to others.
Gnomebe 1 year ago
Altruism = The next conversation.
AND IT Does exist damit! Some people believe and wrote these big big papers saying it doesn't even exit! That would mean EVERYTHING we do is selfish. So your poster who say's selfishness is wrong BS.
Gnomebe 1 year ago
Rand = bad writer
Truth = Is an Abstraction (by definition)
Your question how does individuality Affect/Effect morality = HuGE = Human Race
Luv YA
Gnomebe 1 year ago
Cat Your :
1. Awesome (Your still putting out cool thoughtful video's)
2. pretty (Easy on the eye's)
3. Really good musician
4. You should keep going with the psychobable.
5. Career get a masters degree working as a curator for museams
Good Luck and Thanks
Gnomebe 1 year ago
For what its worth...
1) Selfishness is not a virtue, but a vice. In fact, love, the self gift of oneself to another is the anti-thesis of selfishness.
2) Fountainhead was very good, but Atlas Shrugged was a powerful book. Sadly Utilitarian in its philosophy, and totally impractical in its conclusions. But much food for thought.
3) Look to Christ. He gave even his own life to live in accord with the mission the Father gave him. This is sacrifice.
cialovesyou 1 year ago
u could say that to be selfish effectively we need to care about others also. When we create stabillity for people, we help create stabillity for them which can create stabillity in our own life, such as peace of mind and not needing to support them so much by helping them to become independent.
ooimagineo 1 year ago
You are so blessed with looks. I think you should be not too careful of the world's unresolved questions and instead just enjoy yourself. I suppose the funny thing about beauty is anyway you don't really get much out of it yourself - it's onlookers that do. Take care you gorgeous thing x
egnarocyg 1 year ago
I'm sorry if I appeared to condemn all forms of individualism. This was not my intention. I was suggesting that some of the forms of individualism that have become ubiquitous in our society are essentially inhumane, and even deeply irrational in the context of a totally integrated and inter-reliant society.
I really do recommend those docs (I have one in a playlist), which are totally legit (bbc) and make use of much fascinating original archive footage.
TimeTelescope 1 year ago
@TimeTelescope No sweat. I'd also recommend a playlist of my own called Foundations of Libertarian Ethics which is a series of Lectures by Roderick Long, and he addresses the relevance of culture as well.
EpistemicDuty 1 year ago
@epistemicduty
I'm sorry but apparently you have not actually seen "The Trap" or "The Century of the Self". Neither is primarily concerned with "hedonistic" individualism. They contain numerous insights into the rise of our current political, economic and cultural definitions of individuality, which unfortunately have some sinister ramifications. I strongly suggest you watch both carefully before rushing to condemn them.
TimeTelescope 1 year ago
@TimeTelescope I wasn't suggesting that the documentaries had no value, they may be very informative. I was criticizing your seemingly blanket condemnation of "individualism". I don't see how an individualistic stance is incompatible with criticizing a culture that gives birth to a particular form of harmful advertisement. I brought up hedonism because I think people who identify themselves solely the way advertisers want them to would end up being hedonistic
EpistemicDuty 1 year ago
Ayn Rand is a certifiable psycho, who defends inhumanity with fiction and abstraction.
For some good info on why our society is so obsessed with individualism an selfishness, check out Adam Curtis's "The Trap" and "The Century of the Self". I have the latter in my playlists.
TimeTelescope 1 year ago
@TimeTelescope it seems that those documentaries focus on a hedonistic atomistic form of individualism(which isn't the only kind). When you talk about how "our society is obsessed with individualism" you are assuming that how you are using the term is self-explanatory. If we are too weak not to be controlled by advertising then we basically can't change our culture anyway, but if we aren't too weak, advertising doesn't have to be our enemy because our values will be reflected by it. (cont)
EpistemicDuty 1 year ago
@EpistemicDuty Also I think that it is highly debatable that Rand would even embrace the type of individualism you seem to allude too. If you think she does, then how do you explain why Roark from the Fountainhead was willing to live in poverty rather than compromise his values/ He could have made a lot of money if he chose to change his designs. But he rebelled against the culture he lived in. Rand didn't think free exchange by itself was enough. You have to have the right values to go with it
EpistemicDuty 1 year ago
cuteness ,,,
Brutal666MAN 2 years ago
important thing in the Universe. Moral values are always relative. They're intended to defend somebody's interests (or property). I guess Nietzsche talks about it. But if you wanna read something really interesting (and dangerous) about egoism, I'd reccomend you "The Ego and its own" (also translated as "The individual and his property" or "The sole one and his property") by german philosopher Max Stirner. See you.
MaxStirnerstwin 2 years ago
Hi, young lady. You ask some dangerous questions. They may lead to insanity (just look at me). First of all I wanna tell you that my english is very poor, but I'll try to tell you what I'd do if I was one of those starving men anyway. If I was either of them I would take the bread. Why? Simple: I'm the most important thing in the Universe. But, if I was the owner of the bakery, I'd probably consider the thief as an immoral. Why? Simple: he's taking away something that belong to the most
MaxStirnerstwin 2 years ago
Thank you!
Anyways, responding the the video you are responding to, since I'm non-selfish I must be irrational. Bull crap.
I'm a highly self sacrificing individual because what I believe in is the whole of the group. If the group does good, then in return I will benefit. It is like a cycle of good will.
Sure, I could be wrong. But if the principles are innate or adopted by those who feel similarly, I would be right.
One thing I've learned is that society is crazy. No joke.
MannequinMaid 2 years ago
Though, I do have a sense of direction when it comes to morals. Personally, morals are rather innate.
For other, it seems they are not so lucky.
MannequinMaid 2 years ago
"Anyways, responding the the video you are responding to, since I'm non-selfish I must be irrational. Bull crap."
I argued against excluding any attempt by definition of establishing that pursuing just our interests has a necessary connection to rationality. One cannot legitimately determine if such a course isn't rationally justified if we embrace the common definition of "selfish" which assumes that it isn't. I was neither assuming nor denying selfishness and rationality are connected. (cont)
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
(cont.)"I'm a highly self sacrificing individual because what I believe in is the whole of the group. If the group does good, then in return I will benefit. It is like a cycle of good will."
"what I believe in is the whole of the group" is ethically ambiguous. This could imply that the ends always justify the means in maintaining the existence of the group. How would one "benefit" from that? Or it can mean that you believe in what the group promotes. Which doesn't require self-sacrifice.(cont)
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
(cont)"Sure, I could be wrong. But if the principles are innate or adopted by those who feel similarly, I would be right."
I don't think that there are innate principles. I think we are naturally inclined towards empathy. But the principles are abstract constructs we impose on our inclinations later. But one can choose to reject principles without condemning inclinations.
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
I found it funny how at 3:52 you ate something. Very fitting for the subject at hand.. no pun intended..
kowalabear1 2 years ago
i love your brows... they are so perfect lol.
cutwing 2 years ago
The way I see it, morality is subjective. It is obvious that our morals (and many other things) will vary from others. Morality is self reflective. In other words, it is asking ourselves; "How would we feel in the other person's shoes". In the case of the bread example; "How would I feel if someone stole bread from me" and then in turn think about it before we decide to steal. All your moral conducts usually reflect how you want people to treat you, and in turn how you treat others.
KamzGDX 2 years ago
youtube search "This is John Galt Speaking" - done by xcowboy2, that way you don't have to read Rand you can watch some ones well done interpretation.
Your thieves with the bread...how about they perform some beneficial task for the person they are getting their bread from, rather then expanding misery and claiming that their need is a right to some one else's life and bread.
Martintfre 2 years ago
Morality is basically a social contract where everybody agrees to treat each other with respect. Respect requires empathy which is an understanding of other people's selfish needs and desires. Therefore, we can't be moral without also being selfish. In your scenario of the two starving men, they are both immoral because they are both disrespectful. But they are disrespectful due to market failure so, there's plenty of blame to go around. What goes around, comes around, right?
Piscivorus 2 years ago
Society's morality is not a universal truth. A change in context changes the preference. Stealing motivated by real hunger is acceptable.. A smarter thief, would only steal half, never take everything. It gives the victim a reason to pursue. So a thief who steals all is unacceptable.. To take more than you need is unacceptable.
ZullGostnu2 2 years ago
You're right, context is critical in determining the morality of a person's actions. In the context of survival, a person may be justified in stealing food but it is still immoral because they do so to the detriment of others. It would only be moral in the context of helping someone, like destroying an addict's drugs or pouring an alcoholic's liquor down the drain. Therefore, a moral code cannot be universal unless it factors in all possible contexts.
Piscivorus 2 years ago
I look at the term morality to mean universal or absolute truth. Usually in a religious context.
Others see it as a context base way of living life with the understanding their choice is not universal truth or good or evil. Truth is very relative to ones point of view.
These are very different view.
If the first thief only stole what he needed and not all, this is acceptable morality. Ok, is it moral to let another person die from starvation? Objective ethics say yes, it is moral.???
ZullGostnu2 2 years ago
No, it's not moral to let a person starve to death BUT, in order to do so, you must have complete control over their access to food. They must necessarily be incapable of feeding themselves without your help. It's no fault of yours if someone ends up starving to death because they refused to take responsibility for themselves.
Piscivorus 2 years ago
Her self-flattery knows no bounds.
sxsepu 2 years ago
I think the morality with the bread would have to come with the man with the bread. If the man with the bread does not offer tit to others then the bread will be stolen. Therefore the bread must be shared to correct the morality of mankind.
Lword265 2 years ago
Just saw the tit...yeah it should be IT!!! haha..not me..you laughed at it....
Lword265 2 years ago
HEY orange peel hair can exist!..lol
Lword265 2 years ago
Mirror neurons were necessary for societal interactions between living entities. To know one's intentionality and their reactions. Its a priority for REAL-TIME learning. And real time learning is what make us "a little bit" special. So, this system of empathy structured by mirror neurons, can be developed. Research says that 4yr old kids react physiologically to pain when they see other kid cry or other human being hurt..
includao 2 years ago
The first thief harmed an innocent; the second thief did not. At first glance, this appears to make the first thief worse.
On the other hand, the second thief stole bread from a starving person. Knowingly?If so, he intentionally inflicted as much harm as he was trying to escape. That's purely selfish.
If the victim of the first thief is not also starving, then the first thief might deserve a relatively sympathetic judgement. The second thief is harder to forgive.
apieceofstring 2 years ago
Perhaps there are levels of morality. 0. The unacceptable, 1. The acceptable 2. the commendable.
0. You steal bread from the poor because you want to sell it to buy something you want.
1. You steal bread because you are hungry.
2. You dont steal the bread because well... what about the other guy?
BecomingThePath 2 years ago
Wikipedia page on Altruism says
Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. Auguste Comte's version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others
Selfishness is defined as: the act of placing one's own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others
Being selfish simply means that you don't hold it as your duty to serve others but you may choose to help others
Sam26100 2 years ago
You should feel good that it is you who compelled me to start posting here :)
ushiferreyra 2 years ago
I'm kind of a Youtube-comments noob. There are some replies of mine that don't clearly state who I'm responding to.
ushiferreyra 2 years ago
That would be what I mean by natural temperament. Though to me it doesn't even matter if the behavior has emerged as a reflexive action encoded in our genetic makeup because it helps the species as a whole. or even just me. It's not selfish just as Dawkin's 'selfish' genes aren't really selfish. It's plainly automatic.
ushiferreyra 2 years ago
Perhaps I should stop using the word "selfish" altogether. I think it might be more trouble than it's worth.
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
I just read my comment and I realized I wasn't entirely clear, so I guess that's not all there is to it.
First thing, I meant to say that there are reasons we feel good about giving. And these are not necessarily just to feel good about doing it. While it's hard to say what these may be in some particular occasion, it's just a simple fallacy to conclude this is the only possible reason.
ushiferreyra 2 years ago
"First thing, I meant to say that there are reasons we feel good about giving. And these are not necessarily just to feel good about doing it. "
I agree. Happiness shouldn't be defined as finding a successful means of achieving a mental state. Valuing what we are doing is constitutive of our happiness. What gives us the satisfaction isn't just that we value the state of feeling satisfied.
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
There is perhaps a Best Route for each situation, where damage is minimized and solidarity is best expressed. That's as close as we can probably come to something we may call an absolute morality. I think what we see everyday is this ideal filtered by the stuff in the previous message.
I don't know. I'm sure that's not all there is to it.
-We can upload videos megabytes long, but we can only post up to 500 characters. I know, I know: spam ... There has to be a better solution to that though.
ushiferreyra 2 years ago
The second thing is perhaps in practice most act ethically somewhat in accordance to the need for and scarcity of some resource and also somewhat in accordance to their 'strength', common word which I use in this instance to mean their mental capacity to find alternate routes to avoid competition and still satisfy their self interest.
ushiferreyra 2 years ago
I also think selfishness is not intrinsic. To enjoy giving, requires in my mind, an altruistic bent, which could be borne of natural temperament, or philosophical stance. Not everybody enjoys giving.
Regarding the bread. Morality maybe only comes into play when two beings are not in a direct collision course.
When it's possible to act ethically, do so, if that's what you consider fulfilling. Perhaps that's all there is to it.
ushiferreyra 2 years ago
"I also think selfishness is not intrinsic. To enjoy giving, requires in my mind, an altruistic bent"
I'm not sure I agree with the dichotomy of either selfishness is intrinsic or enjoying giving is altruistic. If it is sufficient to define altruism as enjoying benefiting others wouldn't this imply that all of our interests have to be opposed to consciously intending to benefit others? Shouldn't altruism require that you do good for someone whether you want to or not?
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
Well, I wouldn't go to extremes myself. You may enjoy giving for the simple fact that you're totally crazy. It's just a configuration that has a certain effect. Or you may not enjoy giving because you think everyone else is selfish, which isn't quite exactly like being selfish oneself, perhaps more like resentful.
ushiferreyra 2 years ago
"Shouldn't altruism require that you do good for someone whether you want to or not?"
I don't know, depends on definition. If altruism is selfless, but nonetheless concerned equally with all selves, that includes myself :) I'm also part of that equation.
ushiferreyra 2 years ago
I'm sorry.
I've tried to follow you on this one, but it is painfully obvious that you're understanding of the of even a simple word like "selfishness" is embarrassingly lacking.
I agree 100% with EpistemicDuty's video.
I hate it when people twist the meaning of 1 word, to compare to another "almost" completely different word.
So yeah, you have a new subscriber EpistemicDuty.
BiGSL34 2 years ago
I'm not entirely sure how you agree with me more and her less. We both seem to agree that psychological egoism is false. And I argued in my video that a word can be used in a different sense than it is normally used if it enhances conceptual clarity.
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
I never said that I agreed with her less, or you more.
I agree with your argument.
And I don't think that her video added anything to the conversation worth noting.
I'm pretty sure she was lost
As she said in the video "I don't really know where to go with it"
Her homeless stealing analogy didn't truly add anything to the discussion.
Whether stealing is selfish or not, isn't even a question worth thinking about, and how it pertains to ethics has been done a million times already.
BiGSL34 2 years ago
"I never said that I agreed with her less, or you more."
It's the way your comment was structured. After you said that she didn't understand "selfishness" you then said you agreed with my video and that you hated how people twist words.
"And I don't think that her video added anything to the conversation worth noting"
She wanted to specifically ask me a question I was happy to answer. I wish I could have answered it better but oh well.
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
My mistake
BiGSL34 2 years ago
Check out 'Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs' pyramid. Because the need for bread is at the base physiological level, an 'ethical' or 'unethical' social judgement is immaterial.
RAMKING61 2 years ago
It's only "Of course" if you assume that I'm informed. But I only read a couple of lines of hers maybe a month ago after somebody quoted her against me. Once I noticed that she was an ultra-capitalist (right away) I got allergic and left it lying. But I don't think we need to bring that discussion here. ;-p
IrreducibleParadox 2 years ago
I don't agree with her views on politics either. I'm a market anarchist. lol
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
"If they're ethical they share the bread." That's just my standpoint.
If somebody asked me what would be ethical that's what I'd say.
IrreducibleParadox 2 years ago
Selfishness is an efficient strategy to the degree that it has become prevalent in everyday society or it wouldn't be as prevalent as it is. Or at least that would be my reasonable bet. Stealing is not an efficinet strategy if everybody does it, but it is a method that arises from selfishness. In collectivist societies where selfishness is generally less regarded stealing is less common.
IrreducibleParadox 2 years ago
I think Ayn Rand might have argued that selfishness is innate or at the very least highly appropriate.
Selfishness as I define it has to do with benefiting oneself on the expense of someone else. Putting oneself first, regret is something many people feel when they realize that they've benefited themselves on the expense of someone else, or that someone else is suffering because of them.
IrreducibleParadox 2 years ago
"I think Ayn Rand might have argued that selfishness is innate or at the very least highly appropriate."
Of course she thought it was appropriate, but not how you define it though. She also didn't think it was automatic. In fact she thought most of our intellectual history was in opposition to her philosophy. (cont)
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
The whole point of her philosophy was to challenge the idea that one couldn't live entirely for oneself without it being at the expense of others. I don't think she entirely succeeded. but whether she's right to reject the common definition of "selfish" it's not relevant to the substance of her thought. Unfortunately it is a knotty semantic issue. But I think Rand was right to challenge the traditional selfish/selfless dichotomy. As for regret, sure, I regret "selfish" acts.
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
Lol, I wasn't saying that you didn't. In fact, I believe that EVERYONE that reach enough insight regret selfish acts whether they want to or not.
IrreducibleParadox 2 years ago
It has everything to do with whether selfishness is innate or not.
If people typically regret themselves with a rising level of insight to suffering caused, then selfishness is not a clever morality.
IrreducibleParadox 2 years ago
lol here I go again. sorry :)
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
He he, that was instant, I'll let you finish though. ;-p
IrreducibleParadox 2 years ago
If selfishness was truly innate, regret would not exist. Regret is an anti-thesis of innate selfishness.
IrreducibleParadox 2 years ago
"If selfishness was truly innate, regret would not exist"
1. No one is arguing that selfishness is innate.
2. Regret has to do with you not being able to successfully pursue something you value. This has nothing to do with whether selfishness is innate or not.
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
If they're ethical they share the bread.
If they're selfish, they take it for themselves.
If they're selfless they give it away.
In any eventuality if they're uninformed of the consequences they may regret themselves.
The concept of stealing wouldn't even exist if people weren't generally selfish, due to its efficiency as a strategy. Ayn Rand was terribly selfish.
IrreducibleParadox 2 years ago
"If they're ethical they share the bread."
There was ambiguity in how the thought experiment was formulated. From what Kim said in later comments I interpreted it as a scenario where there was no right answer.
"If they're selfish, they take it for themselves."
If a person selfishly recognizes the benefit of developing a benevolent disposition in character toward humans in general, out of habit they wouldn't want the person to starve assuming it wasn't a zero sum game. (cont)
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
"The concept of stealing wouldn't even exist if people weren't generally selfish, due to its efficiency as a strategy."
Stealing isn't efficient at all. It's just easy in the short term. There never would have been a commandment "Thou shalt not steal" if it wasn't for the fact that it wasn't generally recognized that it is a poor long term strategy.
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
*was generally recognized. Typo
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
Your anecdote presents the relativity of morality. That what's good for one is not necessarily what's good for another.
Ayn Rand's philosophy, objectivism, asserts that it holds some greater truth, some better morality. If one is to follow another's morality, Ayn Rand's for example, doesn't that undermine selfishness?; your morality was created by someone else i.e. selflessly?
Rand ignores the subjective and relative nature of morality and claims her's is the "right one", which is Christ-like.
B94241 2 years ago
Your anecdote presents the relativity of morality. That what's good for one is not necessarily what's good for another.
Objective morality doesnt mean that what is good for one is necessarily good for another. There could be a broad objective good with relative minor goods within its scope. Objective morality doesnt mean people cant have their own career, hobbies, sexual preferences etc. Also Objective doesnt have to mean universally applicable either. Life isnt a trolley situation.
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
If one is to follow another's morality, Ayn Rand's for example, doesn't that undermine selfishness?
The validity of a position is not dependent on its originator. So if it is rational, its not because Rand said so, and if one were to find a certain degree of agreement with Rand that doesnt mean one must view her as a messiah. A persons self has to decide if a position is rational.
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
Comment removed
EpistemicDuty 2 years ago
You should try Ayn Rand's non-fiction.
MrCropper 2 years ago
ummmm, it was totally orange rind hair.. as a cross between blonde and red hair. :P
She's a good writer damnit!!!!.
TheObnubilators 2 years ago
Comment removed
BullzeyeParade 2 years ago
Comment removed
BullzeyeParade 2 years ago
Comment removed
BullzeyeParade 2 years ago
It's ok to steal if you are starving, just watch out cause someone might be starving and steal it from you, which would also be irony or karma.
macro820 2 years ago
Interesting, I wasn't bored at all while reading The Fountainhead. Seems your only dislike of the book had something to do with the description of the main character, which seems a bit trivial to me. The Fountianhead is possibly the most inspirational book I've ever read, I recomend it very highly Kim, and it offers a view which is unique if you're interested in that.
Also, Selfishness means concern for yourself, it does not mean the willingness to live by taking the property of others
Sam26100 2 years ago
everything is stimulation. watch
watch?v=jEsUnwj_Bwo&feature=channel_page (part one of tree)
a real great view!
illuminatedstar 2 years ago
Intrinsic morality doesn't exist. In your example both are being neither moral or immoral. Morality always conflicts with itself, that's why it's a bum concept.
AgentGhost 2 years ago
Ayn Rand´s arguments are irrefutable.
BeHereNow21 2 years ago
Ayn Rand's husband was a Rosthchild who is extremely corrupt and a freemason.
You could say that this is immoral or moral, but in the broad scope (as I see it) it's the one who creates the most abundance of resources that does the most good. Either through technology or shear numbers if something is readily available the survival aspect is several diminished.
megamanium 2 years ago
Morality is not universal...it is relative...all that matters is your feeling at the time of the situation...if you truly believe that it is moral to steal bread from someone at the time, but believe it is immoral at another time, that is still possible, and the past action was not immoral, because you believed it was not. If you commit the act, but believe it is immoral at the time, than it is immoral. But morals only matter when you judge yourself.
HarryNRubin 2 years ago
The same applies to good and evil. All that matters in the person's own feelings. Selfishness is a virtue and inherently human. There is a good video on the AynRandInstitute's channel about how sacrifice is wrong, because like you said, if you help out homeless people, you are not sacrificing your time, because you truly want to be there. That is the reason why you are doing it. It would be "wrong" and "immoral" and "evil" to ignore your own feelings.
HarryNRubin 2 years ago
You read 3 pages of The Fountainhead and couldn't read any further? That's both strange and unfortunate. Nonetheless, I strongly urge you to give Atlas Shrugged a (proper) try. It is far grander in scope and to me, was far more powerful.
chopsky 2 years ago
actually only the first guy stole the loaf of bread, the second guy was the actaul baker, the maker of the loaf of bread and rightful owner.
So he just took it back from the thief.
The baker didnt even report the theft to authorities nor did he beat up the thief. So I guess a nice guy like the baker, when approached nicely, would have GIVEN the loaf for FREE!
moonlandingwasfake 2 years ago
Here is a theory. Stealing is gaining something you do not deserve. So if a banker got big houses and expensive cars from breaking the economy - that is stealing. If a person starving - they can take from someone who has plenty. Not to care much about what the official authority view is, when you clearly know what is right / wrong better than their system does. But of course to avoid being caught by them. In this def Robin Hood was not a thief.
bivvyfox 3 years ago
Reminds me of something, There was a case in which some tribe (I forget which) were told this land does not belong to them. As to them no one owned land. All it meant to them was that if they were on it, the police would come and move them from it.
bivvyfox 3 years ago
god you're so beautiful.
Fatihtheking 3 years ago 5
i wonder if it offends her that people like you probably only watch her videos because of how she looks....
Pelonetillo 3 years ago 4
well... i don't watch her videos just to look at her. i watch them to masturbate.
yoyoyoy90989 3 years ago 2
thats whats up.
Pelonetillo 3 years ago
i didn' t say i watch her ,just for her beauty, can't i say she's beautifl? now think about this then go fuck your mum ok?
Fatihtheking 2 years ago
no, i think ill fuck your mum ok???
Pelonetillo 2 years ago
yeah very clever reply.congrtls.
Fatihtheking 2 years ago
lol...
SuperAtheistBrothers 2 years ago
Yeah, but I still struggle with having tolerance for the intolerant, that is, in my case, fundamentalist christians who don't know what they don't know.
ronman52 3 years ago
When the well being of others is felt as your own, then being selfish is virtuous.
mermadeinheaven 3 years ago
Individuality vs. morality. How about a more rubber-meets-the-road example: an atheist and an evangelical fundamentalist christian. The atheist is tolerant of everyone, though he has trouble with being tolerant of the intolerant. The very basis of the christian's whole world view is that only his way is correct. If the atheist is tolerant of this intolerance, he is moral, by the golden rule. If he lets his opinion be known, he is showing healthy(?) individuality, but isn't tolerant.
ronman52 3 years ago
Morals are individual in nature.
We are in essence our own moral guide.
What this of course implies is that conflict between men is essentially inevitable.
the situation you posit is not stupid, rather it is unpleasant to contemplate.
Since all our motivations are intrinsically selfish men are almost destined to be at odds with each other.
ginnal 3 years ago
I'm sorry the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I'M SORRY :(
But the other comments are very interesting, though responding to some would be like writing an essay. This is not my most shining video and I'm obnoxiously pleased with that fact.
existentialistcat 3 years ago
Hey Kim, I thought your video was just fine. I wasn't too pleased with how I acted in my video however. I did take your hypothetical situation seriously, and when I said, "sorry I wasn't more in depth" I realize that I might have come across as sarcastic. I was sincere in wanting to give a better answer. I wasn't clear but I was trying to argue against the deontology/consequentialist dichotomy. I don't think we can be purely either one without it resulting in unappealing consequences.
EpistemicDuty 3 years ago
do something else. your not stupid, but far from being bright.
bullldrick 3 years ago
you're grammer is being lackluster
existentialistcat 3 years ago
Made me chuckle ;p
Zlyzer 3 years ago
The situation is simpler than you're making it. Even the man with the bread will starve to death unless he secures more food. Why don't they SHARE the bread, and put their heads together for finding more food? (win/win)
You don't have to read Rand; Stephen Covey covers what I consider to be our false dichotomy between selfishness and selflessness in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. What's bad is self-centeredness; it's MORAL to seek win/win; it's better for both starving men to share.
GabrielKoulikov 3 years ago
I actually thought the fountainhead was the best book ayn rand has written :/
She sorta loses it with atlas shrugged (it's her propaganda book).
demonique666 3 years ago
read anthem
demiurgeswill 3 years ago
Just another context:
"The more personal the story, the more universal the story"
So, actually being 'selfish' makes you more in touch with universal nature.
What usually happens is that social programming gives you a false sence of 'self', and 'selfishness' in that context is destructive.
Just something more to ponder....
cathwitness 3 years ago
Natural behavior towards your family at first and later to all other people is the concept of reciprocal altruism: you give, because you can take when in need.
Humans, like any other gregarious animals, are social beings within their own herd. Is it healthy & sane, anti-social personality disordered mutants with enhanced learning disability naturally will be cast out, considered outlaws and therefore can't reproduce; forced to scrape a living in wilderness without its herd's protection.
Tressco 3 years ago
That all volitional actions are the product of some want of ours is a tautology. If you didn't will to do something, it wouldn't be volitional. Better to look at the intent and actual effect of an action. If someone intends to help someone, it isn't selfish. The effect of the action is important because that is what actually happens, but the intention help us judge how the effect would be different if a person's improved their understanding of how to carry out their intentions. Not enough space.
lancehalberd 3 years ago
Kim, I suppose this is selfish of me, but I want your cupcakes.
PlasmaVision 3 years ago
IMHO, your thoughts on Rand show that you are honest and your sh*t detector is working. People should be free to act, and free to act selfishly. I am not my brother's keeper, but I DO owe every human a DUTY: Conscience driven.
I don't need a writer to soothe my conscience for stepping on people. Greed is a sickness. Example: Mr. X owns eight mansions. He makes money by chaining kids up to sew soccer balls in the dark.
There can be no peace w/o justice, and hungry people have to eat.
ChristopherMarlowe 3 years ago
"I don't need a writer to soothe my conscience for stepping on people. Greed is a sickness. Example: Mr. X owns eight mansions. He makes money by chaining kids up to sew soccer balls in the dark."
Gaining wealth by means of enslavement is actually incompatible with Rand's philosophy. There is an important quote from the Fountainhead: "A leash is a rope with a noose at both ends."
EpistemicDuty 3 years ago
there should just be a new words for the of selfish helping people, because it is clearly different from the definition of selfish that we traditionally understand. this debate about
what selfish is, is just another debate of word mumbling.
blahblah7949 3 years ago
Well, I think we can say that both men were committing an unethical act (stealing must be "wrong" no matter what, because noone likes, wants or enjoys being stolen) but that doesn't make them unethical people. Now they were pushed to stealing because they were both starving, and if they were both starving they weren't living with the dignity all humans should have, so in a sense, they had already been stolen by someone (or something) else. (...)
flan984 3 years ago
(...)
So, given the context, their actions are fully justifiable and hardly condemnable. At least the first mans are (assuming he stole the bread from someone on an average situation, who wouldnt miss it much), the second man is a slightly harder question. He was stealing from someone who was in the same situation he was in. But if you are starving its harder to think properly, so he might be just as innocent as the first man.
(...)
flan984 3 years ago
(...)
Both of them didnt really had a choice, its the people who let them starve who are unethical. Not wanting to starve is not selfishness is just self preservation instinct.
flan984 3 years ago
Rand is to philosophy what Kenny G is to jazz. There is so much great philosophy to study that I simply have no time for Rand. Rand was a very sad, selfish person. I agree with you that she's a terrible writer.
heathdwatts 3 years ago
When people criticize Rand on the basis of "she's selfish" it's an extremely vague criticism. It implies that you've only read the title of her book "The Virtue of Selfishness" and made your decision from that. If you "don't have time for Rand" you are basically admitting that you are in no position to assess her philosophy. And as for her writing style, there are those very sympathetic to Objectivism that actually don't like her fiction.
EpistemicDuty 3 years ago
my last comment was in response to heathdwatts.
EpistemicDuty 3 years ago
No, I had the misfortune of reading Atlas Shrugged. I've also studied her ideas, and real philosophy (Aristotle, Socrates, Kant, Hume, etc.) and I'll stick to the real stuff.
Accessing Rand's philosophy is not very difficult. She's a pop writer with a big following.
heathdwatts 3 years ago
"Accessing Rand's philosophy is not very difficult. She's a pop writer with a big following. "
there is actually an increasing amount of academic attention being devoted to Rand, and secondary literature that clears up many misconceptions. And I apologize if I came across as condescending it's just that many people with your emotional reaction to Rand in my experience have hardly any solid understanding of what her views amount too. I've studied "real" philosophers too. And I list Rand as one.
EpistemicDuty 3 years ago
Comment removed
jsc20082 3 years ago
Selfishness/Self Interest is a virtue. "Altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his own life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others it permits no concept of benevolent co-existence among men it permits no concept of justice"
The key word to use here is to "Rationally" and objectively understand a concept or thought devoid of any external and prejudicial "subjective" input.
sodie77 3 years ago
Selfish ambition runs deep. It is a primary directive of human beings. The real trick is getting beneath one's own ego to see truth. Wanting is selfish in its nature. Both hungry men were indeed being selfish. That is not to say they are "wrong", however.
Rybot9000 3 years ago
well if i must say that was AMAZING haha the details were just fantastic haha honstly i liked it it was great ... you cuaght my attention right at the beginning
Chick6517 3 years ago
I agree on the topic of selfishness. I don't believe pleasure is the object of every seemingly unselfish act. How devoid of meaning existence would be if our sole desire were to better only our own lives.
GhostIntoTheFog 3 years ago
I think it's become blurred over centuries of elaborate elocution to the contrary and through the attribution of ethics to omnipotent benevolent beings. But however, morality exists FOR survival, else it would not have existed in the first place. Same as language, peace and justice such as it is. It has that as it's base root, but when beholding such a magnificent tree as morality we often forget the unseen roots that led to it's growth. Oh bugger, it's the tired old tree metaphor, sorry!
RamBeauBull 3 years ago
Was the original keeper of the bread starving? If so, as were the original thief and the second thief, maybe the only way for all involved to justify their morals would be to either share, give or throw away the bread.
kristoflaw 3 years ago
what's unmoral is how everyone has to put a price on things. if everything was free, there would be no one starving. the two hungry men who stole the loaf of bread are ethical because they're both hungry and it's not fair that society won't willingly give them food for free IN THE FIRST PLACE. food should be free. lol
the fact that everything has a price makes it seem like the two theives are in the wrong but the reality is, they have a RIGHT to eat.
keohal85 3 years ago
EntropyHaptens is spot on
r5768 3 years ago