25 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSo the definition is faulty?
"In disregard for others" is not compatible with the examples given by norm or you. Acting in total disregard for others is unnatural and detrimental to human survival.
You would only like to use half a definition?
The definition is consistent in that; you are not your brothers keeper, it is also consistent in that you must deal with your fellow man for your own well being, for your own welfare (that makes man social, no two ways around that one no1). In buying a loaf of bread one can disregard the bakers welfare (because the bakers welfare is the bakers concern) but one cannot disregard what the baker charges for that loaf of bread. All this is very consistent, being selfish makes man a social being. It is you that has a topsy turvy time with definitions, you claim mans natural state to be one of altruism etc but it is also you that is an advocate for forcing altruism (i.e. it does not come naturally).
25 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaNo, I'm fine with the entire definition. The fact is that acting in disregard for others i.e. in a selfish manner is unnatural behavior for a human being. That is why it is virtually universally condemned in societies and groups. Of course, the fact that some people persist in acting in a selfish manner proves nothing but that abhorrent behavior does occur; but we have no more reason to encourage it than we have to encourage other antisocial behavior which is also detrimental to human survival.
So the definition is faulty?
You would only like to use half a definition?
The definition is consistent in that; you are not your brothers keeper, it is also consistent in that you must deal with your fellow man for your own well being, for your own welfare (that makes man social, no two ways around that one no1). In buying a loaf of bread one can disrega ...[text shortened]... c but it is also you that is an advocate for forcing altruism (i.e. it does not come naturally).
EDIT: The relevant definition of "selfish" from Merriam-Webster is:
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>
25 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOk, so whether it is natural or un-natural, let's put that to one side for a sec.
No, I'm fine with the entire definition. The fact is that acting in disregard for others i.e. in a selfish manner is unnatural behavior for a human being. That is why it is virtually universally condemned in societies and groups. Of course, the fact that some people persist in acting in a selfish manner proves nothing but that abhorrent behavior does occ ...[text shortened]... han we have to encourage other antisocial behavior which is also detrimental to human survival.
A man acting in his own interest for his own welfare must deal with other men on their terms. Thus a selfish man is a social man and not a hermit.
Agree? Disagree?
25 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderExcessive anything is bad, after all that would be the very definition of 'excessive'. Words do have more than one definition and I was pointing out that the second one is consistent with what Rand was saying and for the sake of this debate should be the one used, Rand makes some explanation of this in the introduction to "The Virtue of Selfishness" a title she specifically chose to clarify this issue.
No, I'm fine with the entire definition. The fact is that acting in disregard for others i.e. in a selfish manner is unnatural behavior for a human being. That is why it is virtually universally condemned in societies and groups. Of course, the fact that some people persist in acting in a selfish manner proves nothing but that abhorrent behavior does occ ing from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>
25 Apr 11
Originally posted by Wajoma(Shrug) A selfish man can chose to interact with others for his own gain and in total disregard of what happens to others.
Ok, so whether it is natural or un-natural, let's put that to one side for a sec.
A man acting in his own interest for his own welfare must deal with other men on their terms. Thus a selfish man is a social man and not a hermit.
Agree? Disagree?
A society which encourages such behavior will be dysfunctional, however.
25 Apr 11
Originally posted by WajomaI see little difference between definition 1 and definition 2. But I'm fine with using definition 2.
Excessive anything is bad, after all that would be the very definition of 'excessive'. Words do have more than one definition and I was pointing out that the second one is consistent with what Rand was saying and for the sake of this debate should be the one used, Rand makes some explanation of this in the introduction to "The Virtue of Selfishness" a title she specifically chose to clarify this issue.
25 Apr 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm taking the (Shrug) as an 'agree'. You are to be commended on your somewhat shrouded admission. I won't ride it...maybe ;^)
(Shrug) A selfish man can chose to interact with others for his own gain and in total disregard of what happens to others.
A society which encourages such behavior will be dysfunctional, however.
25 Apr 11
Originally posted by Wajoma....If you can juxtapose those two ideas together, then by extension you may as well argue that rapists serve a positive social function because they bring diversity into the gene pool...
......A man acting in his own interest for his own welfare must deal with other men on their terms. Thus a selfish man is a social man and not a hermit......
25 Apr 11
Originally posted by kmax87Still struggling with the idea that man has the right to live his life free from force, threats of force and fraud. C'mon kmax this is beginner stuff, a man dealing with others on mutually agreed terms versus rape. You can do better, or at least make a remark so obscure no one knows what it means.
....If you can juxtapose those two ideas together, then by extension you may as well argue that rapists serve a positive social function because they bring diversity into the gene pool...
25 Apr 11
Originally posted by Wajoma.....think outside the navel....corporation----->self interest----->third world community with abundant natural resources getting screwed. Its not that hard to see the value or relevance of the rape analogy....
Still struggling with the idea that man has the right to live his life free from force, threats of force and fraud. C'mon kmax this is beginner stuff, a man dealing with others on mutually agreed terms versus rape. You can do better, or at least make a remark so obscure no one knows what it means.
25 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87The problem with this 'man X acting in his own interest for his own welfare deals with man Y, and they do so on their terms, and it's no one else's business' thing, is - what if the dealing between X and Y is detrimental to Z, A, B and C who also live in the vicinity of X and Y?
.....think outside the navel....corporation----->self interest----->third world community with abundant natural resources getting screwed. Its not that hard to see the value or relevance of the rape analogy....
25 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageA funny nail-on-the-head piece. So you'd guess that Wajoma read Rand when he was 19 years old?
Ha ha ha
https://www.readability.com/read?url=http://www.gq.com/entertainment/books/200911/ayn-rand-dick-books-fountainhead?printable=true
25 Apr 11
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThis is my favorite bit
Ha ha ha
https://www.readability.com/read?url=http://www.gq.com/entertainment/books/200911/ayn-rand-dick-books-fountainhead?printable=true
Some snapped out of it after a semester or two, becoming people who later in life—like Hillary Clinton—could refer with a shake of the head to their "Ayn Rand phase." Some didn't, and I lost them as friends. And for years I've wondered whether they:
(a) bolted upright in bed at three in the morning a year or two after we'd graduated and exclaimed, "Mon Dieu! I have been an Ayn Rand Askwhole ! I must immediately cease and desist!"
(b) took it all the way, and now spend their days in the bowels of the Cato Institute, stroking hairless lap cats and smirking sourly as they develop strategies for deregulating the law of gravity.