A Debate on the Definition of Selfishness

Recently, I wrote a piece on my understanding of what Ayn Rand really meant by 'selfishness', and the difference between 'selfishness' and 'rational selfishness.' According to me a lot of Ayn Rand's readers mis-understand these concepts.

Interestingly, Vikram Bajaj, who is also on this network, disagrees completely with my understanding of these concepts, even while neither of us claim to diverge from the position that Rand took on this matter. I thought that posting my own view here, followed by the correspondence that Vikram and I have had on this matter (and may continue to), might be of interest to a lot of other people.

To begin with, here is a relevant excerpt from my article. Bear in mind that it is a bit longer than the regular blog post:

"In her introduction to ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’, Ayn Rand re-defined ‘selfishness’. In popular usage, and most dictionary definitions, the word ‘selfish’ denotes a person exclusively concerned with his/her own interests at the expense of others, or at best, with complete disregard for others. The image it brings to mind is of “a mindless brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own end”, or some other hedonistic monster. For most people, in order to condemn anyone, it is enough to say that they are ‘selfish.’ Ayn Rand freed ‘selfishness’ from this kind of a moral evaluation and from any judgment on how one treats others. She defined it, simply, as “concern with one’s own interests.”

However, the common misconception is that Ayn Rand replaced the negative moral evaluation contained in the conventional definition of selfishness (‘disregard for others’/ ‘at the expense of others’), with a positive one. Readers believe that the word ‘selfishness’, according to Ayn Rand, is a concept that denotes a rational, independent person concerned with his own properly defined, long term, rational self-interest. In other words, it conceptually subsumes every virtue of the Objectivist ethics. Just the word must evoke the image of someone like John Galt or Howard Roark. However, just like popular usage, this too is an error, albeit of the opposite kind.

Bear in mind that Ayn Rand did not define selfishness as a ‘heroic concern with one’s own interests’, or a ‘concern with one’s own rationally defined, long-term interests’. There is no evaluation of the kind of concern and action (whether rational or irrational, short-term or long-term) contained in her definition itself. It simply identifies the beneficiary of one’s own concern and actions: oneself. Altruism also identifies the beneficiary of one’s own concern and actions: others. The concept of selfishness is not meant to evoke the image of a mindless brute or a rational human being. Choosing one of these images means that one has incorporated a view of how someone acts, not just who benefits.

Some people accept that Ayn Rand’s definition of ‘selfishness’ does not subsume the Objectivist ethics, however, implicitly or explicitly, they think that it necessarily implies it. Accordingly, ‘selfishness’ must lead to a concern with one’s own ‘rational self-interest’, or ‘rational egoism’. Therefore, once again, it is enough to simply call John Galt selfish. This is not accurate either. The term ‘rational self-interest’ identifies a system of values based on a proper standard. Concern with it means that one discovers the objective standard and identifies the universal values that adhere to it, without contradiction or error. It requires consistent, disciplined thinking. Just because one’s intention is that one benefits from one’s own actions, it does not necessarily cause the recognition of this particular code of values. There is no such guarantee.

Confusing ‘selfishness’ with ‘rational selfihsness’ is confusing a subjective intent with an objective concept (‘rational selfishness’ requires the objective definition of man’s actual self-interest). In recognizing selfishness as a virtue, one simply accepts the fact that one’s own concern for one’s self-interest is morally valid and good. The fact that one accepts this, is a pre-condition to discovering what constitutes one’s proper, long-term self-interest. In that sense, ‘selfishness’ is a moral starting point for an individual. The end is ‘rational selfishness.’ This is why Objectivist scholars constantly refer to rational self-interest, or rational selfishness as Ayn Rand’s code of ethics.

Bear in mind that a person who drives recklessly on the road and jumps traffic lights for thrills (while endangering others in the process) also acts on what he perceives to be his self-interest. However, the selfishness he is practicing is vicious, irrational and range-of-the-moment. While it is not proper to simply say that he is being selfish, this is not to say that one can’t at all use the word ‘selfish’ for him. If one uses the word ‘selfish’, one has to qualify it (‘rational’ selfishness vs ‘irrational’ selfishness).

To sum up, I think that the word ‘selfish’ itself neither ought to depict brutish irrationality nor heroic rationality. The definition itself must remain morally neutral."

I have included the correspondence I've had with Vikram till now in the comments section below.