Return to: Home | Blogs | The Faith Column

13 comments from readers

Apple
19 September 2007 at 00:48

Everyone wants happiness; the problem is to connect its in-the-moment experience to the ultimate value of life as conceived holistically. I would love for Mr. Ghate to explain--perhaps in the next installment--how worldly goals, purposes, and central purpose in a selfish life contrive to lead to spiritual joy; and, if possible, for him to define the terms he uses, since they are too loose in the popular ethical literature--for instance, the distinctions among a goal, an interest, a self-interest, and a purpose in a hierarchy of values, as restricted to the human level.

I would also love for Mr. Ghate to generalize his point to see whether this selfish orientation can withstand the charge of infectious greed, the known ideal of socialism (which is the core founding belief of this magazine), and the right (some would say, divine right) to a pastoral life unencumbered by technological complexities and decisions.

Somehow, I doubt he can pull it off in the remaining columns, or even in the comments.

Rational Dragon
19 September 2007 at 15:48

Ask yourself this:

Can a person still be "Greedy" if they do not lie, cheat, steal, kill, or engage in fraud?

If your answer is yes, then I submit that greed is no sin.

A truly rational greedy person will gain the trust and cooperation of others in order to maximize his gains.

gnuneo
19 September 2007 at 22:07

not only that, but a rational person will also realise that joining together with others to invest in community projects (often referred to as "taxes"), such as common roads, street-lighting, policing, education, health, social benefits etc, is also a rational behaviour model.

pity randian robots hate the idea of sharing so much then.

mwickens
20 September 2007 at 02:50

"Joining together with others to invest in community projects" is quite different from taxation. Taxation is what you need to resort to when others in your community DO NOT want to join with you in your project. I.e., you must force them. And initiating force is never rational.

gnuneo
21 September 2007 at 03:13

then your argument rests upon an assumption of a certain form of democracy - that of the 'dictatorship of the majority'. However in a real democracy (such as that practised in many communities across the world, and highly successfully too), the decision couldn't be made without agreement from all, without future votes being promisable.

this ensures that all voices have to be listened to, and properly identifies "Joining together with others to invest in community projects" with "taxation".

remember in theory, modern taxation IS democratic, because we *supposedly* live in democracies. Actually we in the UK live in a 2 party 'elected dictatorship', but that's neither here nor there.

the Danish are often called "happy tax-payers", and it is true, and for two main reasons:

1. they have a lot of local control at the village level councils, even having their education budgets set by themselves, including tax-raising powers,

2. because Denmark is a highly participatory system, and the Danes are rightly proud of that and work to maintain it, there is a great deal of oversight over govt spending by citizens, preventing a lot of pork barrelling. The citizens can actually see the benefits of the taxes, because so much comes directly back to them to be spent.

their societies are regularly voted by their citizens as the best places to live on earth.

tell me, do you think a randian society would beat them, and can you say why? Or would you say that the scandinavian societies *are* randian in nature?

Apple
21 September 2007 at 16:53

My faith in your faith is complete, Gnuneo. Thanks for the reminder that greed is a package admixed with yearning for the unearned, that capitalism is an unknown ideal, and that you have the divine right to stagnation. God Bless.

Mayberry
22 September 2007 at 16:16

Objectivism requires that we 'ask instead of 'tell' each other what we want. By doing that we appeal to the highest in the other.

A democracy always tells some of the people what to do and thereby is illegitimate. The smallest group is the individual and he must be respected. To do otherwise is to treat them as less than human.

This was the genuis of the American Declaration of Independence and constitution - it recognized the right of the individual above the group and instituted a constitution for the sole pupose of limiting government.

Objectivist of 26 years.

revoyr
26 September 2007 at 03:46

Hey apple, have you read Atlas Shrugged or the Fountain Head? If you had you would know the answer to your first question.

bala
26 September 2007 at 04:21

Apple,

Just to add to revoyr's list, try "The Virtue of Selfishness" (in case you haven't yet done so)

bala
26 September 2007 at 04:49

Dear gnuneo,

If you want a one word answer to your question on how a Randian society would beat the Scandinavian ones, it is FREEDOM. If you want a more elaborate answer, you need to read The Virtue of Selfishness.

Fonz21
26 September 2007 at 17:19

The idea that Taxes a form of servitude is rational is currupt in it's base premise. The idea that you have the right to take from someone at the point of a gun (the government) under the penalty of prison or outright theft of peoples property, if they do not succumb to the wants of others is not rational. Community projects are best left to the people best qualified to provide this the free enterprise system. Do you honestly believe roads would not have been built if not for government. Roadways in the U.S. where hampered by government regulation that did not allow the profit motive of tolls for private roads - amazing considering that we pay them to the government now, and the monies collected are not neccessarily spent to maintain those roads.

Rational people can look at the social programs that have been set up around the world and decide for themselves how productive and useful they are compared to profit motive enterprises. I will live my life with the knowledge that the individual is the core and that decisions for how I live my life is my decision, not the collective. Altruism is a dead belief and hollow. If people were honest with themselves they would realise that they believe in this collectivist socialist belief because they FEEL they are doing GOOD. The difference between an Objectivist and mystical beliefs is objectivists do not force others to conform or "lie, cheat, steal, kill, or engage in fraud" as Rational Dragon pointed out. You show me one government program that has not obfuscated the truth and demanded "just a little more money and we can make it work" i.e. Welfare, medicaid-medicare & Social Security. Any rational person can see these as complete failures but the altruist still after years of failure and exponential cost increases holds onto the irrational belief that if we just give it some more time or more money it will work, even with the facts of complete failure and breakdown of these systems on the horizon.

Macrocompassion
27 October 2007 at 11:12

This should be the main thesis:

One can be as selfish as one wants provided that ones selfishness does not cause offense to somebody else.

Unfortunately its not quite as simple as this in practice and selfishness usually leads to exploitation of somebody else. So we need laws to limit the ways that social mis-justice is felt. Worse, with our present political system there is very little effort being made to further thes ideals compared to that of furthing the (selfish) needs of the party regardless of its policy or aims. I think these facts have been recognized by those in favour of Ann Rand's ideas, the only problem is what to do about this situation?

Zeeshan Dawood
04 December 2007 at 06:40

one should be selfish... i mean selfish to love,

selfish to care the whole community in bringing ease to others our own difficulties remain no more.

so one must believe in selfishnee for the sake & survival for care across the world.

Zeeshan Dawood