Rational Self-Interest

WatDabney

Rational group interest IS rational self-interest.

As social animals living in communities and as part of any number of groups, we must, if we're rational, be mindful of the well-being of groups, because our own well-being depends on it.

'Rational self interest' is just being selfish.

No it in fact is not. Selfishness causes any number of negative consequences - suffering, hostility, crime, conflict, rebellion, war, death... So it's bludgeoningly obviously irrational, and therefore cannot be rational self interest.

WatDabney

She is, however, acting in her own rational self-interest by keeping all the value of the new machine for herself and not passing it on to her workers.

No, she rather obviously is not, as vividly illustrated by the fact that she caused so much hostility that she ends up going to the guillotine.

She is very clearly acting in her irrational self- interest.

If she were acting in the group's rational self-interest, she would allow them to work half as long.

And if she were acting in her own rational self-interest, she would do the same, since her well-being (and in fact, as neatly illustrated in the comic, her very life) depends on the well-being of the group.

Since she is acting in her own rational self-interest, she threatens to fire her workers if they do not work the same hours as before and pass the value on to her.

No. Again, she is rather obviously acting in her own irrational self-interest, as vividly illustrated in the last panel.

Any purely rational person (as opposed, mind you, to an empathetic one) would take the option to do that.

What on earth leads you to believe that rationality and empathy are mutually exclusive?

As social animals, empathy is eminently rational, and in fact I would argue that rationality is impossible without it.

AwesomeLowlander

The issue here isn’t her being on social security, it’s her arguing against its existence because ‘Nobody should need it’.

AwesomeLowlander

But that has nothing really to do with rational self-interest as an idea.

But that’s the stance that proponents of ‘rational self-interest’ have settled on. It’s not just a mindset, it’s an ideology. The mindset you have in mind may make sense, but the ideology it has become does not, and that is what people are making fun of.

AwesomeLowlander

And if she were acting in her own rational self-interest, she would do the same, since her well-being (and in fact, as neatly illustrated in the comic, her very life) depends on the well-being of the group.

This assumes perfect foresight. As can be seen from the history of robber barons and the legacy they left, it generally did work out for most of them, so they were correct in their choices focusing on self-interest. Not since the French revolution has any significant number of rich assholes faced significant consequences for their choices in placing their personal welfare above the group.

[email protected]

The problem being that it wasn’t the exact opposite. In fact, they had a lot of things in common. The leaders of both being self-interested megalomaniacs who desired control of all things around them.

[email protected]

The leaders of both being self-interested megalomaniacs who desired control of all things around them.

That’s easer to point out after the fact. I wouldn’t be surprised if the USSR was hitting all of their citizens with propaganda much like the US used to do with the “Land of the Free” saying

[email protected]

‘Rational self interest’ is just being selfish.

*Irrational self interest. Rational self interest would still involve improving the worker’s lives due to the support structure that a community brings

[email protected]

They were, yes.

See? Another similarity.

It was definitely a reaction to living under an authoritarian regime. The problem was that the reaction wasn’t “I don’t want this to ever happen again”, it was “I want to be the one in charge”.

[email protected]

Please reread the comment I’m responded to

[email protected]

I think what you’re describing is more wheelhouse of the less often talked about Egoism of Stirner, than the Objectivism of Rand.

[email protected]

We did. If she was consistent, she should have just chosen to die since it’s wrong for others to help her.

[email protected]

That would not be acting in her “rational self interest” read the comic. Ayn Rand was a monster but that’s just not the definition of hypocrite and it is not in line with saying “do as I say not as I do”. She said be selfish take what you can and did. I do not agree with this but I’m not pretending it’s hypocritical. It is consistent with her fucked up beliefs

[email protected]

Because her books weren’t selling, she ended up on social security, a program she’d mocked when healthy.

A program that she contributed money to all her life, though. It was a late tax return.

Communist

Do you believe ayn rand believed in rational self-interest?

If so, why was she against all forms of welfare and socialism? If not, isn’t she the inventor of the concept and thus the arbiter of what it should mean? Doesn’t that mean you’re changing the definition to suit your needs?

[email protected]

I always upvote deleted commnets

[email protected]

They were, yes.

See? Another similarity.

How to be an insufferable cunt in 1 easy step!

AnyOldName3

When people use the phrase rational self interest they’re overwhelmingly meaning what Ayn Rand called rational self interest. If you take the words literally, they apply to any political philosophy as no one’s trying to design a system against their own interests. The disagreements come from people disagreeing what their interests are and how they can feasibly have them fulfilled, not because they don’t want their interests fulfilled. No one else bothers using the phrase because it’s obviously the goal and stating that would be entirely redundant, but risk making it sound like you were advocating for something Randian.

[email protected]

You actually were referring to the comic, not the post you were responding to. The post you responded to did not say that at all.

[email protected]

No it in fact is not. Selfishness causes any number of negative consequences - suffering, hostility, crime, conflict, rebellion, war, death… So it’s bludgeoningly obviously irrational, and therefore cannot be rational self interest.

for 99% of people yes. but if you happen to be at the very top of the ladder and if things are broken enough you can be self interested into destroying the world. Fact is the guillotines aren’t being rolled out. The protests that happen are pretty consistently swatted with barely a weeks hindrance to the years between them. We all suffer the consiquences of the olligarchy, the ones making the laws and decisions are largely above those hardships.