The definition Barnes linked to is as follows -

“Selfish”:

1) devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one’s own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish

It would seem that Barnes’ own reference has also “elided” out the term “excessively”.

In fact, the definition here is consistent with Rand’s definition — it does not include any moral connotation or implication that selfishness is bad or wrong.

She simply redefines words so they mean exactly what she wants them to mean, rather like a character out of “Through The Looking Glass’.

False.

My American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, published in 1969, defines “selfish” as follows: “Concerned chiefly or only with oneself.”

Note that this definition is consistent with the use of the suffix “-ish“. Neither it, nor the suffix “-ness“, implies any moral evaluation of the qualities being described.

For instance, the definition of the word “babyish” is “of, like or relating to a baby” — and it does not include the word “excessively”. Note that the definition of “selfless” or “selflessness” does not include the addition of the word, “excessively”.

It is true that the term “selfish” has come to mean more than mere “concern with one’s own interest” in popular usage. But Daniel Barnes, by quoting Rand out of context, implies that Rand evades what the term has come to mean in popular usage.

Let’s look at a more complete quote of what Rand said on the subject:

The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.

In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.

Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.”

This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.

There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level (see “The Objectivist Ethics”).

If it is true that what I mean by “selfishness” is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites—that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men—that it permits no concept of justice. (Emphasis in original) From: Introduction to “The Virtue of Selfishness”

Interesting, isn’t it, that Daniel Barnes did not choose to quote the entire passage — that, instead, he took one sentence out of context to make it appear that Rand had lamely attempted to evade the issue. But as any honest reader can see, she addresses the problems with the popular definition and she does not simply make up a new definition to fit her whim. Her definition is, in fact, the only possible definition consistent with the rules of the English language and the use of the suffixes “-ish” and “-ness”.

Dave Surls is quite right.

Compare his dictionary definition – which is similar to most dictionary definitions , in that it talks about behaviour that is “excessively” or “exclusively” preoccupied with one’s self – to Rand’s obvious fudge:

“Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.” (Rand, Introduction to “The Virtue of Selfishness”).

Note how Rand 1) does not, and never did, name the actual dictionary this alleged “dictionary definition” comes from and 2) how she has obviously elided the “excessive” or “exclusive” qualifications we find in actually-existing dictionaries. She simply redefines words so they mean exactly what she wants them to mean, rather like a character out of “Through The Looking Glass’.

If you’re helping someone else because you love them, then you’re not being selfish, by definition.

Selfish

“1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others”

If you’re helping someone else, then it’s pretty unlikely that you’re being selfish. If doing so makes you happy, then it’s selflessness that’s a virtue, not selfishness (in that particular case).

And, you folks aren’t making rational arguments that defend Ayn Rand’s absurd pronuncements. You’re simply redefining words so that they mean what you want them to mean.

It’s not selfish to help those you love. Period. End of discussion.

You are in error. When you’re taking care of a child it’s THEIR interest that’s important, not your interest. And, you are NOT pursuing YOUR selfish concerns, you’re pursuing THEIR concerns. And, no one with a brain in their head cares whether you find it enjoyable or not. Baby needs to be fed, no matter how YOU feel about it. Your selfish concerns mean nothing, and there is no virtue in selfishness when a child needs to be fed.

No matter that you explain how it is selfish to help those you love.
No matter any of this, some people will never get it (or don’t want to).

Yes, since man is a being of volitional consciousness, he can choose to ignore the evidence, evade all the explanations that are being offered and merely repeat — senselessly and mindlessly — his claims.

Thus, we encounter this statement:

But, in my situation I have to put the interests of others ahead of my own selfish concerns (not always, but some of the time), so Objectivism is not a viable option.

Here Dave Surls simply ignores our numerous and well-stated explanations why taking care of those one values and loves — even when doing so is unpleasant and/or laborious — is indeed pursuing one’s “own selfish concerns”. He’s ignored those explanations on the implicit premise that if he refuses to acknowledge their existence, they won’t be real.

How and why anyone thinks it can work to simply pretend the other party’s explanations and arguments don’t exist — to pretend it when those explanations are right here on the screen for all rational people to see — is beyond me. But that’s Dave Surls’ modus operandi — and judging from his fresh attempt to smear Rand by calling her a hedonist, he’s sticking to it.

Unless he changes tactics, I won‘t respond to him further. One does not bother maintaining an intellectual response to insults or accusations that are put forth in the same spirit in which obscene graffiti is written on bathroom walls — not once it becomes clear that the other party’s motive is not to understand your ideas or even to persuade you of the truth of his, but rather to merely smear that which they are unable to rationally address or answer.

However, all rational, i.e. all honest, inquiries about the meaning and application of Objectivism are still welcome.

Yes, she was.

By definition.

1. “I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence….” (”Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” pamphlet, 8).

2. “This is the fallacy inherent in hedonism–in any variant of ethical hedonism, personal or social, individual or collective. ‘Happiness’ can properly be the *purpose* of ethics, but *not* the *standard*….” She also writes that the ethical approach of the hedonists is “an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication, an act which merely proclaims the futility of ethics and invites all men to play it deuces wild.” (”The Objectivist Ethics” from _The Virtue of Selfishness_.)

(These quotes are also available in full in _The Ayn Rand Lexicon_ ed. by Harry Binswanger. Look under “Hedonism.”)

I realize that philosophy is not an easy subject, and the Objectivist philosophy, which challenges so many ideas accepted as bromides for millenia, can be particularly difficult to grasp. It takes a lot of mental effort. However, even if one were not familiar with these particular articles, a basic knowledge of the Objectivist ethics should make the assertion, “Ayn Rand was a hedonist. By definition” seem quite suspect.

Furthermore, while I can see how the difference between a moral purpose and a moral standard might not be immediately apparent, it should become clear on further reading and thought. Unlike many people, intellectuals included, Rand is scrupulous about defining her terms and making very clear on what fundamental ideas her arguments rest. Ayn Rand’s approach to ethics is probing, thoughtful, and deep; her ethical theories will neither be verified nor contradicted by an out-of-context phrase quoted in a wiki.

For anyone who honestly wants to better understand Ayn Rand’s view of ethics, check out _The Virtue of Selfishness_.

It does not mean, “eat what you feel like when you feel like”. That’s the exact opposite of a rational healthy diet.

Similarly, just “doing one what feels like” is the opposite of rational pursuit of self-interest. Instead, a long-range rational pursuit of self-interest includes cultivation of specific virtues (such as honesty, integrity, productiveness, etc.). A Mafia crime boss or a con man is not in fact actually pursuing his long range rational self interest, even if he thinks he is (any more than a couch potato eating chocolate chip cookies is pursuing his long range physical health, even if he erroneously thinks he is).

As to why certain values like honesty, integrity, productiveness, etc. are necessary for one’s rational self-interest (as opposed to life of predation), I highly recommend the book by Dr. Tara Smith (professor of philosophy at Univ. Texas – Austin) entitled, “Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist” (Cambridge Univ Press):

http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rands-Normative-Ethics-Virtuous/dp/0521705460

“Main Entry: he·do·nism…1 : the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life”

“…the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.”–Rand

Ayn Rand was a hedonist.

By definition.