How exactly do you define rational self-interest?

[InquilineKea]

<p>One of the problems is - how do we define “rational self-interest?” I’ve tried to define it in my own way - and it’s “the most sustainable [something related to happiness] given the conditions of the immediate environment (and how changeable such conditions are), irrespective of whether the person realizes what actions provide him with the most sustainable happiness or not”</p>

<p>Otherwise, you face problems such as the problem where authority can brainwash someone into believing that something else is in his own self-interest. For example, the quote"religion is the opiate of the masses", refers to the notion that religion has the power to change people’s conceptions of their own “rational self-interest”, even if it may not necessarily be their most rational self-interest on an absolute scale.</p>

<p>^^actually, happiness isn’t the right word here, because someone brainwashed into a particular religion can be eternally happy. meaning isn’t the right word here, for such religion could also be the meaning of such person. So then how do we define “rational self-interest?” hmm</p>

<p>===</p>

<p>Yeah, I’m really debating over this. It could just be that like everything else, all words are imprecise and imperfect, and that it’s generally assumed that everyone knows what they’re talking about when they’re speaking of rational self-interest, as human nature is sufficiently homogeneous enough in such a way that we generally know what possibilities are realistic and what possibilities are far-fetched (rational self-interest is very contingent upon the very similarity of most humans to each other).</p>

[fizix2]

<p>Why don’t you just read Ayn Rand and quit speculating?
I’m sure she answers all these questions.</p>

[InquilineKea]

<p>Hmm, I need to start somewhere.</p>

<p>I’ll just start with wikipedia (which may lead me to other sources)</p>

<p>

Therefore man needs an objective standard, grounded in the facts of reality, to achieve happiness. The human faculty of happiness is a biologically evolved measuring instrument (a “barometer”[10]) that measures how well one is doing in the pursuit of life. Therefore the standard by which one can judge whether or not some action will lead to greater or lesser happiness is, whether or not it promotes one’s life.

</p>

<p>Meh, “promotes one’s life” can be relative to a certain environment. And that is hardly objective. “Living longer” can be one way, “having more fun” is another way.</p>

<p>

There is a difference, therefore, between rational self-interest as pursuit of one’s own life and happiness in reality, and what Ayn Rand called “selfishness without a self” - a range-of-the-moment pseudo-“selfish” whim-worship or “hedonism.” A whim-worshipper or “hedonist,” according to Rand, is not motivated by a desire to live his own human life, but by a wish to live on a sub-human level. Instead of using “that which promotes my (human) life” as his standard of value, he mistakes “that which I (mindlessly happen to) value” for a standard of value, in contradiction of the fact that, existentially, he is a human and therefore rational organism. The “I value” in whim-worship or hedonism can be replaced with “we value,” “he values,” “they value,” or “God values,” and still it would remain a dissociated-from-reality ethics-killer. Rand repudiated the equation of rational selfishness with hedonistic or whim-worshipping “selfishness-without-a-self.” She held that the former is good, and the latter evil, and that there is a fundamental difference between them.

</p>

<p>okay, at least that addresses the question of “what if someone was indoctrinated with a BS religion, or with happiness-inducing drugs.”</p>

<p>

Rather, Rand held that valid values are “objective,” in the sense of being identifiable as serving to preserve and enhance one’s life. Some values are specific to the nature of each individual, but there are also universal human values, including the preservation of one’s own individual rights, which Rand defined as "conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival.

</p>

<p>okay that makes sense.</p>

<p>nonetheless, “preserve and enhance one’s life” cannot be defined in a single way.</p>

[InquilineKea]

<p>Still, that was very insightful of hers. It’s impossible to reduce every single ambiguously defined property into its own fundamentals. I suppose that “life-promoting” is the best definition possible, most “life-promoting” in a particular environment that is usually stable (as environments are usually assumed to be so). The problem is - what if a person doesn’t realize what’s most life-promoting for himself? In that case though, is it good to use coercion on him? hm</p>

<p>life-promoting can be easily defined in such a way such that it incorporates the property of ‘sustainable’. </p>

<p>she makes a very good point in that human nature does exist and is influenced by evolution.</p>

<p>one must still consider other questions: what about artificial robotic enhancement?</p>

[fizix2]

<p>You could start with Anthem, which is [freely</a> available online](<a href=“http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/anthem/complete.html]freely”>Noble Soul - A Website From An Individualist).</p>

<p>Oh, and I own most of her books (at home), so I can send you some of her nonfiction when I get home for Christmas.</p>

[InquilineKea]

<p>Send me? We live on the opposite sides of the country :p</p>

[fizix2]

<p>Yeah, well, I need your address.
(I also got a Christmas present for you, by the way.) :)</p>

[Junglebrain]

<p>You could say: Taking the action that will, on average, give you the most total happiness given the information available to you. Although for many libertarian types, happiness doesn’t mean anything, it’s simply whatever someone desires that matters.</p>

<p>My own personal definition for “rational self-interest”, however, is this: Total Horse *****.</p>

[InquilineKea]

<p>

Yeah, well, I need your address.
(I also got a Christmas present for you, by the way.)

</p>

<p>aww, thanks, that’s so cute. :)</p>

<p>(which is interesting, since I’m not used to receiving or giving gifts, not having gotten any for a long time). hmm… i should have more to say. or more to think. or something</p>

<p>Actually with the Ayn Rand books, I can find them on my own, with bittorrent and university libraries.</p>

[rockermcr]

<p><a href=“which%20is%20interesting,%20since%20I’m%20not%20used%20to%20receiving%20or%20giving%20gifts,%20not%20having%20gotten%20any%20for%20a%20long%20time”>quote</a>.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I sense the urge to create a new thread.</p>