What are you afraid of?

Are you afraid of existence? Do you fear that existence is against you and no matter what you do there is this thing called reality that is always changing and intent upon defeating everything you do?

Did you know that existence is what it is. It has no mind of its own and it is totally oblivious to you. It can’t aim at you, try to harm you or do anything to you whatsoever. Of course, sometimes things don’t go your way but that’s not intended to hurt you; it’s just chance or bad planning. Try better planning.

Are you afraid of what people think? Do you fear that no matter what you do or say someone will be offended or critical of you?

Did you know that most people don’t think of you most of the time? Those who do may be too critical, but then that’s because they are too critical of most people they know. The minds of others don’t create reality just as your mind doesn’t create reality. Their minds are passive and most of them have bad judgment. They can’t think something about you and make it so; so why worry what others think? There is only reality and the mind is a passive participant. 

Are you afraid of dying? Do you fear that something terrible will happen when you die, something so sinister and evil that you will have no control over it? 

Did you know that fear of death could cause you to die? It will cause you to live your life always afraid of something bad coming around the corner. Waking up every day and thinking this is the day you will die will make every day but one a disappointment. Death has nothing to do with life. Why not focus on life and living and loving and trying to stay healthy.

Are you afraid that you will fail? Do you think you don’t have the mental efficacy to do the correct thing or that you will be defeated by a mindless dragon?

Did you know that failure is an opportunity to learn, to evaluate what you might have done wrong and it can give you valuable lessons for eventually succeeding.

Are you afraid of success? Do you fear that once you are successful you will do something so wrong that you will throw away your success and descend into a life of failure?

Did you know that success is a sign that you are doing things right and it provides a platform for more success and security. If you have achieved success, you are rare. Enjoy it.

Are you afraid of yourself? Do you fear that you must be doing something objectionable no matter what you do? Do you have some voice in your head telling you to stop, be careful, don’t go forward because someone once called you selfish and greedy and self-important?

Did you know that when you are constantly watching yourself, you are not watching the world and learning the things you need to know to be a better person? Never let negative thoughts stop you from achieving your values and desire for the good. Get out of your chair and do something for yourself and you’ll learn to enjoy your self.

So, what are you afraid of?

Click here to read my book: The REAL Purpose-Driven Life

Being Rationally Selfish - What Does It Mean?

This post will present a narrative about how man survives when left to his own devices. My goal here is to identify the principles that a person must accept in order to survive. Later, we will use this knowledge to understand how to build a proper society.

I had originally written this chapter in the third person and past tense. However, after reviewing it, I decided that it would read better written in the first person present tense. I want the reader to speak for himself in a direct way rather than read about an abstract theoretical other man. I suggest that, as you read this, you put yourself in the place of the person telling the story.

I start with a massive storm in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. My ship has broken to pieces and gone down. After a few hours of clinging to the rope of a capsized life boat, I find myself on the beach of a small island. The storm is over and I can finally rest. Tired of struggling against the sea, I collapse on the beach before eventually recovering my senses. When I look around, I notice the pieces of my broken ship that have washed up with me. I survey my situation and wonder if I will ever return home. After a few minutes, I realize that I must learn how to survive in my new circumstances.

Before I can begin working on my survival, I must hold some fundamental ideas that are related to every thought and decision I make. First, I must hold that absolutes exist, that reality is predictable; secondly, I must hold that my mind is capable of identifying reality; and thirdly, I must hold that only I can choose the values that will preserve my life. I am, after all, alone in the world. Only I live in this body and only I think with this mind. No one can do this for me, especially on this lonely island.

These fundamental ideas are of major importance for me. If I hold that reality is not bound by absolute laws, I cannot count on a predictable environment. If I think my mind is inefficacious, I will have no confidence in my conclusions. And if I don’t use my mind, I will not know what to do.

How do I get from the need to survive to a knowledge of how to survive? This is the question at the heart of morality. The answer is that I need to identify the values I will pursue while on the island. And these values must secure my survival in an absolute sense; they must actually achieve my survival.

Ayn Rand identifies values as the foundation of the moral life:

“Value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep—virtue is the act by which one gains and/or keeps it. The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics—the three values which, together, are the means to and the realization of one’s ultimate value, one’s own life—are: Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride”[1]

Reason	Purpose	Self-esteem
Rationality	Productiveness	Pride

Reason is a wide abstraction that includes all the principles necessary for correct thinking. The process of reasoning is a formal process that makes up what is called rational thinking. The virtue that helps me achieve my purpose is called productiveness which is the practice of “making” or creating the things needed for survival. Self-esteem is both the cause of and the consequence of successful thinking while pride is the result of achieving my purpose through production.

"A process of reason is a process of constant choice in answer to the question: True or False?—Right or Wrong?"[2]

“Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man’s life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive work—pride is the result.”[3]

Of prime importance for me on the island is my development and use of concepts. “A ‘concept’ is a mental integration of two or more perceptual concretes, which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by means of a specific definition. Every word in man’s language, with the exception of proper names, denotes a concept, an abstraction that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a specific kind. It is by organizing his perceptual material into concepts, and his concepts into wider and still wider concepts that man is able to grasp and retain, to identify and integrate an unlimited amount of knowledge, a knowledge extending beyond the immediate perceptions of any given, immediate moment.”[4]

Rand elaborates on an important type of concept which she identifies as value:

“Is the concept of value, of “good or evil” an arbitrary human invention, unrelated to, underived from and unsupported by any facts of reality—or is it based on a metaphysical fact, on an unalterable condition of man’s existence? (I use the word “metaphysical” to mean: that which pertains to reality, to the nature of things, to existence.) Does an arbitrary human convention, a mere custom, decree that man must guide his actions by a set of principles—or is there a fact of reality that demands it? Is ethics the province of whims; of personal emotions, social edicts and mystic revelations—or is it the province of reason? Is ethics a subjective luxury—or an objective necessity?”[5]

My values are derived from and supported by the facts on the island. I experience this need for values most urgently in my hunger pangs and in the discomfort I feel in the heat (weather) on the island. I realize that I must act now before these discomforts become insurmountable.

My discovery of this need to act is a rational judgment. I conclude that “I must act in order to survive” and “I need values in order to act” and “I must create my values as soon as possible.” I ask, “What are those values?” This leads to my discovery that I must satisfy my body’s basic needs first. I consider this and determine that my immediate values are food, clothing and shelter.

My next step is to identify as many facts as possible on the island. A fact is an aspect of reality expressed by a statement or proposition. “This is the sand” and “This is a coconut” are examples of some of the facts I discover. I look around the island and identify every fact on the island; the trees, jungle, land, shore, water, food sources, climate and shelter possibilities. I consider the nature of each item and identify which ones will most directly influence my survival. I accomplish this by isolating each item mentally and breaking it down into specific characteristics. Those items with similar characteristics, I give a specific name which helps me hold them in memory as a single mental "unit". Then I relate those named concepts’ characteristics to their usefulness as food, clothing and/or shelter.

How do I accomplish this? How do I determine whether a particular item is useful? How will I connect fact and value? How will I grasp, retain, identify and integrate each item into my purpose? For this I define principles about how each item can be used and compare it to the standard of “what will help me survive?” For instance, “a coconut contains liquid that can quench my thirst” or “fish in the ocean are edible” are examples of some principles I identify.

Notice that these principles are cognitive in nature. A principle helps me “see” facts of reality mentally. It helps me identify the characteristics of different entities and relate those characteristics to the accomplishment of a goal or value. It is a fact that I can eat fish and nourish my body. It is a fact that there is food in this environment. It is a fact that I can use a rock to kill a bird or other animal. These facts can only be “seen” conceptually but they are critical to the process of understanding reality; they exist and they help me “see” the way to success in life. The only thing left is to act in a fashion that will secure those entities for me.

Some principles can be framed as “if/then” propositions. “If I catch fish, then I can eat” and “If I build a house, then I can protect myself” are examples of some “if/then” principles I identify.

Additionally, the “code of values” I have defined (food, clothing, shelter) is based upon real facts in reality that directly relate to my real needs. They exist on the island but only I must convert them into values. There is nothing arbitrary or subjective about it. I know that I want to live; I know that I value my life and I know that in order to live I must pursue values. These are truthful statements. “’Value’ is that which one acts to gain and or keep.”[6]

And:

“There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities; to living organisms.”[7]

As I look around, I discover that some canned goods from the ship have landed on the beach. These will tide me over until I am able to process my own food supplies from the island. I need to think about what I will do once those supplies run out; but in the meantime, these items provide me with the luxury of not having to worry about food for a few days. 

With my food needs temporarily met, I decide to address the values of shelter and clothing. I notice that some luggage items from the ship have reached the shore. I also find my own luggage that contained clothes and toiletries I can use. Among the other pieces of luggage I find boots, heavy coats and other items. By evaluating these items against the standard of what it takes for protection from the elements, I narrow them down to those most effective against current weather conditions. Clothing items that don’t fit my body are set aside for possible other uses later.

For shelter, I could select a large tree to sleep under but I see that a tree won’t repel high winds, rain or hail.  In fact, my clothes are insufficient against harsher weather so I need to think long-range about how to get more protection against the elements. Again, I need to use my mind. I notice that the process of thinking, learning, inventing and planning for my own survival is highly pleasurable and I’m beginning to feel the pride that comes from production. In fact, the pleasure I find is so enjoyable that I want to engage in reasoning as much as possible. I realize that my learning has made it possible for me to successfully survive; I am experiencing the tangible success that reason makes possible and it is exhilarating.

The same types of observations I made during my fact-finding mission will help me gain additional important knowledge. But now, I must go beyond perception and sensation to create a new concept that I must make with my own hands. This means I must find materials that are useful in the creation of a home. Using a process of induction or trial and error, I can gain knowledge about other items on the island. I examine the more solid, more durable materials and evaluate their specific qualities. This requires observation, testing and planning.

During my analysis, I notice that the trees have large flat leaves. By dipping them into the ocean, I learn they can repel water and they might be useful on the roof of my soon to be home. I look at the sand on the beach and decide it is not suitable for anything because it is made up of tiny particles that do not adhere to each other. I may decide later, by combining sand with other substances such as water and mud, that I can work the sand into a more durable composition, but this will take time and research that I decide to reserve for later.

I look at the trees and test one with my hands.  I pound on it with my fist, then with a rock, I strike it to see if it breaks. I try to estimate its weight. I learn that it has some of the qualities I seek but I will have to find a way to transform it for my own use. I need something that will help me cut the tree and mold it into a frame. I look around for a tool that would do the job. I settle on a flat sharp rock. In handling the tree, I discover I can use branches of larger circumference to support my structure and smaller branches to make the walls. I realize I will need fewer stronger branches for the structural points and more of the smaller branches for the walls. I get to work making my vision into a reality.

Throughout this process, I have invented several new concepts that I had merely taken for granted back in England; a self-made home, a wooden structure, tree branch walls and a rock-tool. Each of these concepts is identified according to its “defining” characteristics and found suitable for a specific purpose. Other concepts I discovered were judged to be useless for my purposes while others had promise for other purposes. I hold each of these concepts in memory by means of a specific name that I apply to each of them.

I have discovered the importance of defining my concepts accurately. In philosophy, this is called the correspondence theory of truth. I know that my concepts must correspond to their actual natures in reality. Additionally, I not only discover them, but in the case of new concepts, I invent them – all by means of a thought process that connects my values to their actual accomplishment. The correspondence theory is reason’s way of making sure I understand reality and that my concepts function as effective cognitive tools. Only by ensuring that my concepts are “realistic” am I able to achieve my purpose.

Using this thought process, I can project how my home will look, how strong it will be and how well it will stand up to the elements. Since I have no paper or writing implements, I use a thin stick (another tool) to draw an image of my home in the sand. This is my architectural drawing and building plan. I incorporate into this drawing all the principles that will help me build the home, all the “if/thens”. It is a matter of “seeing” with my mind’s eye.

Since I had no experience in house-building back in the world, I am inventing a new field for myself (home building). And my invention of this new concept is totally liberating for me. It will make so much possible for me and even give me rest and peace of mind once it is built. I stop when I realize that I am being totally selfish about my needs and survival. My actions are, indeed, all about me and I realize there is nothing wrong about this; it is good that I survive. Indeed, my self-sufficiency, my resilience and ability to think are necessary. I understand now that there is no other moral standard to apply except my selfish need for survival. My selfishness is based upon my rational choices and only my rational choices. It is true that knowledge, principles and facts are necessary for me to live and enjoy my life. I smile when I realize this important principle. If I love my life, I must build this structure and only rational thinking will make it possible. Rational selfishness is good and the more of it I have, the better. I am energized by this and hurry to improve my circumstances.

The principle of selfishness (holding my own rational values as top priority) is an important one for me. Alone on this island, there is no question that I am living morally and that only I am the beneficiary of my actions. Properly, morality can only focus on what I, the individual, must think and do “for myself”. This will be an important discussion when it comes to identifying the principles of a proper society and it will help me answer the question of what is moral for me to do in society.

As Ayn Rand writes: “Consciousness—for those living organisms which possess it—is the basic means of survival.”[8] For me, the decision to think, the decision to use my conscious mind, is the key to my survival.

As I am deep into the process of building my new home, I stop and ask myself what would have happened if I had decided not to use my mind once I woke up on the island? This question gets to the core of the connection between facts and values and between reality and morality. What would that choice not to think have meant for my self-esteem and especially for my values? What would it have meant for my ability to produce the values necessary for my survival? Who would have provided those values for me without my singular participation? Certainly, a choice not to think would have meant that I had no desire to live or to return home. It truly is an either/or proposition; either I use my mind or I die.

The lessons in the above example point out some important facts. In order to live, it is a fact that I must use my mind. It is a fact that I must observe reality. It is a fact, that I must use concepts. I (and you) cannot survive without first thinking, working, doing, inventing and improving. The better use you make of your mind, the better survivor you will be.

---

[1] The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics” ebook

[2] Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

[3] The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics” ebook

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

[7] Ibid

[8] Ibid

Should You Be Selfish?

"There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first.” – Margaret Thatcher

When a word is being used incorrectly to convey the opposite of its real meaning, the solution is not to create a new word but to reclaim the word and teach people to use it properly. For instance, the statement, “You’re just being selfish,” is commonly heard today. It is often uttered when one person seeks to “guilt” another into doing something he does not want to do (such as pay higher taxes or give to charity). Most often, the accused gives in because he or she wants to be liked. In fact, most people bend over backwards to convince others that they never think of themselves first.

In fact, it is commonly thought that selflessness[1] (as opposed to selfishness) is the preferred moral ideal. This leads to the conclusion that self-sacrifice is the road to moral perfection. Altruists[2] promise the so-called joy of giving while ignoring the fact that today what is given to some is taken from others. They also preach that selfish action and laissez faire societies create poverty. They warn people that selfish behavior means hating people, stealing from them and letting them starve on the streets. Selfish people, according to this view, disregard all moral injunctions and become exploitative, back stabbing and war-like.

The truth is that, throughout history, the most moral, prosperous and successful societies have liberated people to pursue their own happiness without the demand for charity – and such societies are the most productive, the wealthiest, the safest to live in, have the highest standard of living and are the most giving to those in trouble. So much for the anarchy of laissez faire.

So why is self-sacrifice considered to be virtuous? The cause is the philosophy of anti-self which holds that the concept of selfishness is an evil idea. This philosophy is made up of a set of falsehoods that create a sort of anti-self-social movement. Some of these falsehoods are:

·         That proper moral action should never benefit the actor

·         That the world is zero-sum – every transaction has a winner and a loser (the winner is bad and the loser is a victim)

·         That success of any kind is always at the expense of others

·         That selfishness and self-interested action are by nature evil

·         That all actions for the benefit of others are by nature good

On the other hand, I argue that the opposites of the above are correct:

·         That proper moral action should only benefit to the actor

·         That the world is not zero-sum – moral transactions are win/win

·         That the success of one individual does not cause the failure of others

·         That altruism and self-sacrifice are by nature evil

The first set of attitudes above betrays a view that man is a natural predator whose survival “instinct” is to eat his fellow men. Toward this purpose, the proponents of such attitudes tell us that people like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and other criminals are examples of selfishness. This group of evil doers, according to the altruists, includes businessmen who are presumably predatory and profit-seeking.

To avoid the “evil eye” of disapproval, most individuals strive to convince people that they never have a personal motive. The result: businessmen, even the creators of real value, must tell customers that their purpose is to give away their profits. Instead of spending money on research and development, they pay taxes and contribute to charities. Husbands must believe that taking care of their families is a sacrifice and they do it only because they must. Soldiers believe that their job is to die for others, etc. Even in foreign affairs, the American government tells the world that military action should only help those who suffer. We would never pursue a low selfish motive like defending the nation’s economic interests.

It is a rare event when a businessperson declares that he is working for his own sake. To say such a thing is like sentencing oneself to the rack. Selfishness is considered to be crass and arrogant. How could any business make a profit, it is thought, when everyone knows that according to the labor theory of value each penny of revenue came from the workers? It is, for them, a zero-sum world.[3]

Yet, in reality, being consistently self-sacrificial is impractical and fruitless. In the name of helping people, one must not be able to live. And who is to decide what is selfish? By what authority? Who can possibly answer this question? No one.

Many people say, “Well, I don’t have a problem with a person seeking his self-interest as long as he doesn’t hurt anyone. It is wrong to gain at the expense of others. And what is the point of making all that money and not using it to help others?” Yet, this view reveals the essence, and the danger, of the philosophy of anti-self. Arguments shift from zero-sum to hypocrisy. People claim selfishness is evil but have no problem with it when it improves their own lives. And, they will put up with it if rich people give everything away. How nice of them; but don’t expect them to give up their iPhones.

I submit that selfishness is not evil. No one has the right or authority to tell an honest person that he is benefiting himself too much. No one has the right to decide when it is time to start sacrificing. And no one has the right to decide what you should do with a single penny of your money. Along with others, I consider the word “selfish” to be wrongly conceived. In fact, because of the general disregard for selfishness, we no longer have a word that refers to living rationally and using one’s mind to positively affect one’s life. As a result, due to all the negativity surrounding the word, we do not acknowledge positive traits that make life and living possible.

Predatory behavior and benefiting at the expense of others are not selfish. They are short-term in nature and bring about long-term damage to the actor. Altruists somehow assume that cheating and stealing are practical actions. I submit that these actions are not practical at all. Further, society has too often vilified people who were acting rationally and punished them unjustly.

To clarify this, I’m going to list a few commonly held virtues and then ask a question:

·         Honesty
·         Justice
·         Productiveness
·         Integrity
·         Rationality

If you were to practice these virtues, which ones would not be in your self-interest? Which would benefit you to violate? Would being dishonest really make you rich and respected? Ask a robber spending time in prison. Would being unjust help you keep your job? Ask a frivolous judge who is resented by plaintiffs and impeached. Would being productive make you poor? Ask the factory worker who has a nice home and plenty of vacation time. Would having integrity make you unhappy? Ask the person who can’t decide right from wrong. Would being irrational make you competent and efficacious? Ask anybody.

The truth is that rational living, selfish living, is necessary for survival. Virtuous living can only require the ultimate in rational thinking and nothing can happen until you have selfishly secured the tools (knowledge) and conditions that make good living possible. The Greeks held that there was an important difference between the good person who sought to live a life of virtue and the lower type who sought short-term advantage at the expense of moral living. They even had two gods named Eros, one who represented virtuous love and another for lower, animalistic pleasures.

I’ve known many young people who had a strong desire to succeed in a particular sport. These people spent many hours practicing and training during their youth. Many of them went on to become college standouts and professional greats because they worked hard to hone their skills. They exploited no one and achieved much. Wouldn’t these young people be considered selfish by the anti-self mob? Shouldn’t they instead be spending their time as missionaries in the jungle? If this is true, what is the point of working so hard to be excellent in sports, or singing or anything?

If you want to live a moral life, the first question to ask is not “How can I avoid being selfish?” or “How can I make people like me?” or “How can I advance the welfare of others?” The first question is “Who should be the beneficiary of my actions?”

“I am the one ultimately responsible for my life.”[4]

You can’t think through another mind nor can you live anyone else’s life for them. Only you have the responsibility of living your life – no one else. Within the quiet repose of your own mind, you will discover that for you, there is only you; no one else. And since reality, this universe, is one interconnected whole, only a mind focused on reality, not on the switching ideas of others, is capable of success in life. The key issue is to decide what is in your self-interest.

Ayn Rand tells us:

“The term "interests" is a wide abstraction that covers the entire field of ethics. It includes the issues of: man's values, his desires, his goals and their actual achievement in reality. A man's "interests" depend on the kind of goals he chooses to pursue, his choice of goals depends on his desires, his desires depend on his values—and, for a rational man, his values depend on the judgment of his mind.”[5]

The judgment of your mind involves knowing that values are achieved by means of clear thinking and effective action. This requires an understanding of causality (cause and effect) which helps you know which actions achieve the desired value. Notice that, by necessity, there should be no consideration here of the thoughts or needs of other people. To insert such a consideration at this point is to subvert the process of ethical decision-making because you can never be sure that another person is right in his judgments; and more importantly, you lose the ability to evaluate reality with your own mind.

Imagine what would happen if, at the stage of identifying reality with your own mind, you decided to consider what society would like for you to do. This would invalidate your mind because the so-called needs of society are never based on your needs and values. Further, since the thinking of your mind “programs” your desires (emotions), not thinking clearly about your self-interest subverts your emotional capacity and negatively influences your ability to feel. This impacts your “desire” to be happy, your need of love and sets you on a track toward confusion and self-doubt.

On the other hand, once you have established your own moral foundation, you will be able to integrate your values into your life. These values, as Rand indicates, must be yours alone. They can include a broad range of interests and desires and they can include other people and their values. But you must never subordinate your interests and values to others nor should it be expected of you – and this is the key: no one should demand that you sacrifice your values, goals, interests and desires for the sake of someone else. This is the clear line that altruists throughout history have wanted to breach.

Altruism may be thought by many to be the moral system that would make men “be good” but, in reality, it is the moral system that demands obedience, uniformity of ideas and self-destruction. Morality should not be about sacrifice; but about right action and how to determine it. No amount of mystic insight, or reading the minds of others, will enable you to solve the problems of survival. For that, you need your mind and its efficient use.

In fact, altruism is not a moral system but a system of anti-concepts that are intended to destroy virtue, values and reason. When you sacrifice according to altruism’s values, you must give up the kinds of things needed for success in life. For instance, you must give up money that you might have invested in a business. You must give up time that you could have used educating yourself. You must eat a less expensive meal or not eat at all. You might have to delay purchasing something that would improve your life or make you safer. If you were to respond to every request for money and time, you will certainly become impoverished. But most importantly, you will have a diminished ability to affect your wellbeing.

Many people today never learn about the value of human achievement, reason and self-interested action. This is due to the philosophy of anti-self and its prevalence in society. The result is that people never experience their own true wonderful natures as human beings. They never learn that they have a right to advance their lives, their goals and aspirations without guilt and criticism. They never learn that there is nothing evil about thinking intelligently, ascertaining reality, gaining knowledge and developing viable principles of action.

Aristotle tells us:

“The question is also debated, whether a man should love himself most, or some one else. People criticize those who love themselves most, and call them self-lovers, using this as an epithet of disgrace…”

“Perhaps we ought to mark off such arguments from each other and determine how far and in what respects each view is right. Now if we grasp the sense in which each school uses the phrase ‘lover of self’, the truth may become evident. Those who use the term as one of reproach ascribe self-love to people who assign to themselves the greater share of wealth, honours, and bodily pleasures; for these are what most people desire, and busy themselves about as though they were the best of all things, which is the reason, too, why they become objects of competition. So those who are grasping with regard to these things gratify their appetites and in general their feeling and the irrational element of the soul; and most men are of this nature (which is the reason why the epithet has come to be used as it is—it takes its meaning from the prevailing type of self-love, which is a bad one); … That it is those who give themselves the preference in regard to objects of this sort that most people usually call lovers of self is plain; for if a man were always anxious that he himself, above all things, should act justly, temperately, or in accordance with any other of the virtues, and in general were always to try to secure for himself the honourable course, no one will call such a man a lover of self or blame him.

“But such a man would seem more than the other a lover of self; at all events he assigns to himself the things that are noblest and best, and gratifies the most authoritative element in himself and in all things obeys this; and just as a city or any other systematic whole is most properly identified with the most authoritative element in it, so is a man; and therefore the man who loves this and gratifies it is most of all a lover of self. Besides, a man is said to have or not to have self-control according as his reason has or has not the control, on the assumption that this is the man himself; and the things men have done on a rational principle are thought most properly their own acts and voluntary acts…” “Therefore, the good man should be a lover of self…”[6]

Over much of the last several centuries, a constant stream of voices tells us that the man who loves reason, self-regulation and freedom is evil. They tell us that reason isn't everything, that it really can't make a difference in life, that it makes a person into a robot and self-centered and unfeeling. Such voices insist that the poor are trod asunder by this person and that he is the cause of their suffering. Other voices tell us that a free person will gravitate toward immoral actions, that anything goes and nothing matters to him. These anti-self ideas, if repeated often enough, do not become truth. Work and chosen activities are the cornerstone of the individual life and centuries of “opinions” cannot change this fact.

We must develop a clear understanding of the immorality made possible by the anti-self philosophy. Sacrifice is about destruction of the good. It is good people who must give up their values for others, not evil villains. Certainly, not every altruist has evil motives; he may or may not understand the evil inherent in altruism and may, more or less, be a dupe of the moralizing of others. He may merely be acting out of a mistaken desire to do some good. This is why it is important for all men to understand the source of altruism. 

Altruism, as a transfer of values from one person to another, involves a major dropping of the context of what is required for ethical action. First of all, altruism drops the very existence of the individual who must sacrifice by considering none of his needs. It literally ignores any damage done to the honest individual who must pay for the collective banquet. It tells him to think of himself less and of others more. Further, altruism drops the context of the essence of trade by requiring that one party in the transaction gives up his values while another gains them. It drops the context of the issue of property rights by taking what one person owns and disposing of it. Altruism drops the context of “the good” by requiring that the productive person lose his values to someone who did not produce them. Altruism drops the context of justice by demanding that some men be treated unjustly. Altruism drops the context of what is required for survival in life, not only production, but reason and individual initiative in favor of unreason and passivity. Finally, altruism drops the context of what a proper government does; which is to protect the honest and hardworking citizen from confiscation of his property.

The failure by our intellectuals to identify the wide scope of altruism’s evil has created havoc in our society. Altruism is not just about the preacher’s or the teacher’s insistence that you “be good” or “help people”. Altruism is a wide principle that is at the foundation of a large number of very negative human institutions. Most religions are not just about faith, believing in God, but about sacrifice as a moral ideal. We are encouraged to be like Christ and sacrifice everything for the poor (and they mean "everything"). Throughout history, religion has been a cornerstone of monarchy which is a form of dictatorship. If you don’t believe as the King believes, you could lose your employment or your head. It meant nothing for people like the leaders of the Inquisition to sacrifice anyone who departed from the canon (they were punishing the devil).  When philosophy started taking a secular turn, one principle that wasn’t challenged was the propriety of sacrifice for the collective. This failure spawned what have come to be known as “total” governments that preached sacrifice to the race (Nazism), sacrifice to the group or collective (fascism and socialism), sacrifice to the state (communism). Today, we are mired in a system which is a cross between fascism, corporatism and communism. Our leaders, the progressives, originate intellectually from among a wide scope of altruists, church, fascism, corporatism, communism, welfare-statism and more). They repeatedly speak about the need for sacrifice.

Today, many young people don’t even know about the evil of altruism because their teachers never connect for them the relationships between the idea of altruism and the various “isms” that it has seeded. If you are trying to decide which “ism” you favor, let me give you some facts to help you decide.

Monarchy – rule by one man, death to dissenters. The American Revolution was fought against the violations of King George who was also the leader of the state religion. The history of England is littered with the bodies of men that the King did not like who spent their time in prison or were beheaded. Religious persecution was rampant in Europe at the time of the Revolution and was one of the reasons that the concept of religious freedom was invented by our Founders. Many people in Europe came to America to avoid this persecution.

Nazi Germany – 6 million murders[7]

The Soviet Union – 60 million murders[8]

Communist China – 110 million murders[9]

If you think that altruism is not responsible for these murders, then ask yourself, what is the common denominator of all totalitarian societies? What idea justifies the slaughters of millions of people, the confiscation of property, the persecution of political opponents, income re-distribution, slave labor camps and the destruction of businesses? It could only be that the state takes upon itself the “responsibility” for making the world a better place through the sacrifice of productive citizens. Anyone who “refuses” to go along with the state’s goals – that means anyone who is perceived as not being willing to sacrifice, will be discarded. That means business people, educated people, people who have opposing views and anyone who would dare criticize the state for any reason whatsoever. Kors explains:

“Shot dead by deliberate exposure, starved, worked to death, murdered in camps meant to extract every last fiber of labor and then kill them. And widows and widowers and orphans. No cause ever in the history of all mankind has produced more slaughtered innocents and more orphans than socialism with power. It surpassed exponentially all other systems of production in turning out the dead. They are all around us. No one talks about them. No one honors them. No one does penance for them. No one has committed suicide for having been an apologist for those who did this to them. No one pays for them. No one is hunted down to account for them.”[10]

It is time to stop hiding our head in the sand. Our leaders advocate the very same philosophy that was advocated by some of history’s most successful altruists. You can’t only measure President Obama’s success by the amounts of money he has been able to re-distribute, by the time he has been able to extort or by the values that the regulated economy prohibits; altruism is murder in all respects. Not only does this philosophy and its adherents murder values, they also murder the ultimate value, human life. Don’t think it isn’t possible for comparable murders to be done here. When you hear the attacks on selfishness by today’s altruists, you are hearing the same attacks made by Hitler against the Jews, by Marx, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Guevarra and Chavez against the bourgeoisie or by Pol Pot against the educated; what you are hearing is the philosophy of anti-self. If you think that the critics of capitalism have anything else in mind than the destruction of the good, you don’t understand altruism.

When we ignore important facts regarding proper human relationships, we are engaged in a process of self-destruction. We contradict reality and the principles that are necessary for life and good living. This contradiction creates discord and conflict and harms all men who seek to live in a proper society. There is a reason why altruism does not work and why altruist societies not only collapse economically but kill millions of “selfish” people in the process. They do not work because altruism contradicts the very principles necessary for successful living. It makes them impossible.

To illustrate why altruism is wrong, let’s see an example. Let’s consider what your best friend might do and compare that to what an altruist would do under the same circumstances. Your best friend has a high regard for you, he likes you (or even loves you) and he cares about your happiness. He enjoys sharing your life because of the values the two of you share. As Aristotle says, a friend is another you. Now ask yourself, does your friend want you to accomplish only part of your values or does he want you to accomplish all of them fully and as soon as possible?

If you tell your friend that you want to do something that affects your life and future, your friend will most likely evaluate that action in terms of what he thinks is in your self-interest. He may tell you that the action is not well-advised and give reasons. After all, he is your friend. That is what friends do.

For instance, if you tell him that are taking the next two years to feed the villagers in Nicaragua, he may question the wisdom of such an action because it might jeopardize your goal of becoming a doctor. He will tell you of the time you will lose toward the achievement of your career goals. He will ask, “Which is more important to you?” He may tell you of the income you will lose and of the patients who will suffer if you put off your goal. He may even tell you that you might be harmed by violent revolutionaries in the jungle who might hold you hostage. You might never return.

Of course, your friend is openly on your side. He wants you to consistently pursue what is most important to you. He sees you as a value and he wants you to be happy. Contrast this with the altruist who wants you to sacrifice for others. This person would approve of your going to the jungle. He wants you to live, not according your selfish desires, but according to self-sacrificial service. In fact, to the altruist, your desire to be a doctor should never be accomplished because, to him, there are too many people suffering in Nicaragua. You are, after all, the cause of the suffering of those jungle people; you are an American who is responsible for the imperialistic policies of the US government. You must do all you can to relieve those people of the suffering you have caused them.

The altruist is not your friend.

Imagine then, that you had an enemy who detested you. What would he want for you? He certainly would not want you to accomplish your goal either. He would want you to fail. What would be the end result of the desires of the altruist and of your enemy? Essentially, they would be the same. Both the altruist and your enemy see you in the same light, as evil, and as responsible for much harm and misery. Both would want you to fail in every way possible. The very same failure on your part would please your enemy and the altruist – but it would not please your friend.

This moral contradiction between your friend and the altruist/enemy can now be turned toward your regard for yourself. Replace your steadfast friend with yourself and you’ll see that your regard for values must come from the selfishly clear logic of what is in your self-interest. Likewise, if, instead, you replace the altruist with yourself, you have only the desire to serve others and no regard for any possible damage to yourself. And, as is clear, your failure to achieve your values is fine with your enemy.

In this society, dominated by altruism, you, the individual, and your goals will always be opposed by the advocates of altruistic self-sacrifice. Politicians, community leaders, intellectuals (universities and schools) will be seen as not doing their jobs if you are dedicated to your own personal wants and likes.

Teachers, especially, have an important role in society. Today, many teachers think their purpose is to teach children to sacrifice for others – and, once accomplished, they think they have done their job. The long-term result of this educational philosophy is adults with no productive skills. Even those who find a productive job have no idea they are being eaten alive by society. Every tax imposed, every regulation passed, every obstacle put in front of them is just one more thing they have to overcome. Who can survive in such an environment? Only someone who disregards everything he or she was taught in school.

Altruism starts with the demand that people give up their values for others. However, before that demand can be uttered, something else must happen. The avowed altruist must decide that he is justified in making the demand. He must ignore the suffering of those he cajoles into servitude – and he only considers the suffering of the “needy” as relevant. When the money runs out, or when the concern is spent, the altruist moves on to a new set of “needy” and a new set of sacrificial victims.

Altruism is an attack on the good – any good and all good. Few realize this because they are told only that altruism itself is good. However, as we have shown, altruism goes deeper. The avowed altruist does not merely hate producers and the “rich”, he also hates mankind – especially himself.  Let’s make a list of common statements made by altruists toward those they consider to be selfish people:

·         Who do you think you are?

·         You think you’re good, don’t you?

·         You’re nothing but a pretentious worm.

·         Do you think you are better than everyone else?

·         How can you be so selfish?

·         What gives you the right to put yourself on a pedestal?

·         Don’t you care about the poor?

·         Don’t you care about the people harmed by capitalism?

·         Pride is evil.

·         So you love yourself, do you?

·         You are nothing but an ant.

·         You’re just a lowly, brutish animal.

·         What makes you think you are so good?

·         You didn’t build that.

·         You didn’t make it.

·         Other people are better than you.

·         Society is your master and it can do whatever it chooses.

·         Service to the collective is good.

·         Service to yourself is evil.

Every time an altruist says these things to you, he is not only expressing his disdain for mankind, but he is also talking to himself. If you give in, the altruist receives the superficial satisfaction, not of having helped someone, but of having made you doubt yourself. This helps him deal with his own doubts and gives him the satisfaction of having ridiculed “bad” people. Yet, all of these criticisms are designed to bring good people down. This puts the altruist, by implication, in a self-imposed trap. The only possible escape for him is to realize that his view of man is wrong and that altruism is evil.

Many young people who are confronted with the demands of altruism, do not realize that they too are walking into a trap of self-hate. Their confusions, self-doubts and self-flagellation are all caused by attacks like those listed above and, for the rest of their lives, they feel compelled to “act out” their self-hatred by making the lives of others miserable. If you’ve ever lived with a person who was constantly criticizing people for being selfish, you know what I mean. This is why I say that altruists do not have the moral high ground. As critics of mankind, they are simply busy bodies too concerned about what others do while avoiding their own responsibilities to themselves.

The following Venn diagram will give you a sense of the relationship between rational selfishness and other ethical and political principles:

 

As you can see, the principles that represents a zero, altruism, include self-hate and service. The individualist set of concepts include self-love, reason and goals while the extreme of irrationalism includes narcissism, whim worship and fear. It is interesting to note that irrationalism is made up of the concepts that are usually considered by altruists to represent selfishness. Yet, what the altruists seek to defeat is not irrationalism and its associated principles but individualism and its associated principles.

The double arrows are designed to convey the fact that the anti-principles of altruism and the anti-principles of irrationalism are traded back and forth between the two philosophies. Irrationalism, because it creates intellectual confusion, openly borrows anti-reason, anti-self and anti-man attitudes in order to “validate” itself[11]. This analysis exposes the corruption of altruism and irrationalism and shows them to be destructive of reason and values.

Finally, the philosophical principles of rationalism and skepticism serve as barriers to an individual who is trying to understand. These principles shed only doubt and confusion – and that is there intent. Their goal is to keep you from ever realizing your value, the value of your mind and any love you might have for your values. Rationalism, essentially, is the idea that reason can only be achieved by deduction from Platonic essences that are disconnected from reality and skepticism holds that doubt is the source of truth or that knowledge of the real world is impossible.

If you really want to live a good life; if you have a genuine love for yourself and for the promise that being human offers; you should not only seek to integrate reason and positive virtues into your life but also advocate the establishment of a social system that benefits humanity. That social system is capitalism in which men are free to pursue their happiness, free to celebrate their minds and love life. If you want a great society, advocate selfish living, both morally and politically. 

To get an idea of what life might be like today without the incessant demand for sacrifice, let’s imagine a world in which there are no restrictions on production, the pursuit of values, the acquisition of knowledge and wealth, the expression of one’s opinions and the development of ideas and philosophy. In this world, no one would demand that you give up anything you value.

The use of considerably more money for research and development (since companies will not be taxed) might mean significantly greater entertainment options. We could have gone beyond 3D HDTV to home theaters that are even better than today’s public theaters – all for a few pennies per movie. In fact, home theaters would not even require flat screens. We could watch a movie from within the story, with events taking place around us. We could feel the ground shake and smell the flowers and feel the warm sun on our faces. Public theaters would be even more spectacular and include seats that move with the action. The theater might include smells, tastes, ultra-stereo sound and other wonders not even known to be possible today. Self-help television shows could put you in the middle of a scene, interact with you, let you make your own choices and see how they work out. You could debate important topics with Aristotle and other great thinkers.

Travel would not involve having to drive and you could arrive at a destination within a few minutes. For instance, a trip across town or across the country might take only minutes and cost mere pennies using vehicles that drive themselves without accidents. You could fly to Hawaii and be on the beach within an hour or you could be walking the halls of the British Museum or at a civil war battlefield just as fast. You might even be able to vacation on the moon or Mars – perhaps even Jupiter or Saturn.

Because your wealth was not wasted in poverty programs, you would be able to educate yourself and become a doctor or a specialist in a field you love. Your level of knowledge could be so extensive that you are more secure in your career and have a far better understanding of life and principles. You can choose the education you want for your children, rather than have it dictated by the state. Your children would be considerably smarter than is possible today because the options would be many and the best schools would rise to the top. Your children would have more self-confidence, more certainty and they would be looking forward to a long life of accomplishment without guilt and self-denial.

Because money could be spent on medical research rather than squandered by government, you would have available to you the best medical procedures and cures for mere dollars. Cancer could have been eradicated decades ago and today you might live well past 120 years or even more.  Plus your later years would be engaged in healthy activity rather than pain and slow movement. You could extend your sexual pleasures well-beyond your 80s and be looking forward to a second, third or fourth productive career. Because you keep all your money, you could easily become a millionaire or billionaire if you invest it well. This would give you the freedom to start companies, fund worthy projects and even help people who are having a difficult time.

Because there are no insurance regulations, insurance programs for medical care could be inexpensive and come to you with a wide range of choices or cover only one potential disease. More knowledge would be available about which diseases could be in your future due to quick and painless genetic analysis of your body. You could head off those diseases by means of forward-looking procedures and pay for operations years in advance. Private group plans could be created and employers would be free to provide medical coverage that actually covered procedures you need. Your health could be put into the hands of competent professionals with a passion for their careers. These professionals would provide advanced procedures that would save your life years before you became sick.

We wouldn’t have to worry about being threatened by terrorism because our defenses against nihilism and hatred would be both philosophical and practical. The wonders of modern life would speak for themselves. People who might otherwise have accepted the anti-life views of religious radicals might see the magnificence possible through reason and freedom and choose a life of individual growth rather than early self-sacrificial death.

Above all, if you had not been saddled with self-sacrifice as a moral principle throughout your entire life, no one would have demanded that you give up your values for others. More people would have seen the utter corruption of the idea of sacrifice and avowed altruists would be considered an affront to humanity. People who advocate such ideas would be shamed and seen as bad people and virtual thieves. 

The environment would be cleaner and more land will be available for wildlife and recreation. Industrial concerns would have developed manufacturing processes that produced no pollution. In fact, products and industries might have developed that would heat an entire city during cold weather while cooling it during hot weather – and not only clean the environment but eradicate infectious diseases through cleaner sewage and waste removal procedures.

How would the poor fare in such a society? Would they be devastated by the rich? No, they would be rich too and benefit greatly from companies seeking to provide them with new products that save time and money. And they need not fear being criticized for trying to start a company or get an education. Prices of all essentials would be reduced to pennies and be available to all who want them. They would have access to low-cost energy, inexpensive communications via phone and Internet; and they would be able to take vacations to any part of the world. Even food would be fresher, more nutritious and inexpensive. There would be so many inducements to thinking and developing skills that anyone could get an advanced education if he or she decided to pursue it. And workers could be more productive as they operate and maintain production-enhancing machines and computers that help people earn more money in less time. The poor would be five times better educated and healthier than people today and their schooling would make available to them the essential skills necessary for success in life. The only thing they would need to do is make the choice to think.

But more importantly, new products that can only be afforded by the rich, would mean that other excellent products on the market would find lower prices and never become obsolete. The abundance of products, the new developments and enhanced efficiencies would mean the poor could have endless options easily within their budgets. Even health insurance would be less expensive and made available by a variety of companies and organizations. Modern-day private companies (such as a non-government-affiliated AARP) would provide group services, low-cost prescriptions and inexpensive medical procedures. Doctors, freed of the need to fill out forms for the government, would have more time to develop their skills and procedures.

Overall, the entire society would be constantly improving because each person who seeks to work is constantly striving to improve his skills, his production and his living standard. The future would be bright, people would be happy and they would know that truly, “the sky’s the limit”.

Unfortunately, we don’t have that kind of world today. We are struggling with the remnants of a history dominated by mysticism, hatred of reason and the demand for collective sacrifice. These evil ideas are the sources of our sorry state today. They have eaten our substance and left us with little money with which to advance our lives. Those people who claim that only sacrifice can improve life have gotten it all wrong.

Yet, the decision to be selfish and let other people be selfish is not just a “common sense” choice. As we have seen, being selfish requires thought and work. Deciding on the right action takes effort and clear thinking. It is a decision about the moral code you will live, how you will define what is in your interest and how to express your virtues. It requires well-defined principles and a long-range purpose. Along the way, there will be obstacles, setbacks and challenges. It won’t just come to you from out of the blue. Nothing ever does.

Yet, a good start is to understand that being fully, rationally selfish is not evil; it harms no one. As we’ve seen, it is merely a matter of being your own best friend. Such an attitude helps to create a world of traders who inspire others to be their best. It creates parents who love their children and know what they need in terms of nurturing, education and values. It brings about educated professionals who understand their fields and self-confidently assert their desires. These people are not stabbing each other in the back, stepping over dead bodies or stealing from the poor.

Should you be more selfish? Yes, it is your right to achieve your happiness. In fact, in today’s world of anti-self, you should be proudly selfish, even defiantly so.

---

[1] Selflessness, having little or no concern for oneself, especially with regard to fame, position, money, etc.; unselfish. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/selflessness

[2] Altruist, a person unselfishly concerned for or devoted to the welfare of others (opposed to egoist). Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/altruist

[3] Zero-sum mentality is the term used in community psychology to describe a way of thinking that hinges on the notion that "there must be one winner and one loser; for every gain there is a loss." Differing schools of thought believe that social justice is best attained through cooperative negotiation. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_mentality

[4] Dr. Ben Carson with Cecil Murphy, Gifted Hands, The Ben Carson Story, quoted by Don Watkins in RooseveltCare

[5] The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, “The Conflict of Men’s Interests”

[6] Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle, Chapter 8, McKeon

[7] Generally accepted number

[8] A History of Violence in Soviet Russia, Alexander Yakovlef, quoted by Allen Charles Kors in his speech Socialism’s Legacy

[9] Mao, the Unknown Story, Jung Chang and Jon Halliday

[10] Allen Charles Kors, Socialism’s Legacy

[11] See Kant