anyway,I have begun to wonder why selflessness is often considered moral.
If we consider the word ‘selfless’, it suggests the destruction of the self, of identity, of ego, no>?
Why do so many of the world’s religions ( dont mean to offend anyone here so back offff here pls ) hold such an inhuman act to be virtuous? If one must act selfishly to be happy, should one choose altruism over happiness? How does one balance achieving ones own desires and being responsible for our fellow man? One could always be less selfish and more altruistic, after all. Where does it end?
Well, this is a major theme in her philosophy. I would say there is a balance. Biologically speaking, each person has selfish tendencies. Although I think Hobbes was totally off when he said that is our Innate nature. I dont think it is entirely. I think we are PREDISPOSED to being selfish, but since we're not animals and we have this specially adapted brain that allows us to reason, we don't HAVE TO be selfish.
Nonetheless, self-preservation is a good thing. As long as its not hurting anyone else. Now what Ayn Rand proposes is that any kind of selflessness is a crime. And furthermore, that one can't really "mean" to be selfless. So for example, she would extrapolate this to a simple act like if you were to help an old lady cross the street. She would say that this is really not a selfless act (since no such thing is really possible) BECAUSE when you are being selfless you are actually being selfish.
The reasoning for this is basically: You do something that is conventionally considered to be "good". You do this knowing what reaction you will get. A passerby on the street will say "oh look, he is a gentleman". So you really do it subconciously to get approval ratings from your fellow human beings.
See, this is where philosophy can't do its job. It can never come to one definite conclusion, because there is always some crazy counterexample you can pull out of your arse.
So...yeah I think there is a balance. There definitely is such a thing as being "too nice". There will be times when your desire and altruism do not conflict. But then there will be times when it will seem beneficial to serve your desire over altruism. But then, there you have to ask yourself to understand the nature of your desire. Is it a desire that is necessary or unnecessary? Is it going to hurt your survival in anyway if you dont help the other person?
Usually, in most moral dilemmas, there is a better moral choice. Although ethics philosophers wont ever admit to this, because they always depend on that one goddamn counterexample.
i don't think looking out for your interest is immoral as long as you don't take advantage of someone else or cheat others or kisi aur ka nuQsaan ker k apna faaida, that is immoral.
as for altruism over self-happiness....hmmm.....that's a personal choice that needs to be made in the particular situation :) altruism would be nobler (and brings with it a certain sense of happiness as well) but choosing self-happiness will not be wrong either...
) hold such an inhuman act to be virtuous? If one must act selfishly to be happy, should one choose altruism over happiness? How does one balance achieving ones own desires and being responsible for our fellow man? One could always be less selfish and more altruistic, after all. Where does it end?
