Selfishness and Selflessness

There are two opposing views of moral philosophy and they are mutually exclusive. On the one hand, morality is self serving. This is known as objective egoism as put forward by novelist, Ayn Rand. The other system of morality serves others. It is altruistic as in Christian charity. Each system has benefits and liabilities.

OBJECTIVE EGOISM

Ayn Rand's philosophy of enlightened self interests suggests that the right thing to do is that which benefits the self. There is nothing in nature that conditionally guarantees the survival and well being of an individual. To promote one's own being, one has to serve one's own interests. No one is required to feed you, clothe you, shelter you. Your subsistence rests on your shoulders alone. In that respect, actions that do not promote the self are not morally right. They cause more harm than good.

This is a difficult concept for most to wrap their heads around. We are taught from a very young age to share our toys, to put the needs of others before our own. Rand would say that this is ultimately detrimental to society. If we continually give of ourselves to help others, we will eventually have nothing for ourselves. On the other hand, if everyone reasonably serves their own interests, then each has their needs fulfilled. The stress is on reason. One's best interests must be rationally determined. The individual need not serve every whim. Rand denies the equation of the objective egoist with the selfish brute. Most view selfishness with the bloody tooth and claw of some Nietzschean superman, treading over the bones of his enemies in order to claim his prize.

Satisfying every whim is irrational and in the long run will not further one's goals. In fact, that which will better serve the advancement of the ego is pushed aside. Hard work, creativity, ingenuity - these things are shoved aside for no other purpose than to sate one's appetite. Rand would regard this as shallow. It is acceptable to satisfy the appetites, but not at the expense of one's best interest. Drug addiction, alcoholism, womanizing in the end will do more harm than good.

On sharing and charity, objective egoism turns a critical eye. Giving to charity does not serve the self. Moreover, it insults the receiver of charity. As the moral principle is self serving, to serve someone else's interests is to deny them the independence of their actions, which damages the self esteem. Charity breeds pity and resentment. Sharing breeds resentment as well. A possession shared loses it's value the more people share their enjoyment of it. In the Fountainhead, Gail Wynand purchases a statue that he keeps in a private museum. It exists only for his enjoyment. This same statue of a nude woman was once viewed by the ignorant masses with disgust. In Wynand's possession, the statue maintains its artistic integrity. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then it is as beautiful as Gail says it is. This suggests that all art should be privatized. The Mona Lisa, beloved by nearly everyone, is actually worthless as is anything meant for public consumption.

Objective egoism is a hard philosophy to follow. The serving of one's own interest above all just goes against the grain. It pits the individual against society by putting the individual above society. Followers either commit suicide, end up in therapy, or abuse or misunderstand the moral principles. It is a philosophy for perfect men. As there are no perfect men it is designed to fail. It arms the selfish with an excuse to be selfish. Furthermore, objective egoism requires one not to believe in god. Belief in the existence of God presupposes the belief in the gospel. If one believes in God, he either follows God's laws or disobeys God. By behaving selfishly, he defies God's laws. The irony is how Christian conservatives cling to Rand's philosophy. This demonstrates just how far Christians have strayed from Christ's original teachings.

Ayn Rand was of Russian descent. She understood all too well the dangers of socialist thought. That society could take the property of an individual and distribute it willy nilly across the population was something she held in great contempt. As such, she developed her capitalist system of man worship to firmly plant the individual above society.

ALTRUISM

Christian charity, as well as socialism, suggests that the moral principle stems from the serving of others before the self. Sacrifice is crucial to both systems. In Christianity, Jesus gave up his life to take on the sins of man (depending on how you view the crucifixion). In socialist Russia, men gave up their property, their desires for some utopian future. While Jesus had at least the benefit of being glorified and worshipped, Russians had to work long hours, stand in lines for toilet paper, and suffer under the iron hand of an oppressive government.

Even so, there is something appealing about doing things to benefit others. Whether it is donating to charity, helping an old woman across the street, digging a neighbors car out of the snow, or just holding the door open for someone carrying bags - helping is satisfying on a deep level. But is it right? Is Rand correct in that we deny others their independence. Do we pity them or cause resentment. Well, if the help is not wanted, certainly. On the other hand, there are those moments wherein one is grateful to receive help.

Why do we help others? Is it for this sense of satisfaction? Is it to stroke our conscience? As Nietzsche wrote, if we train our conscience well it will kiss us as it bites. Perhaps we help others out of a greater sense of community. I help those in distress that one day, when I am distressed, others may help me. However, this in not a truly selfless act. Even being charitable because God ordains it is not selfless. To do good in order to get to heaven suggests an ulterior motive, making the act selfish. Can one truly be altruistic?

Selflessness cannot be a total conviction. If one feeds other before feeding oneself, then one starves in the end. Complete selflessness is unattainable. One can only help when possible. Also, is one obligated to assist the misfortunate? It is one thing to donate your time and money in a time of need. The drought in Ethiopia or the recent earthquake in Haiti marks a period of need, where people give from the goodness of their hearts. However these are widely publicized events. People are starving all of the time all round the world. Are they any less worthy of help? Are we obligated to help everyone less fortunate than ourselves? If so, then the quality of life for everyone must be equal. This is the goal of socialism, to bring the quality of living of every individual to exactly the same level. The doctor is on par with the village idiot. There is no distinction made based on personal merit, not on skill, not on contribution to society. Society is served before the individual.

Altruism appears just as impossible a system to follow. Giving the shirt off your back, though noble in intention, just leaves one naked. In a system where each supports the other, one should in turn offer his shirt to you. But is it noble to accept this gift? Is it not demeaning? You can not put others before yourself every waking moment. Doing so only taxes your strength and your resources, rendering you no help to anyone, especially yourself.

A BALANCED PERSPECTIVE

To escape the traps present in either system, one must serve oneself and others. It is worthwhile for one to pursue his own interests as long as they do no great harm to others. Jesus said not to bury your talents in the dirt. Even that pinnacle of self sacrifice suggested that one should not abandon one's aspirations. Treat yourself. Advance your knowledge. Improve your mind, body, and spirit. Just don't do so at the expense of others. If you can, lend a helping hand. Preferably perform good deeds in secret. The unseen hand leads to less resentment.

Eastern philosophy treads this balance just as carefully. The Buddhist or Daoist shuns material gain. However, this is not that others may take more of the share, it is more that the ego attaches itself to material possessions. One is more concerned about things than their Buddha nature. Importance given to things creates stress, namely jealousy, greed, and suspicion. In Daoism it is much the same. Concern over possessions saps the vital energy, weakening the spirit. The spirit weakened, the body weakens as well, eventually leading to diseases of stress such as hypertension, cancer, and insomnia. The point is that supposed selflessness may have roots in selfish behavior. Meanwhile selfish behavior may have roots in selflessness. A classmate may struggle with a quiz. He asks you for the answers. You could tell him, but what does this achieve? He learns nothing. He passes the test. You don't tell him and this is viewed as selfish, a way to improve the bell curve to your favor. In actuality, you refused for a less selfish reason. If the student fails the test, perhaps he will study harder for the next one.

Luckily most people live in between the two extremes. They serve their own interests, yet help others when necessary. I think it naive to expect one to live solely by one moral philosophy or the other. People are complex. Life is complex. One's moral philosophy, then, should be more adaptable. Tend yourself that you can better tend others. Tend others that you may better tend yourself.