The Virtue of Self-Interest

[mick silver]

They may be the two most famous lines in economic history and they carry much the same message. In An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith (1723-1790) wrote, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." It is every individual's pursuit of rational self-interest that creates economic well-being. This reverses the common wisdom that a Hobbesian state of nature – or a war of all against all – would result from unfettered freedom.
The second line comes from the same source and occurs during Smith's discussion of spontaneous order. "By directing...industry in such a manner as its produce may be of greatest value, he [the owner] intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention." Social harmony is the spontaneous but unintended consequence of individuals pursuing their rational self-interest. This reverses the common wisdom that an orderly society requires social engineering. In fact, the opposite is true. Any attempt to impose central planning runs counter to social harmony.



The Theory of Moral Sentiments
Smith's legacy rests largely upon his explanation of how individual self-interest (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/2590/) promotes the well-being of all within society. But many people do not grasp how revolutionary his view of self-interest truly was. To do so, it is necessary to read Smith's first major work The Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS). Here Smith focuses on ethics and the psychology underlying emotions like charity – issues that are often pitted against self-interest. TMS provides invaluable insight into Smith's later work. (Despite his impact upon economics, Smith was not primarily an economist. He held a professorship in moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow, and preferred ethics to political economics.)
In TMS, Smith tried to resolve the conflict between morality and self-interest which so many perceived; he asked why self-interested men make moral judgments at all, why they have a conscience. He grounded them in human nature.
Smith wrote, "How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion we feel for the misery of others.... The greatest ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of society, is not altogether without it."
He used the word "sympathy" to describe such emotions. Sympathy came through observing and mirroring the emotions of others, which the observer needed to reconstruct within himself because he did not directly experience them. "Though our brother is on the rack, as long as we ourselves are at our ease, our senses will never inform us of what he suffers.... By the imagination, we place ourselves in his situation." Through imagination, a person becomes more self-aware and so becomes better at judging the morality of his own actions. He also learns about others and can better evaluate situations. "If upon bringing the case home to our own breast we find that the sentiments which it gives occasion to, coincide and tally with our own, we necessarily approve of them as proportioned and suitable to their objects; if otherwise, we necessarily disapprove of them, as extravagant and out of proportion."
The Social Nature of Man
But why? Why would anyone increase their own sorrow for even a moment by sympathizing with another? One reason is because the ability to empathize also increases joy. Another is simply because it is in their nature; humans are profoundly social beings with a natural ability to empathize. Smith explained that socializing was "perhaps, the instinct upon which is founded the faculty of speech, the characteristical faculty of human nature. No other animal possess this faculty, and we cannot discover in any other animal any desire to lead and direct the judgment and conduct of his fellows." Thus, people not only have the ability to sympathize but also a desire for others to sympathize with them. This was the source of morality.
People also rely upon each other to produce a wide ranges of "goods" from companionship to bread, from knowledge to shoes. Indeed, Smith rooted human progress in the increasing division of labor which led men to trade with each other at every turn. Or, as Smith put it, "to truck, barter and exchange one thing for another." And they did so out of self-interest. This was the source of economic prosperity.
Otherwise stated, morality is a consequence of man's social nature even though his actions are self-interested; there is no conflict between the two. In fact, they are two sides of the same coin. But self-interest is in the driver's seat. Self-interest defines a man's ability to sympathize because his range is limited by it: "[T]he care of the universal happiness of all rational and sensible beings, is the business of God and not of man. To man is allotted a much humbler department, but one much more suitable to the weakness of his powers, and to the narrowness of his comprehension: the care of his own happiness, of that of his family, his friends, his country...."
The punishments and rewards of interacting make men desire to behave well and be thought of approvingly; it creates morality. But the good behavior comes from self-interest. Other salutary concepts come from self-interest. For example, justice is a consequence of socializing because human beings need to live with each without inflicting constant and unnecessary harm. (These conclusions are revolutionary in and of themselves since Smith grounds morality and justice in man's psychology, in man's nature, rather than in reason.)
Rather than pit sympathy against self-interest, Smith believed the two worked together. Rather than see expressions of sympathy, like charity, as opposing self-interest, Smith believed both contributed to the harmony of society. Although charitable giving was a virtue, it was often a fleeting one that depended upon circumstance. By contrast, you could rely upon men to act in their self-interest; you could rely upon the butcher to sell you meat and to increase the quality of life of both parties in doing so.
Smith writes, "Every man, as the Stoics used to say, is first and principally recommended to his own care; and every man is certainly, in every respect, fitter and abler to take care of himself than of any other person. Every man feels his own pleasures and his own pains more sensibly than those of other people. The former are the original sensations; the latter the reflected or sympathetic images of those sensations. The former may be said to be the substance; the latter the shadow."
Conclusion
The substance that creates social harmony and general well-being is the entrenched self-interest of every individual. The good of the individual is the greater good and the bedrock of general welfare.

- See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/35023/Wendy-McElroy-The-Virtue-of-Self-Interest/#sthash.JzOu5oGW.dpuf

[Jewboo]

Conclusion
The substance that creates social harmony and general well-being is the entrenched self-interest of every individual. The good of the individual is the greater good and the bedrock of general welfare.





http://crazy-frankenstein.com/free-wallpapers-files/city/sao-paulo-wallpapers/favela-sao-paulo-city-wallpapers-1920x1200.jpg



:rolleyes: go ask the other side of the wall

[singular_me]

everything is dual in nature, and so is self-interest, the more it is practiced based on the knowledge as how dualities operate, the latter will reach the end of the spectrum to collapse into selflessness, extremes always meet as their boundaries become infinite.... as taught self-interest/humanitarianism don't work because of a knowledge failure (agenda or not).

in short: it is in one's own self-interest to behave fairly with our fellow beings -- or suffer the consequences.

self-interest and humanitarianism means same, it just depends on which end of the spectrum one stands. The pursuit of Knowledge of the self leads inevitably to selflessness.

[Jewboo]

in short: it is in one's own self-interest to behave fairly with our fellow beings -- or suffer the consequences.



Technological singularity and transhumanism (http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2014/01/new-utopias-for-old.cfm)

In this light I better share this new link with you Goldy.

http://www.co8.org/forum/images/smilies/wavey.gif

[singular_me]

what I am saying above holds true for every paradigm possible, so what are you coming up with, Book?

but I guess that the dual Universe will remain a mystery for you until the end. :)

empathy is the only human currency, self interest cannot work without it, unless we decide to behave like animals.

[iOWNme]

Its pretty easily provable that if the individual is left free to chose as he wishes and only does what makes him happy (some may call this greedy and selfish), that 'society' in general would flourish and prosper.

'Greedy' and 'selfish' are used for a wide range of things, but not all of them are economic. When a person only does what makes themselves feel good we call this 'greedy' or 'selfish'.

Example 1: What if i love to help people? Then i spend my days helping people to feed my 'greed', and by doing so am helping out all the other 'individuals' who are in need. 'Society' is going to prosper and flourish.

Example 2: If i dont give a flying fuck about anyone else but myself, and my toilet breaks (assuming i cant fix it myself>), guess who i call and offer to money to fix it? If my roof leaks, car breaks, if i need my shoes fixed, lawn mowed, etc, guess who my greedy isolated ass is going to call and pay money to fix? That is how 'society' is going to prosper and flourish.
In both extreme examples, it is easy to show that when the individual isleft to be driven only by what benefits him, that 'society' in general would prosper and flourish.



There is no such thing as the 'collective'. And if you think there is, then please tell me WHO is in this supposed 'collective'? Who again? Oh you mean its just a bunch of INDIVIDUALS? Oh damn!!!!!

The whole idea of the individual vs the collective is a contradiction inside itself. The 'collective' is made up of individuals. If you try and subvert the individual, you AUTOMATICALLY subvert the collective, because logically the collective is made up of individuals.

It is a common misconception that if people only do what benefits themselves that there would be no cooperation amongst individuals and people would die because they cant do everything themselves. It is a laughable lie, easily proved wrong with reason, logic and evidence.

Most people, when they need something done that they cannot do themselves inherently know that they will need to offer something to someone to help them. That something could be anything from money to a smile. For every greedy guy who is only looking out for himself, there are a thousand good-natured well meaning individuals who will stop and help people for nothing all day long.

Every single greedy individual isolationist who only does what directly benefits himself is what actually builds and maintains an open prosperous free society.

[iOWNme]

As far as Adam Smith you can judge for yourself from this quote from the Wealth of Nations.

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."


Does it sound to you like Adam Smith understood individual freedom?

Sounds an AWFUL LOT like Marxism to me. Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program:

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."


Adam Smith, like many of the founders, wrote and said some good stuff. He also wrote and said the same old authoritarian civics mind control garbage that has plagued humanity since.......Forever. His above quote is a reminder of that. And if you cant separate the two, the good and the bad, then what the hell have you really got?

Adam Smith was a STATIST. Because no matter how much he IMAGINED he understood individual freedom, he still had the last bit of residue left over from living with his captors. He like many other men, just couldnt let go of that last one little nugget, which unfortunately ultimately means he never actually budged a single inch towards real freedom. Trying to contain your Master into a very small cage, while admitting that he is your Master is a contradictory feeble attempt at acting like you want to own yourself, but still asking your Master to provide for you and keep you safe.

[Jewboo]

Its pretty easily provable that if the individual is left free to chose as he wishes and only does what makes him happy (some may call this greedy and selfish), that 'society' in general would flourish and prosper.




http://infactcollaborative.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Littering-facts-litter-on-street.jpg



http://youtu.be/gnpXO9FVmNs

:rolleyes:

[iOWNme]

http://infactcollaborative.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Littering-facts-litter-on-street.jpg



http://youtu.be/gnpXO9FVmNs

:rolleyes:



It seems every time i make a post saying that the individual is born free and should live free, you always point to the actions of some 'bad' individuals as justification for them not to be free.

What your really saying is this: Man should not be free to use his own conscience and free will. He should not be allowed to control his own destiny. He should be violently subjugated using violence and coercion. Because if he wasnt, someone may throw a drinking cup on the side of the road. How rational does your argument sound now smarty?


Lets try this:

You gather all of the data you can find on all of the individual bad greedy selfish criminals, and all of the crimes they have committed. I will gather all of the data on the collective evil 'Governments' and 'Authorities' and all of the crimes they have committed. We can compare the atrocities and compare the pile of dead bodies. This way we should be able to objectively see which group has caused more violence, destruction, theft and murder; And only then can we make an accurate determination about how man should live.

Ready Go!

Oh wait...Whats that you say? LOL

[palani]

As far as Adam Smith you can judge for yourself from this quote from the Wealth of Nations.

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."


Does it sound to you like Adam Smith understood individual freedom?

The quote is tacit admission that Adam Smith's state is one that is measurable by commerce and commercial activity. To the extent that one profits from any enterprise shouldn't they contribute accordingly?

Licences are of two sorts: Licences of profit and licences of pleasure. Licences of profit include the right to actually own something while licences of pleasure are for pleasure only. Should holders of licences of pleasure pay for their licence if they derive no profit from that licence? Or should holders of profit pay for their profit because they obtain some gain?

An example of a licence of pleasure is that which permits you to kill a deer. This is in opposition to a licence of profit which permits you to kill the deer and then remove it.

[Santa]

The Virtue of Self-Interest

Every parasite buries its head in the flesh of the world and consumes out of self-interest, leaving trails of excrement
for those beneath to feed on and praise as virtuous.
Ayn Rand was just such a parasite.
Sophist and Grand Dame of the Russian Nihilist Movement,
virtuously shitting her quasi-intellectual verbiage
for the masses beneath her to dine on and thus eagerly consume the body of Christendom.

Self-interest is the most banal topic in existence. The more interesting part of the phrase is virtue.

How does one achieve virtue, while consuming the world?

[Jewboo]

Its pretty easily provable that if the individual is left free to chose as he wishes and only does what makes him happy (some may call this greedy and selfish), that 'society' in general would flourish and prosper.




iOWNme offers no proof in this thread.




:rolleyes: offer your proof or stop pretending you know what you are yacking about...lol.

[iOWNme]

The Virtue of Self-Interest

Every parasite buries its head in the flesh of the world and consumes out of self-interest, leaving trails of excrement
for those beneath to feed on and praise as virtuous.
Ayn Rand was just such a parasite.
Sophist and Grand Dame of the Russian Nihilist Movement,
virtuously shitting her quasi-intellectual verbiage
for the masses beneath her to dine on and thus eagerly consume the body of Christendom.

Self-interest is the most banal topic in existence. The more interesting part of the phrase is virtue.

How does one achieve virtue, while consuming the world?


Who brought up Ayn Rand? This is called a strawman argument. Nice try though. She said a lot of good stuff, but also said a lot of bad stuff. Do you have the intellectual acumen to tell the diffrence?

Did you even read what i posted?

Please show me how someone who gets his pleasure and joy from helping other people is somehow 'consuming' the world? There are MANY more people with this tendency than there are sociopaths/greedy/selfish people.

Why do you think that if an individual ONLY does what he thinks will benefit himself (which is exactly what YOU and everyone elese on this planet does) that this is somehow a bad selfish greedy way to be? I gave you 2 extreme examples, which covers everything in between, and you dodged them completely and went into strawman debate mode. What gives?

[iOWNme]

iOWNme offers no proof in this thread.




:rolleyes: offer your proof or stop pretending you know what you are yacking about...lol.




Except for the two extreme examples i gave you which covers everything in between. You cannot rebut my stance because i arrived there using reason logic and evidence, something that you refuse to allow your own mind to do. Here i will post them again, so you can gloss over them, ignore them and then claim i didnt offer proof. Again.


Example 1: What if i love to help people? Then i spend my days helping people to feed my 'greed', and by doing so am helping out all the other 'individuals' who are in need. 'Society' is going to prosper and flourish.

Example 2: If i dont give a flying fuck about anyone else but myself, and my toilet breaks (assuming i cant fix it myself>), guess who i call and offer to money to fix it? If my roof leaks, car breaks, if i need my shoes fixed, lawn mowed, etc, guess who my greedy isolated ass is going to call and pay money to fix? That is how 'society' is going to prosper and flourish.
In both extreme examples, it is easy to show that when the individual isleft to be driven only by what benefits him, that 'society' in general would prosper and flourish.

Now in a debate/discussion if i offer a proof of my stance you cannot just say "you have no proof". You need to actually breakdown my stance, and show where my logic is flawed. Since you and I both know you cannot do this, you resort to name calling, ad hominem attacks, character assassination, strawman arguments, and downright IGNORANCE. If i am so wrong, shouldnt you EASILY be able to show where my logic is inncorrect?

PLEASE show me where i am wrong in my 2 examples. I said in my previous post it was pretty easy to prove my point, which i did using the 2 extreme examples. Can you intellactually rebut my stance using reason logic and evidence?

Whether a man is virtuous and kind, or whether he is a nasty greedy selfish individual, either way he is driven to make himslef HAPPY. The 'Pursuit of Happiness'.....Ever heard of it?

[Jewboo]

iOWNme offers no proof in this thread.




:rolleyes: offer your proof or stop pretending you know what you are yacking about...lol.



request #2 for "proof"

[Jewboo]

Its pretty easily provable that if the individual is left free to chose as he wishes and only does what makes him happy (some may call this greedy and selfish), that 'society' in general would flourish and prosper.






:rolleyes: still waiting for your "proof".

[iOWNme]

:rolleyes: still waiting for your "proof".




...


example 1: what if i love to help people? Then i spend my days helping people to feed my 'greed', and by doing so am helping out all the other 'individuals' who are in need. 'society' is going to prosper and flourish.

example 2: if i dont give a flying fuck about anyone else but myself, and my toilet breaks (assuming i cant fix it myself>), guess who i call and offer to money to fix it? If my roof leaks, car breaks, if i need my shoes fixed, lawn mowed, etc, guess who my greedy isolated ass is going to call and pay money to fix? That is how 'society' is going to prosper and flourish.

in both extreme examples, it is easy to show that when the individual is left to be driven only by what benefits him, that 'society' in general would prosper and flourish.



now in a debate/discussion if i offer a proof of my stance you cannot just say "you have no proof". you need to actually breakdown my stance, and show where my logic is flawed. since you and i both know you cannot do this, you resort to name calling, ad hominem attacks, character assassination, strawman arguments, and downright ignorance. if i am so wrong, shouldnt you easily be able to show where my logic is inncorrect?

[iOWNme]

JewBookJew,

Why do you constantly bash the 'Evil Jews'? Could it be because YOU believe that YOU benefit from it? Maybe YOU think that OTHERS will benefit from this knowledge?

:)

Is that proof enough for your little brain?

I have used reason logic and evidence to intellectually DESTROY your position. Again.

[iOWNme]

JewBookJew,

EVERYTHING you do, EVERY SINGLE DAY of your life, you do because it benefits YOU. Im sure you IMAGINE you are doing things for other reasons, but your wrong. ANY other reason you come up with, i will be able to directly track back to a benfit to YOU. Wanna try? Go ahead and give me a scenario where you are doing something that is NOT going to directly benefit you. Im waiting....

Dont even reply here aymore. Your entire postion rests on your own inability to even use your own brain anymore. But dont worry, no matter how much you advocate for violence to be used against me by your God the STATE, i can still find compassion and love in my heart for you because i know you are a good natured well intentioned person who has been lied to their entire life. You are a VICTIM of mind control.

[7th trump]

JewBookJew,

EVERYTHING you do, EVERY SINGLE DAY of your life, you do because it benefits YOU. Im sure you IMAGINE you are doing things for other reasons, but your wrong. ANY other reason you come up with, i will be able to directly track back to a benfit to YOU. Wanna try? Go ahead and give me a scenario where you are doing something that is NOT going to directly benefit you. Im waiting....

Dont even reply here aymore. Your entire postion rests on your own inability to even use your own brain anymore. But dont worry, no matter how much you advocate for violence to be used against me by your God the STATE, i can still find compassion and love in my heart for you because i know you are a good natured well intentioned person who has been lied to their entire life. You are a VICTIM of mind control.

Arent you Sui Juris attempting "mind control"?
Your post is nothing but psychological "hear say".........can you prove the intentions of jewbo post?
Arent you subjecting jewbo to your interpretive social view as a victim with your psychological mazes?

Seriously.......you tell him you're waiting for a reply in one sentence and then tell him to not even reply in the very next sentence!!
Are you one of those people who whistles to a dog just to abuse it?

[singular_me]

Great posting Santa... you are one of the great minds on here. We are here to face the double edged sword of the Ego, which can either lead to destruction or sublimation. Though I'd think of virtue as a "quality" one develops over time when The Laws Of Balance have been mastered.



The Virtue of Self-Interest

Every parasite buries its head in the flesh of the world and consumes out of self-interest, leaving trails of excrement
for those beneath to feed on and praise as virtuous.
Ayn Rand was just such a parasite.
Sophist and Grand Dame of the Russian Nihilist Movement,
virtuously shitting her quasi-intellectual verbiage
for the masses beneath her to dine on and thus eagerly consume the body of Christendom.

Self-interest is the most banal topic in existence. The more interesting part of the phrase is virtue.

How does one achieve virtue, while consuming the world?

[Jewboo]

But dont worry, no matter how much you advocate for violence to be used against me by your God the STATE, i can still find...



Link us to where I did any such thing.



:rolleyes: you make this shit up as you go along...lol.

[iOWNme]

Arent you Sui Juris attempting "mind control"?
Your post is nothing but psychological "hear say".........can you prove the intentions of jewbo post?
Arent you subjecting jewbo to your interpretive social view as a victim with your psychological mazes?

Seriously.......you tell him you're waiting for a reply in one sentence and then tell him to not even reply in the very next sentence!!
Are you one of those people who whistles to a dog just to abuse it?


Why did you post here? Could it be because it benefited YOU or you thought it may benefit OTHERS?

What are you, some selfish greedy guy who only posts for his own benefit? LOL

Every post made here continues to prove my point. Thanks 7th!

[iOWNme]

Link us to where I did any such thing.



:rolleyes: you make this shit up as you go along...lol.


You dodged all of my questions and rebuttals. AGAIN. And i act like Im surprised. LOL


You mean all i have to do is go find any thread where you have ever advocated for 'Government' in any form? You just posted in another thread about how people will litter if there were no 'Laws'. Should i go find the post? Why are you so disingenuous? Your totally deceitful. I know we disagree on a lot of stuff, but your not going to see me acting the way you do.

Its fucking sad to see so many members here resort to being the MONSTERS they love to point fingers at. And when one guy tries to actually use principles to try and figure out the world, you attack him viciously. Not because your are a bad person, but because what i say scares the shit out of you.

[Jewboo]

Aren't you Sui Juris attempting "mind control"? Your post is nothing but psychological "hear say".........can you prove the intentions of jewbo post? Aren't you subjecting jewbo to your interpretive social view as a victim with your psychological mazes? Seriously.......you tell him you're waiting for a reply in one sentence and then tell him to not even reply in the very next sentence!! Are you one of those people who whistles to a dog just to abuse it?




http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UeuaziTfv8Q/TLObIqOM8fI/AAAAAAAAACU/ZVHVzUp4krE/s1600/homeless_laptop.jpg
iOWNme invents imaginary arguments then "wins" the debate against himself












:rolleyes:7th Trump nailed it

[singular_me]

right, exactly how the NWO expects most people to behave... helping sustain the fear levels, many walk straight into the trap. F****g Sad as you say.



Its fucking sad to see so many members here resort to being the MONSTERS they love to point fingers at. And when one guy tries to actually use principles to try and figure out the world, you attack him viciously. Not because your are a bad person, but because what i say scares the shit out of you.

[Jewboo]

But dont worry, no matter how much you advocate for violence to be used against me by your God the STATE, i can still find...






:rolleyes: now iOWNme can't find where I ever posted that...lol.

[Santa]

Who brought up Ayn Rand? This is called a strawman argument. Nice try though. She said a lot of good stuff, but also said a lot of bad stuff. [B]Do you have the intellectual acumen to tell the diffrence?


The only one arguing is you...:)
Thread title...The Virtue of Self-Interest
Ayn Rand's book titled "The Virtue of Selfishness."

Not much of a leap. Simple word association.

[singular_me]

I contend that if we have to practice the Positive Virtue of Selfishness/Interest right now, everybody should stop using fiat money and going to work to help doom the system faster... arguments advocating otherwise is called Negative Virtue Of Selfishness/Interest. Positively Self-Interest/Selfishness aligned itself with Humanitarianism.

That's a good example as why everything is dual in nature, something perceived as a bad move can bring about positive and otherwise. Meaning that claiming the Virtue of Self-Interest alone (not supported by knowledge and a strong sense of morality) doesnt mean anything but is rather a harmful ideology.