"The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man—which means: the values required for human survival—not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the “aspirations,” the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.
The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."
"The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.
In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.
Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.
This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions."
There is much more. I also suggest finding the entry on altruism.
Why has the USA got such a boner about this woman? She hated humanity like poison and hated religion just as much. The opposite of why this site exists.
You are extremely ignorant of her views. She certainly didn't hate humanity, and she didn't even hate religion - she considered it man's first attempt at philosophy/moral framework and worth some things, as such.
Of her many achievements, she separated man's rights FROM a creator which means they can be defended even arguing with a staunch atheist who tries to say we don't have them - pretty significantly important.
In essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
Happiness as our moral purpose? Don't make me laugh, she must have issues with weakness and as she preached human perfection she obviously did. People were not good enough for her.
If she separated God from our rights to prove God's existence to atheists then what was she? A philosopher, a useless person who is no use to humanity at all.
See Wittgenstein's Poker to see what creatures philosophers really are.
"The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man—which means: the values required for human survival—not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the “aspirations,” the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.
The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."
"The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.
In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.
Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.
This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions."
There is much more. I also suggest finding the entry on altruism.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html
Why has the USA got such a boner about this woman? She hated humanity like poison and hated religion just as much. The opposite of why this site exists.
You are extremely ignorant of her views. She certainly didn't hate humanity, and she didn't even hate religion - she considered it man's first attempt at philosophy/moral framework and worth some things, as such.
Of her many achievements, she separated man's rights FROM a creator which means they can be defended even arguing with a staunch atheist who tries to say we don't have them - pretty significantly important.
In essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
Happiness as our moral purpose? Don't make me laugh, she must have issues with weakness and as she preached human perfection she obviously did. People were not good enough for her.
If she separated God from our rights to prove God's existence to atheists then what was she? A philosopher, a useless person who is no use to humanity at all.
See Wittgenstein's Poker to see what creatures philosophers really are.