From: dcosley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Daniel R Cosley)
Subject: Re: The fundamental question
Summary: Selfishness, a word with many meanings (sigh...)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 19:58:16 GMT

In article <lewchuk.726690261@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
 writes:

>"Live would not be worth living without her" is a highly emotional statement,
>and I don't think every marriage is like this.  Personally I can accept the
>"loss" of a person and go on with my life.  Does this mean under Objectivism
>I should not be willing to risk my life simply because I can always get
>another wife because I have no apparent tendency to commit suicide if my
>wife dies?  Would the objective (unemotional and logical) knowledge that I
>can always remarry make this a "sacrifice" rather than "in my best interest"?

True, you could always get another wife and perhaps have similar feeling for 
her that you do for the first one.  However, the value you place in the person 
who is your first wife may allow you to rationally risk your life.  Consider 
the concept of "risking my life, 20% chance that I'll lose it."  In a 
structured value hierarchy (which Rand advocates, though I don't know many 
people for whom it actually is a strict hierarchy.  Whether it should be, is 
another question for another message), the value of your wife is either above 
or below that value (expressed another way, 20% of my life).  If you value your
wife more than that, and you guesstimate that to being the risk involved in 
trying to save her, it would be rational to try to save her.

Bear in mind that emergencies of this sort are relatively rare and that the 
main objection in objectivism to acting in others' interests is being forced 
to.  It seems like you're asking if there are any circumstances in which 
someone should act in another's interests under Objectivism.  Different
questions; just want to make sure we're on the right one.

>"In one's best interest" and "voluntary" are not the same.  I would try to
>save someone else (at least I hope I would) at the risk of my life.  This
>would be voluntary and not necessarily in my best interest.
(. . .)
>Practicing the virtue of selifshness, I'd let my wife drown and remarry.

Again, it is a question of which is more important to you.  I hope you 
wouldn't jump into a case of near-certain death to try to save a total 
stranger.  The benefit and risk should always be weighed.

>some sense, the Objectivist would argue against this saying "it's unfair, I
>have my right to be me, nobody should take money out of my pocket and deny
>me my rights because they have other morals", but unfortunately for the
>"virtue of selfishness", there is no such thing as a selfish society.  A
>selfish individual perhaps, but if people are selfish, you have chaos, not
>society.  Society is people pulling together, voluntarily or involuntarily.
>Chaos is people pulling in different directions, all trying to get their way.

Your definitions of society and chaos are neither necessary nor sufficient.
Rand made a mistake when she chose the word "selfishness" rather than a more 
neutral term such as "rational self-interest."  A lot of argument against her 
seems to be based on the definitions of words as commonly accepted rather than 
as she defined them.  Her mistake.  However, it is certainly possible to build 
a society based on rational self-interest.  (Please argue that point in another 
thread if you so desire.  This one would get too cluttered.)
-- 
Dan  ***  dcosley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
*******************************************
Disclaimer: Due to budget constraints, The Ohio State University cannot afford 
to express official university opinions on Usenet.