The title of this book may evoke the kind of question that I hear once in a while: “Why do you use the word ‘selfishness’ to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the thing you mean?”

(…)

It is not a mere semantic issue nor a matter of arbritrary choice. 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 gratifiication 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.

(…)

Observe the indecency of what passes for moral judgments today. An industrialist who produces a fortune, and a gangster who robs a bank are regarded as equally immoral, since they both sought wealth for their own “selfish” interest.

(…)

If it is true that what I mean by “selfishness” is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others.

(…)

To rebel against so devastating an evil [as altruism] one has to rebel against its basic premise. To redeem both man and morality, it is the concept of “selfishness that one has to redeem.

What Ayn Rand really advocated was “rational self-interest” – a rational, principled life motivated by one’s own selfish desires.

It is frequently presumed that selfish motivation in and of itself is somehow wrong. (As you say above, “…selfishness – usually a vice…”). Ms. Rand was trying to oppose that presumption with the idea that selfishness is, first and foremost, a valid motivator of men, and that just because some evil men are selfish, it does not mean that all selfish men are evil.

As you also say above, “So we have to judge each person on his own merits.”. And I say exactly! Judge people on their merits, instead of assuming that selfishness or wealth automatically equate with evil.

s.s.

I think you are unfamiliar with the word as it relates to the central themes of her writings. Howard Roark was the embodiment of the selfish man, yet he never harmed anyone. To be selfish is to never deviate from one’s principles.

What’s important here is the Invisible Hand — that’s the device (the marketplace) that diverts selfishness — usually a vice — in a productive direction. Adam Smith wasn’t puzzled by the basic concept: he enunciated it 150 years before Ayn Rand came along. So let’s not lionize selfishness. Selfishness is not good. It often leads to results that are bad for everybody else. But capitalism and the marketplace are able to harness that selfishness and make it useful. So let’s raise a glass to capitalism — not selfishness.

In the same way, I see no reason to lionize people merely because they are rich or powerful. How do we know they got their wealth or power by contributing to society? There are some cases in which we know it to be true: entertainers and sports figures, for example, earn their wealth directly due to their talents. But was the CEO of Enron wealthy because he was productive or because he was a thief? I know lots of people who are wealthy, and some definitely earned it, and some did not.

I’ll give you one good example: Bill Gates, the richest man in America (but not the world). He’s rich because he owns lots of stock in the company he founded, which ended up with almost a monopoly on PC operating systems. But, if you know the history of all this, you’ll realize that Gary Kildall should, by all rights, have gotten what Bill Gates got. So, did Bill Gates earn his wealth? And did he get it by selling the best product, or by monopolistic practices? I can say with certainty that the Microsoft products have at all stages in its history been inferior to competing products. But in every case, their size gave them a marketing advantage that overcame their products’ deficiencies. I believe that, had Microsoft never come along, the world of PC software would probably be further advanced that it is today. So, is Bill Gates a hero to be lionized or a villain to be cursed?

My take is that wealthy people should not be lionized because of their wealth. We don’t know if they earned their wealth or stole it. So we have to judge each person on his own merits. There are lots of people who’ve made huge contributions to society. Some are wealthy, some are not. Wealth is not a good measure of contribution to society.