of moral values in a human life. Therefore, Rand concludes that this is only appropriate in the context of a rational code of moral principles which she says is defined and determined as his actual self-interest. Ayn Rand's argument on selfishness' is this: unless you factor in morals and values a.k.a rational self-interest, you are unable to give a precise definition of the word selfishness' because what the public thinks weighs heavily on this particular definition.
Premise 1: "Selfishness" is a synonym of evil, in popular usage.
Premise 2: "Selfishness" is concerned with one's own interests; definition given from the dictionary.
Premise 3: Altruism: a) that any concern with one's own interest is evil, regardless of what these interests might be. b) that the brute's activities are in fact to one's own interest.
Premise 4: Altruism therefore means that it 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.
Premise 5: The reasons why man needs a moral code will tell you that the purpose of morality is to define man's proper values and interests, that concern with his own interests is the essence of the moral existence, and that man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions.
Conclusion: Selfishness' therefore can not be defined unless you factor in morals and values. The attack on selfishness' is an attack on man's self-esteem; to surrender one, is to surrender the
other.
First, I feel that Ayn Rand does not write to appeal to the general public, because this particular passage was very difficult to follow, I would not read the entire book. While trying to wrap my brain around what she had wrote, I believe that her argument on the difference of what altruism and selfishness is clear.
Also, I believe that, difficult as it was to follow, her argument against the definition of selfishness' was in fact supported by various points. She argued that the dictionary definition does not suffice the word.
In conclusion, I feel that the argument is valid. However, there were parts of the passage I felt lost and that her argument started to become unclear.
On a personal note, what I could follow while reading this passage, I am 50/50 with her. Sometimes you should do what is in our own self-interest, even if it does affect someone else negative. Other times, if you can avoid the evil' and avoid hurting someone while pursuing your own self interests then do so. If the people in this world always drove on one way streets we would never get anywhere in life.