trc (02/25/83)
Graeme Hirst addresses the question of selfishness in human beings. He assumes that selfishness is a vice, rather than a virtue. This is, of course a wide-spread idea in our society, resulting mainly from religious "self-sacrificial" morality. In fact, Ayn Rand's definition of selfishness is not quite the same as that of our society. She excludes "greed" and "evil" from that definition, leaving what I would describe as "self-fullness". That is, a healthy self-interest. By healthy, I mean that the individual rationally realizes that he is not the center of the universe, and that others have a right to their own self-interest. Graeme makes two contradictory statements - that Socialism assumes people are not selfish; and that "optimists" (socialists) believe that human nature can (IE must) change to allow socialism. The latter is true - human nature would have to change for socialism to be right. But would what remains be human, or termite? And, what is the justification for living under a system that goes against our basic natures? As to the slavery issue, there is a qualitative difference between owning a human being and owning something else. Most of those slave owners of a hundred years ago would not have even considered owning a fellow white man. The fact is that they, either mistakenly or evilly, did not consider blacks to be human, but rather sub-human. A large number of people, even then, realized that slave owners were wrong, and that Negroes are indeed human. I dont see any "free the french fry five" or "release the roses" movements around today, and I doubt I ever will. Few people today thing inanimate objects are somehow human. In fact, it is socialism that most resembles slavery - everyone required to serve a nebulously defined "greatest good", with those that define the practical "greatest good" taking the place of the slave owners. Tom Craver houti!trc American Bell,Inc.