[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Rational self-interest doesn't involve sacrificing yourself for the good of others which is a major theme in LoTR. There isn't a lot of self interest in being dead.m0zart
I don't disagree with you that this concept might be lacking in this film. But how Laihendi described it is indeed how Rand described it over and over again in most of her literature and public appearances. One of the areas where it was more explicitly dealt with was in a discussion between Howard Roark and Gail Wynand while on a ferry in New York City. Wynand brings up the same question and shows some confusion on the subject. Roark makes the point that if Wynand fell off the boat, his esteem of Wynand and enjoyment of his friendship would be enough motivation to risk saving his life by jumping off the boat and attempting to save him. Wynand is even more confused at that point, presumably because he sees it as contradicting Roark's overall philosophy. Roark tries to clear that up by saying that while he might risk his life and possibly die for him in some circumstances, he would never "live" for him.
Rand didn't define altruism or selfishness in the way that is generally used by the population. She did this with a lot of terms, because she felt that the opposition often attempts to rob words of their meaning, or pollute them to be too general. She felt that those who win the war of the dictionary are those who win the war, so part of her tactic was to try to reclaim words she felt were misapplied in that way. That's why she always said things like "abortion is pro-life", because she felt that pro-lifers robbed the word of its real meaning (of course, pro-lifers would say the same thing about the broad "pro-choice" label, and in many cases rightly so).
There may be some inconsistency in the way Rand defined it, but basically selfishness is "of the self". Without the self, you can't have interest. Interest is generated from the self. That doesn't mean it is only interested in the self. A healthy "self" has meaningful relationships with others that add considerable value and make some risks worth taking. So looking at it from Frodo's perspective -- he loved the Shire. He saw life as he knew and loved it coming to an end without some form of intervention. Doing nothing would mean it was lost completely, for him and for those he loved and had meaningful relationships with. So his motivation to prevent the loss was high. He had some personal satisfaction and enjoyment from the fact that the Shire would live on.
From Rand's POV, altruism would be something of another sort. He would have to have made sacrifices for people he didn't know or care about, even people he could call enemies. Let's say he decided to give up the Shire for the sake of the Orcs: "Let them have it. It will be my good deed for the day to let them have something, and who knows if it wasn't theirs to begin with. Maybe we took it away from them in some distant past." That would be altruism from Rand's perspective.
Again, Rand can't claim to be completely consistent (nobody can, but as Rand demanded it, it's particularly obvious when she fails). So there are bound to be holes in the way she saw selfishness, and frankly we might never know for the sake of the aforementioned attempts to reclaim the language, something she considered essential to any philosophical treatise, whether formal or informal.
I'm aware of how Rand means it. I just can't say I care what Rand thought because for the most part it was garbage. Also the Orcs aren't really altruistic under Rand's ideas anyway since they don't do thing for the good of others they do what they do because destruction is literally the only thing they're capable of. But I'm not sure how much that is really touched on so perhaps he just doesn't understand that part about Orcs.
Log in to comment