There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level.
. . . Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute is self-sacrifice–which means self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial self-destruction–which means the self as a standard of evil, the selflessas a standard of the good. Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. This is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or donot have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: No. Altruism says: Yes.
Ayn Rand



2 wasted their time:
It's so fucked up a notion but I got nothing to contradict it with, that giving is actually a gratuitous act and therefore for the self. (Like when you do something for someone because you want them happy, and why? Because their happiness is your happiness, and in the end, it's YOUR happiness, really. And you know how thank-yous feel so good? God, why is being human so complicated.)
It really is all about the self. We ARE fucked up creatures. Let's read Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"!!!
Post a Comment