Irrational Independent Selfishness

Certain people shouldn’t have kids.

That’s what I tell myself when I see the usual example of violence and bad behavior being passed down from red-faced berating parent to red-faced screaming child.

mom at the grocery store

And then I take that thought a little further and think about one day when I’ll rule the world and dictate that people will have to pass certain profiling tests to have children. I’ll make sure that future children will have parents that have qualities to pass down like patience, intelligence, responsibility, problem-solving, etc.

Ignorance, hatred, impatience, etc, would be diminished from the world in one single generation.

I would allow myself a few more moments of megalomania before I’d think of the consequences of a world like that. A world where young people feel powerless when they want children. Where they dread meeting the panel that will determine whether they can do a biological function that all other creatures freely do. A world where there’ll be corrupt bureaucrats doling out pass/fail baby cards based on connections, bribes, and personal whim.

naziIt’s such a bad idea on second thought, so why did I even have it in the first place? Probably because I hate seeing pain and suffering. Because I don’t want to deal with the suffering of another human being, which causes me to be uncomfortable, awkward, and insecure. There’s also the fear that one day I’ll have to deal with that person in some way. It’s the avoidance of annoyance, frustration, and fear that drove me to such thoughts.

And that’s alright isn’t it? I want to avoid bad things, it’s my personal right to avoid bad things. But to acquire what I believe is my right as an independent being, should I contradict that right and take that independence away from others? Even if it’s for the “greater good of society.”

As an independent person, I am allowed my independent selfishness that allows me to remain alive and attain happiness. But not everything selfish is allowable by me. There are irrational selfish ideals, such as my megalomania, that will end up harming everyone, including myself.

So the game isn’t about not being selfish at all, or about not ever practicing altruism. The game is about when it makes sense to be selfish and when it makes sense to just continue suffering humanities bad habits.


4 thoughts on “Irrational Independent Selfishness

  1. rings of broken in mud

    what is the objective of a personal right?

    • I don’t know if I fully understand your question. But if I you mean what the point of having individual rights, I’d basically tell you what I’ve gleaned from reading Ayn Rand, the torch-bearer of liberty.
      Personal rights begin with the right to attempt to continue living. Each person has the wish to continue existing (usually) and they have the right to do so. This right comes not from someone else or society. It comes from the mere fact of being alive and being an organism that exists. It’s a corollary, a secondary postulate of the principle that existence exists. And those things that exists, they exist. And if you are alive, then you are living, and you have a right to continue to go on living as much as within your power to. So that is one thing that is an objective of a personal right, the right of the life that you were given.
      Another could be happiness. So far I’m following the pattern of the American Declaration of Independence. Something that Ayn Rand herself valued highly. The pursuit of happiness is a personal right that is secondary to the right of the pursuit of life. Ayn Rand would propose that the two are one and the same. That to be truly alive is to be truly happy, and vice versa.
      The objectives so far outlined follow a pattern, they are inalienable. Inalienable means that they are not given to or from and cannot be taken away. An easy example of something that is Inalienable is a property of an item. A piece of iron is inalienably iron. Again, existence exists, life is life.
      So in essence, maybe I’m not able to answer this question because this question is like asking how cold is the color blue. Personal rights do not have an objective, they are an ends in themselves, there’s no reason for personal rights, you just have them because you are existing.

      • bloodstream of syncretic traffic

        maybe that’s how it should be.maybe it should be as weird of a question as “how cold is the color blue” as you said. but it isn’t. there are written set of “rights”. there are a limited number of personal rights all individuals agree on. why is there a limit on them if there is no objective. they were stated/written because there is an objective. i think when you first were talking about living.. i think maybe that’s the objective of rights–continuing to live as successfully as possible.

      • bloodstream of syncretic traffic

        and by the way ayn rand is dead. what does SHE know huh?? she hasn’t continued to live so HA.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s