[Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales in the news

[Anthony]

On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:16 PM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>  Antony said earlier that, as a Randian, [a Randian] would act only out of
>  self-interest and not altruism, but this is a false dichotomy. People
>  who act altruistically want to do so at some level, or else they
>  wouldn't. As philosophers put it, all reasons for action are internal
>  reasons, meaning they are based on the actor's desires, needs, and
>  interests, the argument being that a reason for action that has no
>  emotional resonance for you will fail to be magnetic enough to move
>  you to act. According to that argument, we are all psychological
>  Randians, at least a little. :)
>
Taking out the names, because they're irrelevant...

I think there is a distinction between a rational act of kindness and
an altruistic act.  It's not a quantitative distinction, but it's a
qualitative one.

If I spend 5 minutes on a weekend helping an old lady cross the
street, that's one thing.  If I donate to the world what I believe I
could turn into a billion dollar company, just for the warm fuzzies, I
think that's clearly another.  I'd consider the latter to be an
irrational act of altruism.  Were I a true Randian, I guess I'd even
call it evil.

[I'm going to snip out an example I put here which is closer to what I
think actually happened, because apparently some people find the idea
extremely offensive.]

And to answer your point that "all reasons for action are internal
reasons, meaning they are based on the actor's desires, needs, and
interests", I can't agree.  For example, I can't say qualitatively
that an anorexic's decision to starve him/herself is an example of
acting based on his/her "desires, needs, and interests".  Maybe
they're doing it for an internal reason, but I think there's a
qualitative line to be drawn where some acts of self-destruction can
be deemed irrational.  You could say, by definition, that anything
someone does do is something s/he "needs" to do, but then your
statement is circular and meaningless.