Recently I was in a conversation with one of my friends and the head of the Ontario Libertarian Party. Specifically about Objectivism, the denial of Evolutionary Psychology by the people at the Ayn Rand Institute and Objectivism the philosophy. During the conversation we went over how the Institute still believed in a blank slate human without innateness. Which I am against as all of our current science says it is wrong. We have natures based on many things; from chromosomes to the Androgen bath in-utero. The denying this is to deny science.
I mentioned it was ironic as reality is the arbiter is one of the core aspects of Objectivism the philosophy. So, by denying evolved natures it is denying in fact a core tenant of modern biology in our species. Which is in turn denying objective reality the core of Objectivism. We had an interesting conversation and in it I realized I was letting the opinions of other Objectivists determine whether I identified as one as opposed to letting whether I agreed with the philosophy be the determining factor. This I now see is a mistake as my views on rational/enlightened selfishness has not changed anymore has my views on government.
Where I disagree with many Objectivist groups is on the idea of Ayn Rand being the only worthwhile philosopher and Objectivism being mandatory for being a rational person, To me the primary thing is being in a relationship with reality if you will and not whether one is an Objectivist or even agrees with Objectivism. What matters is being rational and being in favor of limited government is hopefully where one ends up from that process However, I still do think that enlightened selfishness is a virtue. That altruism is cancerous and that self-destruction through sacrificing personal happiness is one of the core evils of the our age. This has not changed within my world view.
In our conversation Allen the person I was speaking with made an astute and true comment that stuck with me the rest of the evening. That what is often called Biological Altruism is not altruism at all. Doing things to keep alive your genes even if it seems sacrificial is not sacrifice for keeping your genes in the human species is selfish not sacrificial. It is not altruism that drives the things mistaken for sacrifice, but, a deep seated selfishness in the gene level. Thus Richard Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene." All so-called altruistic acts which are NOT actually sacrificial are simply egoistic benevolence and nothing more on an genetic level.
We help others not just because it is "right," but, because of the feedbacks our brains get and also because it means we are more likely to garner favor and breed. As well as keeping a reputation that is good in our social circles. It is a selfish act that comes across as altruistic when really it is an egoistic benevolence at work which is not altruism at all. The philosophy known as altruism is not present anywhere in nature and is in fact further from our evolved Animal natures as Homo-Sapiens than an enlightened selfishness which acknowledges justice with its corollary of benevolence toward others. In fact, the very evolutionary psychology that ARI refuses to acknowledge if anything validates rational self-interest as a model.
