# Sleestak, would you just calm down? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 8, 2002, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sleestak-would-you-just-calm-down/135893 "2002-11-08T15:37:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2002, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sleestak-would-you-just-calm-down/135893/41 "2002-11-11T16:08:12Z")
> [@](#): > > If it’s right for people to do what they perceive as being in their own self-interest what about those folks who perceive sacrifice (of any sort) as being in their own self-interest? If one thinks it’s a worthwhile investment of time, energy and capital to perform charity work for the homeless or baby seals or what-have-you what position does anyone have saying that’s NOT in the performers self-interest. Rand would have no problem with that. She does actually explain this fairly well in her various works, which most of her detractors have never read. On the _Donahue_ show, Rand was asked, “If someone attempted to shoot your husband, would you step in front of the bullet?” Her response was, “Of course I would. Because my personal value system is such that I would rather be dead than live in a world without my husband, knowing I could have saved him.” In other words, helping people out as an expression of your own values is fine. What Rand fought against was _altruism_, or the notion that the highest purpose of man was to sacrifice himself to others. And I agree with that 100%. Basically, that’s embodied in the notion that man has the inalienable right to the ‘pursuit of happiness’ - in other words, the right to live for his own sake, and not as just a pawn to be used by something ‘larger’. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2002, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sleestak-would-you-just-calm-down/135893/42 "2002-11-11T16:27:00Z")
Lib and Sam- That’s really a fine line to define. Don’t all of us, regardless of outside influence, choose to define what is and is not a worthwhile sacrifice? In the end, the choice is always personal. If someone is FORCED to commit an act of altruism then the act can hardly be called that. And if the choice is personal then it can certainly be called altruistic. But nowhere does it say that altruism and personal self interest can’t go hand in hand. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2002, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sleestak-would-you-just-calm-down/135893/43 "2002-11-11T17:23:04Z")
**Jonathon** : Rand didn’t mean “forced” in the sense of “at gunpoint”, she was calling for us to examine our societal pressures/expectations. She abhored the (for lack of a better word) “peer pressure” inherent in the idea that “Greater love hath no man…etc” When feminists in the '60s were complaining that women were forced to wear a bra (for example) they didn’t mean “at gunpoint”, but “by society”. Same sort of thing with Rand. Fenris ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2002, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sleestak-would-you-just-calm-down/135893/44 "2002-11-11T18:34:37Z")
And I understand that. But I think that’s false reasoning. Or rather, using that line of reasoning then NO ONE ever can make a decision about self-interest in good conscience because all people are constantly being influenced by upbringing, environment, the weather, what have you. I think Heinlein called it the ‘Don’t make decisions while hungry’ rule. If we’re all so ovrwhelmingly influenced by our background (the sum total of our experiences) then that leads credence to those fools who think that no one can really be guilty of a crime (or responsible for ANY action) because of the influence of god-knows-what in their background. This is where I often think Randian thought breaks down. I think the fact that man is the reasoning (har har) being indicates that he has the ability to see THROUGH the influences of his background and overcome it and that this occurs more often than not. ---
**Author:** ![gex\_gex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/94ad74/32.png) [@gex\_gex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gex_gex)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2002, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sleestak-would-you-just-calm-down/135893/45 "2002-11-12T11:22:10Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by Fenris_ > If you actually read the book you’d see that Rand is very clear about how she’s defining the term. Many people use old terms in new ways. It’s how the language evolves. Yes, I do understand that a dictionary does not fully encompass all the nuances required for a definition to be used in an in-depth discussion. However, Rand removes a crucial part of the definition: the word _only_. We are not discussing inadequacies in the definition of the dictionary, we are discussing contradictions with the fundamental meaning. And, yes, you can say that Rand was trying to redefine the word. I did respond to that in my post. There’s glory for you.\* \*meaning, ‘a nice knock-down argument’. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sleestak-would-you-just-calm-down/135893.md?page=2)