Truly selfish people don't understand or feel empathy. And true empathy can't be and isn't self-interested. If the emotional reward for helping others directly stems from emotional concern for others ("I can't stand to see others suffer"), then that's not something based in self-interest but in a morality connected to other human beings. If you are aware that you might be responsible for the suffering of others and are unwilling to sanction that suffering in your pursuit of self-interest, you are not a good Randian nor truly individually self-interested and ethically selfish as the "new Intellectual" is supposed to be. Why not try to sell the sandwich to someone else on the street who has money so you can profit? Why not create your own business asking for money to buy sandwiches for the homeless so you can keep some of the proceeds as a salary for your own profit?

The fundamental question for any adult human being would then be "Why can't I stand it to see other suffer?" If you're unwilling to grapple with the moral consequences of that emotional response and instead dismiss it as "guilt," then it will not be possible for you to directly influence and benefit the lives of individual sufferers without alienating them, insulting them, or patronizing them.

The answer is a self-denying, anti-materialistic carryover of Christian morality in the back of your head.

I agree that low-key celebrities are better than glory-hogs, but by your silly Ayn Rand "self-interest good, altruism bad" standard, Sean Penn is the better, more charitable individual because he derives the most self-interest and self-pleasure out of helping people and getting reflected glory as a result. Macy Gray would be a pointless, unrewarded altruist under that limited, childish morality.

Al, to be highly actualized on Maslow's hiearchy, you'd need to be getting regular sex. That's only the beginning of where I'd take issue with your self-comparison to Macy Gray.

That is all.

People should help in the way that they are best qualified to help. Sean Penn is an actor, not a rescue worker. He makes a lot of money. It would have been more efficient for him to send more money to qualified organizations rather than spending it on actually transporting himself there in person, acquiring a boat and paying the people he took with him. I'd have more respect for a photo of him writing a big check to the Red Cross than a photo of him wading up to his knees in ego-juice.

It seems to me that Benthamite utilitarianism is a much better argument against Penn's activities than anything Randian. But then Randism is pretty reprehensible and idiotic at any time.

BTW, who is the Thug and who is his Ma? I guess I'm not hip enough to know...

Dave

Dave, you might note that I never quoted or invoked Rand at any point in this essay.

I was in part responding to Babs' Randian comment, Al.

Dave

Alright, fair enough. Obviously, I'm known as a student of Rand, but this is the kind of thing where she's mostly not a helluva lot of help.

She's the only "philosopher" you've ever read, Senator.

Cite any other thinkers, ANY, that have shaped your views who are legitimate philosophers. I've seen that list of your Top 10 influences on another topic and they're all silly.

And no, Jesus Christ of Nazareth is not one of them.

That is all.

If 2,000 Americans did what Sean Penn did - hop on a plane going to Louisiana in order to rescue people - would it be helpful to the City of New Orleans? Do you think the military would let 2,000 out-of-state people inside the City Limits? Where would these 2,000 potential rescuers eat or sleep anyway? Plus, the relief effort isn't well organized, so 2,000 extra bodies could be a hindrance, possibly slowing down the proceedings, no? I think if Sean Penn weren't so famous, the military would never let him past the airport. Sean is a celebrity with privileges after all; he is not like most of us. I am sure the "gatekeepers" in New Orleans were starstruck and they let Sean do whatever he wanted to do in the city.

I say if Sean's intentions were REALLY good, he'd send a check and no one would know about it except his business manager. And don't get me started on that other one: Angelina Jolie, The Baby Saver. She's saving the world's babies, ONE BABY AT A TIME. Blah. Is Angelina the first woman in the world to adopt a child or what? Maybe I missed something here. It's like these people aren't fully alive unless there is a camera crew recording each event. There are so many truly good people in this world who give back without any recognition at all. So why do we have these narcissistic morally bankrupt celebrities telling us how to live our lives?