Rational self-interest in practice

[Purple-Silver Fox]

From an interview with Derrick Jensen on the appropriateness of violence:


Also, one of the smartest things the Nazis did, according to Sigmund Bauman's "In Modernity and the Holocaust," was to make it seem in the Jews's rational best interests not to resist: "do you want an ID card or do you want to resist and possibly get killed? Do you want to live in the ghetto or do you want to resist and get killed? Do you want to get on this cattle car or do you want to resist and get killed? Do you want to take a shower or do you want to resist and get killed? Every step of the way it was in their so-called "rational best interest."

http://countercurrents.org/engel280806.htm

It drew my attention because it made an argument against "rational self-interest", while nowadays that concept is usually taken as a sacred cornerstone of the status quo. By showing the limits of both pacifism and rationality it makes a case for passionate violence - in certain circumstances. Do you agree?

[Lee]

When most people talk about the virtues of "rational self-interest," they usually presuppose the condition of individual liberty.

That quote just describes how coercion works. That's the whole point of coercion, not to remove choices, since the choices are always there, but to change the incentives and constraints around those choices so that the victims self-interest aligns with the interests of the coercer.

The idea that rational self-interest can lead to negative consequences is harldy new anyway. Politicians are the prime example, who in pursuit of their own rational self-interest will often help along policies and laws which benefit special interest groups, big business or whoever, at the expense of everyone else.

At the most extreme, rational self-interest can keep murderous dictators in power for years if not decades, such as Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Castro and others. This is because rational self-interest can cause good and bad, depending on the incentives and constraints that self-interest is operating.

I have never heard anyone who sings the praises of rational self-interest not also acknowledge this darkside.

[ApeTheDog]

If you control the entire playing field, it's easy to make up conditions where no matter which way the 'player' goes, they lose and you win.

This just shows that society has gotten more subtle, because it's true that Atilla the hun didn't offer much of a choice. They just slaughtered everybody without communicating with them. Here, the end-result was the same, but the nazi's were a bit more clever about it. They knew a little bit more about the human psyche.

No concept like this ever holds true unless the rest of the world is perfectly pure, and can thus be ignored.

[dubbeltop]

Its a technique often used by employer against people who they want to fire and by the police against suspects. The say its in your own best interest to cooperate bla bla bla. Of course its not in your 'rational' self-interest to cooperate but fear makes a pretty good argument. So basically they say you have no choice and its up to you to find out that you do have a choice if you use your brain. Anyway 'rational self interest' looks like multiple choice without a real choice....like elections in third world countries where there a multiple candidates and one really brutal dictator guess who we are going to choose in our own 'rational' self-interest.

[Neppy]

Being gradual is another method that goes hand-in-hand with this rational self-interest thing. For example, if the Nazis had demanded that the Jews step into the trains to be shipped to concentration camps without the former measures (the badges, ghettos, etc) then the Jews would've resist much more readily. Not that this post should go off on that tangent. <_<

[omnirook]

From an interview with Derrick Jensen on the appropriateness of violence:



http://countercurrents.org/engel280806.htm

It drew my attention because it made an argument against "rational self-interest", while nowadays that concept is usually taken as a sacred cornerstone of the status quo. By showing the limits of both pacifism and rationality it makes a case for passionate violence - in certain circumstances. Do you agree?
People are not "rational."

"Rational" in anybody's view is whatever justifies his getting what he wants. There are no exceptions ... Yes, people are expert at twisting "facts" and building arguments in favor of what benefits them, but that does not make their arguments "rational."

There are prime movers in human behavior - material needs, material wants, status, sex, and fear. Fear is what is used to "motivate" the masses, while making all sorts of never-to-be-fulfilled promises about needs, wants, status, sex, and security.

It's a very simple formula, as old as mankind, if not older, and as plain as day to anyone who at least attempts to be rational - attempts, I say - it's only possible to get relatively close to rational in instances where one's own interests are not at stake: that's as close as anyone can get to objective. Otherwise, all are of us are firmly in the realm of the subjective, facts not withstanding.

[demagogic_schizoid]

From an interview with Derrick Jensen on the appropriateness of violence:



http://countercurrents.org/engel280806.htm

It drew my attention because it made an argument against "rational self-interest", while nowadays that concept is usually taken as a sacred cornerstone of the status quo. By showing the limits of both pacifism and rationality it makes a case for passionate violence - in certain circumstances. Do you agree?

I don't mean to be rude, but can I just say that all you have done is describe a concept that every single person on the planet instinctively understand - the act of threatening someone - and explained it in such a complicated way that you hope it sounds like some amazing new theory. I'll be honest, I've never read about rational self-interest, and right now I have no intention of doing so, but I very much doubt that it's the same thing as having a gun pointed at your head and being told either to go into a concentration camp or be shot on the spot.