What do you think?
Rate this book
Itsekkyyden puolustuspuhe
Itsekkyyden puolustuspuhe on kirja, joka herätti raivoa ilmestyessään, niin häpeilemättömänä sitä pidettiin. Vasta luettuaan teoksen ihmiset pysähtyivät ajattelemaan tätä täysin uutta näkökulmaa itsekkyyteen. Olemme itsekkäitä – ja meidän kuuluukin olla. Muuten evoluutio olisi pyyhkäissyt meidät ajat sitten olemattomin. Juuri itsekkyys on se voima, jonka varassa ihmisten ja yhteiskuntien menestys seisoo tai kaatuu.
Peter Schwartz asettaa kirjassaan kyseenalaiseksi koko altruismin käsitteen. Hän esittää että nimenomaan se, eikä itsekkyys, on monen pahan alku ja juuri.
”Peter Schwartz on kirjoittanut anteeksipyytelemättömän yksilöihmisen puolustuspuheen, jota tulisi pitää käsikirjana aina kun pyritään oikaisemaan laajalle levinneitä hyvinvointivaltiota koskevia harhakäsityksiä. Helppolukuisella tyylillään hän luo moraalisen perustan talouspolitiikalle, joka vapaan markkinatalouden kannattajien tulisi vallata takaisin niiltä itseään nykypäivän liberaaleiksi tituleeraavilta, jotka sen itselleen anastivat.”
Peter Schiff, Euro Pasific Capitalin toimitusjohtaja ja New York Timesin –bestsellerin The Real Crash kirjoittaja.
”Oletko itsekäs? Sinun tulisi olla, ja Peter Schwartz tietää miksi. Itsekkyyden puolustuspuheessaan Schwartz käy systemaattisesti altruistisen moraaliopin kimppuun niin hyväntekeväisyyden, uskonnon, valtion hallinnon kuin romanttisen rakkaudenkin osalta ja osoittaa sen syypääksi moniin tekemiisi valintoihin ja nostaa itsekkyyden – kyllä, itsekkyyden – moraalin keskeiseksi ideaksi. Tämä radikaali kirja muuttaa maailman.”
Jonathan Hoenig, Fox News –uutiskanavan rahoittaja
Itsekkyyden puolustuspuhe on kovinta settiä, jota viime vuosikymmeninä on esitetty moraaliarvojen muutostarpeesta. Luettuasi kirjan mielesi tekee joko polttaa se – tai suudella sitä.
Peter Schwartz asettaa kirjassaan kyseenalaiseksi koko altruismin käsitteen. Hän esittää että nimenomaan se, eikä itsekkyys, on monen pahan alku ja juuri.
”Peter Schwartz on kirjoittanut anteeksipyytelemättömän yksilöihmisen puolustuspuheen, jota tulisi pitää käsikirjana aina kun pyritään oikaisemaan laajalle levinneitä hyvinvointivaltiota koskevia harhakäsityksiä. Helppolukuisella tyylillään hän luo moraalisen perustan talouspolitiikalle, joka vapaan markkinatalouden kannattajien tulisi vallata takaisin niiltä itseään nykypäivän liberaaleiksi tituleeraavilta, jotka sen itselleen anastivat.”
Peter Schiff, Euro Pasific Capitalin toimitusjohtaja ja New York Timesin –bestsellerin The Real Crash kirjoittaja.
”Oletko itsekäs? Sinun tulisi olla, ja Peter Schwartz tietää miksi. Itsekkyyden puolustuspuheessaan Schwartz käy systemaattisesti altruistisen moraaliopin kimppuun niin hyväntekeväisyyden, uskonnon, valtion hallinnon kuin romanttisen rakkaudenkin osalta ja osoittaa sen syypääksi moniin tekemiisi valintoihin ja nostaa itsekkyyden – kyllä, itsekkyyden – moraalin keskeiseksi ideaksi. Tämä radikaali kirja muuttaa maailman.”
Jonathan Hoenig, Fox News –uutiskanavan rahoittaja
Itsekkyyden puolustuspuhe on kovinta settiä, jota viime vuosikymmeninä on esitetty moraaliarvojen muutostarpeesta. Luettuasi kirjan mielesi tekee joko polttaa se – tai suudella sitä.
202 pages, Paperback
First published June 2, 2015
49 people are currently reading
641 people want to read
About the author
Peter Schwartz
7 books28 followersPeter Schwartz is the author of the book In Defense of Selfishness: Why the Code of Self-Sacrifice Is Unjust and Destructive (Palgrave Macmillan, June 2015).
He's a former Chairman of the Board, and currently a Distinguished Fellow, of the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. He writes and lectures extensively on topics ranging from ethics and political philosophy to environmentalism and multiculturalism. He's been frequently interviewed on radio and TV, by such personalities as Geraldo Rivera and Thom Hartmann.
Other books he's written: The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America (ARI Press), Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty (ARI Press) and The Battle for Laissez-Faire Capitalism (Intellectual Activist).
He was the founding editor and publisher of The Intellectual Activist (1979-1991), a periodical that covered political/social issues from a pro-individual rights orientation. From 1987-2003 he was president and editor-in-chief of Second Renaissance Books, a publisher and distributor of titles promoting the value of reason, individualism, science, technology and capitalism.
In addition, he is the editor and contributing author of Ayn Rand's Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution (Meridian), and co-editor of Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed (Lexington Books).
For more information about his writings and talks, and to follow his blog, please visit: www.PeterSchwartz.com
He's a former Chairman of the Board, and currently a Distinguished Fellow, of the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. He writes and lectures extensively on topics ranging from ethics and political philosophy to environmentalism and multiculturalism. He's been frequently interviewed on radio and TV, by such personalities as Geraldo Rivera and Thom Hartmann.
Other books he's written: The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America (ARI Press), Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty (ARI Press) and The Battle for Laissez-Faire Capitalism (Intellectual Activist).
He was the founding editor and publisher of The Intellectual Activist (1979-1991), a periodical that covered political/social issues from a pro-individual rights orientation. From 1987-2003 he was president and editor-in-chief of Second Renaissance Books, a publisher and distributor of titles promoting the value of reason, individualism, science, technology and capitalism.
In addition, he is the editor and contributing author of Ayn Rand's Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution (Meridian), and co-editor of Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed (Lexington Books).
For more information about his writings and talks, and to follow his blog, please visit: www.PeterSchwartz.com
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
May 31, 2015
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
The information in this fascinating book is so at odds with what I’ve been taught over the course of my life...but it makes so much sense that it has my head spinning. Could it really be that my own “selfish needs” and motivations regarding my hard-earned resources are not a moral weakness but a necessary strength?!? I must confess that Schwartz’s arguments ring true somewhere deep inside my soul. While I am not yet ready to take a stand one way or the other, I found this to be an enlightening and thought-provoking read that encouraged me to consider an alternative approach to a topic that I didn’t even know needed considering. It is written simply and clearly with numerous illustrations and examples, making it easily understandable and enjoyable for any reader. While it is a book on philosophy, I found it to be as entertaining as any piece of best-selling fiction.
The underlying assumption of the book is that the widely-held philosophy (that altruism underlies all moral virtues and is necessary for the function of civil society) is considered by most to be the very foundation of society’s “code of ethics”. While it is true that societies without an agreed upon “code of ethics” quickly destroy themselves and disintegrate, Peter Schwartz argues that altruism is not foundational nor is it a necessary factor in the success of a functional society. According to Schwartz, altruism is in fact destructive and unjust and ultimately unethical. He argues that altruism is indeed an impediment and that the cause of society’s problems can be attributed not to the absence of altruism but to its overwhelming presence. If this sounds abominable to you, then you MUST read this book. Schwartz explains his premises much more effectively than I am able to relate them.
The author’s thesis and arguments are based on Ayn Rand’s philosophical constructs and her “ethics of rational self-interest” (as stated in the Introduction). Fans of Rand’s work will be especially interested in reading this book.
The information in this fascinating book is so at odds with what I’ve been taught over the course of my life...but it makes so much sense that it has my head spinning. Could it really be that my own “selfish needs” and motivations regarding my hard-earned resources are not a moral weakness but a necessary strength?!? I must confess that Schwartz’s arguments ring true somewhere deep inside my soul. While I am not yet ready to take a stand one way or the other, I found this to be an enlightening and thought-provoking read that encouraged me to consider an alternative approach to a topic that I didn’t even know needed considering. It is written simply and clearly with numerous illustrations and examples, making it easily understandable and enjoyable for any reader. While it is a book on philosophy, I found it to be as entertaining as any piece of best-selling fiction.
The underlying assumption of the book is that the widely-held philosophy (that altruism underlies all moral virtues and is necessary for the function of civil society) is considered by most to be the very foundation of society’s “code of ethics”. While it is true that societies without an agreed upon “code of ethics” quickly destroy themselves and disintegrate, Peter Schwartz argues that altruism is not foundational nor is it a necessary factor in the success of a functional society. According to Schwartz, altruism is in fact destructive and unjust and ultimately unethical. He argues that altruism is indeed an impediment and that the cause of society’s problems can be attributed not to the absence of altruism but to its overwhelming presence. If this sounds abominable to you, then you MUST read this book. Schwartz explains his premises much more effectively than I am able to relate them.
The author’s thesis and arguments are based on Ayn Rand’s philosophical constructs and her “ethics of rational self-interest” (as stated in the Introduction). Fans of Rand’s work will be especially interested in reading this book.
May 31, 2015
I won an ARC of this book through Goodreads. A very thought provoking book on the battle between selfishness and altruism. I closed the book with the goal to be more selfish - its ok to be selfish, we all should be! I definitely would recommend this book .
July 10, 2015
In Defense of Self-Interest — why the code of self-sacrifice is unjust and destructive ©2015 by Peter Schwartz (Palgrave Macmillan)
A short BOOK REPORT by Ron Housley
For many, many years a barrage of non-stop warnings about altruism has bombarded my awareness.
What Peter Schwartz has done here is to cobble together in one place a diverse assortment of examples and instances of altruism run amok; a description of how altruism is misapprehended by most; an outline of the thinking which should have unseated altruism from its pedestal ever so long ago.
Somewhere along the way, I heard someone (AR?) say that today’s culture is an “orgy of altruism.” And we see evidence of that every single day, both in the New York Times and on Fox News. But no reporter ever bothers to say explicitly: “here is yet another story that illustrates the destructive effect of altruism upon us all.”
Altruism plays itself out on the public stage incessantly — but nobody stops to point it out: not the pundits; not the real journalists; not the professors; not the politicians; not anybody. It is the elephant in the room, day in and day out.
Without our widespread cultural acceptance of altruism, we would never have had to endure Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama making the collectivist claim that “you didn’t build that.” Their mantra is pure altruism, and flies in the face of common sense; and contradicts everything we know about how we each function in society. But I haven’t heard where anyone from the New York Times has ever tried to set the record straight.
Few take seriously the question of “self-interest vs. altruism.” What happens with this question is exactly the same as what happens daily in the MainStreet Media: the ideas which should be highlighted are entirely ignored and evaded — and in their place we get stories whose purpose is to fortify public opinion in favor of the welfare state. Welfare state scandals are ignored; undermining of American foreign policy is ignored; voter fraud is down-played and ignored; destruction of the dollar is ignored; the dumbing down of America is ignored. What we hear, instead, is how nice it is that those “in need” are being taken care of with handouts and racial preferences, and how it would be mean to reverse our march into full statism. We are so dumbed down.
This whole idea that how we look at “self-interest v. altruism” makes a huge difference in how our lives can play out — that entire question is never given the light of day by our teachers nor by our politicians nor journalists. Virtually nobody will consider that it is a serious issue. If it ever is to be discussed, it is treated like a parlor game, not as if our lives depended on the right answer. We are so dumbed down.
So, Peter Schwartz at least tries to lay it out; but most Americans remain stuck — blocked from being able to see that there is even an important issue here. Altruism has won the day culturally for them; and the resultant welfare-state continues to expand — as if all objections are just right-wing noise, rather than serious warnings about our actual futures; as if our fundamental happiness were really not at risk. We are so dumbed down.
If you’re looking for insight about why every single news story reflects deeper cultural breakdown, Peter Schwartz’s book can help you to grasp what’s going on. That’s the first step!
A short BOOK REPORT by Ron Housley
For many, many years a barrage of non-stop warnings about altruism has bombarded my awareness.
What Peter Schwartz has done here is to cobble together in one place a diverse assortment of examples and instances of altruism run amok; a description of how altruism is misapprehended by most; an outline of the thinking which should have unseated altruism from its pedestal ever so long ago.
Somewhere along the way, I heard someone (AR?) say that today’s culture is an “orgy of altruism.” And we see evidence of that every single day, both in the New York Times and on Fox News. But no reporter ever bothers to say explicitly: “here is yet another story that illustrates the destructive effect of altruism upon us all.”
Altruism plays itself out on the public stage incessantly — but nobody stops to point it out: not the pundits; not the real journalists; not the professors; not the politicians; not anybody. It is the elephant in the room, day in and day out.
Without our widespread cultural acceptance of altruism, we would never have had to endure Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama making the collectivist claim that “you didn’t build that.” Their mantra is pure altruism, and flies in the face of common sense; and contradicts everything we know about how we each function in society. But I haven’t heard where anyone from the New York Times has ever tried to set the record straight.
Few take seriously the question of “self-interest vs. altruism.” What happens with this question is exactly the same as what happens daily in the MainStreet Media: the ideas which should be highlighted are entirely ignored and evaded — and in their place we get stories whose purpose is to fortify public opinion in favor of the welfare state. Welfare state scandals are ignored; undermining of American foreign policy is ignored; voter fraud is down-played and ignored; destruction of the dollar is ignored; the dumbing down of America is ignored. What we hear, instead, is how nice it is that those “in need” are being taken care of with handouts and racial preferences, and how it would be mean to reverse our march into full statism. We are so dumbed down.
This whole idea that how we look at “self-interest v. altruism” makes a huge difference in how our lives can play out — that entire question is never given the light of day by our teachers nor by our politicians nor journalists. Virtually nobody will consider that it is a serious issue. If it ever is to be discussed, it is treated like a parlor game, not as if our lives depended on the right answer. We are so dumbed down.
So, Peter Schwartz at least tries to lay it out; but most Americans remain stuck — blocked from being able to see that there is even an important issue here. Altruism has won the day culturally for them; and the resultant welfare-state continues to expand — as if all objections are just right-wing noise, rather than serious warnings about our actual futures; as if our fundamental happiness were really not at risk. We are so dumbed down.
If you’re looking for insight about why every single news story reflects deeper cultural breakdown, Peter Schwartz’s book can help you to grasp what’s going on. That’s the first step!
June 22, 2015
To keep this review short, I won’t get into the myriad political opinions “In Defense of Selfishness” champions. I agreed with some, disagreed with others and could go on long enough about them to write a book of my own. It would be much shorter than this one was, however.
One of my biggest problems with this book was the length and repetition of almost everything. It had that feel to me of a college kid that’s trying to make his paper long enough to meet the teacher’s requirements and he’s just hoping she won’t notice that the same basic thought has been reworded 500 times. I also found the author’s tone off-putting. It’s clear that this is a subject he is very passionate about, but he often came across very negative and condescending. You don’t need name calling to make your point, it actually distracts from it. Another reviewer said that the examples the author uses were “extreme and absurd” and I completely agree with that. There are a few that prove his point, but I often found the examples to be so isolated or out of date that they didn’t merit using.
Overall, “In Defense of Selfishness” makes some valid points, but they’re lost in a sea of negativity, repetition and shaky evidence. Certain people will like this book, but I’m not one of them.
(I received a free, advance copy of this book for review.)
One of my biggest problems with this book was the length and repetition of almost everything. It had that feel to me of a college kid that’s trying to make his paper long enough to meet the teacher’s requirements and he’s just hoping she won’t notice that the same basic thought has been reworded 500 times. I also found the author’s tone off-putting. It’s clear that this is a subject he is very passionate about, but he often came across very negative and condescending. You don’t need name calling to make your point, it actually distracts from it. Another reviewer said that the examples the author uses were “extreme and absurd” and I completely agree with that. There are a few that prove his point, but I often found the examples to be so isolated or out of date that they didn’t merit using.
Overall, “In Defense of Selfishness” makes some valid points, but they’re lost in a sea of negativity, repetition and shaky evidence. Certain people will like this book, but I’m not one of them.
(I received a free, advance copy of this book for review.)
August 8, 2015
For anyone who looks at today’s world and wonders why western civilization seems to be under attack from every direction and is utterly unable to defend itself, this book is for you. Read it and judge for yourself whether what it says about selfishness (or rational self-interest) and altruism is true. For whatever reason, you may reject what it has to say, but at least you will understand that the sacrifices you are being asked to make every day, and are making, that they are willingly accepted by you, and that you are willing to accept the consequences, and when those consequences arrive you will be willing to say “I asked for it!” The world cannot exist forever on a morality of self-destruction, the morality of altruism.
May 17, 2015
I won this book from a Goodreads giveaway.
Very thought-provoking, eye opening book, that i will review more fully in a few days.
Very thought-provoking, eye opening book, that i will review more fully in a few days.
January 31, 2023
In Defense of Selfishness: Why the Code of Self-Sacrifice is Unjust and DestructivePeter Schwartz
The best book I have read in a while. The whole book discussed this big question: “Why does our society think that pursuing your own welfare is morally tainted; but sacrificing yourself for the benefit of others is virtuous?”.
With that, here comes some points of this book that I found interesting:
1) Firstly, this book argued that “What altruism demands is the payment of a debt (an unchosen moral debt you owe to others).” This made me think about voluntary works, and charity services we do; which led to the next question, “Why is another’s hunger more important than yours in determining how to spend your dime? Because the altruist code contends you have an intrinsic duty to serve others.”
2) Secondly, through the story of Howard Roark, this book discussed that “To be selfish is to regard your life as something precious, as something to be passionately embraced, not self-effacingly surrendered."
3) Thirdly, “It is the doctrine of egoism that makes moral principles an inescapable necessity”. This book added, “It is only under a code of rational egoism that FACTS, not feelings, constitute the foundation of ethics.” But my question is, “What’s ethics, in the face of selfishness?” —to which this book replied, “The ethics of selfishness precludes such conflicts (referred in the previous story: where the existence of one rule for those who must be served, and another for those doing the serving. Under egoism, there are no masters and no servants.” It added, “Each man’s life is an end in itself. Each individual is an autonomous being, with a fundamental right to his own existence. His moral purpose is not to serve others’ needs, but to pursue his own happiness”.
4) Lastly, I highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to explore the debates of altruism. There are many thought-provoking statements in the book, which made me think a lot about humanity; as you should too!
To end this review, I will leave it with my favorite quote of the book: “When one man’s gain does not come at another’s loss, and when people are not bound to each other by altruism's shackles, they can regard one another as potential values, not potential leeches.”
Also, “If an egoist chooses to assist a stranger who is suffering through no fault of his own, he does so because of the value represented by human beings; which sprints from the primary value of the individual self.”
The best book I have read in a while. The whole book discussed this big question: “Why does our society think that pursuing your own welfare is morally tainted; but sacrificing yourself for the benefit of others is virtuous?”.
With that, here comes some points of this book that I found interesting:
1) Firstly, this book argued that “What altruism demands is the payment of a debt (an unchosen moral debt you owe to others).” This made me think about voluntary works, and charity services we do; which led to the next question, “Why is another’s hunger more important than yours in determining how to spend your dime? Because the altruist code contends you have an intrinsic duty to serve others.”
2) Secondly, through the story of Howard Roark, this book discussed that “To be selfish is to regard your life as something precious, as something to be passionately embraced, not self-effacingly surrendered."
3) Thirdly, “It is the doctrine of egoism that makes moral principles an inescapable necessity”. This book added, “It is only under a code of rational egoism that FACTS, not feelings, constitute the foundation of ethics.” But my question is, “What’s ethics, in the face of selfishness?” —to which this book replied, “The ethics of selfishness precludes such conflicts (referred in the previous story: where the existence of one rule for those who must be served, and another for those doing the serving. Under egoism, there are no masters and no servants.” It added, “Each man’s life is an end in itself. Each individual is an autonomous being, with a fundamental right to his own existence. His moral purpose is not to serve others’ needs, but to pursue his own happiness”.
4) Lastly, I highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to explore the debates of altruism. There are many thought-provoking statements in the book, which made me think a lot about humanity; as you should too!
To end this review, I will leave it with my favorite quote of the book: “When one man’s gain does not come at another’s loss, and when people are not bound to each other by altruism's shackles, they can regard one another as potential values, not potential leeches.”
Also, “If an egoist chooses to assist a stranger who is suffering through no fault of his own, he does so because of the value represented by human beings; which sprints from the primary value of the individual self.”
June 2, 2015
When I set out to review "In Defense of Selfishness" by Peter Schwartz, I had intended to comment only on the writing itself and leave the battle over the content itself to those willing to publicly battle with others whom have different viewpoints and no hope of one convincing the other to change his or her views. That decision proved untenable, it was akin to writing a "Welcome to the Neighborhood" article in the local paper and limiting the article only to the newly built house while ignoring the residents now living within.
Schwartz's book is something of a dilemma. Ours is a time and a country in the midst of historic transformation, and frankly, it seems as though our leadership is flailing about in the darkness seeking a new direction. Schwartz could have provided some meaningful illumination had he written a book that speaks to the generations in ascendancy, those who most need this book. Instead, Schwartz turns out a work that is problematic several levels. This book reminds me of the Philosophy 101 textbooks from my undergraduate days. Claiming to value principle over popularity, the book lacks practicality. Although Schwartz claims to provide relevant examples and social references, most of the reference that Schwartz relies on are the most extreme and absurd examples in which holes are easily poked without necessarily proving the point Schwartz intends. Of concern, Schwartz writes as though living in a highly romanticized version of 1950's era Republican America. The onslaught of technological advancement an the expansion of scientific advancement alone produces metaphorical eye-rolling when trying to apply Schwartz's writing to current scenarios.
"In Defense of Selfishness" could have been a turning point for younger voters, many of whom who have come of age in a post 9/11 malaise of personal freedom and economic paralysis and don't understand the factors that drive personal freedom, economic growth and security. Instead, the book is akin to 200 pages of transcript from the Rush Limbaugh show; it inspires and placates the true believer, but does nothing to advance the cause for those who might bristle and immediately turn away from Schwartz's positions, Weighted down by its own self-indulgence, "In Defense of Selfishness" collapses in on itself and fails to reach the readers who probably need it most.
The publisher provided a free copy of the book in exchange for a fair review.
Schwartz's book is something of a dilemma. Ours is a time and a country in the midst of historic transformation, and frankly, it seems as though our leadership is flailing about in the darkness seeking a new direction. Schwartz could have provided some meaningful illumination had he written a book that speaks to the generations in ascendancy, those who most need this book. Instead, Schwartz turns out a work that is problematic several levels. This book reminds me of the Philosophy 101 textbooks from my undergraduate days. Claiming to value principle over popularity, the book lacks practicality. Although Schwartz claims to provide relevant examples and social references, most of the reference that Schwartz relies on are the most extreme and absurd examples in which holes are easily poked without necessarily proving the point Schwartz intends. Of concern, Schwartz writes as though living in a highly romanticized version of 1950's era Republican America. The onslaught of technological advancement an the expansion of scientific advancement alone produces metaphorical eye-rolling when trying to apply Schwartz's writing to current scenarios.
"In Defense of Selfishness" could have been a turning point for younger voters, many of whom who have come of age in a post 9/11 malaise of personal freedom and economic paralysis and don't understand the factors that drive personal freedom, economic growth and security. Instead, the book is akin to 200 pages of transcript from the Rush Limbaugh show; it inspires and placates the true believer, but does nothing to advance the cause for those who might bristle and immediately turn away from Schwartz's positions, Weighted down by its own self-indulgence, "In Defense of Selfishness" collapses in on itself and fails to reach the readers who probably need it most.
The publisher provided a free copy of the book in exchange for a fair review.
October 18, 2015
As a libertarian, this book did not need to convince me though it certainly gave me a stronger philosophical foundation for my belief in liberty and the relentless message of altruism that pervades our society. This is the kind of book that needed to be assigned in college, but my professors inundated me with those thinkers that advocated for collectivism.
For the uninitiated, this book positively calls into question the dominant, status-quo philosophy of our time, that which leads us down the path of ruin at an ever-accelerated rate.
Go out and get a copy today !!!!
For the uninitiated, this book positively calls into question the dominant, status-quo philosophy of our time, that which leads us down the path of ruin at an ever-accelerated rate.
Go out and get a copy today !!!!
June 10, 2015
I am an Objectivist, so I am very acquainted with the material. I live my life according to Objectivist principles.
I thoroughly enjoyed Peter's book. It is well written, and it was a pleasure to read. I know that I will read it again from time to time. I highly recommend it.
I thoroughly enjoyed Peter's book. It is well written, and it was a pleasure to read. I know that I will read it again from time to time. I highly recommend it.
August 15, 2022
Is this the best he can do? Altruism is servitude...and selfishness isn't?
Do you have a moral duty to help another? He says no, because your life is your own and how does helping another justify your existence? No one said it justifies anything. Is something you do , its not a lifestyle.
Then he gets off on the tangent of comparing Buffett to Madoff. Well that's just silly. One is working and returning investment, the other is theft.
Being judgemental is good. And that's selfish? Perhaps in the end this book should be why political correctness and democratic handouts enslave people. He sorta gets there by the chapter on the Goal of Self Sacrifice but not after a long and befuddling road.
The last chapter btw is the best.
Who is Schwartz? Distinguish Fellow of the Ayn Rand institute. So he really should know better and why he makes the mistakes he does is a mystery.
Do you have a moral duty to help another? He says no, because your life is your own and how does helping another justify your existence? No one said it justifies anything. Is something you do , its not a lifestyle.
Then he gets off on the tangent of comparing Buffett to Madoff. Well that's just silly. One is working and returning investment, the other is theft.
Being judgemental is good. And that's selfish? Perhaps in the end this book should be why political correctness and democratic handouts enslave people. He sorta gets there by the chapter on the Goal of Self Sacrifice but not after a long and befuddling road.
The last chapter btw is the best.
Who is Schwartz? Distinguish Fellow of the Ayn Rand institute. So he really should know better and why he makes the mistakes he does is a mystery.
November 13, 2018
This book explained, clearly and logically, the very reason why being selfish is inherently different than what most people thought or what the common definition is. Partially caused by people are convinced the key of "being alive" is being altruistic and partially by how altruists abused the word 'selfish'.
Aside from re-defining the impure word 'selfish', Schwartz progress with real-life cases of the "have-nots" wanting the "haves" to be obligated (or feel obligated) to aid them. Even to the most extreme cases.
Ultimately, I believe it is necessary for people to read this book to differentiate what the commonly termed as 'selfish' and the true 'selfish'. Not for the sake of only defending selfishness, but also to increase one's objectivity on how to see the world really works.
Aside from re-defining the impure word 'selfish', Schwartz progress with real-life cases of the "have-nots" wanting the "haves" to be obligated (or feel obligated) to aid them. Even to the most extreme cases.
Ultimately, I believe it is necessary for people to read this book to differentiate what the commonly termed as 'selfish' and the true 'selfish'. Not for the sake of only defending selfishness, but also to increase one's objectivity on how to see the world really works.
Read
July 7, 2019I think Peter Schwartz does a comparatively poor job of playing "hide the ball" with the issues that Objectivism has.
He also -to reference the famous meme- hasn't read Locke. Read Locke. After you do that, explain why it doesn't make sense for an anti-theist to cite Locke as the basis for the idea that property rights should be seen as legitimate.
This is the quality of the author's thinking. You don't have to go on, so I won't.
He also -to reference the famous meme- hasn't read Locke. Read Locke. After you do that, explain why it doesn't make sense for an anti-theist to cite Locke as the basis for the idea that property rights should be seen as legitimate.
This is the quality of the author's thinking. You don't have to go on, so I won't.
November 8, 2019
A vehement argument against true altruistic behaviors. While the book makes some great points it is done in such a one sided argument that the author argues against compromise and equilibrium which of course has to be done on a daily basis. While I don't agree with all of the points in the book it is well written.
May 6, 2025
I thoroughly enjoyed this one. I found it to be thought provoking and made me do a lot of self-reflection on my own social conditioning. It will rub some people the wrong way and make others think. I thought overall it was well worth the time and will make me pay more attention to ideals I have based on my upbringing.
September 23, 2019
While a lot of ground here is already covered in Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishnes," Schwartz does a really good job of breathing new life into Rand's concepts while providing modern day examples/analogies and exposing these ideas to a new audience.
October 16, 2017
Even though I do agree with the premise, the author builds a weak argument followed by some very marginal examples. It's probably not worth your time.
October 10, 2017
Мы хотим стать такими, как Билл Гейтс, но нашим нравственным идеалом остается мать Тереза. С ног до головы мы связаны путами вины,
и нет узлов крепче тех, которые завязываем мы сами.
May 6, 2019
Wasn't that profound of a book, it seems to be a book that validates those who agree with its core premise and angers those who don't. It won't teach you anything you don't already believe.
January 14, 2023
One of the greatest arguments ever made.
June 16, 2024
Great book
November 20, 2015
This book compares and weighs the value of altruism vs selfishness making the argument that altruism is a non-survival action while selfishness is better for the individual and society as a whole. Much of the argument depends upon definitions of the words. In simple terms, altruism could be described as caring for other people and acting upon that concern. Schwartz would call that generosity, which is a gift freely given. However, the common definition of altruism is: The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of another. Inherent in this definition is the idea that when the ultraistic person gives something, it is something that is of value to the giver, and the giver gets nothing in return – it is a true sacrifice. Often the argument for altruism is that the giver gets unexpected benefits of good health, economic advantages, basically a “helper’s high.” Of course, this flies in the face of the definition that the altruist gets nothing in return.
Selfishness is usually defined as being devoted to only oneself and one’s welfare regardless of others. Supposedly, this is the exact opposite of altruism. However, if a person acts on behalf of others because it makes the giver feel good (therefore a selfish act) – well, I think you can see the contradiction.
So now we step into the political arena, which is what Schwartz is talking about. There is a progressive notion that true altruism requires that the giver must give to the needy as a sacrifice and a duty that is due to the needy who is entitled. The argument claims that Christianity is based upon the altruist command that the rich must give to the needy with no recompense. This is patently untrue. Christ promised the Kingdom of Heaven to those who followed his command – hardly a sacrifice if one believes Christ’s words. Rather than ultraism, giving to the poor is a test of faith in the promise of Heaven – a selfish motive.
So then the government gets involved. Progressives use laws to impose ultraism on the rich by forcibly taking their wealth with no recompense in order to “redistribute” it. They excuse this act of armed robbery by making the false assertion that the rich owe a debt to the poor, as if somehow, the poor were harmed by the rich or that the rich got rich by taking what belonged to the poor, thereby making them poor and creating a debt.
In a free market, getting rich is a reward for ingenuity and/or hard work. It requires the production of goods or services that free people would be willing to exchange some of their wealth to get. Requiring fair payment is selfish; however, it creates something of value for both parties. When societies consist of selfish people busily producing goods and services to meet their selfish needs through free market trading, the amount of goods and services available grows and the society benefits from free exchange. The rich person has no debt to others who have not been as productive.
In all societies there will people who contrive to get wealth through deceit, force, or other methods without producing anything for which others would willingly trade. Those people should have the wealth they fraudulently accumulated taken from them. That is the duty of government. However, forced ultraism, as defined by progressives, is not only unethical, but it cripples the free market and reduces wealth creation.
Selfishness is usually defined as being devoted to only oneself and one’s welfare regardless of others. Supposedly, this is the exact opposite of altruism. However, if a person acts on behalf of others because it makes the giver feel good (therefore a selfish act) – well, I think you can see the contradiction.
So now we step into the political arena, which is what Schwartz is talking about. There is a progressive notion that true altruism requires that the giver must give to the needy as a sacrifice and a duty that is due to the needy who is entitled. The argument claims that Christianity is based upon the altruist command that the rich must give to the needy with no recompense. This is patently untrue. Christ promised the Kingdom of Heaven to those who followed his command – hardly a sacrifice if one believes Christ’s words. Rather than ultraism, giving to the poor is a test of faith in the promise of Heaven – a selfish motive.
So then the government gets involved. Progressives use laws to impose ultraism on the rich by forcibly taking their wealth with no recompense in order to “redistribute” it. They excuse this act of armed robbery by making the false assertion that the rich owe a debt to the poor, as if somehow, the poor were harmed by the rich or that the rich got rich by taking what belonged to the poor, thereby making them poor and creating a debt.
In a free market, getting rich is a reward for ingenuity and/or hard work. It requires the production of goods or services that free people would be willing to exchange some of their wealth to get. Requiring fair payment is selfish; however, it creates something of value for both parties. When societies consist of selfish people busily producing goods and services to meet their selfish needs through free market trading, the amount of goods and services available grows and the society benefits from free exchange. The rich person has no debt to others who have not been as productive.
In all societies there will people who contrive to get wealth through deceit, force, or other methods without producing anything for which others would willingly trade. Those people should have the wealth they fraudulently accumulated taken from them. That is the duty of government. However, forced ultraism, as defined by progressives, is not only unethical, but it cripples the free market and reduces wealth creation.
February 20, 2016
Несмотря на жёсткость статьи, применяйте принципы в меру. Ибо нужно помогать ближним, мелким (например, животным и чужим детям). Не нужно считать, что "моя хата с краю". Милость и любовь - неотъемлемая часть человеческой души".
Книга Питера Шварца "В защиту эгоизма: Почему не стоит жертвовать ��обой ради других" открыла мне глаза на многие аномалии, происходящие в современном мире. Там, где раньше выживал сильнейший, теперь настала Эра Процветания слабейших. Те законы, которые были незыблемы ещё пару веков назад, теперь меняются в угоду немощных мира сего. И не важно, какой посыл ты несёшь миру. Если твой кошелёк толще, чем у соседа - поменяйся с ним. Ведь ему НУЖНЕЕ!!!
!!! Книгу нужно прочитать каждому !!!
Питер Шварц наглядно повествует, что произойдёт с тем обществом, где альтруизм имеет право на жизнь. Оно разлагается и от него исходит зловоние. Потворствование "бедным" и "несчастным" в их скорбях ставит нас на один уровень с ними.
И хотя я не со всеми заявлениями согласен, несколько тезисов утрировано, а на милости и любви поставлен жирный крест, книга пошатнула некоторые мои убеждения и заставила смотреть прямо на правду, которую я от себя скрывал.
1. Не жертвуй собой и своим ради других.
Альтруисты считают, что ты должен снять с себя последние штаны и надеть их на соседа... Если придётся, даже против его воли. Ибо хоть альтруизм и подразумевает пользу для получающего блага, ��о на практике это просто фикция.
2. В первую очередь - ты и твоя семья, а остальные... как захочешь.
У большинства людей происходит взрыв мозга из-за того, что они не могут решить, кому в первую очередь дарить любовь. Тут всё однозначно: в первую очередь, люби себя и своих родных. И заботься о своей семье.... А помогать ли африканским деревням или нет - твоё право.
3. Государству... плевать на вас.
Оно печётся о себе и своих питомцах: бедных, альтруистах и прочем мусоре. Ему нет дела до тех людей, которые сами добиваются своих целей. Точнее, есть. Для государства важно, чтобы богатые и средний класс платили как можно больше налогов, чтобы обеспечивать бедных и "заботиться" о них.
4. Благо для большинства - урон личности.
Желая облагодетельствовать массы, альтруисты пренебрегают и уничтожают отдельные личности, требуя от них жертвенности. Чем больше они получают, тем большего хотят. Принимая законы на основании "всеобщего блага" альтруисты грабят личности.
!!! В каждом альтруисте живёт маленький демон, разжигающий пламя зависти. !!!
Книга подойдёт всем, кто хочет достигнуть максимума и быть счастливым. Ибо только счастливые люди сделают мир чище и прекраснее.
Книга Питера Шварца "В защиту эгоизма: Почему не стоит жертвовать ��обой ради других" открыла мне глаза на многие аномалии, происходящие в современном мире. Там, где раньше выживал сильнейший, теперь настала Эра Процветания слабейших. Те законы, которые были незыблемы ещё пару веков назад, теперь меняются в угоду немощных мира сего. И не важно, какой посыл ты несёшь миру. Если твой кошелёк толще, чем у соседа - поменяйся с ним. Ведь ему НУЖНЕЕ!!!
!!! Книгу нужно прочитать каждому !!!
Питер Шварц наглядно повествует, что произойдёт с тем обществом, где альтруизм имеет право на жизнь. Оно разлагается и от него исходит зловоние. Потворствование "бедным" и "несчастным" в их скорбях ставит нас на один уровень с ними.
И хотя я не со всеми заявлениями согласен, несколько тезисов утрировано, а на милости и любви поставлен жирный крест, книга пошатнула некоторые мои убеждения и заставила смотреть прямо на правду, которую я от себя скрывал.
1. Не жертвуй собой и своим ради других.
Альтруисты считают, что ты должен снять с себя последние штаны и надеть их на соседа... Если придётся, даже против его воли. Ибо хоть альтруизм и подразумевает пользу для получающего блага, ��о на практике это просто фикция.
2. В первую очередь - ты и твоя семья, а остальные... как захочешь.
У большинства людей происходит взрыв мозга из-за того, что они не могут решить, кому в первую очередь дарить любовь. Тут всё однозначно: в первую очередь, люби себя и своих родных. И заботься о своей семье.... А помогать ли африканским деревням или нет - твоё право.
3. Государству... плевать на вас.
Оно печётся о себе и своих питомцах: бедных, альтруистах и прочем мусоре. Ему нет дела до тех людей, которые сами добиваются своих целей. Точнее, есть. Для государства важно, чтобы богатые и средний класс платили как можно больше налогов, чтобы обеспечивать бедных и "заботиться" о них.
4. Благо для большинства - урон личности.
Желая облагодетельствовать массы, альтруисты пренебрегают и уничтожают отдельные личности, требуя от них жертвенности. Чем больше они получают, тем большего хотят. Принимая законы на основании "всеобщего блага" альтруисты грабят личности.
!!! В каждом альтруисте живёт маленький демон, разжигающий пламя зависти. !!!
Книга подойдёт всем, кто хочет достигнуть максимума и быть счастливым. Ибо только счастливые люди сделают мир чище и прекраснее.
February 7, 2017
The author of this book is a huge advocate of Ayn Rand's philosophies ("Ohhh, one of those people," you think to yourself), so if you're not a fan of Objectivism, you probably won't enjoy this book. As someone who believes in the virtue of selfishness (not the bastardized version we've come to associate with it) - the unwavering belief that in a free society, rational thought and self-interest should dictate our actions, I agreed with much of this book. Being self-interested does not mean that you are hellbent on profiting at the expense of other people, but rather that you will ONLY trade things you value less for things you value more.
“To love is to value. Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self esteem, is capable of love - because he is the only man capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed value. The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.”
“To love is to value. Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self esteem, is capable of love - because he is the only man capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed value. The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.”
August 30, 2015
I am familiar with Schwartz's other work, so knew what to expect, and that I would agree with it. My only concern is that it might simply be a rehash of things I'd already heard before. But that wasn't the case. Some elements of the book have appeared in Schwartz's other work but this book puts things together in a new way.
In this book, his approach to the topic is different from Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness" (which lays out a similar view of altruism). Schwartz is primarily concerned with getting clarity on exactly what selfishness and altruism really are. Once we see the two ideas clearly, we can see how they affect our personal lives, our culture and our politics. Schwartz argues that we don't really understand what selfishness is, and that consequently it hasn't gotten a fair hearing.
Even people who are generally familiar with the thesis of the book may be surprised at just how pervasive altruism has become in our culture. Often in ways that might otherwise be attributed to relatively unimportant causes: individuals seeking attention, bureaucracy gone awry, etc. Ironically, the disasters of selflessness are even attributed to selfishness, as in the case of Bernie Madoff. If a swindler seems obviously selfish to you, then you'll want to read Mr. Schwartz's book. It will be an eye-opener.
In this book, his approach to the topic is different from Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness" (which lays out a similar view of altruism). Schwartz is primarily concerned with getting clarity on exactly what selfishness and altruism really are. Once we see the two ideas clearly, we can see how they affect our personal lives, our culture and our politics. Schwartz argues that we don't really understand what selfishness is, and that consequently it hasn't gotten a fair hearing.
Even people who are generally familiar with the thesis of the book may be surprised at just how pervasive altruism has become in our culture. Often in ways that might otherwise be attributed to relatively unimportant causes: individuals seeking attention, bureaucracy gone awry, etc. Ironically, the disasters of selflessness are even attributed to selfishness, as in the case of Bernie Madoff. If a swindler seems obviously selfish to you, then you'll want to read Mr. Schwartz's book. It will be an eye-opener.
April 11, 2016
I read/listened to this at the same time as Huffington's Thrive. Both delve into the idea of altruism. The author of this book comes across as kind of a jerk BUT offers some interesting points, including how I'll look at how to measure/judge altruism going forward. He proposes we currently judge a "good doing" based on the sacrifice of the giver and not the end result, with some interesting examples. I also enjoyed and learned a lot from his observations of the FDA, and other government entities that profess to exist for your benefit, but are really not at all (i.e. Like the lady in The Big Short that wasn't devaluing the ratings, even though she should have been.). Overall, even though parts are painful to listen to, even the furthest left politically would learn a bit from such a unique perspective.
September 6, 2015
I had a different idea about what this book would be about.
Even though the subject is interesting and the author makes some good observations, I have to admit this was not really my cup of tea.
According to his principles I'm a victim of altruism and I've been brainwashed to help others to the cost of my own benefit. I guess I have.
I suppose I live under the spell of a society who gives things to those in needs even if it means sacrificing our time, wealth, or resources.
My career field is devoted to help those who are vulnerable and in need. Hence, I disagreed with most of what the author states.
I'm not giving the low rating because I disagree with his ideas. I simply wasn't persuaded to agree with him. He constantly repeats himself, and after a while it just became boring. I'm surprised I even finished it.
Even though the subject is interesting and the author makes some good observations, I have to admit this was not really my cup of tea.
According to his principles I'm a victim of altruism and I've been brainwashed to help others to the cost of my own benefit. I guess I have.
I suppose I live under the spell of a society who gives things to those in needs even if it means sacrificing our time, wealth, or resources.
My career field is devoted to help those who are vulnerable and in need. Hence, I disagreed with most of what the author states.
I'm not giving the low rating because I disagree with his ideas. I simply wasn't persuaded to agree with him. He constantly repeats himself, and after a while it just became boring. I'm surprised I even finished it.
January 7, 2016
Remarkable thesis that looks at the common moral spectrum of altruism vs selfishness (or Mother Theresa/Attila the Hun in Mr Schwartz's example) and asks "so where does an individual who lives his own life, takes care of his own children, and works to earn the means to pay for it all fit into the common spectrum?"
With many examples and a very clear progression explaining his conclusion, the book shows how most of us just don't fit. By explaining the true meaning of selfishness, Mr Schwartz demonstrates what is actual self interest. The Bernie Madoffs of the world are then properly categorized as self destructive rather than selfish.
An eye opening book.
With many examples and a very clear progression explaining his conclusion, the book shows how most of us just don't fit. By explaining the true meaning of selfishness, Mr Schwartz demonstrates what is actual self interest. The Bernie Madoffs of the world are then properly categorized as self destructive rather than selfish.
An eye opening book.
June 25, 2015
i will admit i really enjoyed reading about to be taken care of is to be controlled and i agree with this chapter especially concerning the government as we are controlled no matter what aspects of our life and i do agree that life is a gife and take so that is about all i can really say about the book even though i thought it was going to read something else but at least we all have a choice as to how we write these reviews
January 9, 2016
About 3.5 stars. Nothing really new or ground breaking in here, mostly parroting John Galt's speech from nearly 60 years ago. Throughout most of the book I did find myself nodding in agreement. Some very lazy logic towards certain religions is always to be expected from objectivists. A decent read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews