Talk:Enlightened self-interest

Factuality
I don't think this article should have a flag for factuality. The article doesn't make any fact-claims. It does need a lot of work, I'll try to remember to work on it.--RLent 20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked, enlightened self interest refers not to a moral principle, but to the fact that people will tend to act in their own best interests. Therefore, to convince someone to do something, you need to demonstrate to them how it benefits them, as opposed to how it benefits you. 68.106.113.79 16:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Enlightened self-interest is related to, but not the same as rational selfishness. I think it is fair to call it a moral principle, although it approaches the moral issue from a different angle: instead of claiming that we should act in a certain way because it is moral, it claims that moral actions are in our own self-interest if we properly understood our own self-interest. Henry Ford paid his employees well so that they would be able to buy his vehicles. Anything that deals with how we ought to behave is an ethical principle.--RLent 20:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition of enlightened self interest
I'm pretty certain that the definition given in this article is not accurate. I always thought that the meaning was something along the lines of it is completely ethical and beneficial for everyone to behave in their own best interests in the presence of a proper moral and legal framework. In other words, being civic-minded and fair to others is in everyone's best interests. I also thought the enlightened part might refer to having long-term goals rather than short-term ones--delaying immediate gratification for long-term benefit. The current definition that focuses solely on others is incorrect, I think. What would be good to find out where the term first originated. Is it Adam Smith? I think de Tocqueville mentions it. SDC 21:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, SDC; that was the meaning of the term as it had been given to me; one acts in one's own self-interest, but not purely in self-interest. I was beginning to wonder if maybe I'd gotten bad info back then... -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It does need some work. One example of enlightened self-interest is a community getting together for a barn-raising, helping your neighbors with the expectation that you will be get help when you need it.--RLent 20:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Enlightened self-interest just means acting in such a way that maximizes one's long term interests, instead of acting for immediate gratification. It's just another term for "long term self-interest." The frequent claim is that what is in one's enlightened self-interest is to take the well-being of others into consideration. But that's not necessarily so.Anarcho-capitalism 00:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * well, judging from your user page, you're certainly an opinionated person, which is not all that bad. but you need sources, and with such sources, then it becomes an alternative definition, not a replacement. r b-j 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You reverted before I got a chance to add citations. I just now added a citation. The article was totally uncited original research.Anarcho-capitalism 00:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * no there were 3 or 4 references at the bottom. you provided one reference which is a book that you cannot expect anyone to buy just so they can verify your reference.  googling the author's name and "enlightened self-interest" together did not yield a quote from her but it did yield:
 * :

Assuming human capital to be firm-specific, the authors demonstrate that if conflicts between executives and shareholders are assumed away, then it is in the enlightened self-interest of the investors to cede a role in governance to employees. It can be  in the investors’ interests to take measures in order to protect the employees’ interests, such as   giving employees a claim on the firm’s profits, empowering employees to bargain ex post for some of the returns from investments in the firm and giving employees’ weight in the firm’s strategic decisions.


 * 

Chris Brown, “Ethics, Interests and Foreign Policy,” in Karen E. Smith and Margot Light, Ethics and Foreign Policy (New York: Cambridge University Press,  2001), pp. 15-33, correctly points out that all sophis- ticated variants of realism see states as egoists in the last resort, but recognize that enlightened self-interest is  not necessarily incompatible with a concern for prin- ciple and the common welfare.


 * these are papers i just picked out from Googling the term with the author "Marilynn Brewer" hoping to find a quote. i did not, but in both cases, these papers mention "enlightened self-interest" in the context of watching out for someone else.  if the first case, the self-interest of employers/companies is promoted by empowering employees, the second case, the self-interest of a state is promoted by seeking common welfare.  you need to get some quotes with sources, not your OR with difficult to verify sources. Enlightened self interest is related to but not exactly the same as Rand's rational selfishness. r b-j 01:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're making the mistake of thinking that an assertion that helping or respecting others is in one's enlightened self-interest is a DEFINITION of enlightened self-interest. It's not. It's just a very common opinion that helping or respecting others is in one's enlighted self-interest.Anarcho-capitalism 01:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * especially, given your example, you could argue that simply acting out fear of punishment is enlightened self-interest. it's enlightened self-interest to not jaywalk in LA because you'll get run over by a high-speed moving vehicle and if you don't, LA cops have ticketed pedestrians who jaywalk.  that's enlightened?  maybe it's enlightened that i don't hold my hand over a hot burning flame.  acting in one's own interest is not necessarily enlightened.  coherent or well-researched is not necessarily enlightened.  looking ahead and avoiding undesired consequences is smart, but not necessarily enlightened.  it might just be acting in one's own basic self-interest. r b-j 02:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of length of time. At some point of time, what was short-term becomes long-term. Not holding your hand over a burning flame is not enlightened self-interest because you're not sacrificing immediate gains in order to maximize long term gains. That's just immediate self-interest. You're avoiding pain. Anarcho-capitalism 04:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * not to discredit your source (Marilynn Brewer or even that glossary def, but that needs context, i cannot tell what document that glossary is attached to), but it is clear that in the common use of the term (there are dozens of more cites, but i already put in several) that it is used not merely as respecting the rights of others (what's so "enlightened" about that?) but going at least a little further to serve the broader or group interest possibly at an expense for oneself, but with a concept or vision that, in the long run, it will serve one's own interests. that is the context and usage of the authors and speakers of all of those links provided.  i think the de Tocqueville use of the term is the earliest. r b-j 05:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the section from my source: "Long term costs and benefits may outweigh the short-term ones, so using self-control to override the immediate impulses may bring long-term benefits. In this respect, self-control is a matter of pursuing enlighted self-interest over immediate self-interest. For example, going to college often entails short-term sacrifices, and many people know they could have more money, better food, and less stress, and a better life in the short run if they dropped out of college and took a paying job. But, in the long run, a college education produces a vast array of benefits, including higher lifetime earnings (even despite the short-term sacrifice of earning)"Anarcho-capitalism 01:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * it's fine, but the better term commonly used for this is "delayed gratification". it's related, but not exactly the same concept as enlightened self-interest.  there is more inconspicuous or sophisticated wisdom in the concept of enlightenment than just acting smartly and being able to calculate consequences far into the future.  it's deeper and more profound than just being smart.  history is full of "smart" leaders and other smart persons that would hardly be described as "enlightened".  BTW, i don't think the two uses are far apart and both have a history of use.  i still don't think that merely respecting the rights of others (because you know there will be bad consequences if you do not) is a good example of enlightened self-interest, even with your definition.  maybe the Brewer example would be better, but it still looks synonymous with "deferred gratification" which is not a big deal.  enlightened self-interest is a deeper concept than deferred gratification or simply respecting the rights of others.  there's more to it than that. r b-j 05:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is an online Prentice Hall Encyclopedia that defines it: "Enlightened self-interest is the practice of acting in a way that is costly or inconvenient at present, but which is believed to be in one’s best interest in the long term." Anarcho-capitalism 01:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * that is a good cite (and one i'll put in). have you checked the other external links (the cites you claimed weren't there)?  there is plenty of lit already out there supporting the other definition and Google hits those before hitting any cites you made. r b-j 02:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're calling the external links citations? I thought those were just external links. If they are cited then there should be footnotes.Anarcho-capitalism 04:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * i am now dubious of that cite. what work is that glossary attached to?  i cannot tell.  the home page seems to be   and i cannot get to that glossary other than directly with the arcane link you provided.  there is no context for it. r b-j 02:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorry to open up this can of worms again, but I'm pretty sure you guys don't have the definition correct yet. The ONLY way I've ever heard it defined is that "Enlightened self-interest is working in your own best interest (to the maximum extent), and not harming others in the process, or at least minimizing harm." March 15, 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.190.151 (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite
I made the changes that were suggested on this page. Thoughts? Salvor Hardin 02:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * the changes you made were to a rewrite done entirely after any of the suggestions on this talk page were made. i think that causality applies, so those suggestions cannot be about any of the content that you changed.
 * i am not a trained philosopher (i'm an electrical engineer that works in audio), i made that "initial stab" at a definition mostly from reading or conversing with people in the context that this term is referred to. so i will tread lightly here.  there is some meaning that was actually changed by some of your edits, and although i admit that my style of writing can sometimes chain together too many concepts in a single sentence, i am not sure that all of your edits made it more clear.  but some of them might have. i did notice a missing period. i might roll some of it back.
 * welcome to WP. Rbj 02:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this topic is a "principle". It's more of a concept. A principle is something like "enlightened self interest is good".  Salvor Hardin 03:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Arg! Talk about a run-on sentence in the second paragraph there!  See elements of style!  I'm fixing it. Salvor Hardin 03:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * okay, Salvor, i'm happy about fixing run-on sentences (that's admittedly a liability i have), but you changed some meaning. if it's substance and not style that you mean to change, let's talk about it, okay?


 * "... that if a typical individual in the group is selected at random, it is not likely that this person will profit from such an ethic" is logically not at all the same as "and that therefore it is not likely that any given individual will profit from following such an ethic".  your statement is stronger than mine, and i believe it is too strong.  in a mathematical proof, "any given individual" means the devil can choose that individual and present it to you as a counter-example and you are given the task to refute any such counter-example that the devil cooks up.  i believe that will fail because, in a group where enlightened self-interest is not practiced, often individuals can be identified as the "winners", although a proponent of ESI would argue that those individuals constitute such a small minority that it would be foolish for the "average Joe" to think that he will be one of the few to come out on top.  so the ESI advocates would say to the "average Joe" that he's better off practicing ESI  there might even be some ESI proponents that believe that there may some metaphysical reasons ("karma" or "divine blessing") for practicing ESI in an environment of greed, but i didn't want to put that kinda stuff in the article.


 * are the changes you are making to correct an error in content or just style? or both? Rbj 04:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree, I think the meaning is the same. The "not likely" tells you everything you need to know, and accounts for the fact that some given individuals could very well have benefitted.  Salvor Hardin 04:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * not if i keep presenting you with Donald Trump or Bill Gates as the "given individual". those guys have done quite well, at least materially, and i doubt either practices ESI even though, perhaps recently the now married Gates is getting some kind of a conscience, but that philantropy is still not necessarily ESI. - it could be charity .  the problem is, Salvor, when you say "any given individual", it is not you that gets to choose.  you are making a confident statement that anyone we throw at you is "likely" to have the premise (that ESI benefits oneself) apply to them.  and, unless you get into the metaphysical (and out of the material), that simply is not true.  some greedy people benefit materially from their greed, but they have to be "successful" greedy people. Rbj 05:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How can you say that neither Donald Trump nor Bill Gates practice ESI? The Gates Foundation is the largest charity in the world.  Are you of the opinion that anyone who makes a lot of money is "unenlightened"???


 * Bill Gates became very wealthy by use of nasty and agressive business tactics (and some dishonest ones) as well as by producing, at best, mediocre bloated products that are pack with "features" hardly anyone uses but, for normal use, perform poorly, and that they market very well. he hasn't done anything philantropic until he got married (and his wife insisted) and it is still a small fraction of his $60+ billion.  it will take more than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to persuade me that, Gate's self-interest was "enlightened" in that he has generally acted in the interests of others over self. Is McDonald's enlightened?  they have the Ronald McDonald house, does that make their self-interest enlightened? Rbj 04:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In any event, I'm sure that our disagreement is purely semantic. I can't see any difference between these two statements:


 * "... that if a typical individual in the group is selected at random, it is not likely that this person will profit from such an ethic"


 * "and that therefore it is not likely that any given individual will profit from following such an ethic"


 * Except that mine is shorter. It doesn't matter whether the "given" individual is consciously picked out or randomly chosen -- their "odds" of being successful are the same, provided the "likelyhood" calculation is made prior to the selection.  Every individual in the group has the same odds of being successful at the start of the "simulation". Salvor Hardin 06:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Salvor, you need to indent your comments more consistently. you say that you can't see any difference except that your version is shorter.  you ignored the difference that i had already put to you. and it absolutely does matter whether the "given" individual is consciously picked out or randomly chosen.  if the individual is consciously picked out rather than randomly chosen, it is easy to pick the winners (after the fact).  viewing this from a purely materialistic POV, if i keep picking Bill Gates (or any of the other millionares) out of the U.S. population, i will have trouble persuading him that he will be better off materially with enlighted self-interest than if he acted with simple self-interest.  but if the "given" individual is picked at random, the proponent of enlightened self-interest would make the claim that this guy will be better off living a life of enlightened self-interest (and accepting the benefits of such from others) than simply always acting in his own selfish interest.  the ESI position is that it's more likely that this randomly chosen guy will be a net "loser", but if the guy is not randomly chosen, we can always stack the deck.  i question if you can understand plain english since you simple write this off by fiat. Rbj 03:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is that the "given individual" is NOT picked after the fact. Choosing the individual after the fact eliminates any question of probability.  I contend that my use of English is correct.  Shall I direct this case to the mediation cabal?  I will abide by their decision.   Salvor Hardin 03:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * after which fact? i'm trying to be pragmatic and relate this concept to persons as they presently exist.  or as they might exist when they are reading the article or contemplating the topic.  not all persons contemplating this are at equivalent stations in life or stratum in society.
 * it is not as if we are creating a hypothetical scenario where we have a collection of N externally indistiguishible individuals, all with equal resources at t=0, at that point you choose and mark one of these indistiguishible indivisuals, and then begin the experiment where in one case they practice ESI or, in the other case, they all practice greed and then at the end of the experiment, we evaluate in both cases how our marked individual did. if that were the case, your use of the language would be correct.
 * instead, the scenario i am talking about is one as realistically close to some reality of a given community or society. so you have some people who are bankers, merchants, industrialists, politicians, celebrities, professionals, as well as housewives, common skilled workers, artists, union craftmen, unskilled laborers, the unemployed, and homeless.  now, take a representative mix of these persons, and they are marked (because if they were not marked, then choosing one would be a random selection) and out of that mix you allow me to choose the "given" individual and then begin the experiment where in one case they practice ESI or, in the other case, they all practice greed and then at the end of the experiment, we evaluate in both cases how my chosen individual did.  now i am picking the individual before the race, but not all horses have the same odds.  this is where you're failing to grasp the difference in meaning between "any given individual" and "an individual (blindly) chosen at random".
 * so, you have to think in terms of a person reading the article. let's say that this person is astute and brutally honest with him or herself.  he or she reads that "it is not likely that any given individual will profit from following such an ethic" and says to him or herself, "I'm a given individual.  How has simplistic selfishness worked for me in the past?  How is it expected to work for me in the future?"  it depends on who that person is.  if that person is doing quite well, it will be hard to believe that suddenly turning over a new leaf and acting generously will actually increase that person materially.  (i contend that it will ultimate make for better happiness, but i don't want to bring a psychological or metaphysical point into the article, or if we do, it should be another section appropriately titled.)  not all individuals in a group can be expected to profit materially from enlighted self-interest.  the "winners" or those better positioned to be winners might very well expect to do better materially from unenlighted self-interest, diverting material from others to themselves.
 * i want to make the case, but i do not want to overstate it. the "given individual" is not picked after the fact of the experiment or race, but that "given individual" is also not necessarily picked randomly.  if that "given individual" is picked randomly, the correct English usage is "a randomly selected individual" not "any given individual".  Rbj 04:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * in addition, Salvor, since you seem to think the two wordings are equivalent in meaning, why the objection to the other usage? i clearly think they do not mean the same thing, that there is a nuanced difference and some people reading it will miss the point or believe the statement makes too strong of a claim.  if they do so because of misrepresenting the position of the proponents of enlightened self-interest (by stating their position more strongly than they would), that would be misleading.  what is your motivation to precluding the other language?  long run-on sentences can be split up, but why insist on "any given individual" when there is clearly an objection (with non-frivolous support) when, even you admit that a "typical individual in the group is selected at random" means the same thing?  how about making us both happy about the point made? Rbj 05:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I see what the problem is. You and I have a different conception of what ESI is.  I contend that it is not possible, or at least not likely, for someone to become materially successful unless one practices ESI, and conversely, one has obviously not practiced "self-interest" if one is not materially sucessful.  Under my conception, it would make no difference what the makeup of the group was, in either abilities or material assets, while under your conception, it (apparently) would.  So we belong to two different schools of thought regarding ESI.  I have no sources to back up my view, so if you can provide a source you win by default.  Salvor Hardin 15:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * i believe that you are completely correct about that we see ESI somewhat differently. I would say that your conception is a stronger statement (which needs more to support it) than what i would say ESI is.  i would say that the world is full of people who do not practice ESI and that class of people has individuals, many who are not successful and many who are successful.
 * your position or meaning of ESI is stronger, that is it says more or makes a stronger claim, than my position. by choosing the weaker position, i am trying to cover my ass by only making claims that are easier to support.  you are making a claim that is, in my opinion, harder to support.  a really weak claim would be something like: "some people practice enlightened self interest."  easy to support but that statement says almost nothing.
 * your statement and converse, that people don't get rich without practicing ESI and that that people who are not materially successful have not practices ESI or "self-interest" in general is, much stronger than i would say and requires more proof. i actually don't believe it because i think there are too many counter-examples to both the main statement and converse.
 * BTW, just to be clear, it wasn't the makeup of the group so much that i was staking my weaker claim, but the makeup of individuals in the group. i think that nearly any group or community, as a whole, will do better by the common practice of ESI.  but i do not believe, if self-interest is only measured materially, that all individuals will do better, just a pretty large majority.
 * but this is good, we get to talk about content more than style. i will work on sources, some might simply be some other book, who's to say that this author defines the meaning of the term?  either way, i think both our schools of thought should get some representation.  but i really think your school makes a bigger claim than mine and is going farther out on a limb than me. i'll start digging out some books and do a little Googling. Rbj 18:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * When I originally came accross this article, I thought the concept was intended as a way to explain how the idea of rational self-interest was compatible with complex market and social structures, such as government, the rule of law, etc. Public goods, in other words.  By supporting the rule of law, you may lose out in a given situation but you will benefit long term.  Enlightened self interest, in my view, is the answer to those who claim that unadultered self-interest leads to total anarchy.  Salvor Hardin 18:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * yeah, i think that Enlighted self-interest is clearly different from Ayn Rand's rational selfishness which appears to turn around cause and effect, from the POV of ESI. i think they should be compared to each other (which is why i put the link in the See also section), but they really are not the same thing.  i would object greatly to conceptually equating the terms. Rbj 21:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would you say the two are different? Salvor Hardin 23:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * wow! i didn't realize the reasonableness of the question until looking into this more (on the internet, not just my own unrepresentative sample of reading). i didn't realize that Adam Smith and the capitalism apologists used the term until now.  so i am not sure who hijacked the term from whom.
 * first of all, as i said before the two completely reverse cause and effect (and i do not think the meaning is at all the same when reversed). the oft used quote for ESI i have often read is that "one does well by doing good".  it is ostensibly clear that Ayn Rand means to say: first serve your own self-interests and the interests of others will be served as well.  i actually believe the first and not the latter so i cannot intellectually see the two as equivalent.
 * it's late and i can't work on this anymore now, but i will be getting back to this very soon and getting more references either way. this is even more nuanced than i had originally thought and will get to be quite an article.  i think we need to put in the different perspectives (doing good for others leads to doing well for oneself vs. doing well for oneself leads to doing good for others which is, i think better labeled "rational selfishness") and if we do that, we might want to put in a section for religious/metaphysical believers (ESI gets you good karma or divine blessing or a piece of pie in the sky) and for the psychological interest (ESI can help you from going nutz or despising oneself and provide "balance" in life).  i did not originally intend to do that but there are so many more POVs of ESI than i had previously thunked. r b-j 03:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm a little skeptical of the "good for others" vs. "good for self" dichotomy. In my view, the whole point of ESI is that the two are not so easily seperable. Salvor Hardin 06:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * i didn't mean to imply a dichotomy. i think a suicide bomber (and nearly all other antisocial behavior) acts in such a way that is harmful for both self and others.  there are certainly actions a person makes in certain situations that benefit both self and others.  i do not think that these recognized win-win situations is what is addressed by either ESI or by Ayn Rand's rational selfishness.  in ESI you are focussed on others' best interest with your own interest in the background and the belief is that by helping others you will, in the long run, be helping yourself.  : in Rand's thingie, simply swap the words "self" and "others".  in rational selfishness you are focussed on your own best interest with the interest of others in the background and the belief is that by helping yourself you will, in the long run, be others.  r b-j 17:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, as long as you can back it up with sources. Salvor Hardin 18:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiousity, what country are you from? Salvor Hardin 04:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * U.S. (Vermont). just FYI, i utterly hate what Bush and the Republicans have been doing to the country and the world outside it.  i had done some volunteer work for Howard Dean.  i would have to say, that i am an adherant to the enlightened self-interest philosophy, but i really don't want to write the article advocating it, i just want to represent it accurately.  Rbj 05:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * so do you want to reciprocate and tell us where you are at or from? Rbj 18:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm from Seattle. I was a bit amused that you instantly started apologizing for our adminstration when you thought I was from another country.  Maybe some self-loathing going on there?  ;)  I'm a libertarian, BTW.  Salvor Hardin 18:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * no, it's the dicks that i loathe. they're the worst kind of liars and hypocrites and their just ruining the place.  anyway, i hope it isn't because of geographical proximity that your esteem of Gates & Co. is based.  i'm a bit libertarian with regard to marijuana and perhaps some other controlled substances and on the issue of mutually voluntary adult relationships, more Communitarian (what i like to call the opposite end of the political axis that Libertarian is on - some might call it "authoritarian") regarding abortion and maybe some other human life issues, and pretty solidly liberal on the rest. Rbj 21:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've done another rewrite. It's mostly adding headings and grouping stuff. Unfortunately some of the headings are very scanty; hopefully someone(s) will chip in to fill them out. -- TimNelson (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"unenlightened self interest"
"Unenlightened self interest" is a contradiction in terms. If Richard thinks he acts in his own best interest by ignoring the basic rights of Susie, Alex and Jim, and later on it turns out that Richard's actions were not in his best interest because Susie, Alex and Jim got so fed up with Richard that they killed him, Richard never acted in his own best interest.

I assume that when we talk about a person's interest, we mean their best interest, or in other words, the course of action yielding the best results for that person. If that is true, Richard's (best) interest remains the same no matter whether Richard is aware of it or not.

Hence, we can distinguish between someone not knowing what their self interest is because they have a short-sighted view and someone knowing what their self interest is because they have a far-sighted view, but we can not talk about enlightened and unenlightened self interest since the self interest is absolute, and not dependent on the actors awareness.

Of course it does not follow that a short-sighted person necessarily acts against their own (absolute, long term) interest, but that would be mere coincidence.

That being said, I think the term "unenlightened self interest" should be either removed from the entry or explained as I did here. I just didn't want to do it myself because I have never edited anything in wikipedia and don't want to butt heads with the current or original creators of this article. - Joshua M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.116.241 (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually think the term "unenlightened self interest" is very useful in the context of an article entitled "Enlightened self-interest". Self-interest is a noun representing a concept or set of concepts.  If there is such a thing as "enlightened self-interest" (and there must be a number of people who think there is, because this term has been around for decades, as far as I can say directly, and for centuries, as far as the cited history goes), then that is an adjective, a qualifier on the main subject, self-interest.  I.e. enlightened self-interest is a subset of the broader concept of self-interest.  The complement subset, that is all of the elements of the set self-interest that are not contained in the subset enlightened self-interest, might very well be the set of concepts  unenlightened self-interest.  Perhaps not all.  Perhaps there are self-interest concepts that are neither enlightened nor unenlightened, and in that case, unenlightened self-interest would be contained in the subset of self-interest that is not enlightened, but might not encompass the entire subset.  Nonetheless, if one is to consider the kind of self-interest that is not enlightened self-interest, is not "unenlightened self-interest" a term that could logically be used?  If enlightened self-interest is acting in one's self-interest in such a way that is not greedy (which seems to be what the article is trying to establish), is not greed (which, at least in some contexts is clearly related to acting in one's self-interest) precisely the kind of self-interest that is not in the enlightened self-interest subset? 207.190.198.130 (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it to be contradictory at all. Enlightened self-interest implies that one have some degree of enlightenment to understand that an action is indeed in your own self interest. An unenlightened self-interest are those actions which are obviously in your self-interest, with little or no "enlightenment" required. Leaving a burning building or making sure you have enoough food are pretty obvious, those actions which fall under the category of enlightened self-interest are those which might not seem at first glace to be in your own self-interest. Unenlightened self-interest does not necessarily imply that the actions are working against your own self-interest.--RLent (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Hobbes come up with this?
(Thomas Hobbes, not the tiger) -- TimNelson (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a missing section of the history of the term and its re-emergance in the discussions during the end of the 20'th century and beginning of this one, today (21'st) פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Psychological egoism
This is very similar to psychological egoism, perhaps to the point where there should be a merge. If not, it would help to clarify the difference, if any exists. --Chealer (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that this term is talking about a philosophical merit of action or a moral value, which may both explain animal actions and even microbiological evolutionary paths or the development of economies and at the same time be used to evaluate them morally. On the other hand, the term Psychological Egoism is about human behavior. The two stem from Hobbs' philosophy, but both entries are lacking historical context, so it's hard to show where they moved off one from the other. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Virtues of one sentence structure over the other.
So which is more concise and clear?


 * In contrast to enlightened self-interest, unnenlightened self-interest is simple greed, or the concept of "unenlightened self-interest",

or


 * In contrast to enlightened self-interest is greed, or the concept of "unenlightened self-interest",

Neglecting the misspelling (no big deal, that can be corrected) the former unnecessarily repeats the term "unenlightened self-interest". Like this is a thing or the concept of thing. It is greed that is the concept of unenlightened self-interest. The most obvious alternative or opposite of enlightened self-interest (which one might denote as "unenlightened self-interest") is simple greed. So maybe "simple" should go back in. That was a mistake to leave out. I will put that back in. But repeating, in the same sentence, "unenlightened self-interest" as subject and object is poor sentence structure. And not concise. At it's very simplest, enlightened self-interest is a self-interest that is not greedy. 50.47.109.19 (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)