Only if they do so at the expense of the interests of others (and that has some qualifications I will not go into to here) That is why being selfish is not nice. If I want to go to sleep because I am tired, and it affects no one else (and certainly not adversely) I am not being selfish. It would be bizarre to say I was.

You continue to deal with this in the wrong context, and doing something at the expense of others was not included in the definition either. The definition you provided stated that selfishness is acting with out consideration or regard for others and by the only concievable concept of action we cannot possibly consider the values of others, we can only act according to our own. Now these values we act according to can be considered virtuous or selfish and normative judgments can come from this, but that is not pertinent to the view that boagie and I are coming from.

You continue to deal with this in the wrong context, and doing something at the expense of others was not included in the definition either. The definition you provided stated that selfishness is acting with out consideration or regard for others and by the only concievable concept of action we cannot possibly consider the values of others, we can only act according to our own. Now these values we act according to can be considered virtuous or selfish and normative judgments can come from this, but that is not pertinent to the view that boagie and I are coming from.

The term, "selfish" is a normative term. Look it up in any dictionary.

No it is not. I don't need to look it up.

/ˈsɛlfɪʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sel-fish] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -adjective 1.devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others. 2.characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.
[Origin: 1630-40; self + -ish11. self-interested, self-seeking, egoistic; illiberal, parsimonious, stingy.

Just look at the synonyms: "self-seeking", "egoistic", "lliberal"; "stingy". If you don't see that these are negative normative terms, then I am afraid that I have to conclude that English is not your first (or even second) language.

So, do let me urge you to consult a dictionary.

That definition is only normative when you add your own values to it and that is the problem all along.

That is not true. For instance, the term, "murder" is inherently dyslogistic, since it means, "unjustified killling" and calling a person a murderer is to blame him for doing something bad. Whether you are right to call the person a murderer is, of course, another issue. But, isn't it obvious that to say of something that it is good of its kind, (a good steak, a good chess move, etc.) is to commend whatever you are calling good? In fact, the dictionary defines the term good as "an adjective of commendation" so that by calling something "good" you are thereby, commending it. Of course, again, whether you should be commending what your are commending when you call that something, "good", is a different question. And you have to separate the two questions: 1. what does "good" mean? and, 2. whether you are correct to say of something that it is good. But, the same is true of every word. You have to separate the question, for instance, of what does the word, "dog" mean, from the question of whether the animal you call a "dog" is a dog.

But there is no question that the terms "murderer" and "good" have, as a part of their objective meaning, that the first is negatively normative, and the latter is positively normative. And, of course, the same goes for "selfish" and "selfless" (although there is the separate question of whether the person you are calling selfish or selfless really is selfish or selfless).

So, you seem to be confusing the two issues: 1. Whether the term is normative, with 2. Whether you are correct to call something by that normative term. It is because you confuse 2. with 1. that you believe that a term is normative only when you add your own valued.

Does this help?

I understand this, but there is nothing about the definition of "selfishness" that implies a wrong.

I understand this, but there is nothing about the definition of "selfishness" that implies a wrong. "Murder" contains the concept of wrong in its definition. Selfishness is not inherently unjustified and the argument as whether selfishness is unjustified is separate altogether.

Can you conceive of no selfish act which is justified? Would the soldier have been unjustified in saving his own skin, or would he have been unselfish?

Just as if the act were really murder, we could not justify it, so we would not call the act "murder", so if the act were really selfish, we could not justify it, and so not call it "selfish". It the soldier has chosen not to sacrifice himself, that would not have been selfish since he was under no obligation to sacrifice himself. He would then have behaved as his companions did, who did not sacrifice themselves either. And none of them would have been selfish for not doing that. The soldier, like his companions, would have acted self-interestedly. But on what ground would you have called him "selfish"? I don't see what you have in mind by your question about calling the soldier "unselfish". Unselfish for what? "Selfish" is a term of blame. That is what the dictionary indicates.

By the way, if might be helpful to distinguish between "justifying" and "excusing". One can sometimes "excuse" a bad action by giving extenuating circumstances for its being done. For instance, I may spill soup on you because I was careless. But when I give an excuse I am admitting that what I did was wrong. I am not justifying the action. To justify the action would be to insist that it was the right, and not, the wrong thing to do under the circumstances. So, to return to my illustration about spilling the soup on you, I am excusing myself when I say that I was careless (and sorry). The point of making the excuse, of course, is to point out that I did not spill the soup on you intentionally, so my action was not so bad as it would have been had I intentionally spilled the soup on you. It may not be much of an excuse, of course, since I should have been more careful, but at least I did not do it intentionally, and that is something.

First, I agree that ethical statements imply an obligation, and by definition murder implies an obligation. You cannot invoke the concept of murder without also saying one shouldn't murder. However, at no point in the definition that you provided for selfishness is there any mention of an obligation. It only mentions a disregard for others, and one can certainly invoke the concept of selfishness without saying one shouldn't be selfish.

Murder = wrongful death = obligation not to murder

Selfishness = Disregard for others + Argument for why disregard is wrong = Obligation not to be selfish.

Murder is inherently wrong, selfishness needs further argumentation.

For clarity, answer these two questions:

1. Why is murder wrong?

2. Why is selfishness wrong?

Also, let us expand on my question. When does the soldier become selfish, when he loses a leg, when he fails to save 10,000 other soldiers?

If the soldier saves his own life at the expense of 10,000 other soldiers, how can that not be considered selfish?

Can you really mean that there is no obligation not to disregard other people in the pursuit of your own goals? It is the violation of this obligation that makes selfishness wrong.

A soldier is not under any special obligation to sacrifice his life for his companions. Where did you get the idea that he is? Just as you are not under any special obligation to provide a kidney to someone you do not know for a transplant to save his life.

First, I agree that ethical statements imply an obligation, and by definition murder implies an obligation. You cannot invoke the concept of murder without also saying one shouldn't murder. However, at no point in the definition that you provided for selfishness is there any mention of an obligation. It only mentions a disregard for others, and one can certainly invoke the concept of selfishness without saying one shouldn't be selfish.

Murder = wrongful death = obligation not to murder

Selfishness = Disregard for others + Argument for why disregard is wrong = Obligation not to be selfish.

Murder is inherently wrong, selfishness needs further argumentation.

For clarity, answer these two questions:

1. Why is murder wrong?

2. Why is selfishness wrong?

Also, let us expand on my question. When does the soldier become selfish, when he loses a leg, when he fails to save 10,000 other soldiers?

If the soldier saves his own life at the expense of 10,000 other soldiers, how can that not be considered selfish?

Of course that depends on how the soldier does it. But, if you have in mind simply that the soldier does not sacrifice his life to save others, then the soldier is not being selfish, since the soldier has no obligation to do such a thing. You seem to be, once more, confusing selfishness, which is to take something (or in the present case, keep something) to which the person is not entitled to have at the expense of others, with self-interest, which is taking something (or, as in the present case keep something) to which someone is entitled to keep. Every person is entitled to keep his life and not give up for the benefit of another. If he does, then that would be an altruistic action, and there is no moral obligation to be altruistic. I think we need to distinguish among: altruism, self-interest, and, selfishness.

Murder is wrong because we have a positive obligation not to destroy the lives of other human being (although, in certain cases, e.g. self-defense, this obligation can be defeated) and selfishness is wrong because we have a positive obligation not to gain that to which we are not entitled at the expense of others.

Did you even read my post?

I only said there is no obligation inherent to the word "selfish". If your moral sentiments lead you to believe people should not be selfish, that is fine, but don't confuse your morality with the definitions of words.

I don't know what you mean by a moral obligation inherent in a word. I suppose that if an action is a moral/immoral one, then the word which names that action will have a derivative moral meaning. Thus, it is because the act of murder is wrong, that the word, "murder" has an implication of immorality. But words have no obligation. In fact, it is people who have obligations. And it is people who are morally obligated not to be selfish or to commit murder. And the words, "murder" and "selfish" have moral implication and are condemnatory on that account. It is, I think, literal nonsense to talk of words as having inherent moral obligations. Of course, their use does imply moral attitudes on the part of the speaker. We cannot serious call someone a "murderer" unless we are expressing moral disapproval of his action. And, similarly, with the word, "selfish". The mother who called her son "selfish" for taking the cake intended for his brother was clearly expressing disapproval of him and of his action. Since you are a fluent English speaker, I am sure you do not think that calling someone, "selfish" is neutral as would be saying of him that he is a carpenter. Calling someone a selfish person is implying moral disapproval of him just as it would be to imply moral disapproval of him to call him a mean person, or an envious person.

This is a premise a great many people have difficulty accepting.The premise is that no matter what you chose to do or chose not to do it is still selfish.

I do not accept the premise. It has never been demonstrated that such a thing as 'free-will' and 'choice' are anything more than egoic prideful vanity. All that is 'selfish', is the 'egoic fantasy'.

"We do not possess an ''ego'', we are possessed by the idea of one."
Wei Wu Wei