What Egoism Should Mean
“I think ‘egoist’ should fundamentally mean a person who recognizes that his own life is his own responsibility and that his rational self-interest is morally legitimate.”
That does not mean exploiting others, ignoring reality, being vain, or treating people as tools. In the Objectivist sense, rational self-interest requires reason, honesty, independence, productiveness, justice, and pride. It means neither sacrificing myself to others nor sacrificing others to myself.
Why Self-Interest Became Suspicious
What bothers me is how easily “egoist” became almost synonymous with “selfish, bad person.” I think intelligent people helped bend the concept because there was something socially useful in making self-interest morally suspicious.
If people feel guilty for pursuing their own values, achievements, happiness, and independence, they become easier to pressure through duty, obligation, and guilt. Rand explicitly argued that altruistic moral language can be used this way; whether one accepts her full explanation or not, the mechanism she identifies deserves examination.
Why It Went Unchallenged
Why didn't more intelligent people catch it? Because the packaging was powerful. “Think of others” sounds noble. “Think of yourself” sounds ugly when the second phrase is deliberately loaded with greed and cruelty. The debate was therefore often framed before the definitions were examined.
The Danger of Losing the Distinction
If this misuse continues, I see a dangerous trend: people increasingly treating legitimate self-interest as something requiring apology, while confusing self-sacrifice with virtue.
I would rather restore the distinction: rational self-interest versus irrational selfishness; self-respect versus egotism; voluntary cooperation versus sacrifice. Once those distinctions disappear, moral reasoning becomes much easier to manipulate.