In short, NO!

I think this is an important discussion because all across the land, and particularly in Christian circles-although not exclusively-Tiger Woods’ moral transgressions are routinely referred to as selfish, immoral acts. As if “selfish” behavior is logically tied to, or the equivalent of, immoral behavior. The reality is that this is truly non-thinking confusion and could not be further from the truth.

In a reply to a very well-written article by Penn State undergrad Rituparna Basu out at the UnderCurrent, I make the distinction thusly:

Do not confuse hedonism with selfishness.. The key here is to clearly understand that all of the measurable, tangible, real accomplishments of individuals such as Tiger Woods were due to his application of rational self-interest, aka selfishness. The degree Tiger applied himself to the real world; to the physics of golf ball flight, to the biomechanical and physiological aspects of athletic training, and the intellectual discipline necessary for mental focus resulted in the professional accomplishments we all marvel over and that he publicly and, to my understanding, privately laid out as long term, rational, goals.

To the extent he engaged in the pursuit of irrational, non life-serving, values by essentially engaging in hedonism-the mere emotional act of doing whatever makes one “happy” at the spur of the moment-was not selfish and clearly had life threatening consequences that were/are inconsistent with his rational self-interested goals. One ought not confuse merely instant gratification regardless the consequence with meaningful and thoughtful pursuit of long range goals that actually are life-sustaining and not personally destructive.

While the immediate consequence of lying, cheating, or stealing might be pleasurable to a human’s senses the long range consequences are almost always life threatening (life includes the concept of individual liberty, e.g. if you are jailed for theft). Therefore, lying, cheating, and stealing are not life sustaining actions and cannot be considered “selfish” actions.

I think an appropriate reference here to Ayn Rand is useful: “To take “whatever makes one happy” as a guide to action means: to be guided by nothing but one’s emotional whims. Emotions are not tools of cognition. . . . This is the fallacy inherent in hedonism–in any variant of ethical hedonism, personal or social, individual or collective. “Happiness” can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard. The task of ethics is to define man’s proper code of values and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness. To declare, as the ethical hedonists do, that “the proper value is whatever gives you pleasure” is to declare that “the proper value is whatever you happen to value”–which is an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication, an act which merely proclaims the futility of ethics and invites all men to play it deuces wild.” (Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, “The Objectivist Ethics”.)

So, the answer to Rituparna’s question of whether these men’s actions can be considered selfish is very straightforward: NO.