Benevolence

 I don't understand why conventional moralists often see benevolence and self-interest as being at odds. Living--action in pursuit of life-sustaining ends, that is, of values--is a challenge, even a struggle. Success is not guaranteed. "There's many a slip 'twix cup and lip." So why wouldn't reasoning pursuers of self-interest view other beings who are similarly situated with favor? Egoists should rejoice over success stories. Examples of triumph in all constructive realms should inspire because they demonstrate that success is possible in this world. This is certainly the case in a positive-sum free-market society, in which entrepreneurs constantly push back the limits of scarcity. Remember what Ludwig von Mises wrote, "The fact that my fellow man wants to acquire shoes as I do, does not make it harder for me to get shoes, but easier." In a deep sense, one person's success is another person's encouragement to succeed. Ayn Rand understood this, especially in terms of art, but her nonfiction writing did not emphasize it in the context of human relations.

We should reject the conventional refrain that if you embrace the pursuit of self-interest, you are--at best--indifferent to other people beyond purely transactional considerations.

By the way, this goes toward answering the British moral sentimentalists, such as Adam Smith and David Hume, who argued that empathy is something additional to, and moderating of, "selfishness." I contend that it is not. It's entailed in egoism. Smith and Hume were bad empiricists, as Thomas Reid pointed out.

Egoists unite! You have nothing to lose but your guilt!