There are many claims that self-centeredness is at the root of all that is wrong with the world. I seek to contend with that idea.
Different people are going to be centered in different ways. Some will be centered in themselves; others will be centered in something else. I do not see why one would be better or worse than the other.
In “arsociety” there is a lot of coercion toward self-centeredness. People think that believing in yourself is necessary for success or that high self-esteem is necessary for being a good person. So we have situations such as one I had a number of years ago, when a highly intelligent and talented woman told me that if she cannot live for herself she can’t live. This is completely wrong. There are many reasons to live for besides yourself. To claim that you not only should, but must, live for yourself is an outrage.
As for the previous claim, self-centeredness most definitely is not the root of all that is wrong with the world. The worst abuses weren’t done in the name of self-centeredness. They were done in the name of Nazism, Communism, Colonialism and Islam. All these were ideologies that sought to subsume the individual’s ego under that of the collective. And Ayn Rand was correct to have affirmed the individual’s ego in the face of such ideologies.
Once again, I do not see why either being centered in the self or being centered in something else is going to result in better people. What I do know is that both the people who blame self-centeredness for the world’s problems and the people who push believing in yourself are wrong. The worst abuses in history did not come in the name of self-centeredness, they came in the name of collective ideologies. On the other side, I have known many successful people. Most of them did not believe in themselves; they believed in something greater than themselves.
From the perspective of the self, the world consists of both self and other people. Most people will have an orientation toward both. Both can go right and both can go wrong. In the first group we will see both uncaring jerks and inspired creators. In the second group we will see both tyrants and saints.
What is really worse, being self-centered or being Nazi-centered? Both self-interest and other-interest can go both right and wrong. Ayn Rand was right to affirm the individual ego in the face of collective tyranny, but she was wrong to equate altruism with totalitarianism. She mistook the value for the abuses of the value. Anything that carries appeal to people can be used for wrong. That includes things that carry moral appeal. That Stalin appealed to the legitimate value of altruism to create a totalitarian state does not damn altruism; it damns Stalin. I am involved with the Salvation Army, and there is nothing totalitarian about it.
At the same time the people who push believing in yourself and self-esteem are wrong as well. If you believe in something greater than yourself, then you will be more likely to do difficult and dangerous things than if you believe only in yourself. That some of these people are successful says absolutely nothing. There are successful Muslims as well. That does not make Islam the key to success.
Both self-centeredness and other-centeredness can therefore go both right and wrong. I do not see the need to either deify or demonize either of the preceding. What I recommend is this: Benefit both the world and yourself. And see both the self-orientation and the other-orientation produce good fruit.