Some thinking rational minds might settle on selfishness as a wise policy, maybe even a virtue. Actually, quite a few people settle on selfishness as a virtue. There are, of course, other values that one might settle upon: selflessness; compassion; love, sacrifice, valor, humble labor, and so on..

What would be irrational is to maintain an approach to life (selfishness, compassion...) that was contrary to one's best understanding of what is the best approach. It would be contradictory to do so, self defeating, counter productive. For instance, a person whose commitment was to peaceful existence, pacifism, non-violence, and so on would exhibit irrationality if they volunteered to become a career soldier. Similarly, a person who believed that self-fulfillment and material success was a virtue would be poorly served by becoming a monk, wherein both self-fulfillment and material success were strongly discouraged.

I'm not going to praise people who practice selfishness as a virtue; I don't think selfishness is a virtue. (Selfishness is, at times, expedient and appropriate; but that doesn't make it a virtue in my book.)

is there a case to be made that morality is something to be overcome — darthbarracuda

It may be that the morality that has been imposed upon one is something to be overcome. For instance, a gay person may need to overcome the morality which brands their very being as intrinsically disordered and sinful.

Some people who have decided to pursue a career of crime must overcome all sorts of moral restrictions if they haven't already done so. (The decision to engage in crime presupposes the dismissal of at least some moral restrictions.)

Whether overcoming a set of moral guidelines is an achievement or a disaster depends on the consequences.

Do you think there is anything wrong with acting purely in one's self-interest?

Huemer's thought experiment comes to mind. Say you are an egoist and are walking down the street to work, and you are slightly late. You also have an disintegrator gun with you. You encounter a homeless man. The egoist would be morally obligated to disintegrate the homeless man for being in his way and slowing him down.

This is obviously an argument ad absurdum. But it appeals to a sense of morality that is incompatible with egoism. It doesn't actually prove egoism to be false. An egoist could just easily say that it would be the moral thing to do to disintegrate the homeless man. They might live in a society that is okay with this, and so there would be no repercussions. And still we would find this to be immoral. But why?, and is this "holding us back" so to speak?

Perhaps concern for others starts with concern for one's self. Unless I am concerned about my actions and how they might affect others, then I don't see how I can be concerned about others.

So yea, selfishness as sole concern for one's self regardless if how it may effect others is off to me, selfishness as concern proceeding from one's self towards others, I think is on the right track.

I think morality in its normative sense must be overcome, otherwise our actions are conventional and not moral.