ALTRUISM
A GOOD THING BUT ACTUALLY A MIXED BAG, SOMETIMES HARMFUL
Though you'll have to do some sorting and use of your brain to tie this all together, the pieces are here. It will be edited later, but I wanted to post it so I could easily access it in the search engine (and not accidentally start over again because I forgot!)
____________
What we are talking about here is not anything against charity or giving to others by free will, though if someone suggests that altruism could be harmful there is an immediate emotional outcry from the meaning people add to it. Giving voluntarily, rather than be forced to give, is clearly just fine, and no one is railing against that personal choice one has the freedom to make.
But is using force to take from another what he has wrought a good force or repressive. And what has its logical extenstion wrought in history?
Is imposing self sacrifice on others justified?
Is imposing the moral code that man's life and work belong to the state, race, nationfor the good of all in those categories collectively? Does this lead to the state deeming what is for the sake of its own tribal collective good? And what has always occurred when this has been implemented in world history?
A system or a code or anyting in life can only be judged by its results.
Should we then, based on results, be cautious about collectivism and statism which force transfer from some individuals to others? Can we be able to step aside and look at this objectively and factually and see the results, both economically and in the lives taken in the promise for some utopia where economics is denied and in the harm that has befallen the societies that have embraced it?
Is there a pleasant medium? Is it right to impose that medium on some, who must then pay the price, not voluntarily, but under force?
Clearly, we in the West, having prospered, do want to take care of our fellow human beings. But should it be voluntary? Should it be forced? Should it be mandated by people making it wrong not to give more?
If we "impose" altruism on others is that justified? Is there such a thing as selflessness or is it an extreme which can be harmful? Do people just attribute an absolute rightness to it and then get stuck in an illogical, unthinking way of punishing or thinking badly of others? Are we confusing altruism with benevolence and charitable actions? Is there a difference? Does a person’s need constitutes a moral claim on others? Should it be imposed by force?
Yes, there is a big difference. But it requires being able to think objectively with reason and to be open to learning the facts and reasoning - and why it is not some evil way of looking at things!
The key is noting the definition of altruism, where it includes "to one's own detriment", as contrasted with what is deemed just fine, if not forced: benevolence and charity (defined later in this piece, so you can differentiate rather than fail to see the differences.
_____________________________________________________________
Us humans tend to want to simplify things, so we create absolutes - and then we misuse them. (Hitler was good at the absolutes game, but he certainly was unjust though he was absolutely convinced of his rightness. That is a mistake, of course on a smaller scale, that we best not allow into our lives.) We tend not to think deeper, but assume we are right just from our surface impressions. We tend to be right about all of this in action, where we make others wrong, get emotional about it as if it warranted anger (a fear derived emotion) - and we end up being dysfunctional for ourselves and almost always harming to others.
Altruism, giving, being unselfish - surely those are absolute "good"s. But, in the real world, there are few absolutes and there is a spectrum of effects, with tradeoffs and degrees of effectiveness.
For instance, Ayn Rand speaks of the harm of altruism, but how could she be so heartless and mean? Well, if one looks deeper, she is actually talking about the extreme and not the choice of doing something altruistic. She is just fine with someone doing something that benefits another as a choice of a way to benefit themselves (i.e. they value the result of altruism such that it is worth the cost of their time and effort, for a net gain).
Why do we value altruism, denigrate selfishness (and fight against it)? Because we are "afraid". Afraid of what? Afraid of the effect on us of others not cooperating with us - and thus our being less able to survive well.
It may be naive of an individual to think this way. We attribute all sorts of explanations as being valid and then come to conclusions based on those - but often the explanation is not valid - and a conclusion based on an invalid "fact" is very likely not to be correct. We think that, from the culture, that we have a conclusion that has sprung fully formed from others and that it is correct, the truth.
But the truth is that we are strictly mechanical beings, evolved for serving our own self interests (and not some moralistic idea) toward surviving and procreating. To the extent that doing something for another and cooperating with others serve our long term (and short term) interest we will do it - but in no way is it an absolute rule, a must, that must always be done - if it is always done, it would be foolish and harmful to the individual and at some point with less functional individuals society would be affected downwardly.
(Now people do not like to be seen as strictly mechanical beings, though they provably are - but if you read this piece you'll see how we create something that makes us different than animals and which actually creates real meaning: )
Altruistic Mixes of both Selfish
to the to the
extreme extreme
Altruism as an absolute value is foolish if looked at in the following way:
Defined: Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness
But there is no reality in asserting that we are "selfless" for it is always self interest (and survival) that drives us. If we somehow do reach that state, perhaps in a belief that we should sacrific our own lives for the welfare of others, then we fail to function well for ourselves - and we fail to make progress in our own lives - AND that is definitely unethical.
But how can such a moral and noble absolute be unethical at the same time that I think it is noble and that the opposite is "bad"? Because extremes are damaging - and that is what Ayn Rand is saying with her controversial statement, which gets a surface emotional outrage reaction, but is based on part 2 of the definition:
Definition #2: Intinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.
Now, I ask you, is it wise for a person to incur a detriment to him/herself? Think a moment about that, without a knee jerk reaction of moral outrage - but it is good to benefit others!!!! Yes, a benefit to someone is always good by itself, but it may not be good in the big picture. Remember, ethical behavior is that which provides the greatest good for all concerned, but the problem here occurs if the act does harm to the doer. This is where judgment, rather than prejudiced surface non-thinking, should be dominant. The answer would be to have a person only do that which has a net benefit to themselves. A net benefit is where the benefits derived are greater than the cost (time and effort and pain). If that is true, then the altruistic act makes sense in itself - and it is not a moral issue.
Where do we draw the line? When is society's benefit such that it trumps the individual's benefit? If we kill someone to deter crime, is that right? Maybe, maybe not. Basically, society (people) get together to set the rules which will protect them overall, provide for their safety, and set limits for people doing behavior that benefits them but harms society. Some people say those rules should only deal with that.
As such they would set simple rules, that laws and government (the cooperation for society in institutional form) should be limited to the function of the state, as follows:
In order to be able to live a life free of aggression, the state must exist based on
1. A police force to protect against aggression from others within our state.
2. An army to protect against foreign aggressors.
3. Courts to protect property rights from the aggression and violation of those rights (which are proven to be the basis of what works to cause prosperous states - for without that a state cannot grow and prosper).
Of course, this would have to be paid for by the citizens in some fair manner, as it surely cannot be for free.
If we were to all share the same core values and to not use force, then we could live without the state, just as they did in Atlas Shrugged (read the book!).
Is this Libertarian or just rational? #3 would probably rule it out as to being Libertarian.
It is simply practical.
____________
Ayn Rand believed that altruism is incompatible with benevolence and charitable actions.
"The choice is not: selfishness or good will among men. The choice is: altruism or good will, benevolence, kindness, love and human brotherhood."
To find, in the official Objectivist publication of its day, positive references to kindness, human brotherhood, and similar notions may come as a shock to those many detractors of Ayn Rand who insist on portraying her as an unreformed Ebenezer Scrooge in a bad mood. But this and other egregious misrepresentations of Rand’s views have become the rule rather than the exception, so they should come as no surprise to those who actually take the time to read what Rand (and Branden) wrote on the subject of benevolence.
According to Rand, “No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as ‘the right to enslave.’” This “right to enslave” is precisely how Rand viewed altruism, which preaches self-sacrifice and service to others as a moral duty and, ultimately, as a political duty that should be enforced by the power of government.
the supposed duty of self-sacrifice, in whatever form it has manifested itself, has invariably undercut the notion of individual rights and thereby undermined the moral foundations of a free society.
A consistent defender of rights must uphold the right of individuals to pursue their own values according to their own judgments, so long as they respect the equal rights of others. Rights are a moral concept that “preserves and protects individual morality in a social context,” the “means of subordinating society to moral law.”
Altruism, in contrast, is a type of “moral cannibalism” in which some people are sacrificed to others in the name of “duty.” And since altruism cannot be consistently practiced (it is impossible to sacrifice everyone to everyone), in practice altruism amounts to the “right” of governments, speaking on behalf of “society” (or some other collective abstraction), to decide who should be sacrificed to whom, and to enforce their decisions by coercive means. Altruism therefore results in a profoundly amoral society—a society in which rulers are “exempt from moral law” and claim the right to dispose of people and property as they deem fit.
Essential to Rand’s analysis of altruism is the bright moral line she drew between persuasion and coercion. In “What is Capitalism?”—one of her best essays, in my judgment—Rand argued that “an attempt to achieve the good by physical force is a monstrous contradiction which negates morality at its root by destroying man’s capacity to recognize the good, i.e.., his capacity to value.”
Force invalidates and paralyzes a man’s judgment, demanding that he act against it, thus rendering him morally impotent. A value which one is forced to accept at the price of surrendering one’s mind, is not a value to anyone; the forcibly mindless can neither judge nor choose nor value. An attempt to achieve the good by force is like an attempt to provide a man with a picture gallery at the price of cutting out his eyes.
The upshot of this argument, for our purpose, is that altruism is utterly devoid of moral value, even if we accept the premise (which Rand did not) that the disposition to help others is a major virtue. Voluntary charity is one thing, but coercive charity is a veritable contradiction in terms. Coercion is necessary only when one cannot persuade others to act as one thinks they should. And to compel someone to take an action is to strip that action of any moral value it might otherwise have.
Consider these two scenarios. First, I believe (for whatever reason) that you should contribute a thousand dollars to the Red Cross, and I successfully persuade you to do so. Second, I fail in my attempt to persuade you to donate a thousand dollars, so I threaten you with force unless you comply, while explaining that I am merely enforcing your moral duty to help others. You then comply with my demand, preferring to surrender your money rather than risk suffering the harm I threaten to inflict.
Superficially considered, your actions in both scenarios are identical. That is to say, in both cases you ended up transferring a thousand dollars to the Red Cross. But the two actions differ radically from a moral point of view. In the first scenario, you are free to agree or not; you are free to evaluate the desirability of a potentially benevolent action in the full context of your personal values. The second scenario presents no such option; you agree to surrender your money not because you value charity but only because you fear the consequences of not obeying my coercive command.
In “A Nation’s Unity” (The Ayn Rand Letter, 23 October 1972), Rand identified fear as a crucial difference between benevolence and altruism.
Benevolence is incompatible with fear. It is only when a man knows that his neighbors have no power forcibly to interfere with his life, that he can feel benevolence toward them, and they toward him—as the history of the American people has demonstrated…. Since agreement on the principle of individual rights does not impose any official dogma and does not violate anyone’s convictions, the greatest variety of views and ideas could coexist peacefully in the same country without threatening anyone. If two men disagreed, they were free not to deal with each other, and neither could force his choices on the other.
TOWARD A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING BASED ON A RATIONAL APPROACH
Nathaniel Branden made a similar point in “Benevolence versus Altruism”:
By the nature of the altruist ethics, it can engender only fear and hostility among men: it forces men to accept the role of victim or executioner, as objects of sacrifice or profiteers on human sacrifices—and leaves men no standard of justice, no way to know what they can demand and what they must surrender, what is theirs by right, and what is theirs by favor, what is theirs by someone’s sacrifice—thereby casting men into an amoral jungle. Contrary to the pretensions of altruism’s advocates, it is human brotherhood and good will among men that altruism makes impossible.
Benevolence, good will and respect for the rights of others proceed from an opposite code of morality: from the principle that man the individual is not an object of sacrifice but an entity of supreme value; that each man exists for his own sake and is not a means to the ends of others; that no one has the right to sacrifice anyone.
In a letter to John Hospers (29 April 1961), Rand wrote that “charity is a marginal issue, as far as ethics is concerned.” Charity may be “morally proper,” but it is not morally required and should not be treated as “a major virtue.”
Those conditions in which Rand regarded charity as morally proper are not especially relevant to my discussion of her views about altruism, since she viewed charity (and benevolence generally) and altruism as polar opposites. I have called attention to Rand’s endorsement of voluntary charity, in some circumstances, to rebut the preposterous claim of some critics that Rand defended “selfishness” in the vulgar sense, according to which an egoist should show no concern for the welfare of others. That was not her point at all.
It is not as if critics need to delve into Rand’s more obscure essays to understand her views on altruism and how she distinguished altruism from charity. Rand clearly explained the essential difference in Galt’s Speech.
As a basic step of self-esteem, learn to treat as the mark of a cannibal any man’s demand for your help. To demand it is to claim that your life is his property—and loathsome as such claim might be, there’s something still more loathsome: your agreement. Do you ask if it’s ever proper to help another man? No—if he claims it as his right or as a moral duty that you owe him. Yes—if such is your own desire based on your own selfish pleasure in the value of his person and his struggle.
Herbert Spencer, whose views on charity were similar to Rand’s, once estimated that “in three cases out of four the alleged opinions of mine condemned by opponents, are not opinions of mine at all, but are opinions wrongly ascribed by them to me.” Rand’s critics, it seems, are determined to surpass the three-quarters mark and thereby set a new record for lack of intellectual integrity.
Such misrepresentation is the likely fate of any libertarian who dares to argue for the moral supremacy of voluntary over coercive interaction. If you don’t believe that a government should coercively enforce x, then you must be opposed to x per se. Q.E.D.
Bertrand Russell once said that most people would rather die than think; in fact, many do. By this standard, many of Rand’s critics should have self-destructed long ago.
From Ayn Rand And Altruism - this is an excellent, fact-based with documentation treatise, but some who are reactive on this subject and/or the source of this piece will jump to conclusions of prejudice and unfairness. But note that the article meets all the criteria of good critical thinking, oriented toward a purpose of explaing reasonably, and the rejection of it for its source is an example of non-thinking, prejudice, broad generalization, and unfairness.
____________________
Benevolence: An inclination to perform kind, charitable acts. A kindly act. A gift given out of generosity.
Charity: Benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity; generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also: aid given to those in need.
"I would also note that she was herself charitable and regularly helped people in need. It is often forgotten that right after the war, when the Japanese were released from the concentration camps and racism was high, that Ayn basically put an entire family on her pay. the family had lost their business thanks to FDR's incarceration plans. Ayn hired the woman to do cooking. She already had a cook and the woman's daughter said her mother was not goo cook. The husband was hired to help do the gardening on the property. The daughter, a high school student, was paid as secretary, even though the film studio would provide Rand with secretarial services. In addition Ayn gave all three of them, plus a younger brother, lodging in her home. This was during a time when she also feed and housed a former teacher from Russia who was a war refugee." (Link, probably won't stay up.)
"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them." “Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964
Addressing the skewed perception and conclusions people make from it: Objectivism And Charity. "One can be willing to give one’s own life to save him or her—for the selfish reason that life without the loved person could be unbearable."
____________________
Additional quote from a comment on a blog: Rand argues that man's nature as a rational being who does not act automatically, requires that he make choices between actions that will further his life (as a rational animal) and acts which will not.
Under normal conditions a person acts morally by pursuing values that are not a threat to other humans in a society that is not faced with emergencies. An emergency removes that possibility, so, as Rand clearly states in VOS, the first rational task is to get things back to normal. Since normal means a state in which people are able to pursue their values once more, it is in one's self interest to help people who are, because of the emergency, not able to do so. This is not an obligation that comes from some rule, it is not required by morality, it is only if it is in one's power, and it is not the standard by which one lives on a daily basis or decides what acts are moral. To set one's moral code with reference to what one does in an emergency is to live as if life were a constant emergency. That is the Christian view, it is not Objectivism's.
As for organized charity, the general principle is that if one can afford to send money or spend time working to pursue a value (a cure for cancer, a political or philosophical movement)it is not a sacrifice (altruistic) to do so.
Altruism means sacrifice for the sake of others, not "support deserving people in the pursuit of their goals." 'Sacrifice' means SACRIFICE' which means it's gotta hurt to count. Put it this way: Rand is out to destroy the reputations of not only Robin Hood but the Biblical story of the Widow's Mite.
_____________________________
A good perspective comes from Robert Tracinski: "Again, her critique of altruism goes down to philosophical fundamentals. Contrary to what you might have heard, it is not a critique of benevolence or charity as such. Rather, it's a critique of the idea that your own happiness is not a valid moral goal, that everyone must live for the sake of others. As she argued, this ends up--both logically and in practice--meaning that no one has a right to be happy."
