An Analysis of Egoism and Altruism

[anthony]

I'm sorry about your dog, Tony.

A pet can come to be so much a part of one's life, the pet's death leaves a special kind of empty place.

I gather that the dog was ill and you decided to end his suffering. It's a hard decision to make.

Ellen

Ellen, I'm a little embarrassed to have brought this in here, but bouyed by the kind consideration shown by you and Adam and Brant.

Yes, the empty place is there in sight, touch and sounds. Wilful to the end, Xerox went independently and stoically, 5 hours before the vet's visit. It was cancer of the liver. He was a dog and then some.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I haven't had time the last couple days to look at OL until a quick glance this evening/morning.

I'll post further on the substantive issues when I can, but I just wanted to say:

Tony, please don't feel "a little embarrassed" about mentioning your decision regarding Xerox.

Something so personally meaningful, where better to mention it?

Folks here can be rough on one another in dispute, but I've noticed that when it comes to deeply important personal circumstances, there's genuine sympathy extended.

And that's interesting, wouldn't you agree, on a website focused on the philosophy of "the apostle of selfishness"?

Best wishes,

Ellen

[anthony]

I haven't had time the last couple days to look at OL until a quick glance this evening/morning.

I'll post further on the substantive issues when I can, but I just wanted to say:

Tony, please don't feel "a little embarrassed" about mentioning your decision regarding Xerox.

Something so personally meaningful, where better to mention it?

Folks here can be rough on one another in dispute, but I've noticed that when it comes to deeply important personal circumstances, there's genuine sympathy extended.

And that's interesting, wouldn't you agree, on a website focused on the philosophy of "the apostle of selfishness"?

Best wishes,

Ellen

Right and true, Ellen. Some important premises behind what you say, which belie:

That emotions are not existents in reality, that have no nature and no cause i.e. are 'subjective' -- and 'irrational'.

That emotions in others aren't identifiable and recognizable. (Even at a physical distance).

That empathy, sympathy and compassion are the preserve of 'empathists', and are subjective -- and totally 'self-less'.

That values are 'subjective'.

[""Objective" does not mean "disinterested" or "indifferent"; it means corresponding to the facts of reality and applies both to knowledge AND TO VALUES".] AR (My bold)

Rand wrote of 'the investment' one puts into one's values by the minutes, days and years of our lives.

What would indeed be irrational, self-contradictory and selfless, would be indifference, a lack of emotion at the loss of any one value.

(not embarrassed now).

[Guyau]

There is a fair mention of Rand as an opponent of altruism in Altruism in Humans (2011) by C. Daniel Batson. The author is an experimental social psychologist whose research has focused on the existence of altruistic motivation and on its antecedents and consequences. His meaning of altruism is “a desire to benefit someone else for his or her own sake rather than one’s own.” Rand, and Branden too, consistently opposed this motivation from the perspective that one’s final motivation for every right act must be for one’s own sake, not the sake of others. Even where, as with Batson, self-sacrifice is not packed into what is meant by altruism, Rand had to oppose it to stay on keel with a morality entirely of rational self-interest.

Batson’s mention of Rand:

Altruistic motivation as I have defined it can be considered moral (as it was by the Scottish philosophers David Hume and Adam Smith), amoral (as it was by Kant), or immoral (as it was by Ayn Rand). Similarly, egoistic motivation for helping can be considered moral, amoral, or immoral. (26)

The references he gives are:

Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature

Smith, Wealth of Nations

Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness

[merjet]

His [C. Daniel Batson's] meaning of altruism is “a desire to benefit someone else for his or her own sake rather than one’s own.” Rand, and Branden too, consistently opposed this motivation from the perspective that one’s final motivation for every right act must be for one’s own sake, not the sake of others. Even where, as with Batson, self-sacrifice is not packed into what is meant by altruism, Rand had to oppose it to stay on keel with a morality entirely of rational self-interest.

I agree more with Batson, except I would replace rather with rather than or in addition to.

Batson’s mention of Rand:

Altruistic motivation as I have defined it can be considered moral (as it was by the Scottish philosophers David Hume and Adam Smith), amoral (as it was by Kant), or immoral (as it was by Ayn Rand). Similarly, egoistic motivation for helping can be considered moral, amoral, or immoral. (26)

Regarding the last sentence, I think the egoism that Rand advocated could not be immoral. 'Traditional egoism' as she called it in Letters of Ayn Rand, could be immoral.

[anthony]

Egoism should be remembered in its greater context, of objectivity. Taken alone - "one's final motivation for every right act must be for one's own sake, not for the sake of others" - approaches an non-voluntary 'imperative', and is perhaps an unreal abstraction.

I've had enough experiences to show that one's objectivity alone, lacking sufficient egoism, may/can become self-sacrificial in the short term - and of advantage to others who'd use one to their own less moral ends; while egoism without objectivity is of course, "traditional egoism" or "subjective egoism" or egotism. Objectivity and egoism are inseparable, so can't be isolated. (I think).