Settling the debate on Altruism


Christopher

Recommended Posts

20 Pages in and the debate on Altruism is anything but settled. Does anyone else see irony in this?

Me.

The regrettable thing is that for centuries the idea has been put about that arguing over the meanings of terms, like "altruism" for example, constitutes High Philosophical Endeavour. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact such arguments cannot be resolved other than by mutual agreement. Hence "debating" their meaning is inherently pointless!

Thus there are then two types of people who debate the meanings of terms.

1) Those who labour under this all too commonplace misapprehension, not realising it's a fallacy.

2) Those who enjoy inherently pointless debates.

Fans of 2) are not so uncommon. For example, some people enjoy nipple clamps. There is no accounting for taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

NB: “Altruism: placing others above self. As an ethical principle, altruism holds that man must make the welfare of others his primary concern and must place their interests above his own...”

Rand’s definitions of egoism and altruism set up an opposition between the two such that egoism involves self-interest as its sole principle, while altruism involves only its “opposite”, other-interest, as its sole principle..

I don’t think that is how most people view altruism. My dictionary of philosophy defines altruism in terms of its opposition to egoism, but in a way different to Rand’s. That is, if egoism argues that morality can be explained solely in terms of self-interest, altruism argues that morality cannot be reduced solely to self-interest, but must also take into account the interests of others.

This definition doesn’t place others either above or below the self. It just means that the interests of others must also be considered. From my experience, this is how most people view moral issues, as a balancing of different sets of interests.

Looked at in this way, egoism is a hard sell, because most people will want a moral code to ensure that people are valued for their own sake, and not just in relation to the interests of the egoist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NB: “Altruism: placing others above self. As an ethical principle, altruism holds that man must make the welfare of others his primary concern and must place their interests above his own...”

Rand’s definitions of egoism and altruism set up an opposition between the two such that egoism involves self-interest as its sole principle, while altruism involves only its “opposite”, other-interest, as its sole principle..

I don’t think that is how most people view altruism. My dictionary of philosophy defines altruism in terms of its opposition to egoism, but in a way different to Rand’s. That is, if egoism argues that morality can be explained solely in terms of self-interest, altruism argues that morality cannot be reduced solely to self-interest, but must also take into account the interests of others.

This definition doesn’t place others either above or below the self. It just means that the interests of others must also be considered. From my experience, this is how most people view moral issues, as a balancing of different sets of interests.

Looked at in this way, egoism is a hard sell, because most people will want a moral code to ensure that people are valued for their own sake, and not just in relation to the interests of the egoist.

Yeah,Brendan, well said; there is a blurred middle ground here.

However, if one does not understand or integrate the two extremes of altruism and egoism - by Rand's definition and usage - one can become very lost, I feel. Most people do need, for psychological reasons, the "soft sell" of some combination of both. Just see how conflicted they get, as proof.

My answer to the apparent dilemma is - once more unto the breach! - to integrate egoism, and then, afterwards, to make considered allowances for others.

(That this doesn't seem to find favour among anyone here, does not deter me.)

As long as we can get past the debate of definitions <_< - we surely know by now that Rand was putting forward Concepts, of infinitely broader scope than how these words are popularly viewed.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have not refuted it at all, as the links you gave clearly show.

Hogwash, as the links I gave clearly show.

Do you think Webster's plays word games?

So my definiton is in perfect congruence with that of one of the most reputable dictionaries of the English language.

Here it is again as a reminder:

"To forfeit one thing for another thing thought to be of greater value" (Webster's)

That's the whole ball game.

No, but you do. I comment on your assertion that a sacrifice is a trade, which you have done many times on OL, such as here. Then you pull a switcheroo -- to a Webster's dictionary with a definition that does not include "trade". Since when are trade and forfeit perfectly congruent?

forfeit - to surrender, be deprived of, or give up the right to on account of a crime, an offense, an error, or a breach of contract (source)

Moreover, dictionaries report common usages (that's plural). You pick one from several to suit your subjective preference and ignore the rest. See the several definitions here. Do you see the words destruction and surrender? Do you know what they mean?

It was a higher value in Galileo's eyes.

Oh, you can read Galileo's mind? The fact is you simply took what he chose and called it his "higher value."

What package deal?

Is your reading retention that poor? I have told you several times now -- a package deal of voluntary and involuntary choices, the latter under coercion or threat thereof, e.g. Galileo's choice.

Edited by Merlin Jetton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for self-sacrifice and altruism, one also has to be careful here about defining them so as not to make any act into one of sacrifice or, if not going that far, making almost every act into one -- as in me giving a total stranger spare change at Starbucks so that she can get her latte suddenly becomes an act of self-sacrifice for me rather than simple and rather minor charity. Certainly, champions for sacrifice of the more extreme sort will probably try to compare such minor acts of benevolence with, say, devoting your life, in what Rand and her seconds would consider self-destructive, to some cause or other person. (I'm thinking of the person who, say, decides to give up a rewarding career and personal happiness maybe because she feels duty to her parents -- i.e., to live life they way they want her to live it. Things like that. Of course, without some standard of self-interest, this all becomes very hard to discuss or make sense of -- save by giving examples and hoping the others agree with one's intuitions.)

All the actions described are motivated by self-interest. For example, the self-interest in helping a stranger can be to create a social atmosphere of harmony from which the giver profites as well.

Self-interest of the person giving up a career: feel appreciated by her family, not to lose their approval, etc.

I disagree that all the "actions described are motivated by self-interest." You'd have to define just what is the self-interest here. Yes, you've provided rationalizations that you agree with for an action or for motives, but that's not the same. One would have to have a well enough defined self-interest for the agent in question to tell. And any defining of that agents self-interest in such a loose way as to include all her or his motives would not qualify. (Why? Think about it. There would be no cognitive value added by describing motives as self-interested.)

Also, Rand's view here is that there's an objective self-interest that an agent might be motivated act against. With this and assuming it has merit, Rand can judge a person's motives against her or his self-interest. And, sure enough, this is exactly what she does -- again, supposing she's right about there being such a thing as objective self-interest.

Rand here is acting, I believe, as moral psychologist -- if that's the correct term. Maybe she's wrong or goes too far, but your view here would basically collapse self-interest into whatever motive anyone has -- presumably, even contradictory motives -- and this erase the concept as anything meaningful in this discussion. (Rand can deal with mixed and contradictory motives too: they would be judge according to her same standard of objective self-interest. Now, there are likely tough cases she can't cover here. I'm not expert on moral theory. But the tough cases aren't of the sort you seem to believe.)

Panoptic: Multiple motives. Can an action for the sake of another be both altruistic and selfish? Why not? If I help my wife wash her car, for example, all of the following are true for me: I want her to have a clean car, I want the car to be clean, I feel a sense of pride after I've cleaned the car, I like cleaning cars, I like making her happy, I like to help her, etc. and these might also be true: I would rather have finished watching the football game first, I would like to have taken a nap, I feel guilty letting her do it alone, etc.

Again, all are illustrative examples of self-interest motivating our actions. I don't have any negative connotation with the term, since it is a fact of the conditio humana, biologically hardwired in us.

Again, if one adopts Rand's view, mixed motives can easily be accomodated. The example Panoptic gives has to be divided into two sets of motives -- ones for doing an action and ones for not doing it. The latter -- wanting to take a nap or watch a game -- might be argued, in this context, to go against one's objective self-interest -- especially if one posits that having a good long-term relationship with one's spouse is more important than some momentary enjoyments.

As to "action for the sake of another be both altruistic and selfish," my view is Rand would disagree on this. In her view, an altruistic act is one that definitely goes against one's self-interest. So, it's sort of like asking, "Can an action be both for and against one's self-interest?" Also, if one's looking at motives here, I think her view is that there could be two or more motives for an action and one or more could clash with the others. But I'm unsure how far she went into this and if she considered one motive to be more decisive than another...

In Panoptic's example, it looks to me like there are multiple motives, but they need not be contradictory. All the motives seem to dovetail nicely and this doesn't, in my mind, make for a tough case for Rand's view. And none of these motivations are anti-self-interest, in my view or, it seems to me, in Rand's. His wife would, I hope, be part of his self-interest -- not to be viewed as merely some person who co-habitats and occasionally provides other benefits, but has no special meaning in his life. In a sense, his wife has become part of his self-interest and is very high on his personal scale of values -- and these would, in my view, not contradict his objective self-interest. (How might it? What if he were married to a psychopath and she was, by Rand's standards, basically evil. Then his continued helping and valuing her would likely be acting against his self-interest.)

A tough case might be one where all those motives are operating and maybe there's also some passive-aggression as in wanting to clean the care to rub his wife's nose in how much of slop she is. (I don't think that'd sink Rand's view, but it'd certainly make for a more interesting case.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The regrettable thing is that for centuries the idea has been put about that arguing over the meanings of terms, like "altruism" for example, constitutes High Philosophical Endeavour. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact such arguments cannot be resolved other than by mutual agreement. Hence "debating" their meaning is inherently pointless!

Thus there are then two types of people who debate the meanings of terms.

1) Those who labour under this all too commonplace misapprehension, not realising it's a fallacy.

2) Those who enjoy inherently pointless debates.

Fans of 2) are not so uncommon. For example, some people enjoy nipple clamps. There is no accounting for taste.

Very true, Daniel! The meanings of terms is a matter of mutual agreement. What's important is that we come to some agreement and for some reason, that's very difficult in Philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The regrettable thing is that for centuries the idea has been put about that arguing over the meanings of terms, like "altruism" for example, constitutes High Philosophical Endeavour. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact such arguments cannot be resolved other than by mutual agreement. Hence "debating" their meaning is inherently pointless!

Thus there are then two types of people who debate the meanings of terms.

1) Those who labour under this all too commonplace misapprehension, not realising it's a fallacy.

2) Those who enjoy inherently pointless debates.

Fans of 2) are not so uncommon. For example, some people enjoy nipple clamps. There is no accounting for taste.

Very true, Daniel! The meanings of terms is a matter of mutual agreement. What's important is that we come to some agreement and for some reason, that's very difficult in Philosophy.

I think there's more going on here than merely debating the meaning of terms, but I do think it's extremely important to be clear about such meanings from the start for reasons that should be obvious.

Also, usually I've found people tend to define terms not so much because they're enamoured to particular words, but because they're trying to be clear about the underlying concepts and often trying to undo what's unclear in the common usage. Self-interest is a case in point. Rand wasn't trying to confuse people by her usage -- or so I believe.rolleyes.gif Instead, it seems to me she was trying to overcome the default view of conventional morality -- and of most moralities -- that anything smacking of self-interest was, at best, amoral and, more than likely, immoral. In fact, the usual tack I find even to this day is if you do something out of self-interest than it's regarded as not being motivated by morality or principle. (This seems to be the view of moral philosophers like Peter Singer -- as I got from reading his works, such as How Are We to Live? : Ethics in an Age of Self-Interest, the title of which should already reveal what he believes morality to be about. Let me give away the ending: if it's anything at all, it's not self-interested.rolleyes.gif) Often, too, the default view of anything is a historical accident -- in Rand's terms, a package-deal -- albeit, for most holding it, likely an unwitting one. (I kind of lean toward "rational reconstruction" here: one starts with the cultural defaults and tries to rebuild these, rejecting views where necessary. Rarely does anyone stand outside everything in a given field and start afresh. I'm not sure if that's even possible, but, even if it is, rational reconstruction seems to be the best of what most mere mortals are fated to do -- if they attempt to do their best at all.)

And the way to resolve the disputes here is, I think, to just admit Rand used these terms in ways often at odds with conventional usage -- think of her usage of "capitalism" in her times -- and try to figure out if the ideas behind her usage have any validity or suggest anything of value. But merely quoting the dictionary seems to me to avoid what she said and wrote on this. (Nothing wrong with referring to dictionaries. In my view, they almost never settle an issue.)

Finally, someone earlier mentioned this debate seems far from settled. I think the person who chose "Settling" in the topic's name was a bit overconfident here. How would such a debate ever be settled -- short of all parties involved agreeing it's been settled, which seems improbable given how far apart on the fundamentals many on this board are. It seems to me, there will always be one or more people who feel the debate isn't settled... (Does it need to be?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, someone earlier mentioned this debate seems far from settled. I think the person who chose "Settling" in the topic's name was a bit overconfident here. How would such a debate ever be settled -- short of all parties involved agreeing it's been settled, which seems improbable given how far apart on the fundamentals many on this board are. It seems to me, there will always be one or more people who feel the debate isn't settled... (Does it need to be?)

Overconfident... bah! I am rarely overconfident because I am often right :) It is a snappy title, isn't it?

Basically, I see the debate between Objectivism and self-attributed altruists (much of society) as miscommunication. This is a much more appropriate perspective than saying society is wrong/unethical and Objectivists are right/ethical. But to resolve the miscommunication, we need to understand the point of miscommunication. I believe the primary point of miscommunication comes from problems of communicating internal phenomenal states. Self-attributed altruists say that self-sacrifice is healthy with full conviction (and they are often right). Rand says self-sacrifice is unhealthy with full conviction (and she is often right). Since both are talking about different but objective events, necessarily conflict ensues!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that usually Philosophers are talking about very vague, abstract things in the first place. If I was discussing chairs, for example, I could show you one or draw one, etc. but how do you draw 'altruism'? I suppose you could give examples but when then what happens is people say things like "that's not altruism" and then off it goes into what altruism is, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, someone earlier mentioned this debate seems far from settled. I think the person who chose "Settling" in the topic's name was a bit overconfident here. How would such a debate ever be settled -- short of all parties involved agreeing it's been settled, which seems improbable given how far apart on the fundamentals many on this board are. It seems to me, there will always be one or more people who feel the debate isn't settled... (Does it need to be?)

Overconfident... bah! I am rarely overconfident because I am often right smile.gif It is a snappy title, isn't it?

If the goal was to stir things up, then it worked. smile.gif

Basically, I see the debate between Objectivism and self-attributed altruists (much of society) as miscommunication. This is a much more appropriate perspective than saying society is wrong/unethical and Objectivists are right/ethical. But to resolve the miscommunication, we need to understand the point of miscommunication. I believe the primary point of miscommunication comes from problems of communicating internal phenomenal states. Self-attributed altruists say that self-sacrifice is healthy with full conviction (and they are often right). Rand says self-sacrifice is unhealthy with full conviction (and she is often right). Since both are talking about different but objective events, necessarily conflict ensues!

I agree with the strategy of going to where you believe the point of miscommunication is and trying to resolve that. I think that since people are coming such radically different approaches and backgrounds, there will be debates over the meaning of terms.

But I probably disagree with your other comments. I have to think it over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answer to the apparent dilemma is - once more unto the breach! - to integrate egoism, and then, afterwards, to make considered allowances for others.

You could do that, but I would say that the chances of gaining general acceptance are slim. For a start, from a psychological – or even purely survival – point of view, we want to know that others are prepared to consider our own interests as important in their own right, and not just as the reflection of the interests of someone else.

As long as we can get past the debate of definitions...

Isn’t that the problem, though? Rand had a particular understanding of the term “altruism”, and all power to her. But if her understanding contradicts the commonly used meaning, she’s not going to be making much headway persuading us that altruism is necessarily a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I debated this issue on Rebirth of Reason starting here.

First, however, I recommend looking at the Venn diagrams here, which were posted later in the thread. Of course, in Ayn Rand's view the two Venn circles are mutually exclusive (don't overlap at all).

It became a little heated, not surprisingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answer to the apparent dilemma is - once more unto the breach! - to integrate egoism, and then, afterwards, to make considered allowances for others.

You could do that, but I would say that the chances of gaining general acceptance are slim. For a start, from a psychological – or even purely survival – point of view, we want to know that others are prepared to consider our own interests as important in their own right, and not just as the reflection of the interests of someone else.

As long as we can get past the debate of definitions...

Isn't that the problem, though? Rand had a particular understanding of the term "altruism", and all power to her. But if her understanding contradicts the commonly used meaning, she's not going to be making much headway persuading us that altruism is necessarily a bad thing.

I think the problem is more that in ordinary usage there isn't a clear idea of what altruism is -- just the default view that it's a good thing. This is no different, in many respects, in how in common usage "freedom" and "capitalism" are mixed bags -- often with contradictory elements. (Think of "freedom." Most people I talk to don't have a clear idea of what it means even in the political context. To a few of them, it can mean merely having the legal privilege to vote. One can just imagine them labeling a prison a free society because the prisoners are able to vote on having chicken or fish for dinner and can pick the warden from among a short list provided by the state.)

Add to this, this is not merely a matter of Rand has her terms and everyone else simply uses different terms -- as if the only problem were translating Rand into English (or some other "natural" language) and everyone would agree. Instead, there are radical conceptual differences and these amount to, in practice, different outcomes in my view. So it's not merely assigning different labels -- as if she were some sort of pedantic philologist who wanted to make sure we used "whom" correctly and that were the only thing at stake.

I also think -- and this is no big leap because I believe she explicitly stated this -- that she often tried to rescue terms -- "selfishness" and "capitalism" -- or use them to shock people into recognition.

Finally, I don't think the goal, for Objectivists, Randians, and fellow travelers must be to persuade everyone. In terms of outreach, they should probably always face the likely outcome of being a minority. But being in a minority doesn't mean one is uninfluential. A tiny minority of people embraced the ideals of the Enlightenment and of Liberalism (in its classical form) and they managed to change the whole world. The actual number of outright "enlightened" or "liberal" people likely was always small and never anywhere close to being even a simple majority in any real world community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

View PostMerlin Jetton, on 19 March 2010 - 06:16 AM, said:
View PostXray, on 18 March 2010 - 03:10 PM, said:

Do you think Webster's plays word games?

So my definiton is in perfect congruence with that of one of the most reputable dictionaries of the English language.

Here it is again as a reminder:

"To forfeit one thing for another thing thought to be of greater value" (Webster's)

That's the whole ball game.

No, but you do. I comment on your assertion that a sacrifice is a trade, which you have done many times on OL, such as here. Then you pull a switcheroo -- to a Webster's dictionary with a definition that does not include "trade". Since when are trade and forfeit perfectly congruent?

forfeit - to surrender, be deprived of, or give up the right to on account of a crime, an offense, an error, or a breach of contract (source)

You keep missing the point. A sacrifice is a form of trade. You engage in a trade because you value what you want more than what you give to get it. When you buy a CD for ten dollars, you have to value the CD more than your ten dollars, otherwise the trade wouldn't occur.

The same with sacrifice. The origin of the term "sacrifice" is religious ('holy act'): to please the gods by offering them gifts, and those gifts were often thought to be very valuable in the mind of the giver. The story of Isaac prepared to sacrifice his son illustrates this.

The trade aspect is hard to miss: a gift is made in order to get something in return thought to be of higher value.

It says: "To forfeit one thing for another thing thought to be of greater value" (Webster's)

"Sacrifice" has spilled into to everyday language but the operative principle remains.

Merlin Jetton
Xray: It was a higher value in Galileo's eyes.

Oh, you can read Galileo's mind? The fact is you simply took what he chose and called it his "higher value."

There is no more need to read Galileo's mind than that there is need to read e. g. a gambler's mind who swears he values keeping money over losing it, and then enters a casino. At the moment he does this, he makes it clear what his higher value is that trumps all others: the kick he gets from gambling.

For Galileo, the value he chose was staying alive. So per the Randian codex, does this mean he chose "life as a standard of value"?

MJ:

Is your reading retention that poor? I have told you several times now -- a package deal of voluntary and involuntary choices, the latter under coercion or threat thereof, e.g. Galileo's choice.

Galileo could have have refused. As did Bruno for example.

Even if a robber holds you at gunpoint demanding your wallet, you can decide to fight back although most people won't because they value their life higher than the money. Here you have it again: the value choice. For a few do fight back despite the danger it entails.

I disagree that all the "actions described are motivated by self-interest." You'd have to define just what is the self-interest here.

Yes, you've provided rationalizations that you agree with for an action or for motives, but that's not the same.

The term "rationalization" does not apply here. For rationionalization is an attempt on a person's part to offer an alleged "rational" explananation for his/her acts actually driven by emotional motives. Imo you confuse analysis with rationalization.

As for defining self-interest, why not borrow from Rand: "Concerend with one own interests" Any objections? If yes, what are they?

Dan Ust: One would have to have a well enough defined self-interest for the agent in question to tell. And any defining of that agents self-interest in such a loose way as to include all her or his motives would not qualify. (Why? Think about it. There would be no cognitive value added by describing motives as self-interested.)

Can you give one single example refuting my point that people's motives are not self-interested?

Also, Rand's view here is that there's an objective self-interest that an agent might be motivated act against. With this and assuming it has merit, Rand can judge a person's motives against her or his self-interest. And, sure enough, this is exactly what she does -- again, supposing she's right about there being such a thing as objective self-interest.

Going by your own standards demanding clear definitons: what is Rand's definition of "objective self-interest"?

Rand here is acting, I believe, as moral psychologist -- if that's the correct term.

Maybe she's wrong or goes too far, but your view here would basically collapse self-interest into whatever motive anyone has -- presumably, even contradictory motives -- and this erase the concept as anything meaningful in this discussion.

It does not collapse self-interest; it calls it what it is.

As for contradictory motives, they are part of human life but there is always hierarchy of personal values operating in every decision me make. The scale then tips in favor of that value which we hold highest at the moment of the decision.

Dan Ust: (Rand can deal with mixed and contradictory motives too: they would be judge according to her same standard of objective self-interest. Now, there are likely tough cases she can't cover here. I'm not expert on moral theory. But the tough cases aren't of the sort you seem to believe.)

On the contrary, the more tough cases we discuss, the clearer the principle can be illustrated. For tough cases always go to the core of an issue.

Dan Ust: A tough case might be one where all those motives are operating and maybe there's also some passive-aggression as in wanting to clean the care to rub his wife's nose in how much of slop she is. (I don't think that'd sink Rand's view, but it'd certainly make for a more interesting case.)

Indeed this could be the prime (self-interest driven) motive as well.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I debated this issue on Rebirth of Reason starting here.

First, however, I recommend looking at the Venn diagrams here, which were posted later in the thread. Of course, in Ayn Rand's view the two Venn circles are mutually exclusive (don't overlap at all).

It became a little heated, not surprisingly.

I agree you can have win-win situations where the interests of various parties coincide. But that’s not directly related to the matter of the primary principle underlying morality, and as you say, Rand would disagree.

I think there’s another, similar way to look at the issue is by classifying moral behaviours broadly in terms of egoism and altruism. There are four options:

1. Rational egoism

2. Irrational egoism

3. Rational altrusim

4. Irrational altruism

In effect, Rand has created a dichotomy by collapsing all the “good” stuff (1) and (3) into egoism and all the “bad” stuff (2) and (4) into altruism. To my mind this is an awkward fit and accounts for all those endless arguments about whether an action is egoist or altruist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep missing the point. A sacrifice is a form of trade. You engage in a trade because you value what you want more than what you give to get it. When you buy a CD for ten dollars, you have to value the CD more than your ten dollars, otherwise the trade wouldn't occur.

The same with sacrifice. The origin of the term "sacrifice" is religious ('holy act'): to please the gods by offering them gifts, and those gifts were often thought to be very valuable in the mind of the giver. The story of Isaac prepared to sacrifice his son illustrates this.

The trade aspect is hard to miss: a gift is made in order to get something in return thought to be of higher value.

You keep missing the point. If I buy a CD for $10, it is a trade, but it is not a sacrifice. There is no coercion or threat thereof. I feel no external pressure of any kind. Of course, whether or not there is coercion or threat thereof is a matter you treat as irrelevant, like you do for Galileo's case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every sacrifice is a trade, but not every trade is a sacrifice. We talk about a sacrifice when that what you give up is of considerable value to you and what you hope to gain is not always immediately visible, for example while it's something to be gained later (like a sacrifice in chess, or some financial investment based on an insider tip) or is a psychological gain that is not obvious to an outsider. When you buy a CD for $10 it's not a sacrifice because losing $10 is not a great loss and the value of obtaining that CD to you is quite obvious. Well, except if you are very poor and you desperately need those ten dollars for other things, like food. In that case it is a sacrifice, as giving up those $10 will hurt you, even if you think that possessing that CD is still more important to you.

Whether you really gain in a sacrifice is not relevant, it is the intention that counts. A sacrifice in chess may misfire because you overlooked some move your opponent might make, or the psychological satisfaction you expected may be disappointing, if only because you cannot always foresee all the consequences of your action (for example giving money to someone of whom you think that he needs it very badly, while it turns out that he's swindled you and that he's in fact quite rich).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really difficult to discuss anything without to define terms first.

Altruism defined as "Ethical theory that regards the good of others as the end of moral action; by extension, the disposition to take the good of others as an end in itself." (The Free Dictionary). The term had been introduced by Comte.

"The individual must subordinate himself to an Existence outside himself in order to find in it the source of his stability. And this condition cannot be effectually realized except under the impulse of propensities prompting him to live for others... Thus the expression, Live for Others,is the simplest summary of the whole moral code of Positivism." (Comte 1973a, 565–56). Edward O. Wilson defined altruism as "self-destructive behavior performed for the benefit of others".

Sactifice means:

1.The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person. A victim offered in this way.

2.Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim. Something so forfeited.

3.Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed value. Something so relinquished. A loss so sustained.

American Heritage dictionary.

Note that (2) is self-contradictory since it's actually means gain , not loss. The use of the word in this sense causes great deal of confusion on this thread.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there’s another, similar way to look at the issue is by classifying moral behaviours broadly in terms of egoism and altruism. There are four options:

1. Rational egoism

2. Irrational egoism

3. Rational altrusim

4. Irrational altruism

In effect, Rand has created a dichotomy by collapsing all the “good” stuff (1) and (3) into egoism and all the “bad” stuff (2) and (4) into altruism. To my mind this is an awkward fit and accounts for all those endless arguments about whether an action is egoist or altruist.

I like this. It definitely doesn't gel with Objectivist lingo. Objectivism might posit that rationality and egoism are tied together while altruism and irrationality are also associated. Again, it's just a matter of definitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem is more that in ordinary usage there isn't a clear idea of what altruism is -- just the default view that it's a good thing.

When people use a label such as “altruism”, they are referring to certain types of moral behaviours. As to whether or not they regard the behaviours as good depends on their view of the behaviours, not the definition of the term.

If someone thinks it’s praiseworthy to help little old ladies across the street, changing the definition of altruism to exclude that sort of behavior won’t change peoples’ view of the behavior. They’ll just find another label. All you would have achieved is a change in labeling.

In my view, Rand’s reworking of the definition of altruism just confuses the issue, and you have to wonder whether it’s based on anything other than word-play with a polemical intent, the whole challenging-2500-years-of –philosophy thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So nobody can accept Rand's version of 'altruism'? Fine, call it by another label. Let's say, um, 'autrisme'.

Imagine for one second that she discovered a brand new cover-all ideology that no other philosopher had fully identified ever before.

After a couple of thousand years, 'autrisme' had become so prevalent, so invidious and insidious, that it affected everything social, personal, religious, economic, and political. In short, it had become woven into the deepest fabric of Man's life. So much, that a completely independent ego has rarely survived past childhood.

The 'autriste', has lost any realization of his personal authority and autonomy. He seeks the sanction of others, just to exist, and they seek his.

Can we start from here? By examining this brand new concept? Playing round with meanings and definitions and relative moralism gets kind of dull. (And with no settlement in sight.) :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WhyNot "So nobody can accept Rand's version of 'altruism'?"

Observe that Ayn Rand doesn't provide any definition of Altruism of her own. There wasn't any need to do so. The meaning of the word, the concept which this word designates was well defined by Comte and elaborated by his followers. Rand rather discusses the deadly effects of implementation of this concept which shape our minds and our civilization. "The basic principle of altruism" she explains- "is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good." (Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,”Philosophy: Who Needs It, 61.)

For Rand words aren't labels, they designate concepts, that is-facts of reality integrated by mind. By analyzing the concept of altruism she concludes that this concept renders the concept of morals null and void.

"There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into one “package-deal”: (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance." (“Introduction,” The Virtue of Selfishness.)

According to her analysis altruism doesn't have anything to do with benevolence, but everything with surrender of value. Altruist surrenders his mind to others, which is an act of sacrifice-that is, an exchange of greater value to the lesser one, or non-value. But value is also not primary concept. Hierarchy of values presupposes existence of the standard of value. The choice of such a standard could pertain to reality, or could be arbitrary. The meaning of the concept "sacrifice" depends on this choice. For example, if the standard of value is man's own life qua man and his mind is the only tool to live as independent, self-sustained productive being, then surrender of such value would be a sacrifice. But if the standard is the life of others, then surrender of one own life and mind would be a gain. However, observe the contradiction inherited in this premise. Self-abnegation effectively renders the concept of gain meaningless. Consider other arbitrary standards of value based on mystic-collectivists-statist premises and you will find the same inherited contradiction. But contradictions don't exist. Sacrifice cannot be loss and gain the same time and in the same respect. A is A.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sacrifice means:

1.The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person. A victim offered in this way.

2.Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim. Something so forfeited.

3.Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed value. Something so relinquished. A loss so sustained.

American Heritage dictionary.

Note that (2) is self-contradictory since it's actually means gain , not loss. The use of the word in this sense causes great deal of confusion on this thread.

Er, Leonid, (2) is not self-contradictory. It might, but by no means necessarily, be interpreted to contradict (3).

Do you need the definition of "self-contradictory"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now