Hypothesis: Dictators aren't altruists

[anthony]

I think you have to read what I've posted in its entirety. Quoting one brief post is hardly representative or just. I refuse to be forced into a dichotomy, when I have made distinctions, galore.

Explicit, implicit...etc etc. One act, or a lifetime of acts...etc.

The behaviour of AR/NB isn't important to me, its their principles that count.

The only question is: do Objectivists hold to their moral base, or do they become political animals like everyone? You can't oppose a thug or dictator with what he does best - political force.

No one is on trial here.

--Brant

Thanks, I realise that, but the ideas are -as they should be: I admit I feel strongly about them.

[Ellen Stuttle]

According to Ellen there are ___? categories. How many? And name them, please.

Tony,

Just acknowledging the question. It's unanswerable because not applicable to the ways in which I actually think about psychology. I don't think about psychology in Objectivist style, just as I don't think about art in Objectivist style. I'd have to write a long piece to give an indication of my actual methods. I don't feel up to writing on the subject at this time. Maybe another time.

Ellen

[anthony]

Tony,

An altruist is someone who holds that the good of everyone else is more important than his own--or maybe he preaches that but does not believe it for his own life.

Those are the only two meanings of altruist within this context that make any sense to me.

I don't see how that fits "thug."

Maybe you are watering down "altruist" to mean "bad guy in general"?

OK... that was loaded. Let me try it again.

Maybe you are broadening the concept of "altruist" to mean "bad guy in general"?

If so, go for it. But I don't use that meaning. I doubt Rand did, either.

Michael

EDIT: Here's an added thought. When Rand posited the Attila and the Witch Doctor as two of the prime movers in human history, in my understanding the Witch Doctor promoted holding a god or gods as more important than the individual. The Attila didn't really care. He just reaped the results, meaning he had to bash heads a little less to get and keep power if the Witch Doctor said the gods had chosen him to be the head honcho.

The modern-day Witch Doctor added altruism to God. At times he replaced God with society, or even served up a blend of the two, but the altruism was always attached to that. I don't recall altruism ever being a floating ideal as an end-in-itself cut off from everything else. And like yesteryear, the modern-day Attila still doesn't give a crap. He just wants the power.

Michael, Broadening the concept, certainly - but well in keeping with AR's parameters, far as I can tell.

I've been thinking lately that it's not as if Rand put a completely new definitive spin on "altruism" as she did with "selfishness", but she did deduce the premises and extrapolate the consequences of the concept, like nobody else has.

As you may recall, she wrote :

"The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice - which means self-immolation [...] - which means the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as the standard of the good".

Anyhow, in my understanding, it's not altruism itself- as primary - that she tore into, nor the benign and benevolent aspects of humanity - but the loss, surrender, denial (whatever you choose to call it) of the sanctity of consciousness, of man's mind, of man's "self-made soul".

Right there is a man's singular and greatest possible 'sin'.

(Which you already know, but just as background to this.)

So the impossibility (ultimately) of fully practising altruism, is lesser to the immense immorality of making that sacrifice...in the ATTEMPT to practise it.

The irony, as I gather Rand indicated, is that the dictator (or thug) is considered the ultimate egoist- when the truth is that he is almost totally self-less.

I have come across some nasty types of people, as you have. From my experience I am left with the impression today of individuals who're stone-empty - not simply of compassion - but of that sense of selfhood. They need, and in fact, feed on other people.

Which very, very broadly and advisedly explains a dictator- sincerely altruist, existing through, by and for others.

Perhaps, he is the only possible altruist: with a combination of almost complete self-lessness, and the power to have his way with a populace, he can for a time sustain that which is unsustainable in reality. Rationally-speaking, he is immoral to himself for his sacrifice of self - foremost- before we even get to judging his acts against mankind.

Power-lust and second-handedness are interconnected with altruism in a way that admittedly seems tenuous at first.

Attila, then, is as much an altruist-collectivist as is the Witch Doctor, doncha agree? He has the brute force, is all.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Attila, then, is as much an altruist-collectivist as is the Witch Doctor, doncha agree?

Tony,

Nope.

Not according to Rand's meanings.

Collectivist, maybe, but not always. Altruist, rarely.

Anti-conceptual mentality, yup. (Whim worshiper, and so on: yup.)

Check the literature if you are in doubt.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The original material in For the New Intellectual is philosophy as art. I'm sure it was repellant to professional philosophers generally speaking quite apart from the ideas being discussed, and still is. The rest of the book is riven from her fiction. I don't think Attilla needs a Witch Doctor save as he needs the other minions to do his bidding. When he needs their stuff for himself--his inner life--is when he believes in their beliefs too, like in ancient Egypt. So it's not Attila needing the Witch Doctor so much as the whole country needing witch doctoring so he goes along with it if only on the surface. It's Thomas Jefferson going to church every Sunday while President. He was sanctioning religion per se, but didn't so much need the sanction of religion in turn. The irony of Rand's non-fiction writings in both substance and syle and some of the fiction is they are sanctioning of her art in a quasi religious way. Galt's Speech might as well be Galt's Sermon. But the fiction cannot sanction the philosophy. You need the real, actual world out there for that. That would be like things that work sanctioning the thinks.

There is a tremendous amount of things (that work)-thinks in her work regardless. If you think you are an Objectivist do you think you are a cow, constantly shewing its cud or do you think you are Prometheus bringing fire to mankind or some combo of that or something else entirely?

--Brant

moo, moo, bang, bang!

[anthony]

Attila, then, is as much an altruist-collectivist as is the Witch Doctor, doncha agree?

Tony,

Nope.

Not according to Rand's meanings.

Collectivist, maybe, but not always. Altruist, rarely.

Anti-conceptual mentality, yup. (Whim worshiper, and so on: yup.)

Check the literature if you are in doubt.

Michael

The literature is clear - check those quotes in #109.

(And all over the place, in her fiction and non-fiction.)

Dictator -> power-lusting, second-hander-> therefore, self-less -> therefore, altruist.

The larger principle is indeed 'altruism-collectivism': we can separate them out for identification purposes, but breaking them up (their combined impact) altogether, allows a lot of bad stuff to slip through the cracks unnoticed.

[merjet]

The literature is clear - check those quotes in #109.

(And all over the place, in her fiction and non-fiction.)

Dictator -> power-lusting, second-hander-> therefore, self-less -> therefore, altruist.

Ayn Rand did not use "altruism" uniformly. As shown in the first Lexicon entry, she said, "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." A dictator may be an advocate of self-sacrifice by others and in practice sacrifice others, but completely reject self-sacrifice of himself. Another person may practice self-sacrifice (of himself). Condensing all these behaviors into one category confounds significant differences.

She also said, "altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites." That portrays altruism more broadly than simply self-sacrifice (of one's self).

[anthony]

"Superficially these two [the man of faith and the man of force] may appear to be opposites, but observe what they have in common: a consciousness held down to the *perceptual* method of functioning..."[AR]

Attila and the Witch Doctor serves as a terrific allegory: Their inter-dependence and uneasy collaboration, for the control of mankind - of his body and his spirit.

The allegory extends to the consciousness of each individual, too. A battle for the upper hand within our own minds: soul vs body. A false dichotomy that flourishes to this day.

The allegory relates to the historical 'mystical-intrinsicism/secular-scepticism' false dichotomy, as well.

I think we give religious altruism a little too much credit and blame. Sure, the altruism of Compte's time was traditionally social-religious. (He not only coined the word, but wrote the most evil crap about every infant being born into automatic servitude to others.)

So, service to our brother began with religion, but time passes and today -thank god- it doesn't have the power (in the West) to impose too much of it on us. It can usually be avoided, short of a theocracy.

But look around, and we see that altruism has another form, one that is certainly being forced on us - by State and Society.

'Progressivism', by its nature is force. Bankrupt of rational principle, it mimicked wholesale the altruism of religion - and has forced it upon an increasingly selfless world.

Attila borrowed or stole the Witch Doctor's mystical altruism, and can now rationalize or justify any force, without him. I ask, how does one contest progressivism if we don't know its "self-less" premises?

[anthony]

The literature is clear - check those quotes in #109.

(And all over the place, in her fiction and non-fiction.)

Dictator -> power-lusting, second-hander-> therefore, self-less -> therefore, altruist.

Ayn Rand did not use "altruism" uniformly. As shown in the first Lexicon entry, she said, "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." A dictator may be an advocate of self-sacrifice by others and in practice sacrifice others, but completely reject self-sacrifice of himself. Another person may practice self-sacrifice (of himself). Condensing all these behaviors into one category confounds significant differences.

She also said, "altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites." That portrays altruism more broadly than simply self-sacrifice (of one's self).

Merlin, all true, as far as it goes. But the self-sacrifice Rand indicates in your first quote is - sacrifice of consciousness. Period. "Self-denial, self-destruction". Sacrifice to others is one means to that end, but not the only. What I've suggested is that self-sacrifice is explicit AND implicit. I see the self-destruction of consciousness as a prerequisite to the sacrificing to others' lives.

Any person who explicitly demands sacrifice of others to himself, has implicitly sacrificed himself to others -too.

He is self-less, therefore altruist, by definition.

The concept is most certainly broad, leaving the essential distinctions to ourselves to identify.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ayn Rand did not use "altruism" uniformly. As shown in the first Lexicon entry, she said, "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." A dictator may be an advocate of self-sacrifice by others and in practice sacrifice others, but completely reject self-sacrifice of himself. Another person may practice self-sacrifice (of himself). Condensing all these behaviors into one category confounds significant differences.

She also said, "altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites." That portrays altruism more broadly than simply self-sacrifice (of one's self).

Plus, sez who regarding the truth of her assertions? She does. And talk about "package- dealing" (at which Rand was a master).

The first quote is from "Faith and Force...." I don't see the second on a quick look. The Lexicon entries for "Altrusim" comprise more than seven pages.

I'll read through the whole set later. I'm curious to refresh my memory of what other decrees she made on the subject.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

"Superficially these two [the man of faith and the man of force] may appear to be opposites, but observe what they have in common: a consciousness held down to the *perceptual* method of functioning..."

Again, sez Rand. And sez Rand that there is such a thing as "a perceptual method of functioning."

Ellen

[anthony]

Merlin's valid remarks prompted this thought: It is completely feasible to be "self-less", alone on a desert island.

One doesn't need 'others' to be selfless.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Merlin's valid remarks prompted this thought: It is completely feasible to be "self-less", alone on a desert island. :smile:One doesn't need 'others' to be selfless.

But one does need others to be of service to others' interests.

An assumption I think you make is that being of service to others is to be self-less.

A question: Do you think that Christ was self-less?

[merjet]

The first quote is from "Faith and Force...." I don't see the second on a quick look. The Lexicon entries for "Altrusim" comprise more than seven pages.

The second is from the introduction of VoS.

[anthony]

Merlin's valid remarks prompted this thought: It is completely feasible to be "self-less", alone on a desert island. :smile:One doesn't need 'others' to be selfless.

But one does need others to be of service to others' interests.

An assumption I think you make is that being of service to others is to be self-less.

Back to front. I said that "being of service to others" is the effect, not the cause.

Self-lessness is the implicit precondition of explicit service to others.

[merjet]

Merlin's valid remarks prompted this thought: It is completely feasible to be "self-less", alone on a desert island.

One doesn't need 'others' to be selfless.

It's also feasible to be rationally selfish alone on a desert island.

[anthony]

Merlin's valid remarks prompted this thought: It is completely feasible to be "self-less", alone on a desert island.

One doesn't need 'others' to be selfless.

It's also feasible to be rationally selfish alone on a desert island.

Yup, and how! The stark contrast explains both.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Merlin's valid remarks prompted this thought: It is completely feasible to be "self-less", alone on a desert island. :smile:One doesn't need 'others' to be selfless.

But one does need others to be of service to others' interests.

An assumption I think you make is that being of service to others is to be self-less.

Back to front. I said that "being of service to others" is the effect, not the cause.

Self-lessness is the implicit precondition of explicit service to others.

Tony,

I don't agree at all.

An example of someone I know pretty well is Larry's and my doctor. He's someone who I think truly is dedicated to a life of compassion and helping, and sometimes at risk to his own physical well-being when he's stayed on the job despite a health problem of his own. But I would never describe him as self-less, instead as someone with a strong sense of personal identity and values.

Ellen

[anthony]

Ellen: What can I say, but the obvious. An empathic professional such as your doctor, for a whole host of reasons, is one of the most selfish individuals of all.

The most important element of this discussion imo, is to highlight not merely the doctrine of altruism, but to highlight what is ~not~ altruism.

iow, how does one comprehend rational selfishness, value for life and benevolence, otherwise?

[Samson Corwell]

"Superficially these two [the man of faith and the man of force] may appear to be opposites, but observe what they have in common: a consciousness held down to the *perceptual* method of functioning..."[AR]

Attila and the Witch Doctor serves as a terrific allegory: Their inter-dependence and uneasy collaboration, for the control of mankind - of his body and his spirit.

The allegory extends to the consciousness of each individual, too. A battle for the upper hand within our own minds: soul vs body. A false dichotomy that flourishes to this day.

The allegory relates to the historical 'mystical-intrinsicism/secular-scepticism' false dichotomy, as well.

I think we give religious altruism a little too much credit and blame. Sure, the altruism of Compte's time was traditionally social-religious. (He not only coined the word, but wrote the most evil crap about every infant being born into automatic servitude to others.)

So, service to our brother began with religion, but time passes and today -thank god- it doesn't have the power (in the West) to impose too much of it on us. It can usually be avoided, short of a theocracy.

But look around, and we see that altruism has another form, one that is certainly being forced on us - by State and Society.

'Progressivism', by its nature is force. Bankrupt of rational principle, it mimicked wholesale the altruism of religion - and has forced it upon an increasingly selfless world.

Attila borrowed or stole the Witch Doctor's mystical altruism, and can now rationalize or justify any force, without him. I ask, how does one contest progressivism if we don't know its "self-less" premises?

I find this unlikely to be important.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I've been thinking lately that it's not as if Rand put a completely new definitive spin on "altruism" as she did with "selfishness", but she did deduce the premises and extrapolate the consequences of the concept, like nobody else has.

As you may recall, she wrote :

"The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice - which means self-immolation [...] - which means the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as the standard of the good".

Tony,

Here's the error. You left out the first part of that statement:

What is the moral code of altruism?

She is not talking about a psychological state, an inference, an automatic result, or anything else. She is talking about a "moral code."

Ayn Rand defines morality as: "A code of values to guide man's choices."

I don't see where a thug chooses to be selfless in his code of values. I can see where he chooses not to think, but I don't see where he holds his own life as the standard of evil (the part you conveniently cut from Rand's words in your quote).

In other words, if you are going to promote a specific meaning for a concept, in order to be accurate, you have to include the genus, not just a cherry-picked a differentia you happen to like.

The genus for the concept of altruism in the quote you provided is "moral code."

Here is the full quote from The Ayn Rand Lexicon (quoting “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,”) for the sake of the reader:

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism 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.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”

How does a thug believe he does not have the right to exist without giving that dime to a beggar? Does anyone know a thug like that? Heh. I've known some thugs who would steal what the beggar had and even laugh about it. Then sleep like a baby basking in the knowledge that he is more powerful than the beggar.

I don't see altruism anywhere in that code of values.

Well, there is one case that is close (but no cigar) I heard with my own two ears and I was stupid enough not to be afraid at the time. I was once friends with a very evil man. He was an ex-cop who had personally killed over 40 men--mostly over disputes like a person stealing from him or a challenge to his authority in public.

(Actually, he told me about a victim who fit the latter case. A guy cussed him out and mocked him in front of a bunch of other cops, then smacked him. He said he did not react at the time other than stare at the guy. He sat on that for about six months. His friends who knew him kept telling him to leave it alone and he kept telling them it's OK. No problem. Then he told me, "But later, when I did him, you should have seen him cry like a sissy." I admit, I felt a shiver of fear run up my asshole into my back when he said that. )

Back to the code of altruism issue. This guy told me that he sometimes did not feel he was living for himself, but instead, he was an instrument of God. He said that God had determined that so-and-so had to die, so God used him as His Divine Tool to transport a small piece of lead from his gun into the body of so-and-so and complete the Divine Plan of removing so-and-so's life. What's worse, I think he truly believed it at some moments. But mostly, that was a rationalization to tell others because it sounded cool. Cheap profundity, so to speak. The truth is he killed others because he liked killing. (And I consider myself lucky that I did nothing to antagonize him.)

You might think that he was practicing altruism, that he had adopted a selfless code, holding the life of others above his own, and holding his own life as the standard of evil, but I don't.

And once again, I seriously doubt Rand would. I agree she would have considered him selfless when using rationality as the standard, but I doubt she would attribute the selflessness to a chosen code of values that valued others over himself. I think she would have placed him in the "whim worshiper" category.

In other words, just because selflessness is a part of altruism for Rand, that does not mean she thought altruism was a synonym for selflessness, or the only cause possible for it.

There are plenty more kinds of evil in life than altruism.

Apropos, it's time to mention George Smith's essay: Ayn Rand and Altruism, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5. You will find very good pertinent passages in it, such as where Rand thought certain dictators like Napoleon did not last because they relied too much on brute force alone and did not rely on altruism. (That one is in Part 3.)

MIchael

[anthony]

Michael,

I can only see -nothing else- that Rand viewed the moral code, the doctrine and practise of altruism as synonymous with self-lessness.

It is the 'self' which is sacrificed, first and foremost. To what, and for what, is the secondary concern.

I indicated earlier that I realise that self-to-others is not the only self-sacrifice that can be made.

Self-to-hedonism, self-to-evasion ...

What comes first?

My basic point is that since we are focusing on a dictator, he doesn't so much choose altruism (although that may well be his explicit justification) but that he is one who is already self-less, to a high degree from the onset. The power-lusting Attila exists through his subjects' consciousness - so, second-handed and altruistic.

Rand bears this out, I think.

For many, altruism may be the other way round. An indoctrinated 'choice' of an impossible moral code which leads them to varying loss of self - especially if they honestly and consistently attempt it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I can only see -nothing else- that Rand viewed the moral code, the doctrine and practise of altruism as synonymous with self-lessness.

Tony,

All I can say is check your premise.

I've given you the material. And there's even more where that came from. It's up to you to use it or ignore the parts you don't want to consider. Your choice.

If you come to a conclusion that altruism and selflessness are synonyms, that's one thing. I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion.

But when you claim Rand thought that, it is not borne out in her writing without a hell of a lot of selective quoting and some "interpretation." I happen to think she was clear enough.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Selflessness is the dead-end of altruism in Objectivism. That's what happened to Katherine in The Fountainhead. Altruism is dynamic, maybe a negative or confused or wrong expression of the life force. There might be something particularly positive in there. Selflessness belongs to psychology or the graveyard. Altruism belongs, at least significantly, to philosophy.

--Brant

not trying to represent Rand save coincidentally except maybe in my first sentence

[anthony]

I've been thinking lately that it's not as if Rand put a completely new definitive spin on "altruism" as she did with "selfishness", but she did deduce the premises and extrapolate the consequences of the concept, like nobody else has.

As you may recall, she wrote :

"The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice - which means self-immolation [...] - which means the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as the standard of the good".

Tony,

Here's the error. You left out the first part of that statement:

What is the moral code of altruism?

She is not talking about a psychological state, an inference, an automatic result, or anything else. She is talking about a "moral code."

Ayn Rand defines morality as: "A code of values to guide man's choices."

I don't see where a thug chooses to be selfless in his code of values. I can see where he chooses not to think, but I don't see where he holds his own life as the standard of evil (the part you conveniently cut from Rand's words in your quote).

In other words, if you are going to promote a specific meaning for a concept, in order to be accurate, you have to include the genus, not just a cherry-picked a differentia you happen to like.

The genus for the concept of altruism in the quote you provided is "moral code."

Here is the full quote from The Ayn Rand Lexicon (quoting “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,”) for the sake of the reader:

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism 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.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”

How does a thug believe he does not have the right to exist without giving that dime to a beggar? Does anyone know a thug like that? Heh. I've known some thugs who would steal what the beggar had and even laugh about it. Then sleep like a baby basking in the knowledge that he is more powerful than the beggar.

I don't see altruism anywhere in that code of values.

Well, there is one case that is close (but no cigar) I heard with my own two ears and I was stupid enough not to be afraid at the time. I was once friends with a very evil man. He was an ex-cop who had personally killed over 40 men--mostly over disputes like a person stealing from him or a challenge to his authority in public.

(Actually, he told me about a victim who fit the latter case. A guy cussed him out and mocked him in front of a bunch of other cops, then smacked him. He said he did not react at the time other than stare at the guy. He sat on that for about six months. His friends who knew him kept telling him to leave it alone and he kept telling them it's OK. No problem. Then he told me, "But later, when I did him, you should have seen him cry like a sissy." I admit, I felt a shiver of fear run up my asshole into my back when he said that. )

Back to the code of altruism issue. This guy told me that he sometimes did not feel he was living for himself, but instead, he was an instrument of God. He said that God had determined that so-and-so had to die, so God used him as His Divine Tool to transport a small piece of lead from his gun into the body of so-and-so and complete the Divine Plan of removing so-and-so's life. What's worse, I think he truly believed it at some moments. But mostly, that was a rationalization to tell others because it sounded cool. Cheap profundity, so to speak. The truth is he killed others because he liked killing. (And I consider myself lucky that I did nothing to antagonize him.)

You might think that he was practicing altruism, that he had adopted a selfless code, holding the life of others above his own, and holding his own life as the standard of evil, but I don't.

And once again, I seriously doubt Rand would. I agree she would have considered him selfless when using rationality as the standard, but I doubt she would attribute the selflessness to a chosen code of values that valued others over himself. I think she would have placed him in the "whim worshiper" category.

In other words, just because selflessness is a part of altruism for Rand, that does not mean she thought altruism was a synonym for selflessness, or the only cause possible for it.

There are plenty more kinds of evil in life than altruism.

MIchael

Michael: I am puzzled that you think I "conveniently" left out that "self as the standard of evil" part of the quote. It's there, still, and would have been pointless if not included.

What do you make of altruism, but that it makes 'the other' as the standard of morality?

(Without much paraphrase of Rand).

As for altruism and selflessness, I think there is a two-way causality. To 'lose one's self', by any means, leaves one a sitting duck for altruism. Or, to (try to) be altruistic, can only lead to certain degrees of loss of self. Broadly, of course.

The selfless, empty thug is of course living by the standard of evil. Except, he doesn't know it - he claims his life is for others: and so it is. He hasn't studied Objectivism.

The "only cause possible", I have already answered.

There are indeed plenty of types of evil, but if you dig enough, they have mostly philosophical and moral roots - and altruism-collectivism features big time. In my only large departure from Rand's exact words- but I think in keeping with the spirit of her words: Existing, through, by and for others.

Premises checked many times, I assure you- both of Rand's full meaning, and through my personal experiences.

I'll read Ghs on the topic too.