Settling the debate on Altruism

[Dragonfly]

What I was objecting to was the claim that there is NO sacrifice possible because we always act in our self-interest. That makes the discussion, if not the term, rather useless.

I don't think that anyone made the claim that no sacrifice is possible.

[bmacwilliam]

Think instead of giving a dollar to the homeless, of giving money to your adult child, of whom you know that he can use it to save his life. I think it's not very useful to say then that you get "nothing" in return because feelings are not measurable.

You do get something in return. You get what's most important to you, but you get "nothing" tangible. "WHY" you chose this is the realm of psychology. Perhaps the conclusion drawn makes it more clear - here's what I say:

You therefore value your child's life more than you value what you gave up. Your act was sacrificial because it cost you something. That's it.

I think this is much more clear than saying:

I sacrificed nothing because I gained the value of my child continuing living. This makes no sense to me.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[imurray]

I guess I'd like to know more about this: If two actions, one said to be egoistic and one said to be altruistic, achieve the same end from the perspective of the benefactor how would that be treated? Would it be said that both were actually egoistic acts, but one was wrongfully said to be altruistic? Would it be said that the egoistic act was the only act of essential kindness because the motives behind the altruistic act preclude it from being an act of essential kindness? Or...something else? I'm truly curious. I think it has been touched on earlier, but I'm trying to understand and I hope this way of positing it gets me a more direct answer..

Personally, I think this muddies the waters again. I think it's pretty clear, self-evident almost, that when given a CHOICE, the selection/action taken is ALWAYS in the self-interest of the actor - by definition. The ACTION shines a clear light on the value heirarchy - full stop. The question of "WHY" is important perhaps, but we cannot ever say the person's choice is "wrong" or "illogical" without substituting some other value system - I digress.

However, if the person gets no tangible value in return, the act is altruistic because it can be measured objectively, just like the person's preferences and values are revealed by ACTION. The action confers a measureable benefit to the recipient at a measureable cost to the donor, therefore altruistic. Anything else is just pointless argumentation IMHO. Not pointless I guess, but it's just psychological speculation about something that cannot be measured.

Perhaps the person's intention is not altruistic, and perhaps his induction is faulty, that's fine too. We can discuss intention too, but the ACT and the outcome as far as it is measureable, stands on it's own.

Buying my children food or giving them money is plain and simple altruism. Rand would disagree I think and say that I value my life with my child in it so therefore I value their life, so I won't let them starve. This is a self-serving and I believe disengenuious. It's altruistic because your work (money) buys food and gives a survival benefit to someone else. Your "value" of your children is a given (because of your choice) but to say this isn't altruism, is, in my opinion a deception - and one needed by Rand for political and not philophical purposes.

Bob

Good points. I think that it definitely clears things up if you cut out the the speculative and immeasurable and focus on the directly observable and measurable. It makes things far less complex, but I wonder if it's really as cut and dry as that? I'm sure some people will come up with scenarios where the line is blurred. For instance, if you don't feed your children you could go to jail for neglect. What about instances where the benefit is only perceived and not directly observed? For example - a business owner chooses to donate money to a charity (and for arguments sake, doesn't claim it on their taxes) for the perceived benefit that being known as a "good guy" in the community will get him more business. Six months later business hasn't changed much - no significant gain or loss; however the fact that there was no loss is a perceived gain because another store opened over that period of time. What kind of act would you call his donation?

I can't help but chuckle here - I really want to just say you're right and I agree with your points. I don't want to risk ruining the thread with petty example, but I personally think that these scenarios are proof that one has to be willing to think pragmatically sometimes at the risk of not having a "perfect" system.

Ian

[bmacwilliam]

Good points. I think that it definitely clears things up if you cut out the the speculative and immeasurable and focus on the directly observable and measurable. It makes things far less complex, but I wonder if it's really as cut and dry as that? I'm sure some people will come up with scenarios where the line is blurred. For instance, if you don't feed your children you could go to jail for neglect. What about instances where the benefit is only perceived and not directly observed? For example - a business owner chooses to donate money to a charity (and for arguments sake, doesn't claim it on their taxes) for the perceived benefit that being known as a "good guy" in the community will get him more business. Six months later business hasn't changed much - no significant gain or loss; however the fact that there was no loss is a perceived gain because another store opened over that period of time. What kind of act would you call his donation?

I can't help but chuckle here - I really want to just say you're right and I agree with your points. I don't want to risk ruining the thread with petty example, but I personally think that these scenarios are proof that one has to be willing to think pragmatically sometimes at the risk of not having a "perfect" system.

Ian

As a response to Dragonfly's points too and I think I can be more precise.

An act (intentional) will always involve seeking something of higher value personally to the actor, tangible or not. This act can benefit the actor, or cost the actor and benefits and costs can be argued all day. BUT don't say that there is no cost or harm to the first individual because the other person benefits - or any other reason. This doesn't make sense. There IS harm, there is cost, his bank account is smaller.

But yes, he does value the other person's benefit (for whatever reason) more than his cost - that's the logical position in my opinion. This is altruism.

In your case, the business person's actions are simply intended to be altruistic, or not intended to be altruistic depending on his assessment when he chose to give. But we can only say what he intended if we take his word for it. Whether it happened to be truly altruistic or not is just a financial calculation and might be tough to determine in your case. But it's not a dilemma. Outcomes don't always follow intention, if you want intention, ask him.

Bob

Edited March 22, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[imurray]

As a response to Dragonfly's points too and I think I can be more precise.

An act (intentional) will always involve seeking something of higher value personally to the actor, tangible or not. This act can benefit the actor, or cost the actor and benefits and costs can be argued all day. BUT don't say that there is no cost or harm to the first individual because the other person benefits - or any other reason. This doesn't make sense. There IS harm, there is cost, his bank account is smaller.

But yes, he does value the other person's benefit (for whatever reason) more than his cost - that's the logical position in my opinion. This is altruism.

In your case, the business person's actions are simply intended to be altruistic, or not intended to be altruistic depending on his assessment when he chose to give. But we can only say what he intended if we take his word for it. Whether it happened to be truly altruistic or not is just a financial calculation and might be tough to determine in your case. But it's not a dilemma. Outcomes don't always follow intention, if you want intention, ask him.

Bob

We know his intention - it was to be seen as a "good guy" in the community which in turn would make him more money. His reason for giving money was to make more money. In my example his bank account is smaller because he didn't reap the benefits that he anticipated, but he didn't lose business despite the introduction of a competitor, so that is a perceived gain.

I'm not clear on the intention part - so if his intention was to be egoistic, but his plan 'failed' because his bank account remained smaller (the only real measurable variable) would we still call that egoism because his original intent was egoistic?

Also, say you feed your children because you might go to jail for neglect and you don't want to go to prison. Is that an egoistic act, even if there is only a possibility that you will go to jail, that is, you can never be sure if not feeding the child would actually have resulted in imprisonment so the benefit couldn't necessarily measurable or observable unless you stopped feeding and actually went to prison?

[bmacwilliam]

We know his intention - it was to be seen as a "good guy" in the community which in turn would make him more money. His reason for giving money was to make more money. In my example his bank account is smaller because he didn't reap the benefits that he anticipated, but he didn't lose business despite the introduction of a competitor, so that is a perceived gain.

I'm not clear on the intention part - so if his intention was to be egoistic, but his plan 'failed' because his bank account remained smaller (the only real measurable variable) would we still call that egoism because his original intent was egoistic?

Also, say you feed your children because you might go to jail for neglect and you don't want to go to prison. Is that an egoistic act, even if there is only a possibility that you will go to jail, that is, you can never be sure if not feeding the child would actually have resulted in imprisonment so the benefit couldn't necessarily measurable or observable unless you stopped feeding and actually went to prison?

The businessman therefore is simply calculating that he'll receive a delayed benefit. His intent is not altruistic. So yes, he is acting selfishly - egoistic. If it doesn't turn out this way, or it's hard to determine, no problem. The measure of the act can't retroactively be applied to his intent. The idea of altruism is when someone willingly calculates that they'll take a material loss for another's gain yet still acts knowing this. The fact that they may have something intangible to gain or value (like a child's life) is redundant - it's assumed in the ACTION. If it turns out to be a miscalculation, so be it.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

Also, say you feed your children because you might go to jail for neglect and you don't want to go to prison. Is that an egoistic act, even if there is only a possibility that you will go to jail, that is, you can never be sure if not feeding the child would actually have resulted in imprisonment so the benefit couldn't necessarily measurable or observable unless you stopped feeding and actually went to prison?

Your children example is interesting though. I feed my kids out of a sense of parental duty/love/altruism etc., and would feed them without the threat of jail. The person who values his freedom over the money he has to spend to feed his child is responding to the threat to himself primarily and the benefit to his kids is not a concern. He is not willingly trading the improved welfare of someone else at a cost to himself, rather in your example he's just paying to keep his own freedom - not altruistic. His benefit to himself is what is affecting his decision. The fact that it benefits others is secondary and is just a consequence. So he has selfish intentions, and in that way it's similar to a miscalculation.

Or I guess it is simpler to say that the benefit to others is not what he values and drives the choice, it's his freedom he values and therefore not an altruistic act.

The interesting part about altruism is the other case though, where the benefit to others is the primary factor. Humans and other animals act this way when not forced as well.

Bob

Edited March 22, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[Leonid]

All examples above which are based on the definition of sacrifice as “Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim. Something so forfeited.” are self-refuting.

1. “Commanders of the Allied forces sacrificed many men, whom they valued highly, in exchange for something they valued higher - gaining a foothold in France”-commanders valued victory more than soldiers’ lives. From commanders’ point of view there is no sacrifice.

2.” Galileo's choice.”-Galileo valued his integrity more than freedom. Had he forfeited it (integrity) and lived in faked reality he would commit the act of sacrifice.

3.“Supposing for the moment this is accurate, then how is the line drawn between trades that aren't sacrifices and trades that are. It seems a very fuzzy one. You say it's not a sacrifice if I pay $10 for it, since it's not a great loss.”-loss is always a sacrifice by definition. It is nothing fuzzy about it if one takes in account the hierarchy of values which is based on certain standard and remembers that concept of value is meaningless without valuator who defines it by qualification and quantification. In Ayn Rand words valuator has to decide “Value for whom and for what?”

[Dragonfly]

All examples above which are based on the definition of sacrifice as “Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim. Something so forfeited.” are self-refuting.

1. “Commanders of the Allied forces sacrificed many men, whom they valued highly, in exchange for something they valued higher - gaining a foothold in France”-commanders valued victory more than soldiers’ lives. From commanders’ point of view there is no sacrifice.

On the contrary, it is a sacrifice exactly according to that definition. It is the real-life version of a sacrifice in chess.

[dan2100]

Too much traffic here to catch up on all posts at this time... But I feel I must make a few comments.

One is that the praxeological outlook can be helpful, but it won't decide the issue here. Yes, in any choice, praxeologically speaking, the agent always selects the more valued outcome -- or, more precisely, the one the agent expects to lead to the more valued outcome. So, praxeologically speaking, there are no sacrifices -- not in the sense of giving up a greater value for a lesser value. This applies even to coercion. For instance, if a man points a gun at you and tells you he'll shoot you if you don't give him your wallet or purse, if you choose to give him your wallet or purse you've, in Rothbardian terms, demonstrated your preference to follow the robber's orders (likely in hopes that he'll spare your life) over resisting. If you resist, then you've demonstrated your preference to do the opposite.

But praxeology can't tell us what's the morally correct path. It only tells us that an agent, given a choice, will choose the higher value -- not whether this should be her or his higher value. This is where Rand would come in with her objective code (and the same for other moral philosophers who also hold some sort of realist morality; I'm not cardstacking in favor of Rand at this juncture) and judge the particular scales of values people have.

Regarding coercion, there were some comments on being forced by reality... Aren't we all! The law of identity spoils all the fun! But as used in terms of morality, before one can decide on what's coercion, one must have a notion of rights in some form. Without this, we can't tell if we see, say, someone pointing a gun at you and asking for your wallet or purse, whether he's an actual robber coercing your property from you or, perhaps, someone enforcing a just claim (as in the case of you stoled money that's in your wallet or purse and he's merely there to get it back).

[anthony]

This will seem ingenuous to you gents, but my impression of Rand on sacrifice has always been the imagery of human sacrifice.

That is, the ancient tribes (Mayans, Israelites, etc.) who on occasion took a member of their tribe's life on an altar of sorts, to propitiate their gods.

At least here is a black-and-white, no argument, case of sacrifice in the Classic sense... the inestimable value of a human life sacrificed to the dubious value of a tyrranous God; or for an atheist (Rand), to the non-value of a non-existent god.

To her, sacrifice denotes all the BIG Values, to a non value.

Personally, this clears those muddy waters of 'what is a greater value, or the lesser, in which context', and so on - besides saving me an aching head, trying to follow you.

Sorry for the interruption.

[Dragonfly]

This will seem ingenuous to you gents, but my impression of Rand on sacrifice has always been the imagery of human sacrifice.

That is, the ancient tribes (Mayans, Israelites, etc.) who on occasion took a member of their tribe's life on an altar of sorts, to propitiate their gods.

At least here is a black-and-white, no argument, case of sacrifice in the Classic sense... the inestimable value of a human life sacrificed to the dubious value of a tyrranous God; or for an atheist (Rand), to the non-value of a non-existent god.

To her, sacrifice denotes all the BIG Values, to a non value.

As in: "If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is."?

[Leonid]

"“Value” presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? “ (Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 121.)

The meaning of this observation is that although standard of value is absolute, value itself is relative. The relativity of values makes profitable exchange possible. If trader (1) willingly exchanges "X" for "Y" with trader (2) it means that (1) values "Y" more than "X" and (2) values "X" more than "Y". The result of free and fair trade could be only mutual gain. Therefore sacrifice is incompatible with such a trade. (Sacrifice in chess is a technical term which actually describes the way to win a game and not used in this sense anywhere outside chess).

The use of coercion/fraud always causes sacrifice as outcome of exchange. But coercion effectively excludes such an exchange from the category of trade and puts it into category of looting. If standard of value based on the mystic-collectivist-statist premises, then the whole concept of trade becomes meaningless, since objectively that would eliminate the concept of value.

[imurray]

Leonid,

That clears things up for me. Thank you.

Ian

Edited March 23, 2010 by Panoptic

[anthony]

This will seem ingenuous to you gents, but my impression of Rand on sacrifice has always been the imagery of human sacrifice.

That is, the ancient tribes (Mayans, Israelites, etc.) who on occasion took a member of their tribe's life on an altar of sorts, to propitiate their gods.

At least here is a black-and-white, no argument, case of sacrifice in the Classic sense... the inestimable value of a human life sacrificed to the dubious value of a tyrranous God; or for an atheist (Rand), to the non-value of a non-existent god.

To her, sacrifice denotes all the BIG Values, to a non value.

As in: "If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is."?

If you are getting a dollar for your penny, then sure as hell someone else is making the sacrifice, and that would be insupportable, morally, to you. (Excepting an investment/profit situation.)

But in effect you are right.

Let's say I value honesty and fairness - would I be prepared to go to some lengths - appearing in law court as a witness, time and expense - to aid the process of justice for some stranger?

This actually happened, and noways did I consider it as a sacrifice.

Tony

[anthony]

Kindness is a "consequence"? Consequence of what? What is she talking about?

I'm no expert, but it seems easy enough: kindness is a consequence of acting 'selfishly'. In other words you don't choose to act kindly - you choose to act 'selfishly' and kindness may be a byproduct of that. It's really the only option as I understand her theory (as others have outlined here); choosing to act kindly would be altruistic and therefore it couldn't result in kindness.

Yes, I think that's well put.

Xray, who would you prefer to accept an act of essential kindness from - an altruist who's professed 'business' is predominantly about duty and obligation to others; or a rational individualist, who reserves the right to be benevolent when he chooses so?

(A clue: the latter is acting out of volition, the first by force.)

Ultimately, only an egoist can be benevolent.

Or put another way: There is none so kind as he who isn't forced to be.

Tony

Tony,

I think you actually cleared something up that I missed. An act performed "altruistically" may be perceived as kindness by the benefactor of that action, however, it would not be regarded as an act of "essential kindness" (as you put it).

Does that make sense?

I guess I'd like to know more about this: If two actions, one said to be egoistic and one said to be altruistic, achieve the same end from the perspective of the benefactor how would that be treated? Would it be said that both were actually egoistic acts, but one was wrongfully said to be altruistic? Would it be said that the egoistic act was the only act of essential kindness because the motives behind the altruistic act preclude it from being an act of essential kindness? Or...something else? I'm truly curious. I think it has been touched on earlier, but I'm trying to understand and I hope this way of positing it gets me a more direct answer..

Ian,

I had to give this more thought (thanks!) and am unwrapping it as I write, so bear with me.

As prelude it must be stated that there are a large amount of mixed premises (on the 'altruist-egoist' axis) by most people, and that has been indicated by other posters. However, it is critical imo, that for identification purposes the two are clearly understood, and separated as Rand did. And she was right I think in her stance that a compromise between right and wrong is the worst wrong.

Imagine being stuck on a lonely road one night, and someone stops, and offers help; one is hardly likely to demand "Are you an altruist? Why are you doing this?" So, yes, at one level, kindness is kindness, and you as recipient will accept it as such.

Why would I far prefer an egoist, in that scenario?

First, philosophically: altruism is an ideology of coercion. Nathaniel Branden says this better than I can in Chris's OP. When one is conditioned, by ones parents, clerics, teachers and government, to unfailingly put others first, free-will is abnegated. Altruism is advocated and expected, therefore becomes an advocacy and expectation.

Then psychologically, the effect of this coercion breeds its own problems for the practitioner. He is having to judge his performance constantly, and either in his eyes, or, as he sees it, others' eyes, or often in the eyes of a 'watching' God, he is always coming up short. he feels resentment, that he is not being paid back in kind by other people (and how does he balance these books, anyway?); guilt, that he can't ever "do" enough,consistently,- and also, that he is starting to hate all other people for the burden they represent; low self-worth, since he has deliberately stifled his ego; and anger at the entire world.

Perhaps the only pleasure in all this for some altruists, is that sense of superiority they feel in the presence of others' pain or hardship. Here is the nastiest altruist, who begins an addictive dependency on suffering, for the sake of his distorted 'ego'.(Mother Teresa, in her diary entries, is a prime example of this.)

Have I put this too forcefully, I wonder? Am I being extremist?

I genuinely don't think so - a lifetime of observation bears out that Rand had this very right.

Kindness from an egoist is not arbitrarily delivered; it expects no pay-back; it contains no gloating superiority; it displays empathy for a fellow human being; it acknowledges that suffering is a temporary condition, not the property of a benevolent (or as I prefer it, neutral) universe; and it is motivated by healthy self-respect and rational choice.

Altruism, by forcing benevolence, destroys the benevolent motivation in men.

( BTW,I recommend a re-reading of those excerpts from NB at the top - he is very inspiring.

Tony

[bmacwilliam]

Ian,

I had to give this more thought (thanks!) and am unwrapping it as I write, so bear with me.

As prelude it must be stated that there are a large amount of mixed premises (on the 'altruist-egoist' axis) by most people, and that has been indicated by other posters. However, it is critical imo, that for identification purposes the two are clearly understood, and separated as Rand did. And she was right I think in her stance that a compromise between right and wrong is the worst wrong.

Imagine being stuck on a lonely road one night, and someone stops, and offers help; one is hardly likely to demand "Are you an altruist? Why are you doing this?" So, yes, at one level, kindness is kindness, and you as recipient will accept it as such.

Why would I far prefer an egoist, in that scenario?

First, philosophically: altruism is an ideology of coercion. Nathaniel Branden says this better than I can in Chris's OP. When one is conditioned, by ones parents, clerics, teachers and government, to unfailingly put others first, free-will is abnegated. Altruism is advocated and expected, therefore becomes an advocacy and expectation.

Then psychologically, the effect of this coercion breeds its own problems for the practitioner. He is having to judge his performance constantly, and either in his eyes, or, as he sees it, others' eyes, or often in the eyes of a 'watching' God, he is always coming up short. he feels resentment, that he is not being paid back in kind by other people (and how does he balance these books, anyway?); guilt, that he can't ever "do" enough,consistently,- and also, that he is starting to hate all other people for the burden they represent; low self-worth, since he has deliberately stifled his ego; and anger at the entire world.

Perhaps the only pleasure in all this for some altruists, is that sense of superiority they feel in the presence of others' pain or hardship. Here is the nastiest altruist, who begins an addictive dependency on suffering, for the sake of his distorted 'ego'.(Mother Teresa, in her diary entries, is a prime example of this.)

Have I put this too forcefully, I wonder? Am I being extremist?

I genuinely don't think so - a lifetime of observation bears out that Rand had this very right.

Kindness from an egoist is not arbitrarily delivered; it expects no pay-back; it contains no gloating superiority; it displays empathy for a fellow human being; it acknowledges that suffering is a temporary condition, not the property of a benevolent (or as I prefer it, neutral) universe; and it is motivated by healthy self-respect and rational choice.

Altruism, by forcing benevolence, destroys the benevolent motivation in men.

( BTW,I recommend a re-reading of those excerpts from NB at the top - he is very inspiring.

Tony

But the fundamental problem with this is the false dichotomy between altruism and egoism. It's simply not either/or.

"When one is conditioned, by ones parents, clerics, teachers and government, to unfailingly put others first, free-will is abnegated."

What about instead of "unfailingly", we substitute "every once in a while"? Is free will abnegated? Is it such a problem to recognize that we all have altruistic and egoistic tendencies? Science says our nature is a mix. Rand says no, our own life is the standard of value. Science says she's wrong, evolution says she's wrong.

What is the logic that demands we must exist at either extreme? What if being altruistic "sometimes" and egoistic "most of the time" is really what "qua man" is?

I'll tell you what happens - Many of Rand's ideas collapse including her ethics and politics. Also, we no longer need ethics of emergency situations or anything other of Rand's square pegs pounded in a round holes.

Bob

[imurray]

Ian,

I had to give this more thought (thanks!) and am unwrapping it as I write, so bear with me.

As prelude it must be stated that there are a large amount of mixed premises (on the 'altruist-egoist' axis) by most people, and that has been indicated by other posters. However, it is critical imo, that for identification purposes the two are clearly understood, and separated as Rand did. And she was right I think in her stance that a compromise between right and wrong is the worst wrong.

Imagine being stuck on a lonely road one night, and someone stops, and offers help; one is hardly likely to demand "Are you an altruist? Why are you doing this?" So, yes, at one level, kindness is kindness, and you as recipient will accept it as such.

Why would I far prefer an egoist, in that scenario?

First, philosophically: altruism is an ideology of coercion. Nathaniel Branden says this better than I can in Chris's OP. When one is conditioned, by ones parents, clerics, teachers and government, to unfailingly put others first, free-will is abnegated. Altruism is advocated and expected, therefore becomes an advocacy and expectation.

Then psychologically, the effect of this coercion breeds its own problems for the practitioner. He is having to judge his performance constantly, and either in his eyes, or, as he sees it, others' eyes, or often in the eyes of a 'watching' God, he is always coming up short. he feels resentment, that he is not being paid back in kind by other people (and how does he balance these books, anyway?); guilt, that he can't ever "do" enough,consistently,- and also, that he is starting to hate all other people for the burden they represent; low self-worth, since he has deliberately stifled his ego; and anger at the entire world.

Perhaps the only pleasure in all this for some altruists, is that sense of superiority they feel in the presence of others' pain or hardship. Here is the nastiest altruist, who begins an addictive dependency on suffering, for the sake of his distorted 'ego'.(Mother Teresa, in her diary entries, is a prime example of this.)

Have I put this too forcefully, I wonder? Am I being extremist?

I genuinely don't think so - a lifetime of observation bears out that Rand had this very right.

Kindness from an egoist is not arbitrarily delivered; it expects no pay-back; it contains no gloating superiority; it displays empathy for a fellow human being; it acknowledges that suffering is a temporary condition, not the property of a benevolent (or as I prefer it, neutral) universe; and it is motivated by healthy self-respect and rational choice.

Altruism, by forcing benevolence, destroys the benevolent motivation in men.

( BTW,I recommend a re-reading of those excerpts from NB at the top - he is very inspiring.

Tony

But the fundamental problem with this is the false dichotomy between altruism and egoism. It's simply not either/or.

"When one is conditioned, by ones parents, clerics, teachers and government, to unfailingly put others first, free-will is abnegated."

What about instead of "unfailingly", we substitute "every once in a while"? Is free will abnegated? Is it such a problem to recognize that we all have altruistic and egoistic tendencies? Science says our nature is a mix. Rand says no, our own life is the standard of value. Science says she's wrong, evolution says she's wrong.

What is the logic that demands we must exist at either extreme? What if being altruistic "sometimes" and egoistic "most of the time" is really what "qua man" is?

I'll tell you what happens - Many of Rand's ideas collapse including her ethics and politics. Also, we no longer need ethics of emergency situations or anything other of Rand's square pegs pounded in a round holes.

Bob

Hmm, and if we are cognizant of our altruistic tendencies and freely choose to act altruistically on occasion...immoral? Is that what it comes down to?

[merjet]

But the fundamental problem with this is the false dichotomy between altruism and egoism. It's simply not either/or.

I agree. As I recall Ayn Rand was asked at least once if something she did for her husband was altruistic. Her reply was that it was not, and she did it for her own selfish reasons.

Xray speaks the same sort of dichotomous language.

[anthony]

Merlin, Ian, Bob,

Did I just waste a few hundred words? Your minds are already made up it seems.

"Science says our nature is a mix."

"Rand says...evolution says she's wrong."

..."and freely choose to act altruistically..."

"the false dichotomy between altruism and egoism."

I've got to be one of the more unorthodox, unversed, O'ists around, and here quite ironically am having to defend one of Rand's most significant and brilliant contributions.

'Science and evolution': What they prove is that we know that in our distant, tribal past, we needed the community to survive, and still have empathy/co operation hard-wired in us. Rand did not deny this. If you still want to be subordinate to the tribe, be my guest - some of us don't.

I tried to show that altruism is the disease; that egoism, PLUS respect and good-will is the cure, and I did not succeed.

The dichotomy between the two exists, and can't be wished away.

Is there an Objectivist in the house?

[Xray]

"“Value” presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? “ (Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 121.)

The meaning of this observation is that although standard of value is absolute, value itself is relative. The relativity of values makes profitable exchange possible. If trader (1) willingly exchanges "X" for "Y" with trader (2) it means that (1) values "Y" more than "X" and (2) values "X" more than "Y". The result of free and fair trade could be only mutual gain. Therefore sacrifice is incompatible with such a trade. (Sacrifice in chess is a technical term which actually describes the way to win a game and not used in this sense anywhere outside chess).

The use of coercion/fraud always causes sacrifice as outcome of exchange. But coercion effectively excludes such an exchange from the category of trade and puts it into category of looting. If standard of value based on the mystic-collectivist-statist premises, then the whole concept of trade becomes meaningless, since objectively that would eliminate the concept of value.

Both Galileo and G. Bruno were put under pressure, with each making different choices as result. Therefore "I had no choice under coercion" would not apply here. Even in a life-threatening situation, we, if possible, keep making choices in favor of the value we hold highest in the situation.

Imo there exists no such thing as "enforced" choice. For one cannot force a person to choose this or that.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Xray

[merjet]

Merlin, Ian, Bob,

Did I just waste a few hundred words? Your minds are already made up it seems.

My mind is made up about what?

I tried to show that altruism is the disease; that egoism, PLUS respect and good-will is the cure, and I did not succeed.

The way Ayn Rand used the word "altruism", it is a disease. That does not imply that altruism is a disease when anybody else uses the word. Another way to say this is that Ayn Rand used a stipulative definition of "altruism", and it is an uncommon definition. (See here.)

Suppose by "altruism" somebody else means simply to do something to benefit another person, including one's spouse or one's children or parents. Is such act a "disease"? You might insist on calling it "benevolent" or "good will" and refuse to call it "altruistic". But there is no law that says everybody else has to do likewise.

The dichotomy between the two exists, and can't be wished away.

Nor can the dichotomy be dictated for everybody simply by you, or Ayn Rand, stipulating it.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Merlin Jetton

[bmacwilliam]

Hmm, and if we are cognizant of our altruistic tendencies and freely choose to act altruistically on occasion...immoral? Is that what it comes down to?

Actually, I think it's basically the opposite - that if we never act altruistically, that would be against our nature and could be described as immoral.

[bmacwilliam]

Merlin, Ian, Bob,

Did I just waste a few hundred words? Your minds are already made up it seems.

"Science says our nature is a mix."

"Rand says...evolution says she's wrong."

..."and freely choose to act altruistically..."

"the false dichotomy between altruism and egoism."

I've got to be one of the more unorthodox, unversed, O'ists around, and here quite ironically am having to defend one of Rand's most significant and brilliant contributions.

'Science and evolution': What they prove is that we know that in our distant, tribal past, we needed the community to survive, and still have empathy/co operation hard-wired in us. Rand did not deny this. If you still want to be subordinate to the tribe, be my guest - some of us don't.

I tried to show that altruism is the disease; that egoism, PLUS respect and good-will is the cure, and I did not succeed.

The dichotomy between the two exists, and can't be wished away.

Is there an Objectivist in the house?

Rand, I believe is essentially correct when she describes the destructive power of altruism if it's the primary ideal. I get this and I think she's right.

What I don't get, when it seems so obvious, is that it isn't abundantly clear to all that problems pop up at both extremes. Again, with the emergency problems. You need to explain why the nature of man, the "qua" part, doesn't involve altruism - in part. The fact is, it does.

Rand couldn't accept this though because of the implications - I think. This is why, and I agree this is pure speculation, but it's what I conclude from her writing - that she intentionally foisted this deception on her readers/followers. I'd like to think I share some of her passion for rationality and logic. I think her respect for the truth though was highly suspect.

Bob

[psychoanaleesis]

Guys,

Regarding the nature of Altruism and whether it is a system man should live by; just ask yourself one question,

"Who do I live for?" and that should answer what is altruism's true goal.

We can base all good arguments from Rand or the altruists but think independently through and through even just for a moment where as if you witness a man serving another and the one who served did not receive so much as a "Thank you."

Where:

One who served = "servant"

One who got served = "served"

Action = "service"

*Scenario = unending biological life

>What do you think prompted the servant to service? Is it for the interest of the served or for the action itself? (Do you see any other alternatives? If so, please, you are free to add)

>With the intent of knowing you ask the servant what his motives were and he says, "It's for the sake of the served."

>or if he says, "For the service itself."

What do you think Option 1 would imply? Option 2? (or so on until you exhaust alternatives)

Should you decide to consider my proposal, remember, Option 1 has no gains whatsoever i.e. purely for the sake of the "served". Meanwhile, I see Option 2 has an extension/implication of gain (whatever that may be for the "servant")

Suppose you are given the chance to practice only one option for the rest of your life, which one would you choose?

As I see it, the goal in man's life is to retain the values he is endowed with and when possible, add to it. Given the example above (which works in an infinite loop) there is no "added value" to the servant's life if he chooses Option 2 but he gets to keep his already existing values i.e. his competency and love for the work itself.

In actuality, since man's biological lifespan is finite and it stands to reason that he can still choose either Option 1 - where he devotes or gives or expends his values solely for another, lose it entirely since the scenario given is without that coin of gratitude.

OR Option 2 - where he keeps it in its entirety but knowing that life is finite, he therefore asks a philosophically defining question, "What more can I do with this finite lifespan?" Consequently, knowing that his value (competency in *insert action* in this case) is good, he seeks other men like himself whom he can demonstrate his value in the form of virtue and they, in turn can recognize that is, appreciate and in response, reciprocate it with theirs.

But, where is the coin of gratitude? It is evident in the fact that he has done good to his fellow and his fellow has done good for him as well, that they seek to find a noble expression which is "Thank you." and this coin, since men have more values than which I have presented, may not be enough to deal with all competent men. Thus, these men invented money which is in essence like a "certificate of gratitude" that others have recognized his talents and it stands as a witness to his competence. Further, it is known to most, if not all men of same nature that one can use this "certificate" to gain access to another man's valuables who did not bear witness to what has happened before and this is where man fulfills his other desires and gains value or adds value to his finite life and in essence, immortalize his inseparable self in the form which all men, like himself, acknowledges.

Edited March 24, 2010 by David Lee