Ayn Rand on the Origins of Altruism

[Donovan A.]

Hello everyone,

I need help finding a reference again. I recall listening to an Ayn Rand interview where she was asked if she knew where the idea of altruism came from. From my memory, I believe she stated: we don't know exactly.

She may have also said something about the Orphics or Oriental mystics. Any help finding this interview would be outstanding and greatly appreciated.

Best regards,

Randall

[Donovan A.]

Never mind. I found it: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_qa

[BaalChatzaf]

Hello everyone,

I need help finding a reference again. I recall listening to an Ayn Rand interview where she was asked if she knew where the idea of altruism came from. From my memory, I believe she stated: we don't know exactly.

She may have also said something about the Orphics or Oriental mystics. Any help finding this interview would be outstanding and greatly appreciated.

Best regards,

Randall

Altruism is the human ability to co-operate bent out of shape. Humans (our kind of human) succeeded because we were able to share ideas, act co-operatively when necessary and guarantee our survival by joint actions and mutual defense. Take this inclination to get along with one's neighbor and even do him a favor or cut him some slack, then twist this inclination and you have the malignant version which Ayn Rand identified as altruism.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Donovan A.]

What I actually think is a far more interesting question is the relationship between social metaphysics and altruism.

Ayn Rand wrote the following: "From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented altruism."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/second-handers.html

Cause or effect question: Does altruism cause social metaphysics or does social metaphysics cause altruism?

[9thdoctor]

I recall in his lectures on the history of philosophy, it had to be in the 'Kant to the Present' one, Peikoff identifies Fichte as the earliest explicitly altruist moralist. Fichte came between Kant and Comte, so that’s probably where you’ll find this comment from him in the course.

These lectures date from the early seventies, so presumably Rand agreed.

[BaalChatzaf]

Ayn Rand wrote the following: "From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented altruism."

?

That is a gross oversimplification of history.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

[caroljane]

"Oversimplification" is a very benign description. Rand's view of history is so selective that I am convinced she knew even less of history than she did of psychology.

[anthony]

Ayn Rand wrote the following: "From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented altruism."

?

That is a gross oversimplification of history.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

Only if you read it only as historical fact (and there must be untold numbers of instances of this in actuality, anyway) - instead of the over-arching concept, as she apparently meant it to be taken.

One doesn't need to be a proficient historian to draw such general conclusions.

btw - your #3 is a thoughtful and good one. I like the phrase "malignant version".

[Guyau]

Notice in Rand’s excellent oral remarks linked in #2 that she realizes dogma of self-sacrifice is as old as mysticism, whether sacrifice of a person is to gods or for other people. That is much older than the invention of the wheel, which can be read about here and here.

The remark from Roark’s speech is a good joke, but it is not a good insight into the psychology of altruism in my estimation. That is, leaving aside the invention of the wheel specifically and just considering any inventiveness in human coping (or playing) with nature, I do not think altruism gets its allure mainly out of a desire to enslave creators. Furthermore, I do not think Nathaniel Branden’s (Oct. 1963) elaborate attempt to explain the appeal of altruism to (defective) people who subscribe to it and sacrifice themselves for others gets to the main of it. Connection of altruism to natural human benevolence, the benevolence proclaimed in the prelude to Roark’s speech, probably touches one root, a virtuous one, but I expect there is much more in human psychology ready for the ennoblement of altruism than these roots, depraved or good (and some of that more is surely pointed to in #3).

[caroljane]

In altruism I think there is implicit a sense of "paying backwards", of remembering those who have helped us or enabled us to survive threatening situations. Rand, who notably said "Nobody helped me" and considered herself a lone, persecuted individual, does not address this aspect of life, as far as I know,

[BaalChatzaf]

In altruism I think there is implicit a sense of "paying backwards", of remembering those who have helped us or enabled us to survive threatening situations. Rand, who notably said "Nobody helped me" and considered herself a lone, persecuted individual, does not address this aspect of life, as far as I know,

The idea of the atomic individual is absurd. For the first two years of our lives we are helpless and cared for by others (or we perish). We learn how to talk and think from others. The Me and Me Alone idea is a failure.

Between birth and some age (it varies) we are NOT autonomous.

Ba'al; Chatzaf

[caroljane]

This strikes a chord with me. For the first two months of my life my mother was unable to care for me. If I had had no present father, no other family, no one whose responsibility it was to preserve my life, there would be no me.

[caroljane]

I will say further on this. My husband also was separated from his mother for the first two months of his life ( we did not know this until we had been married for a few years). He was in an Edinburgh hospital, incidentally one referenced in the "failure to thrive" studies. He was born severely underweight and missing a rib due to maternal malnutrition ( his mother gave most of her rations to her two older children - it was wartime). He remained underweight but did not die. the regime was a four-hour one, change and feed for the overworked nurses.

After two months his mother begged to take him home but was refused . It took a demand from his father who got special leave from a Birmingham munititions factory, to get him out,

The family story goes that the |Matron took a fancy to him, picked him up and cuddled him and harboured thoughts of adopting him, regardless of regulations.

When he got home he was still underweight and pretty unaesthetic. As his older sister said, he was not like any baby she had seen, he was "All eyes".

Despite the rib his life showed that his heart was XXL.

Thank you Matron, wherever you are. You saved his life with love, and spread love unto the generations.

[Reidy]

This would seem to be an anthropological question whose answer lies deep in prehistory. Is anybody out there aware of any data?

[anthony]

Notice in Rand’s excellent oral remarks linked in #2 that she realizes dogma of self-sacrifice is as old as mysticism, whether sacrifice of a person is to gods or for other people. That is much older than the invention of the wheel, which can be read about here and here.

The remark from Roark’s speech is a good joke, but it is not a good insight into the psychology of altruism in my estimation. That is, leaving aside the invention of the wheel specifically and just considering any inventiveness in human coping (or playing) with nature, I do not think altruism gets its allure mainly out of a desire to enslave creators. Furthermore, I do not think Nathaniel Branden’s (Oct. 1963) elaborate attempt to explain the appeal of altruism to (defective) people who subscribe to it and sacrifice themselves for others gets to the main of it. Connection of altruism to natural human benevolence, the benevolence proclaimed in the prelude to Roark’s speech, probably touches one root, a virtuous one, but I expect there is much more in human psychology ready for the ennoblement of altruism than these roots, depraved or good (and some of that more is surely pointed to in #3).

Stephen: Yes, I see it is, at least partly, "a good joke" on her part, if a wry one. And many a true word is spoken in jest.

Outside that, as I see it one's starting place is all-critical: beginning as altruist (self-sacrificing, or others-to-self-sacrificing) there can only eventuate loss of selfhood. From there on, no place to manoeuvre, basically.

Beginning as egoists, all things among men are more than possible and endlessly beneficial.

I have the admittedly radical conviction that altruism--in the broadest sense--is also living through, and by, others (their standards, their indulgence, allowance, authority, approval, etc.)- not merely for, to serve them. I still am unsure whether Objectivism supports this.

[Guyau]

Tony, I think your concept of altruism “in the broadest sense” is a real form of it, one to which Rand gave much thought and press. I agree that beginning with altruism, self-sacrifice for the benefit of others, as the launch into moral value is incoherent and not viable. However, consider the uniform way in which Rand in her literature, notwithstanding that she would not let her heroes live for another person, would let them voluntarily risk losing their life to preserve (not only their own integrity, but) the life of a dear friend or lover. I wonder if that sort of tradeoff, whether for integrity or for loved one, is related to something Nathaniel Branden mentioned (in Vision or Years – I don’t locate the cite quickly), namely, a human need for exaltation. And then I wonder if some occasions of self-sacrifice, by forfeiture of one’s life, for the sake of securing a political regime that will benefit only others, the survivors, is also a breakout of that need.

Peter in #14 is surely correct.

Posts 11 and 10, I agree, name some important, innocent conditions for altruism. Branden rounded his Objectivist views on benevolence and goodwill in Years (p. 261) and in Vision Epilogue (pp. 551–53).

[Samson Corwell]

Suffice to say, there isn't really an origin of altruism. It's just been with us the whole time.

[caroljane]

It's probably why there is an "us".

[Guyau]

I recall in his lectures on the history of philosophy, it had to be in the 'Kant to the Present' one, Peikoff identifies Fichte as the earliest explicitly altruist moralist. Fichte came between Kant and Comte, so that’s probably where you’ll find this comment from him in the course.

These lectures date from the early seventies, so presumably Rand agreed.

Thanks for this lead, Dennis.

I trust it be will be understood that on this day (20 August) it is my own pleasure in your continued joy of life, but a pleasure not independent of the objective goodness of its object, to wish you a very HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

[caroljane]

O Zeus! Another one!

LLAP, 9Doc

[9thdoctor]

Thanks. Because of the Dr. Who origin of my screen name I wanted the software to show my age as nine hundred something, but MSK said it couldn't be done. For anyone who is dying to know the real number, just Google "the answer to life, the universe, and everything".

[caroljane]

That is right, just what I found out too. Although 113 the computer says I cannot get older than 100. Suits me!

Carol

forever young

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

A much deserved happy birthday to you.

May oodles of good things happen to you and you perceive them well.

Kat and I love you being around.

Michael & Kat

[Brant Gaede]

Notice in Rand’s excellent oral remarks linked in #2 that she realizes dogma of self-sacrifice is as old as mysticism, whether sacrifice of a person is to gods or for other people. That is much older than the invention of the wheel, which can be read about here and here.

The remark from Roark’s speech is a good joke, but it is not a good insight into the psychology of altruism in my estimation. That is, leaving aside the invention of the wheel specifically and just considering any inventiveness in human coping (or playing) with nature, I do not think altruism gets its allure mainly out of a desire to enslave creators. Furthermore, I do not think Nathaniel Branden’s (Oct. 1963) elaborate attempt to explain the appeal of altruism to (defective) people who subscribe to it and sacrifice themselves for others gets to the main of it. Connection of altruism to natural human benevolence, the benevolence proclaimed in the prelude to Roark’s speech, probably touches one root, a virtuous one, but I expect there is much more in human psychology ready for the ennoblement of altruism than these roots, depraved or good (and some of that more is surely pointed to in #3).

Sometimes selfishness is self-sacrifice and sometimes altruism is selfish. It has to do with the balance between subjective and objective, as in all valuing. (Objective valuation comes from objective evaluation and knowledge of the humanity in a human generally speaking though apropos to oneself, mental and physical, and is more basic than subjective valuing.) The basic problem with altruism per se is outside these contexts and inside the morally controlling and politically controlling contexts or the people who want power over you and others--(selfish altruists!?). Individualists are sans that and that was made explicit in Rand's gift to them (us), but she rejected too much and muddied the waters for the sake of the rhetorical power of "selfishness" when she ironically had a jejune and phonied up definition ("concern with one's own interests"). But it is true that there's a sharp divide between the collectivists and individualists here and that was what was stunningly right about her position.

--Brant

[anthony]

Brant: I do think that altruism would have petered out long ago, if not for its "selfish altruist" psychological component. It has a 'feel good' factor, evidently. You can do something simply human (like helping an old girl cross the road), feel the rush of a good deed done and being needed, modestly tell friends about it - and smugly convince yourself you 'sacrificed' - well, what?

Well, something.

When such altruism is elevated to moral status - when it's really just voluntary good will to others, or immediate concern for their state - it washes away benevolence as a virtue.

Rand cut through all the b.s. with a dose of honesty and truth, and left the 'moral' self-congratulators with not a leg to stand on.

(These are 'the givers', but there're also the takers: power-grabbers in the name of 'morality' deserve the lowest rungs in Hades.)

At best, altruism is a palliative and at worst, extremely vicious.