Hypothesis: Dictators aren't altruists


Samson Corwell

Recommended Posts

Did those characters really "sacrifice" their lives?. They spent their lives ...

Indeed, they did sacrifice their lives. They had no lives of their own. See my comments above about Lillian. I am sure that you will agree that James had no life.

But they didn't sacrifice their lives FOR others. Each had self-interested goals he or she was (unknowingly) self-destructively trying to achieve. Each was attempting to use others for his/her goals.

Wynand did partly have a life of his own. Rand presents him as a heroic character who went wrong - wasn't born to be a second-hander. And she was enamored of him. Barbara reports somewhere, maybe in Passion, that Rand cried when she wrote the final scene of Wynand. I cried when I read it. I was expecting that Wynand would have to come to a bad end because of the exigencies of the author's thesis, but I didn't like what happened to him. I thought that there were aspects of his characterization which escaped the bounds within which he was constrained and that I'd have liked to see him set in a different story.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A question for those who think that there are only two categories, rational self-interest and altruism:

How do you classify someone who robs a bank, a convenience store, liquor store, etc.?

Someone who goes on a shooting spree?

A climate alarmist scientist who plays games with data?

A researcher who knows climate alarmism is a sham but takes big grant money for heading a carbon sequestration project?

Lots of other possible examples of course, all of which you'll somehow have to shoehorn into the category "altruistic" if you want to argue that two categories are sufficient for all cases.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question for those who think that there are only two categories, rational self-interest and altruism:

How do you classify someone who robs a bank, a convenience store, liquor store, etc.?

Someone who goes on a shooting spree?

A climate alarmist scientist who plays games with data?

A researcher who knows climate alarmism is a sham but takes big grant money for heading a carbon sequestration project?

Lots of other possible examples of course, all of which you'll somehow have to shoehorn into the category "altruistic" if you want to argue that two categories are sufficient for all cases.

Ellen

I'd say (rational) self-interest is the primary category and altruism is the parasitical secondary category created to rein in, control and generally direct the primary. Individualism vs collectivism. In this sense altruism can be seen as a perversion of natural human generosity and positive interaction latching itself onto that for legitimatization and then minding everybody else's business from a moral high ground actual low ground by way of force and guilt. Sacrifice might be a better word than altruism. Thus all your examples might be covered by that word as in sacrificing others to yourself thus sacrificing yourself to them at the same time for the same reason. If you see this then you can get philosophically fancy and talk about how it's altruism or altruism is (partially-mostly) sacrifice in action.

--Brant

master of gobbledygook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question for those who think that there are only two categories, rational self-interest and altruism:

How do you classify someone who robs a bank, a convenience store, liquor store, etc.?

Someone who goes on a shooting spree?

A climate alarmist scientist who plays games with data?

A researcher who knows climate alarmism is a sham but takes big grant money for heading a carbon sequestration project?

Lots of other possible examples of course, all of which you'll somehow have to shoehorn into the category "altruistic" if you want to argue that two categories are sufficient for all cases.

Ellen

Seems as if you answered your own question by the examples you've pulled up.

Second handers, all of them. "Other-ism", in some way, and to some degree.

Then we can apply the fine sieve...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question for those who think that there are only two categories, rational self-interest and altruism:

How do you classify someone who robs a bank, a convenience store, liquor store, etc.?

Someone who goes on a shooting spree?

A climate alarmist scientist who plays games with data?

A researcher who knows climate alarmism is a sham but takes big grant money for heading a carbon sequestration project?

Lots of other possible examples of course, all of which you'll somehow have to shoehorn into the category "altruistic" if you want to argue that two categories are sufficient for all cases.

Ellen

Seems as if you answered your own question by the examples you've pulled up.

Second handers, all of them. "Other-ism", in some way, and to some degree.

Then we can apply the fine sieve...

That is a very...superficial manner of categorizing those behaviors. I find it lacking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems as if you answered your own question by the examples you've pulled up.Second handers, all of them. "Other-ism", in some way, and to some degree.Then we can apply the fine sieve...

Tony, altruism isn't simply "otherism in some way," unless you want to define the term so broadly it doesn't mean anything like what is commonly meant by it. And if you do define it that broadly, then what term are you going to use for living FOR others?

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus all your examples might be covered by that word as in sacrificing others to yourself thus sacrificing yourself to them at the same time for the same reason. If you see this then you can get philosophically fancy and talk about how it's altruism or altruism is (partially-mostly) sacrifice in action.

Et tu, Brante?

By which I mean a willingness to sophistrize human differences out of existence in order to keep the Procustean bed of O'ist terminology.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen, it looks like you are boarding your own train to head into the tunnel - except it is a Disney ReasonRide with hall of mirrors included... stimulating and fun!

I don't get the image. Sorry. (I suppose that, like a joke, it would be lost in trying to explain it. :smile:)

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus all your examples might be covered by that word as in sacrificing others to yourself thus sacrificing yourself to them at the same time for the same reason. If you see this then you can get philosophically fancy and talk about how it's altruism or altruism is (partially-mostly) sacrifice in action.

Et tu, Brante?

By which I mean a willingness to sophistrize human differences out of existence in order to keep the Procustean bed of O'ist terminology.

Ellen

I laughed reading this though I hadn't yet understood it then I laughed again.

--Brant

but don't agree with argumentum ad Brante

you're the second person ever to call me "Brante"--the first was a guy in my high school class

but if it was sophistry it was pretty good sophistry--maybe I can open a school and teach it--so kudos to you for detecting it!

the shame!--the shame!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world is upside down for me right not because I agree with Ellen. :)

This dichotomy is vastly oversimplified and I find the attempt to fit bloody dictators under the heading of "altruist" to be forced as all get out--unless we are talking about their propaganda methods.

I'm not sure rational egosim versus altruism can be applied to a thug. I think this is one of those cases of: Which is he? One or the other? And the answer is neither.

He's a friggen's bully who gets an emotional rush from dominating and destroying others. Whether he started out that way or grew into it is irrelevant to his final state. Thugs exist just like I described right now. Big or little, they exist that way in their fundament. There's no deeper philosophical there there. They are bullies because they think being a bully is good (until they literally get their asses whipped and the become sniveling cowards). They are bullies qua bullies as ends in themselves.

And oh, do they exist...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world is upside down for me right not because I agree with Ellen. :)

Sure glad you do on this one. :smile:

And oh, do they exist...

Michael

I imagine that you saw some examples up close during your years in Brazil. I saw some of the type closer than I wanted to during the years when I knew a lot of people in the show horse world. Because of the gambling activities involved in horse show competitions, there are thugs around - as well as some very fine people on the other extreme. The full range.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus all your examples might be covered by that word as in sacrificing others to yourself thus sacrificing yourself to them at the same time for the same reason. If you see this then you can get philosophically fancy and talk about how it's altruism or altruism is (partially-mostly) sacrifice in action.

Et tu, Brante?

By which I mean a willingness to sophistrize human differences out of existence in order to keep the Procustean bed of O'ist terminology.*

Ellen

Very nice Ellen!

I heard it in my mind as Bran-tay also because of the Et Tu.

* Procrustean bed also procrustean bed n.

An arbitrary standard to which exact conformity is forced.

In Greek mythology, Procrustes (Προκρούστης) or "the stretcher [who hammers out the metal]", also known as Prokoptas or Damastes (Δαμαστής) "subduer", was a rogue smith and bandit from Attica who physically attacked people by stretching them or cutting off their legs, so as to force them to fit the size of an iron bed. In general, when something is Procrustean, different lengths or sizes or properties are fitted to an arbitrary standard.

OL = Onward Learning.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems as if you answered your own question by the examples you've pulled up.Second handers, all of them. "Other-ism", in some way, and to some degree.Then we can apply the fine sieve...

Tony, altruism isn't simply "otherism in some way," unless you want to define the term so broadly it doesn't mean anything like what is commonly meant by it. And if you do define it that broadly, then what term are you going to use for living FOR others?

Ellen

For my own purposes I have almost disposed of those bandied about terms "second-hander", or "power-luster". If for instance the second-hander-concept exists, as Objectivists mostly think it does, to open another category for it alone would be inefficient or uneconomical.

These terms start to become sloganish eventually. Imo, more elegant and embracing, is "for, by and through".

These represent a huge range and depth - firstly, implicit or explicit - and then from psychological to epistemic to ethical to political, instances of altruism.

Obviously further distinctions are imperative. Those famous 'mixed premises' can't be overlooked.

A person may be explicitly an ethical altruist, but implicitly a psychological individualist. The extreme dictator type, might possess all those aspects - implicitly and explicitly. The permutations are extensive. To do a person (or situation) justice, requires this height of focus I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus all your examples might be covered by that word as in sacrificing others to yourself thus sacrificing yourself to them at the same time for the same reason. If you see this then you can get philosophically fancy and talk about how it's altruism or altruism is (partially-mostly) sacrifice in action.

Et tu, Brante?

By which I mean a willingness to sophistrize human differences out of existence in order to keep the Procustean bed of O'ist terminology.*

Ellen

Very nice Ellen!

I heard it in my mind as Bran-tay also because of the Et Tu.

* Procrustean bed also procrustean bed n.

An arbitrary standard to which exact conformity is forced.

In Greek mythology, Procrustes (Προκρούστης) or "the stretcher [who hammers out the metal]", also known as Prokoptas or Damastes (Δαμαστής) "subduer", was a rogue smith and bandit from Attica who physically attacked people by stretching them or cutting off their legs, so as to force them to fit the size of an iron bed. In general, when something is Procrustean, different lengths or sizes or properties are fitted to an arbitrary standard.

OL = Onward Learning.

A...

Are you guys ganging up on me? I may have to resort to the nu-klee-er option!

--Brant

fair warning!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're the second person ever to call me "Brante"--the first was a guy in my high school class

How did the first one pronounce it? I'm thinking of it as inflected like Latin - like in Julius Caesar, i.e., as Bran-tay'.

Ellen

"Bran-tee", which I prefer.

--Brant

"tee" is affectionate while "tay" is faux snobbish--I mean faux Shakes--I mean if you think I'm putting you down I am and if you don't I'm not (pick one; it's all up to you, heh, heh [read closely])

master of gobbledygook sophistry (I'm putting me up by putting me down; I'm like a cork)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Also, is there any doubt that living FOR others implies, and has consequences of, living THROUGH (their consciousness, their admiration, etc) and BY (their sanction) others? Each connects to the other two, in a three-way interplay.

As I'm trying to indicate, all of one's emphasis on "FOR" can result in conflicted rational egoists, worrying about how and when they should aid other people. The one thing egoism is not, is becoming self-alienated or mean-spirited).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world is upside down for me right not because I agree with Ellen. :smile:

This dichotomy is vastly oversimplified and I find the attempt to fit bloody dictators under the heading of "altruist" to be forced as all get out--unless we are talking about their propaganda methods.

I'm not sure rational egosim versus altruism can be applied to a thug. I think this is one of those cases of: Which is he? One or the other? And the answer is neither.

He's a friggen's bully who gets an emotional rush from dominating and destroying others. Whether he started out that way or grew into it is irrelevant to his final state. Thugs exist just like I described right now. Big or little, they exist that way in their fundament. There's no deeper philosophical there there. They are bullies because they think being a bully is good (until they literally get their asses whipped and the become sniveling cowards). They are bullies qua bullies as ends in themselves.

And oh, do they exist...

Michael

How can you say all these horrible things about me?

--Adolph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question for those who think that there are only two categories, rational self-interest and altruism:

How do you classify someone who robs a bank, a convenience store, liquor store, etc.?

Someone who goes on a shooting spree?

A climate alarmist scientist who plays games with data?

A researcher who knows climate alarmism is a sham but takes big grant money for heading a carbon sequestration project?

Lots of other possible examples of course, all of which you'll somehow have to shoehorn into the category "altruistic" if you want to argue that two categories are sufficient for all cases.

Ellen

Since I've been taken to the woodshed--I mean to task--and failed to impress with my brilliant philosophicalizing (don't think I spelled that right), I'll try the other but unbrilliant way. I'm not disowning my brilliance, of course, only putting another horse on the racetrack (note: not a brilliant metaphor).

--the robber is a taker, not a trader

--the shooter is insane, though if a soldier he might be deluded

--the scientist is not a scientist

--the researcher is smart

--etc.

I have to apologize to my loyal, fawning readers, for putting up this grossly inferior product, but I've been bullied, you see. It's not the first time. I was going to start a cult until someone here--I'm not mentioning names--put a spoke in my bike wheels.

--Brant

Sacrifice is altruism in action!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

--the robber is a taker, not a trader

--the shooter is insane, though if a soldier he might be deluded

--the scientist is not a scientist

--the researcher is smart

--etc.]

But are they altruists, according to you?

According to Tony, there are two categories, rational egoists and everyone else, and all those who aren't rational egoists are altruists.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Also, is there any doubt that living FOR others implies, and has consequences of, living THROUGH (their consciousness, their admiration, etc) and BY (their sanction) others? Each connects to the other two, in a three-way interplay.

Yes, there's plenty of doubt on my part, although you're loading the scene in a way so as to fold in your assumption.

As I'm trying to indicate, all of one's emphasis on "FOR" can result in conflicted rational egoists, worrying about how and when they should aid other people. The one thing egoism is not, is becoming self-alienated or mean-spirited).

Yes, it can do that. I don't think ignoring human differences which exist and lumping all behavior which isn't rationally self-interested into a single category is a good solution!

Ellen

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