Does altruism really exist?


Faust06

Recommended Posts

Hi guys, glad to be back.

Objectivism makes a strong argument against altruism, but I've always doubted that altruism exists in the first place. Isn't everything we do selfish any way we look at it? We simply have different motivations. Helping others because we like to do so, or because of potential help in return, or because we believe it is just.. it's all intended for our own interest, though sometimes it doesn't help us as much as we'd like to believe.. that key word, belief, as well as fear, tend to be the driving forces behind what seems to be considered altruism. I suppose it was important to make some distinction for Rand to drive the point home: you don't live for others, you live for yourself. So-called altruists seem to correlate objectivism with loneliness, as if to break off our dependancy on others.

Do you believe altruism exists, that is, selflessness?

Edited by Faust06
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys, glad to be back.

Objectivism makes a strong argument against altruism, but I've always doubted that altruism exists in the first place. Isn't everything we do selfish any way we look at it? We simply have different motivations. Helping others because we like to do so, or because of potential help in return, or because we believe it is just.. it's all intended for our own interest, though sometimes it doesn't help us as much as we'd like to believe.. that key word, belief, as well as fear, tend to be the driving forces behind what seems to be considered altruism. I suppose it was important to make some distinction for Rand to drive the point home: you don't live for others, you live for yourself. So-called altruists seem to correlate objectivism with loneliness, as if to break off our dependancy on others.

Do you believe altruism exists, that is, selflessness?

See the essay "Isn't Everybody Selfish" by Nathaniel Branden in the September 1962 Objectivist Newsletter.

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys, glad to be back.

Objectivism makes a strong argument against altruism, but I've always doubted that altruism exists in the first place. Isn't everything we do selfish any way we look at it? We simply have different motivations. Helping others because we like to do so, or because of potential help in return, or because we believe it is just.. it's all intended for our own interest, though sometimes it doesn't help us as much as we'd like to believe.. that key word, belief, as well as fear, tend to be the driving forces behind what seems to be considered altruism. I suppose it was important to make some distinction for Rand to drive the point home: you don't live for others, you live for yourself. So-called altruists seem to correlate objectivism with loneliness, as if to break off our dependancy on others.

Do you believe altruism exists, that is, selflessness?

See the essay "Isn't Everybody Selfish" by Nathaniel Branden in the September 1962 Objectivist Newsletter.

Bill P

Alright. I wasn't completely certain it had all been said before, but oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys, glad to be back.

Objectivism makes a strong argument against altruism, but I've always doubted that altruism exists in the first place. Isn't everything we do selfish any way we look at it? We simply have different motivations. Helping others because we like to do so, or because of potential help in return, or because we believe it is just.. it's all intended for our own interest, though sometimes it doesn't help us as much as we'd like to believe.. that key word, belief, as well as fear, tend to be the driving forces behind what seems to be considered altruism. I suppose it was important to make some distinction for Rand to drive the point home: you don't live for others, you live for yourself. So-called altruists seem to correlate objectivism with loneliness, as if to break off our dependancy on others.

Do you believe altruism exists, that is, selflessness?

See the essay "Isn't Everybody Selfish" by Nathaniel Branden in the September 1962 Objectivist Newsletter.

Bill P

Alright. I wasn't completely certain it had all been said before, but oh well.

The essay describes the ERROR in the notion that everybody is selfish. Examine Rand's discussion of the MEANING of selfishness in this regard.

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys, glad to be back.

Objectivism makes a strong argument against altruism, but I've always doubted that altruism exists in the first place. Isn't everything we do selfish any way we look at it? We simply have different motivations. Helping others because we like to do so, or because of potential help in return, or because we believe it is just.. it's all intended for our own interest, though sometimes it doesn't help us as much as we'd like to believe.. that key word, belief, as well as fear, tend to be the driving forces behind what seems to be considered altruism. I suppose it was important to make some distinction for Rand to drive the point home: you don't live for others, you live for yourself. So-called altruists seem to correlate objectivism with loneliness, as if to break off our dependancy on others.

Do you believe altruism exists, that is, selflessness?

Do you recall Mother Theresa? You bet it exists!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys, glad to be back.

Objectivism makes a strong argument against altruism, but I've always doubted that altruism exists in the first place. Isn't everything we do selfish any way we look at it? We simply have different motivations. Helping others because we like to do so, or because of potential help in return, or because we believe it is just.. it's all intended for our own interest, though sometimes it doesn't help us as much as we'd like to believe.. that key word, belief, as well as fear, tend to be the driving forces behind what seems to be considered altruism. I suppose it was important to make some distinction for Rand to drive the point home: you don't live for others, you live for yourself. So-called altruists seem to correlate objectivism with loneliness, as if to break off our dependancy on others.

Do you believe altruism exists, that is, selflessness?

Do you recall Mother Theresa? You bet it exists!

Ba'al Chatzaf

How does that prove anything? She did what she thought was in her best interest to do.. probably to grant her a nice spot in heaven or something. Isn't that selfish? Obviously I can't really know what her true motivation is, but I can imagine the possibilities. She devalues her life in the real world, because she values the one "in the next life".. but to "devalue" something in any context always relates to the value to the self. Had she thought this world was the only one we have, she'd probably seek pleasure and happiness here.

Similarly, people who have "the will to fail" and sabatoge themselves have a problem with possibly fear or guilt. I don't understand the psychology behind it completely, but as a masochist kind of behavior they find it safer and more comfortable to fail. Obviously it is not in their best interest to fail.. but they don't believe so.

Edited by Faust06
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you recall Mother Theresa? You bet it exists!

Ba'al Chatzaf

How does that prove anything? She did what she thought was in her best interest to do..,

Faust06, if you are not going to read the Branden essay in Virtue of Selfishness, you are going to lose the attention of people here who find it less interesting to quote the known, than to explore the unknown. This is not a usenet newsgroup for atheists to harrass pre-committed Christians, etc., Some issues remain unresolved here, but the discussions tend to fall within a range of accepted premises. You don't have to accept the premises, of course, but you then have to be a perpetual outsider.

That said, yes, altruism is impossible. That is why it leads to death. This is not a chocolate-vanilla issue like which career to pursue, but truthfully as basic as the decision to pursue a productive career.

Scholium: Isn't being a professional beggar a "productive career"? Aren't you giving people a chance to feel good about themselves for their altruism? Don't you then spend the money in the marketplace?

Of course, that is a fallacy. It steals the concept of "productive career."

The definition of "selfish" -- from Rand's new concept of egoism -- is not just any old thing that pops into your head, but actually discovering who you are and what you need to survive. As a creature whose mode of survival is to choose, your best interests are met by choosing those goals (and means to them) that depend on and therefore reward volition, perception, and reason. That is what is in your self-interest.

Altruism is impossible. That is why attempting it leads to psychological, personal, social and economic destruction. False egoisms, errorneous "selfishness" is always some attempt at altruism, at placing other people as the goal and means of your actions. Giving away all your money to beggars on the street is one form. Backstabbing your way to the top of a corporation so that you can lounge in luxuries for all to admire is another. In that second example, you could not do that without the other people whom you victimized against their will. If your goal is to get things through other people, then you are not selfish.

Edited by Michael E. Marotta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Altruism exists. It's the morality used by statists to enslave people who feel guilty that they are unworthy of it for they keep coming up short. Or we can say it exists within people and it conflicts with their actual human needs. To say altruism doesn't exist is like saying human rights don't exist or philosophy doesn't exist or that concepts don't exist.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually N.B. took back what he said in that essay (though I can't recall which book it was); he amended his position to state that if everyone is selfish all the time it can be the self-interest of fools. 'Honoring the Self' maybe?

Edited by DavidMcK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faust06, if you are not going to read the Branden essay in Virtue of Selfishness, you are going to lose the attention of people here who find it less interesting to quote the known, than to explore the unknown. This is not a usenet newsgroup for atheists to harrass pre-committed Christians, etc., Some issues remain unresolved here, but the discussions tend to fall within a range of accepted premises. You don't have to accept the premises, of course, but you then have to be a perpetual outsider.

I'm amused that you found it necessary to lecture me in such a way. I started the thread to gain insight, not convince people they are wrong.

To say altruism doesn't exist is like saying human rights don't exist or philosophy doesn't exist or that concepts don't exist.

It exists as much as a concept can, but not beyond that I think. People attempt to practice voodoo magic, that doesn't make it real. As one poster suggested, I don't think altruism is possible. If it's not possible, it's not real.

Edited by Faust06
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say altruism doesn't exist is like saying human rights don't exist or philosophy doesn't exist or that concepts don't exist.

It exists as much as a concept can, but not beyond that I think. People attempt to practice voodoo magic, that doesn't make it real. As one poster suggested, I don't think altruism is possible. If it's not possible, it's not real.

Isn't this like asking where in a person is his rights?

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh oh, the usual Babylonian confusion... The problems arise while people use different meanings for the term "altruism" (and often insist that their definition is the only correct one). It's déjà vu all over again, this has already been discussed extensively on this forum. See for example here, here, here, here and here, and everything will become clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Uh oh, the usual Babylonian confusion... The problems arise while people use different meanings for the term "altruism" (and often insist that their definition is the only correct one). It's déjà vu all over again, this has already been discussed extensively on this forum. See for example here, here, here, here and here, and everything will become clear.

I'm not much of a link follower generally, but I noticed that the links kinda deadened the conversation here. Awareness to the knowledge of different types of altruism is important for a nice discussion. According to NB, the only true choice is the choice to be aware. This is very different than making conscious decisions. Therefore, the only definitively-unethical sacrifice according to Objectivism(?) is to reduce awareness.

Other forms of sacrifice (without ethical valence):

A. External - money, time, etc. (example: parent for a child... not really sacrifice)

B. Psych-Cognitive: Decide to disregard/sacrifice thought processes (cognitive aspects) for an emotional process

-(perhaps because I'm neurotic and recognize my cognitive processes are bullshit)

C. Psych-Emotion: Decide to disregard/sacrifice emotion processes for a cognitive process

-(because I'm neurotic and know my emotion responses are bullshit)

D. Sacrificing conscious choice and flowing with the event

The last is perhaps the hardest to accept, but going with the flow doesn't mean turning off awareness, it means letting things take you where they take you... ceasing to intervene in things, including automatic thoughts, emotions, events. It means no conscious decision-making!

Christopher

Edited by Christopher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys, glad to be back.

Objectivism makes a strong argument against altruism, but I've always doubted that altruism exists in the first place. Isn't everything we do selfish any way we look at it? We simply have different motivations. Helping others because we like to do so, or because of potential help in return, or because we believe it is just.. it's all intended for our own interest, though sometimes it doesn't help us as much as we'd like to believe.. that key word, belief, as well as fear, tend to be the driving forces behind what seems to be considered altruism. I suppose it was important to make some distinction for Rand to drive the point home: you don't live for others, you live for yourself. So-called altruists seem to correlate objectivism with loneliness, as if to break off our dependancy on others.

Do you believe altruism exists, that is, selflessness?

Do you recall Mother Theresa? You bet it exists!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Mother Theresa does not deserve to be on the pedestal you have her on. If someone was unfortunate enough to be in one of her homes where she was dying of cancer and in pain she would discover that Mother Theresa thought pain was a blessing from God and did not offer pain medications but only prayers!

gulch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys, glad to be back.

Objectivism makes a strong argument against altruism, but I've always doubted that altruism exists in the first place. Isn't everything we do selfish any way we look at it? We simply have different motivations. Helping others because we like to do so, or because of potential help in return, or because we believe it is just.. it's all intended for our own interest, though sometimes it doesn't help us as much as we'd like to believe.. that key word, belief, as well as fear, tend to be the driving forces behind what seems to be considered altruism. I suppose it was important to make some distinction for Rand to drive the point home: you don't live for others, you live for yourself. So-called altruists seem to correlate objectivism with loneliness, as if to break off our dependancy on others.

Do you believe altruism exists, that is, selflessness?

Faust06,

Read Rand's essays in The Virtue of Selfishness, For the New Intellectual and several essays on Altruism in The Objectivist Newsletter which paint a very different picture of just what Altruism is. Altruism holds that one should hold the needs of others above one's own. Politicians take advantage of this widespread ethical notion to pass legislation which compels some to be taxed (sacrificed or enslaved) for the alleged benefit of others favored by the govt. Altruism exists deep in the minds of virtually everyone raised in this society although some manage to challenge its contention that it is your purpose to fulfill the needs of others and that everyone else's needs take precedence over their own.

Altruism is not a moral code for living on Earth. Rational self interest is.

"No man's need constitutes an obligation on the part of another man to fulfill that need." Run that by anyone and see how they feel about it. Usually people are only aware of their feelings on the matter as the premise upon which it is based is incorporated in their mind as a moral value concept.

Yes one can change one's mind, and if one works hard enough to assert one's judgment on the subject, one's feelings will change too.

www.campaignforliberty.com 22Mar 11PM 126054; 23Mar 11PM 126922; 24Mar 7PM 127598

gulch

Edited by galtgulch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright. I wasn't completely certain it had all been said before, but oh well.

That was buried that the bottom of Post #2 under a quote within a quote.

Apparently Faust06 was familar with the basic concept.

In Post #7 I started with "Faust06, if you are not going to read the Branden essay in Virtue of Selfishness ..."

and he replied in #10 that he saw no need to be lectured, which, indeed, he did not.

Sorry that I missed that.

Edited by Michael E. Marotta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright. I wasn't completely certain it had all been said before, but oh well.

That was buried that the bottom of Post #2 under a quote within a quote.

Apparently Faust06 was familar with the basic concept.

In Post #7 I started with "Faust06, if you are not going to read the Branden essay in Virtue of Selfishness ..."

and he replied in #10 that he saw no need to be lectured, which, indeed, he did not.

Sorry that I missed that.

I think the response you quote (which was post #3) was pretty ambiguous - it was not clear whether he understood my post (#2) - which was why I replied in clarification.

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faust06,

Read Rand's essays in The Virtue of Selfishness, For the New Intellectual and several essays on Altruism in The Objectivist Newsletter which paint a very different picture of just what Altruism is. Altruism holds that one should hold the needs of others above one's own. Politicians take advantage of this widespread ethical notion to pass legislation which compels some to be taxed (sacrificed or enslaved) for the alleged benefit of others favored by the govt. Altruism exists deep in the minds of virtually everyone raised in this society although some manage to challenge its contention that it is your purpose to fulfill the needs of others and that everyone else's needs take precedence over their own.

Altruism is not a moral code for living on Earth. Rational self interest is.

....

gulch

By the way, I just reread the July and September Newsletters from '62, and they're still beautiful.

Perhaps the major confusing between altruism and benevolence is epistemological.

Man perceives through two unique cognitive mechanisms - an egoic "self" mechanism, and a inter-relational "self" mechanism. Through the egoic self, individuals feel their achievements, boundaries, behaviors, etc. Through the inter-relational self, individuals empathize and feel with others, and self-boundaries are naturally extended to include relationships. Of course both selfs are beautiful and real and necessary for living a full life.

Perchance the main issue is that when people read about personal values, egoism, etc., the phenomenal assessment is that selfishness means to cutoff the inter-relational self. That's how I read it when I first started studying Objectivism.

So, when we look at society's general response to the argument of altruism, we have to remember that: from the perspective of the inter-relational self, sacrifice for another is a virtue. However, this "sacrifice" is not the same "sacrifice" Rand uses. The inter-relational sacrifice is a phenomenal experience that means taking care of others before the egoic self in the extended relationship-boundary self... which is actually a form of taking care of the self from one perspective, but not taking care of the self from another. This type of sacrifice is therefore ethical.

Christopher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faust06,

Read Rand's essays in The Virtue of Selfishness, For the New Intellectual and several essays on Altruism in The Objectivist Newsletter which paint a very different picture of just what Altruism is. Altruism holds that one should hold the needs of others above one's own. Politicians take advantage of this widespread ethical notion to pass legislation which compels some to be taxed (sacrificed or enslaved) for the alleged benefit of others favored by the govt. Altruism exists deep in the minds of virtually everyone raised in this society although some manage to challenge its contention that it is your purpose to fulfill the needs of others and that everyone else's needs take precedence over their own.

Altruism is not a moral code for living on Earth. Rational self interest is.

....

gulch

By the way, I just reread the July and September Newsletters from '62, and they're still beautiful.

Perhaps the major confusing between altruism and benevolence is epistemological.

Man perceives through two unique cognitive mechanisms - an egoic "self" mechanism, and a inter-relational "self" mechanism. Through the egoic self, individuals feel their achievements, boundaries, behaviors, etc. Through the inter-relational self, individuals empathize and feel with others, and self-boundaries are naturally extended to include relationships. Of course both selfs are beautiful and real and necessary for living a full life.

Perchance the main issue is that when people read about personal values, egoism, etc., the phenomenal assessment is that selfishness means to cutoff the inter-relational self. That's how I read it when I first started studying Objectivism.

So, when we look at society's general response to the argument of altruism, we have to remember that: from the perspective of the inter-relational self, sacrifice for another is a virtue. However, this "sacrifice" is not the same "sacrifice" Rand uses. The inter-relational sacrifice is a phenomenal experience that means taking care of others before the egoic self in the extended relationship-boundary self... which is actually a form of taking care of the self from one perspective, but not taking care of the self from another. This type of sacrifice is therefore ethical.

Christopher

chris,

Altruism exists as a moral code which permeates western civilization and is passed on in a variety of ways including cultural osmosis. The premises underlying altruism are implied every time a parent suggests that a child hold the interests of another above his or her own. Politicians cash in on the premises and acceptance of them which prevails every time they propose a bill to give aid or funds to those in need here or abroad.

In a sense altruism is an idea, an abstraction and a concept, which has no existence other than as such an idea. It may be implied in various euphemisms, e.g. it is better to give than to receive, is the best example of this.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, comes close but implies a trade and mutual agreement to the idea of trading values.

Altruism has already been established as the moral ideal and does not usually have to defend itself. The mere connotation of selfishness as being evil is a corollary and much explanation is required for one to appreciate it for the good that it really represents.

Our work is cut our for us.

www.campaignforliberty.com 127608; 25Mar 128630

gulch

Edited by galtgulch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

chris,

Altruism exists as a moral code which permeates western civilization and is passed on in a variety of ways including cultural osmosis. The premises underlying altruism are implied every time a parent suggests that a child hold the interests of another above his or her own. Politicians cash in on the premises and acceptance of them which prevails every time they propose a bill to give aid or funds to those in need here or abroad.

In a sense altruism is an idea, an abstraction and a concept, which has no existence other than as such an idea. It may be implied in various euphemisms, e.g. it is better to give than to receive, is the best example of this.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, comes close but implies a trade and mutual agreement to the idea of trading values.

Altruism has already been established as the moral ideal and does not usually have to defend itself. The mere connotation of selfishness as being evil is a corollary and much explanation is required for one to appreciate it for the good that it really represents.

Our work is cut our for us.

www.campaignforliberty.com 127608

gulch

Hi Gulch,

Well yes and no. I really do think that we need to take epistemology into account when considering issues of ethical altruism. For example, if I empathize with a child, then any pain that occurs to that child I experience as pain to myself. Similarly, any pleasure that child experiences I experience as a pleasure in myself. Therefore, to give altruistically to this child would be to my own benefit. Because I feel empathy, naturally my interpersonal self-boundaries are extended to include those individuals with whom I empathize. This occurs because self boundaries are those boundaries through which we experience pleasure/pain and are vulnerable to.

Empathy is not necessarily selective, and it operates well below the threshold of conscious considerations. To consciously turn empathy off and on is really only the ability to suppress empathic feelings, and since suppression is a lowering of awareness, such behavior is unethical by definition. Rand's characters often lacked empathy or held a sort-of controlled empathy only for those people who deserved respect; however, truth-be-told this is not healthy, and Rand's later personal life speaks to that conclusion.

Now within the context of empathy, I will quote the advice you used above as an example of altruism: it is better to give than to receive.

Is this necessarily unethical? Because of human hardwiring, it may actually feel better (be more highly biologically valued) to give than to receive in the context of the interpersonal self. Yet, the interpersonal self does not experience selfish values in the same way an egoic self does. That's the problem with empathy - although empathic experiences are ours, we cannot identify with them because they biologically identify with 2nd and 3rd-persons. Therefore, an interpersonal self is a self with boundaries that are different than what we identify with as individual boundaries. This is confusing, but the point I'm trying to make is that altruism can be understood as a biological value, can be experienced as a human value, but cannot be identified with as a selfish value.

I think what we humans really need is balance, and that's why altruistic advice is so threatening. It has been my experience that altruism is the advice given to people who have no selfish motives at all, and that just screws them over. It takes a lot of work to become virtuously selfish, and you're absolutely right when you say society needs to focus on virtuous selfishness today. However, altruism does exist and it is a human value (albeit not a selfish value). If you think I'm totally wrong, let me know. This is important to discuss.

From the Slayer of fables, Confuser of Cognition,

Christopher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now within the context of empathy, I will quote the advice you used above as an example of altruism: it is better to give than to receive.

Is this necessarily unethical? Because of human hardwiring, it may actually feel better (be more highly biologically valued) to give than to receive in the context of the interpersonal self. Yet, the interpersonal self does not experience selfish values in the same way an egoic self does. That's the problem with empathy - although empathic experiences are ours, we cannot identify with them because they biologically identify with 2nd and 3rd-persons. Therefore, an interpersonal self is a self with boundaries that are different than what we identify with as individual boundaries. This is confusing, but the point I'm trying to make is that altruism can be understood as a biological value, can be experienced as a human value, but cannot be identified with as a selfish value.

I think what we humans really need is balance, and that's why altruistic advice is so threatening. It has been my experience that altruism is the advice given to people who have no selfish motives at all, and that just screws them over. It takes a lot of work to become virtuously selfish, and you're absolutely right when you say society needs to focus on virtuous selfishness today. However, altruism does exist and it is a human value (albeit not a selfish value). If you think I'm totally wrong, let me know. This is important to discuss.

From the Slayer of fables, Confuser of Cognition,

Christopher

Christopher,

Let me explain what my understanding of the moral code of Altruism as exemplified in the quote, but not to be confused with what you refer to as my advice: "It is better to give than to receive."

First of all I believe Ayn Rand makes this very clear in her article in The Virtue of Selfishness. I will probably be paraphrasing her here.

According to the standard of Altruism if what you give is something which is worthless that is not as virtuous as if you give something most valuable to you.

If the recipient of your giving has done something to earn what you give than giving is not as virtuous as would be giving to someone who has done nothing to deserve what he receives. By the standard of Altruism it is even more virtuous to give to someone who has done something not to deserve the gift!

I believe Ayn Rand uses the example of the sacrifice of the ideal which from the standard of Christianity would be Jesus Christ himself as the height of the good for the benefit of all the evil men who will ever exist throughout time. I believe she said she would, if she were a Christian, find that to be most repugnant, the sacrifice of the good for the benefit of the evil.

Altruism holds that the beneficiary of an action determines whether an action is good, that is it is good if someone other than oneself is the recipient.

One crucial point is that the standard of Altruism applies not to an isolated action in the context of one's life but to each and every action in every moment of your life. Her conclusion is that Altruism is not an ethical standard for living on earth but rather is the standard of quite literally a sacrificial animal.

It is not an ethical standard that can be consistently adhered to and to the extent that one buys it one is doomed to a life of guilt for violating its standard in every act one must perform in order to maintain one's own life.

Ayn Rand offers a standard of Man's Life on Earth as the proper moral standard for each of us. One decides for oneself which values to adopt and in what order then proceeds to act to seek one's goals trying never to give up higher values for lower ones. In other words one struggles to simply be loyal to one's own values.

According to this approach one has no unchosen obligations to others and may chose a path towards goals in order to benefit oneself primarily by living a rational, virtuous, productive life. In the process one interacts with others by mutual consent and others may benefit as a by product of your being productive and willing to trade values with others.

One does not see others as needy and claimants on ones own productiveness but as independent humans with whom one may choose to deal with or not.

Altruism provides no guidance to anyone regarding what one may choose to do with one's own life independent of helping others.

I actually once knew a woman whose exclusive concern was to be good from the time she was a child by which she meant to think only in terms of what she might do to fulfill others desires or wants. She practically forbid herself to ever think or ask of herself what it might be that she would want for herself. She ended up having to live with a sister who was normal, unable to function out in the world at all, but busied herself in the household with no personal pursuits or pleasures or interests of her own. She did suffer from, to her, inexplicable depressions.

Enough said.

www.campaignforliberty.com 24Mar 10PM 127800; 25MAR 1230PM 127894, 1AM 127913, 6PM 128420, 11PM 128645

gulch

Edited by galtgulch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gulch,

Most of what you're saying I know naturally. My goal here is to breach the communication boundaries attributed to misunderstandings of altruism, but I see that I myself am falling victim to the same conundrums. I re-reread the Newsletter, Vol. 1 #7: Benevolence versus Altruism. I agree with Branden's following definition:

Altruism: placing others above self. As an ethical principle, altruism holds that man must make the welfare of others his primary concern and must place their interests above his own: it holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the moral justification of his existence, that self-sacrifice is his foremost duty and highest virtue.

Ok. I agree that this definition, with Branden's additional comments, is unethical. Branden then says a few paragraphs later that:

It is one's view of oneself that determines one's view of man and of human stature. The respect and good will that men of self-esteem feel toward other human beings is profoundly egoistic; they feel, in effect: "Other men are of value because they are of the same species as myself."

Well ok. No argument here from me, but the reason there is no argument from me is that Branden uses the words "they feel..." Recognize that authentic self-esteem is not something that one is necessarily conscious of. The feeling of self-value that results in benevolence is, in effect, a hidden assessment. So now we get into the real issue of translation regarding empathy and sacrifice, the real issue why so many people have problems with Rand's and Branden's claims. Equally, the reason why you and I are communicating on opposing levels. My goal is to foster wider understanding versus more judgment. The point of the matter is, when you have high self-esteem and you act benevolently, you do not interpret your actions as "I am valuable, therefore I value others." Rather, you might interpret "I am willing to sacrifice myself for others because I feel it is the right thing." The very fact that there is also feeling involved tells you this desire to sacrifice, to hold others above yourself, resides subconsciously. However, to the conscious mind, it appears that one is acting self-sacrificially. So here's what you wrote:

If the recipient of your giving has done something to earn what you give than giving is not as virtuous as would be giving to someone who has done nothing to deserve what he receives. By the standard of Altruism it is even more virtuous to give to someone who has done something not to deserve the gift!

We're dealing with two totally different sets of implicit values here. Rand did say something along these lines, but that's because she didn't understand what she's actually observing (or she did, but left it for us to understand from her other writings). If you give to somebody who deserves a reward, the emphasis of that action is generally an achievement-reward/repayment value system. Think Kohlberg. Conversely, if you give to somebody without reward and by the very nature of that person being a person, the only healthy way to do that is through an ethic of Caring. Think Gilligan. In other words, to give to somebody emphasizes that the value from which you the giver are giving is an ethic based on Caring and human life. Whereas, if you're giving to somebody who obviously deserves something, you might be giving for a very different value than what so-called altruists are trying to teach. It's not that the person who achieves more doesn't deserve more. The point is that such lessons are aimed at the giver, at teaching the giver to live a more integrated life and more clearly valuing life as an end. Such a position is consistent with Branden's claim above.

I believe Ayn Rand uses the example of the sacrifice of the ideal which from the standard of Christianity would be Jesus Christ himself as the height of the good for the benefit of all the evil men who will ever exist throughout time. I believe she said she would, if she were a Christian, find that to be most repugnant, the sacrifice of the good for the benefit of the evil.

I'm going to make some big assumptions here and speak for Christ. It is my belief that Christ sacrificed himself because according to his value system, this was the most divine way to live. He sacrificed to uphold life. Think Dalai Lama, think Buddhist monks. Christ probably felt a depthful spiritual reward for his behavior in congruence with his dominant value system, and his dominant value system is probably what carried him through life with a great deal of pleasure beforehand. To not have sacrificed himself would have been the ultimate betrayal of his values. Christ believed deeply in life, and because of that, he held life before all other values - before all values of materialism, all values related to action, all values. That something lived was enough that it be loved. This is high self-esteem taken to the extreme. He could not have felt this way if he felt no value for himself. However, Christ would still say he was making a sacrifice for others before himself. That's just how our language and conceptual facilities work.

BUT ALL OF THIS ASIDE. The language used by Objectivists is a language centered on a type of ethics that promotes conscious egoic boundaries. The language used by individuals centered truly on a benevolent ethics and life-intrinsic value is a language of caring. Sacrifice in a language of caring does not mean that sacrifice is selfless at the subconscious level, which is why empathy and sacrifice can actually feel really good and really fulfilling. The fact that sacrifice feels fulfilling is evidence that sacrifice is not selfless to those who follow an ethic of Caring, but the conscious appraisal is considered sacrificial. So you tell these people not to sacrifice, and they look at you as if you're crazy and immoral. And you know what, they sound like the enemy Branden spoke of, but in fact they are the very epitomy of what his view of high self-esteem is.

Thus, you and I can agree on the Objectivist definition of altruism, and we can agree that selfless altruism is bad. But what I'm saying is that selfless altruism can only be detected through feelings. A person with high self-esteem and a person with low self-esteem can act identically, say that their actions are sacrifice of self to others, yet be in two totally different emotional worlds. This is what needs to be understood if Objectivist ethics are going to be translated in teachings and positive influence geared towards helping others (rather than judging them). God knows we don't need any more Objectivist judgers. It is far easier to judge than it is to understand.

Christopher

Edited by Christopher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, comes close but implies a trade and mutual agreement to the idea of trading values.

I prefer R. Hillel's version: What you find hateful done to you, do not do unto others.

In other words keep your hands off of what belongs to other folks: especially their lives and property.

R.Hillel used to say: If I am not for myself, who is for me? If I am only for myself then what am I? If not now, then when?

I used to say:

Jesus Saves, Moses Invests.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
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