Settling the debate on Altruism


Christopher

Recommended Posts

DanUst: Human action a la Mises would define action as purposive behavior without asking about what motivates that behavior. In this case, the only question would be whether a given behavior is purposive or not -- not whether it's ultimate motivation or goal defies reason in the everyday sense.

Every behavior is purposive, directed toward a goal, whatever the goal is.

Dan Ust: For instance, imagine what's normally called an alcoholic. He says he doesn't want to drink and yet he drinks. In Misesean terms, he's got a goal inherent in his behavior -- that is, to drink. Hence, it's an action and even though it conflicts with his professed goals, it tells us something about his values -- that he values drinking over not drinking despite what he says to the contrary and even if he admits his value choice here doesn't make sense (e.g., it conflicts with both his other values and his professed goal of not drinking).

Being constantly faced with conflicting values is part of human life.

In the case you mentioned, the goal 1 (not to drink) is replaced with goal 2 (to drink), goal 2 being chosen because it is valued higher at the moment of choice.

People always decide in favor of what they value higher at the moment of choice no matter how 'senseless' their choices may look in others' eyes.

DanUst: Also, altruism and self-sacrifice in Rand's terms would need a framework of specific objective values -- specifically, hierarchical ones -- to know when a sacrifice was being made. The problem here might be that what looks like a sacrifice to someone might not look like one to the supposed sacrificer. This doesn't mean it isn't, but one would have to verify this by looking into the aims and motives of the supposed sacrificer. You do mention this, but I just want to be clear that this might not be easy to do in many cases.

You have opened the door to a truth here, for every person engaging in a so-called sacrificial act expects to gain a higher value for what he/she trades in. I can't think of an exception.

Rand's "definition" of sacrifice is no definition; it is her personal value judgement of people's choices she disapproves of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You have opened the door to a truth here, for every person engaging in a so-called sacrificial act expects to gain a higher value for what he/she trades in. I can't think of an exception.

Rand's "definition" of sacrifice is no definition; it is her personal value judgement of people's choices she disapproves of.

Dan Ust,

Since you are fairly new to OL, this is an alert. You should be aware of Xray's fallacies and word games. A good start is here.

She can't think of an exception because she doesn't want to. It is a subjective preference she values highly.

Edited by Merlin Jetton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan Ust: The vacuous definition of self-interest doesn't so much muddy the waters as make them appear clear when they're not. Also, the vacuous definition doesn't so much "reduce the importance of self interest to its most mundane levels" as it virtually eliminates the distinction between self-interest and non-self-interest to the point that it becomes nearly impossible to imagine an action that's not self-interested.

But isn't self-interest (I mean the term to be interpreted neutrally, not with any negative connotation) biologically hardwired in humans? Instead of constructing an opposition "selfishness" versus "selflessness" (so-called "altruism"), wouldn't it be far more productive for an an ethics discussion to, in a first step, acknowledge the reality of 100 per cent self-interest directing our actions and THEN look at what the various self-interests are?

Dan Ust: This is similar to coming up with the distinction of "bachelor" -- to divide between married and unmarried men -- and then telling us all men, including married ones, are really bachelors. In other words, the term becomes meaningless as it no longer adds anything to the discussion.

I don't think this example is on target. For as opposed to a word like "self-interest", which is open to interpretation since it is a 'connotatively loaded' term, "bachelor" is cleary defined as 'unmarried man'.

Dan Ust: Regarding buying the hat, in my understanding of Rand's view, one already has to have an objective view of values and self-interest before coming to the scenario. Without it, there is nothing to be said, especially if one adopts the vacuous definition of self-interest. With it, one would then have to ask, is buying the hat more or less objectively valuable or in his self-interest to the person than helping his child? One would not start with what the person does -- because this is what's to be judged. And, yes, the hat would likely have some place in his hierarchy of values, though my guess is Rand would believe it should be lower than his child in that hierarchy. Let's say I'm right about her view of objective value, self-interest, and the relative values of the person's hat and child. Then, obviously, buying the hat over helping his child would, even if he does it and does it fully consciously (in context as some might argue that one would have to fake reality on some level -- thereby reducing consciousness? -- to pull this off), would be going against his self-interest. Don't you agree?

This elaboration perfectly illustrates the difficulties one runs into when trying to "morally" asses people's actions without the concept of "objective" value directing the moral judgement.

But imo to stop there and say "Since everythng will collapse without the idea of objective value, we'd better stay on safe ground and opt for it" reveals fear of truth. Many don't want to go beyond because they don't know there is a beyond.

You have opened the door to a truth here, for every person engaging in a so-called sacrificial act expects to gain a higher value for what he/she trades in. I can't think of an exception.

Rand's "definition" of sacrifice is no definition; it is her personal value judgement of people's choices she disapproves of.

Dan Ust,

Since you are fairly new to OL, this is an alert. You should be aware of Xray's fallacies and word games. A good start is here.

She can't think of an exception because she doesn't want to. It is a subjective preference she values highly.

Merlin,

instead of "alerting" Dan Ust not to enter into a discussion with a poster with whom you happen to disagree on an issue, why don't you provide an example of sacrifice refuting my claim that every so-called sacrifice is basically a trade where the sacrificer expects to get a higher value in return? Can you think of any such sacrifice, Merlin? If yes, please post it here.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the expectation and the result are not necessarily the same things. I expected more than I got from continuing to read Xray, sacrificing my sanity albeit not my moral virtue.

--Brant

subsititute "time" for "sanity" and delete the following rest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, Altruism doesn't have anything to do with generosity. First of all Altruism means submission of one's mind to others,(government, society, race, class, god etc...) rejection of one's autonomy, self-reliance and self-sustainability. In other words Altruism means second-handiness. Therefore everybody who makes his existence depended on others is an altruist, be it a beggar on the street corner or ruthless dictator, a slave or slave-driver. Such a situation unavoidable involves sacrifice of one own mind, creativity, free will to the minds and wills of others. Progress, as Ayn Rand mentioned, is a process of setting man free from men.

Leonid:

Out of curiosity, can you discuss "altruism" as defined in non-Randian terms. I ask this as someone who has employed her ideas for almost five (5) decades, in my personal life, business life and political life.

I ask this as someone who walked down to the Empire State Building, when I left work at the Animal Medical Center, [York and 61st Street], in the mid 1960's to hear Ayn, Nathanial, Barbara and others speak about this new philosophy called objectivism. I was 17 years old.

I have never been sorry about the commitment that I have to her ideas.

However, to see you just spout out Ayn's contextual definition of altruism as an answer in a discussion is reflective of that rigidity which is completely contradictory to the philosophy's origin.

For example, "...altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward..."

Does this equal "second handedness"?

Finally, if validated scientific or human experience finds that Ayn's set in stone definition of altruism is not valid in her narrow context, should we adapt the philosophy to the truth, or cover the truth and submit to the philosophy as originally uttered by Ayn?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, can you discuss "altruism" as defined in non-Randian terms...For example, "...altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward...?”

Yes, I can. But first you have to decide whether you want to discuss altruism as practice, habit, catch-phrase or ethical theory? Your quote refers to non-philosophical, common use of the word while Rand's definition deals with philosophical, comprehensive meaning of this concept. There are many other definitions of altruism which pertain to different fields of knowledge or behavior. For example in the science of ethology (the study of behavior), altruism refers to behavior by an individual that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing the fitness of the actor. Encarta Dictionary defines altruism as "selflessness: an attitude or way of behaving marked by unselfish concern for the welfare of others" which is pretty much close to Rand's definition. Other non-Objectivist definitions also don’t differ much from this of Objectivism.

" Altruism is generally understood to be behavior that benefits others at a personal cost to the behaving individual...The fitness of an individual can decrease as the frequency of altruists in its group increases. Group productivity can decrease with increasing frequency of altruists..."

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~pgs/KerrGSFeldmanAltruismTREE.pdf

"Altruism is an act of selflessness. Unselfish regard or devotion to the wellbeing of another person."

http://healing.about.com/cs/spirituality/g/g_altruism.htm

“We characterize a behavior as altruistic when 1) it is directed towards helping another, 2) it involves a high risk or sacrifice to the actor, 3) it is accomplished by no external reward, and 4) it is voluntary."

http://www.humboldt.edu/~altruism/definition.html

Observe that all these definitions and many many others include two basic elements “1. Selflessness, that is-negation of self. 2. Sacrifice.

Even your own example confirms that. What is the meaning of “motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward..."? This is a sacrifice, exchange of value, an effort, to non-value (no reward). And what could be the possible motivation to do that? There are many, but their common denominator is duty (religious, social, etc...). Altruism by any definition means self-abnegation. Therefore a person, who wants to practice altruism in full, has no self. He's completely depended on others, he is second-hander.

Contrary to your statement “ Ayn's set in stone definition of altruism is not valid in her narrow context" Objectivists definition covers all possible contexts of altruism. Your accusation of rigidity is completely out of place. No real philosophical system could be eclectic, it cannot accommodate contradictions. Definition is an identity of concept. Nothing could be A and non A the same time and in the same respect, altruism included.

If you define altruism as something which is not selflessness, then this is not altruism. I hope I satisfied your curiosity.

Leonid

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merlin, instead of "alerting" Dan Ust not to enter into a discussion with a poster with whom you happen to disagree on an issue, why don't you provide an example of sacrifice refuting my claim that every so-called sacrifice is basically a trade where the sacrificer expects to get a higher value in return? Can you think of any such sacrifice, Merlin? If yes, please post it here.

I alerted Dan because there is plenty about your idea of sacrifice already on OL, and it makes little sense to repeat it. He could save a lot a time by reading it. If he still wants to discuss it with you, that is his prerogative.

You say that sacrifice is basically a trade where the sacrificer expects to get a higher value in return. I have refuted that (exposed your word game). For example, see here and here.

To summarize:

1. Your idea of sacrifice is a vicious package deal of voluntary and involuntary choices.

2. You claim the "higher" option is whatever is chosen. Then you look for a hypothetical "lower" option, and ignore any higher-valued possibility. I gave examples of this for Galileo and Korczak in the previous link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christopher:"Individuals who practice ontologically selfish altruism will always consciously report their actions as “putting others before the self,” which on the surface would appear to contradict Objectivism. Now we know better though! The next question becomes: how does an Objectivist distinguish between ontologically selfish altruism and ontologically selfless altruism?"

Contemporary mainstream philosophy calls “ontologically selfish altruism" psychological egoism (PE) which is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest; even in what seem to be acts of altruism. First, this is much better term, since "selfish altruism" is oxymoron by any definition. Altruism means selflessness. (See above). Second PE is contradictory concept. A common objection to psychological egoism, made famously by Joseph Butler, is that I must desire things other than my own welfare in order to get welfare. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Another contradiction which is inherited in this concept: the welfare of the actor depends on others. On the desert island he never would be able to satisfy his selfish moral needs. He is a second hander. So the answer to you question is: fundamentally there is no distinction.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christopher:"Individuals who practice ontologically selfish altruism will always consciously report their actions as “putting others before the self,” which on the surface would appear to contradict Objectivism. Now we know better though! The next question becomes: how does an Objectivist distinguish between ontologically selfish altruism and ontologically selfless altruism?"

Contemporary mainstream philosophy calls “ontologically selfish altruism" psychological egoism (PE) which is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest; even in what seem to be acts of altruism. First, this is much better term, since "selfish altruism" is oxymoron by any definition. Altruism means selflessness. (See above). Second PE is contradictory concept. A common objection to psychological egoism, made famously by Joseph Butler, is that I must desire things other than my own welfare in order to get welfare. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Another contradiction which is inherited in this concept: the welfare of the actor depends on others. On the desert island he never would be able to satisfy his selfish moral needs. He is a second hander. So the answer to you question is: fundamentally there is no distinction.

Hi Leonid,

It was precisely this perspective on the issue of Altruism that I am attempting to clarify. In discussions with Dan, we talked about the fact that self-interest is not an experience per se, self-interest is not "what I want." Self-interest is action in response to objective needs. Likewise, the concept of self-sacrifice (associated to Altruism) cannot be reduced to a phenomenal experience of sacrifice. Self-sacrifice is not "what feels like a sacrifice."

Therefore, it is necessary to quote my full post to recognize that I am claiming: an individual can experience an action as "sacrifice," yet the sacrifice might feel objectively healthy, the sacrifice might be meeting affiliation needs, and therefore the sacrifice is self-interested. There are two dimensions: experience and ontological reality. Thus my subtitle "Why self-attributed altruists are Objectively ethical."

Christopher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Leonid,

It was precisely this perspective on the issue of Altruism that I am attempting to clarify. In discussions with Dan, we talked about the fact that self-interest is not an experience per se, self-interest is not "what I want." Self-interest is action in response to objective needs. Likewise, the concept of self-sacrifice (associated to Altruism) cannot be reduced to a phenomenal experience of sacrifice. Self-sacrifice is not "what feels like a sacrifice."

Therefore, it is necessary to quote my full post to recognize that I am claiming: an individual can experience an action as "sacrifice," yet the sacrifice might feel objectively healthy, the sacrifice might be meeting affiliation needs, and therefore the sacrifice is self-interested. There are two dimensions: experience and ontological reality. Thus my subtitle "Why self-attributed altruists are Objectively ethical."

Christopher

While I do agree that one must distinguish between the phenomenological and ontological where one can, but the problem is not so much that as that by defining egoism or selfishness as doing what one wants and then saying basically people do what they want, one completely undermines the distinction -- i.e., with that sort of definition in use, one can't distinguish any action that's not egoistical or selfish.

As for self-sacrifice and altruism, one also has to be careful here about defining them so as not to make any act into one of sacrifice or, if not going that far, making almost every act into one -- as in me giving a total stranger spare change at Starbucks so that she can get her latte suddenly becomes an act of self-sacrifice for me rather than simple and rather minor charity. Certainly, champions for sacrifice of the more extreme sort will probably try to compare such minor acts of benevolence with, say, devoting your life, in what Rand and her seconds would consider self-destructive, to some cause or other person. (I'm thinking of the person who, say, decides to give up a rewarding career and personal happiness maybe because she feels duty to her parents -- i.e., to live life they way they want her to live it. Things like that. Of course, without some standard of self-interest, this all becomes very hard to discuss or make sense of -- save by giving examples and hoping the others agree with one's intuitions.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Christopher

You've said "Therefore, it is necessary to quote my full post to recognize that I am claiming: an individual can experience an action as "sacrifice," yet the sacrifice might feel objectively healthy, the sacrifice might be meeting affiliation needs, and therefore the sacrifice is self-interested."

In such a case this is not a sacrifice, but a gain. Since according to altruist moral, the word "sacrifice" has strong positive connotations, people often wrongly use this word to describe such a situation. They may say “I sacrificed 15 years to become a top plastic surgeon. Today I'm a multimillionaire".

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Christopher

You've said "Therefore, it is necessary to quote my full post to recognize that I am claiming: an individual can experience an action as "sacrifice," yet the sacrifice might feel objectively healthy, the sacrifice might be meeting affiliation needs, and therefore the sacrifice is self-interested."

In such a case this is not a sacrifice, but a gain. Since according to altruist moral, the word "sacrifice" has strong positive connotations, people often wrongly use this word to describe such a situation. They may say “I sacrificed 15 years to become a top plastic surgeon. Today I'm a multimillionaire".

I think that without defining just what self-interest is, it's hard to say. I also thought that what Christopher was getting it is that without knowing much more one can't tell much about a given action. For instance, the case of the person sacrificing "15 years" (of her life, presumably) -- years should could have spent partying, dining in fine restaurants, going on long vacations to exotic locales, and the like -- one has to know her ends. What if Rand were to write about this person, but put the twist on it that she really, deep down, wanted to be, say, a professional ice skater -- while becoming a "top plastic surgeon" and a "multimillionaire" were only what, say, her parents wanted her to do. And let's say that this [ice skating] is really identified with her self-interest -- becoming a professional ice skater, even just an average one, would actualize her self and end in her being a happier, more harmonious person even if she had less money, etc. In this case, even though she definitely invested those years in medical school, internship, residency, and working at a practicing toward a goal -- so that these "sacrifices" were really only provisional, really only a means to an end -- and she attained that goal -- becoming a " top plastic surgeon" and a "multimillionaire" she still sacrificed her self to her parents' wishes.

And, note, here that outward measures don't necessary tell us what's in a person's self-interest. If they do, then the successful jewel thief might be viewed as pursuing his self-interest because after stealing some jewels, he has more money than before. This is not to say worldly success is of no importance here, but I'd be careful about reasoning backward -- especially reasoning backward from what looks like a great outcome to the actions that might have played a role in getting to that outcome. (Note also that there's another problem with reasoning backwards, especially as pertains to an isolated example. This is that we're not sure, in this example, of why the person actually acted the way she or he did. If, to use an off the wall example, I found a huge hunk of gold while mountain biking, you might reason backward that my new found wealth was intended by my mountain biking. In fact, I might have been mountain biking for pleasure or, actually, experiencing it as a no fun work out -- something I do to stay in shape, but derive no other pleasure from. In the latter case, someone might reason backward from finding the gold to the "sacrifice" of mountain biking.)

All of this said, I do agree people often use "sacrifice" in a variety of ways that can play into an altruist moral code. But the cure for this is nothing more than being clear about these things from the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Leonid,

As Dan might be suggesting, I am trying to differentiate between "sacrifice" for a known goal, and the simple experience of sacrifice for someone else's benefit that itself is ontologically self-interested.

Specifically, I am targeting sacrifice that achieves no obvious or known goal and does not contributes back to the self in a directly-measurable way. For example, I am not discussing sacrifice for education, sacrifice to preserve a relationship, sacrifice to receive either material or emotional resources from others. At best, the sacrifice I am targeting addresses merely the well-being of others for no obvious return benefit; the only return benefit (if anything) is the effect of contributing to the happiness of another person.

In this sense, the act and labeling of personal sacrifice is fully justified according to colloquial definitions of sacrifice. No tangible benefit can be rationalized, and the behavior that facilitates another's well-being comes at a cost that is tangible (time, effort, money). Therefore, the individual perceives his/her action as a sacrifice. However, the act of such "sacrifice" is perhaps a feeling of warmth. Therefore, the motivated emotional reaction speaks of self-interest, but the self-interest cannot be identified as such... in fact, if one were to explicitly label the act as self-interested, it would be commonly interpreted as if a trade is occurring at some level, thus hiding (and insulting) the motivation from which the act arose.

Christopher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about thinking of sacrifice as something done because of an exteriorly imposed duty, as opposed to a freely chosen desire.

"I'm going to med school instead of becoming a professional ice skater because my parents tell me I need to do it" is a sacrifice. "I'm going to med school instead of becoming a professional ice skater because I think my parents have given me good advice on my career" is not a sacrifice.

Christopher at 6:24 PM 3/16/10:

At best, the sacrifice I am targeting addresses merely the well-being of others for no obvious return benefit; the only return benefit (if anything) is the effect of contributing to the happiness of another person.

Which might be tangled up in cases where a person acts for the benefit of another or others with not obvious return benefit because the person doing the action finds value in benefiting other people--fulfillment of his/her values requires that particular action (or even, more generally, benefiting others without any obvious return benefit is a value-principle for that particular person).

Jeffrey S.

Edited by jeffrey smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about thinking of sacrifice as something done because of an exteriorly imposed duty, as opposed to a freely chosen desire.

"I'm going to med school instead of becoming a professional ice skater because my parents tell me I need to do it" is a sacrifice. "I'm going to med school instead of becoming a professional ice skater because I think my parents have given me good advice on my career" is not a sacrifice.

Christopher at 6:24 PM 3/16/10:

At best, the sacrifice I am targeting addresses merely the well-being of others for no obvious return benefit; the only return benefit (if anything) is the effect of contributing to the happiness of another person.

Which might be tangled up in cases where a person acts for the benefit of another or others with not obvious return benefit because the person doing the action finds value in benefiting other people--fulfillment of his/her values requires that particular action (or even, more generally, benefiting others without any obvious return benefit is a value-principle for that particular person).

Jeffrey S.

Hi Jeffrey,

Well that's just it. It would be an ontological sacrifice if an individual sacrificed for some exterior authority. I don't think Objectivists have a problem recognizing this type of sacrifice. However, additionally there is a type of sacrifice which appears outwardly the same as if motivated by exterior authority, is self-reported by the individual as sacrificial, yet there is a distinct internal phenomenal difference (a desirable experience) that marks the experience as self-interested.

When we step back and look at this from a cultures perspective, we see that great sages often promote sacrifice. I believe those who authentically argue for helping others (e.g. Dalai Lama, Jesus) do so because they recognize and promote the healthy internal type of "sacrifice" that heals a person's soul (to paraphrase their words). When these men talk of sacrifice, it's clear to me from my own experience that they are talking about a type of sacrifice that is self-interested, is in fact healing and healthy (because it meets a psychological human need).

Unfortunately, because the outward manifestation of promoting self-interested sacrifice is nearly identical to the promotion of self-negating sacrifice, many people become confused. Context of the message and experience to both types of sacrifice I think is a vital requisite to interpreting exactly what is being preached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christopher,

I don't think that an O'ist should be so much against considered and occasional sacrifice as be against collectivism - and for individualism.

The fact is that tribes of one sort or another have built their power bases from the premise that each of us owes the group more than we owe ourselves.

They, it seems, have used our inherent and hard-wired human empathy towards their own ends, and developed an "Advocacy."

This in turn is an automatic recipe for guilt (since one can never "do" enough), and hatred for all other people.

Psychologically, this must result in loss of self-identity.

There is no one with higher respect and consideration of others than a full-blown egoist, ironically. (IMO)

It is the 'expectation' and 'entitlement' of altruists that is collectivist, anti-individualistic, and immoral.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 Pages in and the debate on Altruism is anything but settled. Does anyone else see irony in this?

Here are my two cents, if anyone is interested. Headnote: The following ideas do not represent a systematic attempt "settle the debate on altruism".

1. The Collective vs. The Brotherhood. When you imagine the general population of the planet, how do you conceive of it? Where do you draw the line between friend "one of us" and other "one of them"? The way that we think of others, i.e., the perception of our relationships with others, plays a considerable role in how we rationalize our motivations for taking action or not taking action for the sake of another. If one imagines oneself as enmeshed in a brotherhood (or a group of "friends") that individual may be more inclined to consider the possible repercussions or benefits to themselves of not acting or acting for the sake of another. On the other hand, one who imagines oneself as part of a collective may be more inclined to consider the possible repercussion or benefits to society. The latter may be defined as a generic "general benevolence" while the former is closer to being the more specific forms of altruism, egoism, or both (mostly a mix of both). What's of interest here is that while the actions taken by each individual might be identical the rationalization behind their motivations for acting changes. Of course, there are other was of imagining the population. I just wanted to outline two possible ways of seeing oneself as part of the "whole".

2. Multiple motives. Can an action for the sake of another be both altruistic and selfish? Why not? If I help my wife wash her car, for example, all of the following are true for me: I want her to have a clean car, I want the car to be clean, I feel a sense of pride after I've cleaned the car, I like cleaning cars, I like making her happy, I like to help her, etc. and these might also be true: I would rather have finished watching the football game first, I would like to have taken a nap, I feel guilty letting her do it alone, etc.

3. Does it even matter? Or can it be "settled"? I suspect the answer to both is "no". The reason an individual does something for another individual is, you guessed it, highly individualized. Not to mention that the terms altruism and egoism are themselves dialectical, I'd argue that neither extreme is possible in practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol...

You woodworkers are all alike...

Practical.

However, that is one of the essential "assumptions" that Ayn posited. The selfish is the practical.

Your example of helping your wife is ideal. The essence of any action is 1) highly individualized and 2) composed of a hierarchy of pleasures and pains which are worth rationally understanding.

Ms. Xray would jump on this and claim that it proves a number of her assertions about "objective," "man qua man" and "existence exists."

Good points Ian.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Christopher

You've said "Therefore, it is necessary to quote my full post to recognize that I am claiming: an individual can experience an action as "sacrifice," yet the sacrifice might feel objectively healthy, the sacrifice might be meeting affiliation needs, and therefore the sacrifice is self-interested."

In such a case this is not a sacrifice, but a gain. Since according to altruist moral, the word "sacrifice" has strong positive connotations, people often wrongly use this word to describe such a situation. They may say “I sacrificed 15 years to become a top plastic surgeon. Today I'm a multimillionaire".

I think that without defining just what self-interest is, it's hard to say. I also thought that what Christopher was getting it is that without knowing much more one can't tell much about a given action. For instance, the case of the person sacrificing "15 years" (of her life, presumably) -- years should could have spent partying, dining in fine restaurants, going on long vacations to exotic locales, and the like -- one has to know her ends. What if Rand were to write about this person, but put the twist on it that she really, deep down, wanted to be, say, a professional ice skater -- while becoming a "top plastic surgeon" and a "multimillionaire" were only what, say, her parents wanted her to do. And let's say that this [ice skating] is really identified with her self-interest -- becoming a professional ice skater, even just an average one, would actualize her self and end in her being a happier, more harmonious person even if she had less money, etc. In this case, even though she definitely invested those years in medical school, internship, residency, and working at a practicing toward a goal -- so that these "sacrifices" were really only provisional, really only a means to an end -- and she attained that goal -- becoming a " top plastic surgeon" and a "multimillionaire" she still sacrificed her self to her parents' wishes.

And, note, here that outward measures don't necessary tell us what's in a person's self-interest. If they do, then the successful jewel thief might be viewed as pursuing his self-interest because after stealing some jewels, he has more money than before. This is not to say worldly success is of no importance here, but I'd be careful about reasoning backward -- especially reasoning backward from what looks like a great outcome to the actions that might have played a role in getting to that outcome. (Note also that there's another problem with reasoning backwards, especially as pertains to an isolated example. This is that we're not sure, in this example, of why the person actually acted the way she or he did. If, to use an off the wall example, I found a huge hunk of gold while mountain biking, you might reason backward that my new found wealth was intended by my mountain biking. In fact, I might have been mountain biking for pleasure or, actually, experiencing it as a no fun work out -- something I do to stay in shape, but derive no other pleasure from. In the latter case, someone might reason backward from finding the gold to the "sacrifice" of mountain biking.)

All of this said, I do agree people often use "sacrifice" in a variety of ways that can play into an altruist moral code. But the cure for this is nothing more than being clear about these things from the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol...

You woodworkers are all alike...

Practical.

However, that is one of the essential "assumptions" that Ayn posited. The selfish is the practical.

Your example of helping your wife is ideal. The essence of any action is 1) highly individualized and 2) composed of a hierarchy of pleasures and pains which are worth rationally understanding.

Ms. Xray would jump on this and claim that it proves a number of her assertions about "objective," "man qua man" and "existence exists."

Good points Ian.

Adam

Haha. If you were to see the numerous unfinished projects that I'm way over my head in strewn about the shop, you might not say I'm all that practical.

Although I'm familiar with Bateson's hierarchies and not Rand's, hierarchies in themselves are a nice way of representing relationships. However, I also like Deleuze's idea of a rhizome where there is not the same sense of subjugation of one relationship to another.

I'm not sure exactly what's meant by those assertions, but I'm pretty sure she or anyone else could just as easily claim the bottle of Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer sitting on my desk as proof of them also. No offense to Ms. Xray as I don't know enough about her assertions to pass judgment. I just think it's a symptom of the kind of thinking/arguing we (to include me) tend to "like" to do. Clever beasts that we are ;)

Edited by Panoptic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merlin, instead of "alerting" Dan Ust not to enter into a discussion with a poster with whom you happen to disagree on an issue, why don't you provide an example of sacrifice refuting my claim that every so-called sacrifice is basically a trade where the sacrificer expects to get a higher value in return? Can you think of any such sacrifice, Merlin? If yes, please post it here.

You say that sacrifice is basically a trade where the sacrificer expects to get a higher value in return. I have refuted that (exposed your word game). For example, see here and here.

You have not refuted it at all, as the links you gave clearly show.

Since links are often not looked up, here's from the discussion on 'sacrifice' on the thread you linked to:

'Merlin Jetton' date='06 August 2009 - 06:34 AM' timestamp='1249558482' post='76962']

I have no interest in being your sacrificial victim while you play your childish word games. Bye.

I take this opportunity to point out another difference between Rand's definition of "sacrifice" and Xray's.

Xray: Not only Xray's, but also Webster's, in case you have forgotten. Do you think Webster's plays word games?

So my definiton is in perfect congruence with that of one of the most reputable dictionaries of the English language.

Here it is again as a reminder:

"To forfeit one thing for another thing thought to be of greater value" (Webster's)

That's the whole ball game. Keep it simple.

Remember Ginny being baffled when she discovered that I had not pulled anything out of thin air?

Ginny (Posted 30 July 2009 - 03:44 AM):

Dear god, I think X-Ray may have a point. I just picked up my Webster Dictionary.

Definition of sacrifice: "To forfeit one thing for another thing thought to be of greater value."

How the hell did these definitions get so mucked up?

Sure, Webster's got it mucked up. Everyone else got it mucked up but not Rand, because her supporters tend to believe her without checking her premises.

MJ: For the former the higher value is not obtained; for the latter it is. Xray ignores any even higher value that might be foregone, e.g. Galileo continuing to do what he wanted without compulsion or demands from religious authorities. One normally obtains a higher value via trade. Xray's definition of "sacrifice" is a vicious package deal

It was a higher value in Galileo's eyes. For Giordano Bruno, the higher value was to give his life for what he held to be true.

As for the definition of sacrifice, it is completely irrelevant whether the sacrificer gets what he/she bargained for. Nor does one always obtain a higher value via a trade, one hopes to attain it. Merchandise acquired through trade can be damaged, a surrogate mother can decide not to give the child away, etc.

Jane Doe moonlighting to put her husband through medical school may be rewarded for her "sacrifice" or not.

An athlete "sacrificing" countless hours of free time to train for the Olympics may get a medal or not.

It is the same as with any trade, only in the case of sacrifice, a contract is normally not set up.

But the basic principle is the same as in a trade.

Whatever the sacrifice is, it is done to get something in return thought to be of higher value. This is the STANDARD DEFINITION.

MJ: To summarize:

1. Your idea of sacrifice is a vicious package deal of voluntary and involuntary choices.

What package deal? I'm not trying to sell you anything. I'm describing an operative principle at work without exception.

MJ: 2. You claim the "higher" option is whatever is chosen. Then you look for a hypothetical "lower" option, and ignore any higher-valued possibility. I gave examples of this for Galileo and Korczak in the previous link.

I'm not judging the choices people make as higher/lower from my personal view, for this would merely reflect my individual standard of value. I'm describing a principle at work: deciding in favor of the value held higher by the chooser.

A so-called sacrifice operates by the same principle as every decision we make.

As human beings, we have a hierarchy of values and the decision will always be made in favor of that value which trumps all others.

Example: Jane Doe is a top medical student at a prestigious med school, with a brilliant future ahead. After a lot of discussions, she finally gives up her wish of becoming a doctor in a poor third world country because her family is totally against it.

The value of not going against her family's wishes, of keeping their approval, trumps the other value. It has turned out to be stronger.

We are motivated by self-interest 100 percent of the time; it is biologically hardwired. Jane's self-interest to keep a conflict-free relationship with her family tips the scale to act as she does.

Self-interest in humans is a constant, but the contents of self-interests vary since people have different values. Those hierarchies of personal values are of course subject to change.

Galileo's self-interest was to stay alive and not to meet the same fate as Giordano Bruno. In his case, this value trumped the other value (speaking up for the truth).

In case he had decided otherwise, his self-interest would have been to speak up in favor of truth, even if it meant as the consequence annihilation of self by being condemned to death.

Jeffrey Smith: Which might be tangled up in cases where a person acts for the benefit of another or others with not obvious return benefit because the person doing the action finds value in benefiting other people--fulfillment of his/her values requires that particular action (or even, more generally, benefiting others without any obvious return benefit is a value-principle for that particular person).

Excellent example to illustrate that every individual has his/her hierarchy of personal values.

Helping others can be fulfilling and perceived as personally rewarding even without obvious return benefit.

Leonid: In such a case this is not a sacrifice, but a gain. Since according to altruist moral, the word "sacrifice" has strong positive connotations, people often wrongly use this word to describe such a situation. They may say “I sacrificed 15 years to become a top plastic surgeon. Today I'm a multimillionaire".

The use of the word "sacrifice" is correct.

Sacrifice: "To forfeit one thing for another thing thought to be of greater value." (Webster's)

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for self-sacrifice and altruism, one also has to be careful here about defining them so as not to make any act into one of sacrifice or, if not going that far, making almost every act into one -- as in me giving a total stranger spare change at Starbucks so that she can get her latte suddenly becomes an act of self-sacrifice for me rather than simple and rather minor charity. Certainly, champions for sacrifice of the more extreme sort will probably try to compare such minor acts of benevolence with, say, devoting your life, in what Rand and her seconds would consider self-destructive, to some cause or other person. (I'm thinking of the person who, say, decides to give up a rewarding career and personal happiness maybe because she feels duty to her parents -- i.e., to live life they way they want her to live it. Things like that. Of course, without some standard of self-interest, this all becomes very hard to discuss or make sense of -- save by giving examples and hoping the others agree with one's intuitions.)

All the actions described are motivated by self-interest. For example, the self-interest in helping a stranger can be to create a social atmosphere of harmony from which the giver profites as well.

Self-interest of the person giving up a career: feel appreciated by her family, not to lose their approval, etc.

Panoptic: Multiple motives. Can an action for the sake of another be both altruistic and selfish? Why not? If I help my wife wash her car, for example, all of the following are true for me: I want her to have a clean car, I want the car to be clean, I feel a sense of pride after I've cleaned the car, I like cleaning cars, I like making her happy, I like to help her, etc. and these might also be true: I would rather have finished watching the football game first, I would like to have taken a nap, I feel guilty letting her do it alone, etc.

Again, all are illustrative examples of self-interest motivating our actions. I don't have any negative connotation with the term, since it is a fact of the conditio humana, biologically hardwired in us.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does one objectify self interest if the premise is there are no objective values?

--Brant

I agree with what you say here Brant, but I think she's posited self-interest as an amoral absolute not as a value. Actually, if she's correct this whole debate on altruism is moot as altruism would be relegated to no more than an untenable abstract ideal. As far as I'm concerned - if I give my food to somebody and go hungry for an evening it can be both a selfless act (I spend the night feeling hungry) and a selfish act (e.g. if it makes me feel "good" or if I expect a favor in return). Positing that either altruism or egoism can exist in pure states seems pointless to me.

Edited by Panoptic
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