Intro/Newbie needs clarification on Altruism please


Recommended Posts

Hi, new here, all the way from little New Zealand. I recently read "The Fountainhead", and discovered Objectivism. I obviously don't fully grasp the entirety of it, but I do understand scraps.

Recently, a friend of mine posted on his blog an article about Karma. It essentially followed these lines.

He was studying at University late one night and decided to get an energy drink. As he was leaving the room, a fellow student came in. My friend decided to purchase his newly arrived fellow student an energy drink as well, as he supposed he would need the boost of caffeine/energy due to it being late at night. As a result of doing this, the fellow student gave him a textbook outlining a major assignment more clearly, aiding him to a large degree in his studies, thus "Karma" playing its role.

Not sure about a couple of things here.

-Is Altruism reaction to a situation only? ie: If my friend had KNOWN his classmate was tired and suffering, and thus purchased the energy drink, this is considered Altruistic? I'm unsure what is to be considered non-favourable in this instance. Given we can only make assumptions because he's stated he only RECKONED he would be tired.

-Does the fact he stated/blogged/told anyone he performed this deed make it Altruistic? Is it possible for an act to become Altruistic in the past tense?

-If Altruism is performing a normally considered "good" deed to aid others as a reaction to their situation and thusly gaining gratification via it, how is this not conforming to the principle of Objectivism; being "The proper moral purpose to one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self interest"? If you get happiness from being showered with praise for doing something considered good, how is this not in your own self interest? Or is "self interest" in the context of Objectivism more to do with benefits that can be quantified?

Pretty basic stuff, and I have more, but just need clarification on these things. I told him Karma was rubbish for the record, which is what started an ongoing debate. He's a 5th year Law Student

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Altruism is the exchange of a higher value for a lower value

Self-Interest is an exchange of a lower value for a higher value.

Thus if you valued your friends well-being (even though I don't think those kind of drinks are particularly good for you) more than you valued the $1.50 for the drink you might buy your friend a drink. So much of what is self-interest depends on context...how to make it more clear than 'The Fountainhead'? Remember Peter Keating was suppose to be the epitome of selfishness, and Ayn Rand showed that he really wasn't. Roark was suppose to be sacrificing himself for his ideas in architecture, but he was actually deeply self-interested. You need the concepts of actual objective self-interest, pseudo self-interest, self-sacrifice, and pseudo self-sacrifice to make sense of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi YD,

You have posed some interesting questions, which, in order for me to discuss in depth, I will first need to define some terms.

altruism: the moral code that a man's existence is to serve other men and that sacrifice is his highest virtue.

sacrifice: the giving up of a higher value for the sake of a lower value.

egoism: the moral code that a man's existence is his to live and enjoy and rationality is his highest virtue.

rationality: the use of reason as the only means for acquiring knowledge and guiding one's actions.

moral code: [or in TVOS, code of values:] a set of abstract principles [serving as] a system of teleological measurement which grades the choices and actions open to man, according to the degree to which they achieve or frustrate the code's standard of value.

benevolence: the principle that, because other men are potential traders (material and spiritual), in order to make voluntarily trades with them, one should treat them with courtesy, generosity, and respect.

trade: the <strike>giving up</strike> exchange of a value voluntarily for the sake of an equal value, to mutual benefit.

-Is Altruism reaction to a situation only? ie: If my friend had KNOWN his classmate was tired and suffering, and thus purchased the energy drink, this is considered Altruistic? I'm unsure what is to be considered non-favourable in this instance. Given we can only make assumptions because he's stated he only RECKONED he would be tired.

The act of buying a drink for a friend is a consequence of a long chain of reasoning. So the act by itself, as a situation, as an event, can come from many motives. An altruist or an egoist could both end up buying a drink for someone else--the former, because he feels it is his duty to serve; the latter, because he esteems his friend and cares for his well-being. A person's motive depends on what he values, and values are determined by one's accepted moral code. If you want to evaluate the morality of an action, you have to know the actor and his moral code.

-Does the fact he stated/blogged/told anyone he performed this deed make it Altruistic? Is it possible for an act to become Altruistic in the past tense?

Your friend's reporting of the act, it seems to me, is his way of using it as evidence for the notion of "karma." The act happened, then "karma" happened--so he claims. Your attributing some action as altruistic (or otherwise) should not depend on the fact of the subsequent reporting of that action. The reporting is a separate act, and is determined by some other motive. Now, concerning the argument your friend makes, this to me is a logical fallacy called post hoc (or, post hoc ergo propter hoc). Just because something happens and then another thing happens, does not make the first to be the cause of the second.

-If Altruism is performing a normally considered "good" deed to aid others as a reaction to their situation and thusly gaining gratification via it, how is this not conforming to the principle of Objectivism; being "The proper moral purpose to one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self interest"? If you get happiness from being showered with praise for doing something considered good, how is this not in your own self interest? Or is "self interest" in the context of Objectivism more to do with benefits that can be quantified?

Objectivism does not denigrating doing "good" deeds. There is the virtue of benevolence, which is very much integrated with the basic virtues in the Objectivist ethics. An egoist values himself for the long term. If he were obnoxious and thinking of himself only in the short term, then, while he might gain something in the moment, he would lose out in the long run because other people would not want to deal continually with him. If reason had been his guide, he would have seen that his momentary gain came at a high cost in the long run, thereby that "gain" was not a good trade but was actually a sacrifice.

There is nothing wrong with feeling gratified. In fact, it is natural to experience gratification for gaining a value. What is at issue however is not the experience of gratification but the nature of that which one values. A person's set of values, his hierarchy of values--those things he commits his life to gain and keep--are they in fact objective to his nature as a rational being? What is the standard of values from which that hierarchy was evaluated? So, if someone chooses fame for a value, and he works and eventually gets praise, celebrity, fame; then it is natural for him to feel gratified. But is "fame" an objective value? Peter Keating went for fame and praise from others, and look where he ended up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YD,

Welcome to OL.

Being nice to a friend isn't altruism in the sense Rand meant it. The altruism she blasted entails self-sacrifice for the benefit of another. Even then, not is all cases. The real test of ethical altruism is that the person doing the sacrificing needs to accept that the value he or she sacrifices can be (and often is) greater than the benefit transmitted. This is "the good" in ethical altruism. Self-sacrifice as a value in itself.

Buying someone an energy drink doesn't come anywhere near this.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Altruism is the exchange of a higher value for a lower value

Self-Interest is an exchange of a lower value for a higher value.

Thus if you valued your friends well-being (even though I don't think those kind of drinks are particularly good for you) more than you valued the $1.50 for the drink you might buy your friend a drink. So much of what is self-interest depends on context...how to make it more clear than 'The Fountainhead'? Remember Peter Keating was suppose to be the epitome of selfishness, and Ayn Rand showed that he really wasn't. Roark was suppose to be sacrificing himself for his ideas in architecture, but he was actually deeply self-interested. You need the concepts of actual objective self-interest, pseudo self-interest, self-sacrifice, and pseudo self-sacrifice to make sense of it.

Peter Keating is driven by selfishnesst every bit as Roark or anyone else in the book, only that their methods to aquire their goals vary.

Why for example does Keating ask Roark to help him? Because he wants to profit from him.

Labeling Keaitng an altruist is therefore a based on a fallacy imo.

"Selfishness" (the better term would be self-interest because it is neutral) is hardwired in us humans 100 per cent of the time.

The characters in Rand's book may speak of altruism quite often, but all their blathering about "well-being for the people" etc. is a smokescreen to conceal their true motives which reveal self-interest. Classic example is Jim Taggart in Atlas Shrugged. Taggart is is quite obviously jealous both of his sister Dagny and Hank Rearden, and masks his jealousy by accusing them to be "selfish". Thereby revealing his own selfishness (self-interest) which goes to putting down others to elevate his own self.

Or take the group who has interest in the railroad line to be build through Mexico. What they say is how how good it would be for the poor Mexican people to develop economically, but what they really want is to make a huge profit themselves from the alleged D'Anconia copper mines there. Again, selfishness/self-interest is the 100 per cent driving force behind their actions.

Bottom line: Factual altruism does not exist. It may exist as a manipulative ideology, but believing that the people propagating the ideology truly live this, and are genuine"altruists" who actually live up to the ideology is a fallacius conclusion based on wrong premises.

Rand called Taggart & Co "altruists" or "selfless" because she obviously needed them as strawmen to thrash. The purpose was to make her "selfish heroes" Roark, Galt & Co appear in a gloriously shining light.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That made great sense guys, thank you, but I think I'm a long way off understanding them in the way I want to. I need to understand an Objective value better.

Sounds like I had my definitions a bit bent anyway.

As a note, it's incredible how difficult it is to find Rand's widely known work down here, is that the case the world over?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That made great sense guys, thank you, but I think I'm a long way off understanding them in the way I want to. I need to understand an Objective value better.

Sounds like I had my definitions a bit bent anyway.

As a note, it's incredible how difficult it is to find Rand's widely known work down here, is that the case the world over?

Not a problem in the USA, or anywhere Amazon ships to.

Regards,

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, new here, all the way from little New Zealand. I recently read "The Fountainhead", and discovered Objectivism. I obviously don't fully grasp the entirety of it, but I do understand scraps.

Recently, a friend of mine posted on his blog an article about Karma. It essentially followed these lines.

He was studying at University late one night and decided to get an energy drink. As he was leaving the room, a fellow student came in. My friend decided to purchase his newly arrived fellow student an energy drink as well, as he supposed he would need the boost of caffeine/energy due to it being late at night. As a result of doing this, the fellow student gave him a textbook outlining a major assignment more clearly, aiding him to a large degree in his studies, thus "Karma" playing its role.

Not sure about a couple of things here.

-Is Altruism reaction to a situation only? ie: If my friend had KNOWN his classmate was tired and suffering, and thus purchased the energy drink, this is considered Altruistic? I'm unsure what is to be considered non-favourable in this instance. Given we can only make assumptions because he's stated he only RECKONED he would be tired.

-Does the fact he stated/blogged/told anyone he performed this deed make it Altruistic? Is it possible for an act to become Altruistic in the past tense?

-If Altruism is performing a normally considered "good" deed to aid others as a reaction to their situation and thusly gaining gratification via it, how is this not conforming to the principle of Objectivism; being "The proper moral purpose to one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self interest"? If you get happiness from being showered with praise for doing something considered good, how is this not in your own self interest? Or is "self interest" in the context of Objectivism more to do with benefits that can be quantified?

Pretty basic stuff, and I have more, but just need clarification on these things. I told him Karma was rubbish for the record, which is what started an ongoing debate. He's a 5th year Law Student

Hi YD,

"The proper moral purpose to one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self interest"? (end quote)

Imo each time people call something "a proper moral purpose", they are trying to impose their own subjective values as "objective" upon others.

It is a good idea to scrutinize what you are being told and not to take anything at face value.

As for altruism: You have answered your own questions by arriving at te following conclusin:

If you get happiness from being showered with praise for doing something considered good, how is this not in your own self interest? (end quote)

You are of course right. Self-interestis hardwired in us humans. It is natural law.

Your friend offering his fellow student an energy drink was an empathetic gesture which biologists would call "grooming". We are beings who live in groups; it was a nice gesture creating a positive, harmonious atmosphere between two people. The student who got the drink reacted in turn, "grooming" back by offering the textbook.

"Manus manum lavat", the Old Romans called it.

YD, don't have any qualms about whether your thoughts actions are in alignment with Rand's or any other philosopher's system. Becoming an independent thinker is far more important imo than trying to tailor one's thoughts to fit in any mental "system"/ideology. I wish you a lot of luck in your quest, and don't become confused if you get controversial opinions here. You'll always get them on a genuine discussion board. Just study them and test them for yourself. Feel free to ask a lot of questions.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello young_----:

I am sorry, but I am going to have a problem with the second part of your handle because you are clearly not.

Welcome to OL - start with the basic definitions from a reputable source that has extensively read Rand and accepts the

basic premises or can at least clearly state what Rand said without the personal drama.

xray only visits reality as a tourist and occasionally visits Rand via some other dimension.

Fountainhead is a great book.

Are you on the North or South main island?

Are you a student, productive worker ????

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That made great sense guys, thank you, but I think I'm a long way off understanding them in the way I want to. I need to understand an Objective value better.

Sounds like I had my definitions a bit bent anyway.

As a note, it's incredible how difficult it is to find Rand's widely known work down here, is that the case the world over?

Welcome YD,

The best source of Objectivism would be Ayn Rand's own works. There is an www.aynrandlexicon.com which gets to the point.

Other links include www.aynrand.org and www.atlassociety.com

Just for your amusement the is a non Objectivist organization of which I am a member started by Ron Paul called Campaign For Liberty and if you go to www.campaignforliberty.com and click on States and the Countries you will find that there are twelve members who live in New Zealand.

There are presently 153,492 members altogether and we are simply passing the torch in the hope that there would be enough of us to elect representatives in our Congress to restore our Constitutional Republic which has gotten out of hand.

Ron Paul is not an Objectivist but a decent man of integrity and principle who inspired a pro freedom movement here. He did recommend Atlas Shrugged in his best seller The Revolution: A Manifesto with reservations I assume because of his religious convictions. Ayn Rand was unwilling to accept something as being true for which there is no rational evidence and thus, as is true of many of us, was not a believer in the supernatural in any form. We are infinitely more interested in our own lives on earth and securing our freedom among other things which we consider worth doing.

gulch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello young_----:

I am sorry, but I am going to have a problem with the second part of your handle because you are clearly not.

Welcome to OL - start with the basic definitions from a reputable source that has extensively read Rand and accepts the

basic premises or can at least clearly state what Rand said without the personal drama.

xray only visits reality as a tourist and occasionally visits Rand via some other dimension.

Fountainhead is a great book.

Are you on the North or South main island?

Are you a student, productive worker ????

Adam

YD,

Everything I write seems to push Selene's buttons, so don't let his (or anyone else's for that matter) personal rants distract you from the issue. :)

Selene: Feel free any time to refute specific points in my posts. Mere global indictments won't work.

For example, Keating asked Roark to help him with his work. Do you seriously believe this was an "altruistic" act on Keating's part?

[BTW Selene - still waiting for your mental map to compare with mine.

(Selene @ May 13 2009, 11:30 AM)

Send me your map x-ray I want to compare it with my current map.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...6854&st=300, post # 319

Like I said, I have already provided a map of my take on epistemology, identity and categories:

'Cardinal Values' thread, posts #223 and #243.

'Existence Exists' thread, post #281

Now I'm waiting for your map to compare. TIA for your response to these posts.

See you on the "Existence Exists" thread]

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

YD,

My personal advice to you is to think with your own mind. Examine all ideas, literature, advice, arguments, preaching, in short, all intellectual content—regardless of where it comes from—according to standards that make sense to you.

It's easy to fall into the trap of agreeing too soon.

There is a small Objectivist movement in New Zealand, with website and libertarian publication, but there is a lot of contention surrounding it and an irrational troublemaker at the center who stylizes himself as an "Objectivist leader." I don't recommend it and my values are vastly different than the ones promoted there, but it is something you should look at in order to see all sides. The site is called Solo Passion. You can Google it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

xray only visits reality as a tourist and occasionally visits Rand via some other dimension.

How does this address 'Cardinal Values' posts #223 and #243 and 'Existence Exists' post #281?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with feeling gratified. In fact, it is natural to experience gratification for gaining a value. What is at issue however is not the experience of gratification but the nature of that which one values. A person's set of values, his hierarchy of values--those things he commits his life to gain and keep--are they in fact objective to his nature as a rational being? What is the standard of values from which that hierarchy was evaluated? So, if someone chooses fame for a value, and he works and eventually gets praise, celebrity, fame; then it is natural for him to feel gratified. But is "fame" an objective value? Peter Keating went for fame and praise from others, and look where he ended up.

Would you agree that Peter Keating was motivated by 100 per cent self-interest in his search for fame and praise from others?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The confusion arises while two different definitions of egoism/altruism are used, the subjective value definition (which is used by xray and in which altruism does in fact not exist) and the objective definition, in which the effect of the action on the person who acts is considered (an altruistic action is in that definition an action that benefits other people but that is detrimental to the personal survival of the altruist). Now it is suggested that Objectivism uses the objective definition (that is the theme of Isn't everyone selfish?), but that is only partly true: if it suits the Objectivist, he easily switches back to the subjective value definition. Take for example the mother who sacrifies her own life to save that of her child. In the objective definition this is obviously an altruistic action. But now the Objectivist suddenly claims that this is not true, while the value of the child and its survival is to the mother a greater value than that of her child. But that is exactly the definition that xray uses. So you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either you define altruism objectively and then you'll have to concede that the mother's behavior is altruistic, or you define it subjectively and then you'll have to agree with xray that everyone is selfish. At least xray is consistent in her argument.

Edited by Dragonfly
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