Charity

[Hazard]

The Renaissance occurred (i think) because technology finally allowed mankind to have extra time that didn't have to be spent on mere survival. The reason I have been able to develop my mind and learn about things like Objectivism is only because my society is technologically advanced. Does this not make me an object of charity to the men whose inventions made them the permanent benefactors of mankind? If I were, say, born in a poor village in Africa where disease was rampant and we could barely grow enough food to survive, I would not be able to develop my mind past the level of a cave man: the basic survival ethics.

This is the conundrum that I am faced with: I have the capacity to succeed, not by my own will and effort, but because I am lucky. I cannot justify using that success for selfish ends when it was bestowed upon me and not earned. It seems reasonable that I should, in turn, use my success to provide others with a means to success; just as it was done for me. However, this line of thought brings me to the frightful conclusion that I would be taking the whole worlds misfortunes upon my shoulders (like Atlas). I would not be able to justifiably enjoy any luxury (from a soda to a car) while there is still suffering and misfortune.

Note: I have read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem

Rand's logic makes a lot of sense to me. But "for the cost of a cup of coffee a day you could provide for a child's life." Therefore, the question determining if I should live by her values or the ones stated above is: Can I justify valuing my small luxuries (like a cup of coffee) above the very lives of others, especially when my good fortune that allows for my success was not of my own effort but of the effort of those before me?

-Jordan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jordan,

I believe your last question hides a false dichotomy: that the only alternative is for you to enjoy a cup of coffee or save a child on the other side of the world.

You can do both--or neither--and it's all good within the context of your individual life and values. So long as you are good with your decisions...

The rub comes when you want to force others to do the same. Charity from free will is a good thing. Taking something from someone by force to give to another is not good and it is not really charity--although many call it charity.

I believe in charity (the free-will kind) and practice it. You might be surprised to learn that Rand did, too. She just didn't talk about it.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The Renaissance occurred (i think) because technology finally allowed mankind to have extra time that didn't have to be spent on mere survival. The reason I have been able to develop my mind and learn about things like Objectivism is only because my society is technologically advanced. Does this not make me an object of charity to the men whose inventions made them the permanent benefactors of mankind? If I were, say, born in a poor village in Africa where disease was rampant and we could barely grow enough food to survive, I would not be able to develop my mind past the level of a cave man: the basic survival ethics.

This is the conundrum that I am faced with: I have the capacity to succeed, not by my own will and effort, but because I am lucky. I cannot justify using that success for selfish ends when it was bestowed upon me and not earned. It seems reasonable that I should, in turn, use my success to provide others with a means to success; just as it was done for me. However, this line of thought brings me to the frightful conclusion that I would be taking the whole worlds misfortunes upon my shoulders (like Atlas). I would not be able to justifiably enjoy any luxury (from a soda to a car) while there is still suffering and misfortune.

Note: I have read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem

Rand's logic makes a lot of sense to me. But "for the cost of a cup of coffee a day you could provide for a child's life." Therefore, the question determining if I should live by her values or the ones stated above is: Can I justify valuing my small luxuries (like a cup of coffee) above the very lives of others, especially when my good fortune that allows for my success was not of my own effort but of the effort of those before me?

-Jordan

I see you don't understand that the charity you refer to is merely the envious past's revenge on the future by tying it up in guilt as your life--the life you'd otherwise live--flows on without you. That kind of charity is a gun to your head, but it's in your hand and you are threatening to pull the trigger if we can't figure out for you what you should figure out for yourself? Those "benefactors of mankind" didn't do the kind of benefacting you are suggesting you might do, now, did they? Did they wallow in their lucky guilt? If you aren't morally entitled to the pursuit of your own happiness then who is? Someone so miserable in poverty and disease it is practically impossible to him? There are billions of people in the world less fortunate than you except their heads aren't filled with moral nonsense. You'll soon understand after going amongst them and trying to lift them up to your level that the only practical thing to do is lower yourself to theirs or, if you are evil drenched in envy, try to lower everybody.

--Brant

please continue your education

[Hazard]

Michael,

I still believe that it is one or the other. No matter how many children I save, there will always be more; and the second I choose to buy an extra cup of coffee, I make the value decision that I want that coffee more than I want to save the next child. I was surprised that you said Rand practiced charity. Doesn't that go against everything she stands for? Could you please give me some examples of her charity?

Brant,

Thank you for your honesty, i suppose i should have spend more time figuring this out on my own before asking you.

Jordan

[anthony]

Jordan,

The replies you got cover most of it, I think.

Additionally, a few points that might help.

You, or me, can't do much about our 'advantaged' birth, except royally screw it up with guilt and obligation to others; OR, take what we have and run with it, to our own advantage.

Milton Friedman, in "Free to Choose", mentions the part fortune plays in one's life: the era, the country, the family, which one is born to, and makes some very true observations. (If I could only remember precisely what they are!) You may not be aware yet of ultimately how little your life is going to depend on what "was bestowed upon you." It will all come down heavily to what you think and do with it later on - what you, or I, got, from parents (and mine weren't rich), education, etc., was never more than just a gentle nudge in the right general direction.

You may have been asked the type of leading question that goes "sure, but how do you know you'd have turned out this way if you'd been born dirt poor in Sudan?"

First, it's unanswerable. Second, it is extremely presumptuous for anyone to assume that it was only a lucky birth and the doing of others that makes you what you are.

---------

Those 'benefactors' who went before us, by the way, did what they did for their own sake, their own love of life and productivity; certainly, even if they didn't always profit from it financially, they weren't altruists.

All one can offer them is appreciation, in abstentia.

I try to consciously remember them - the unknown, and known - sometimes when I switch on my TV, drive a fine car, pick up my camera, read a great book, and so on.

All things that are beyond my intellect and ability to invent or produce.

Because the best that we have never came from charity.

Tony

[sbeaulieu]

Doesn't that go against everything she stands for?

What she was against was altruism. An example being tithes in some churches where you must give 10% of your earnings (used for charities and helping the less fortunate). If you are a member and wish to remain so, you are subtly forced to comply. Charity has two faces. The one Objectivists look at is the one of free choice. I give to charities listed on the Combined Federal Campaign...freely.

~ Shane

Edited June 6, 2010 by sbeaulieu

[Alfonso Jones]

I still believe that it is one or the other. No matter how many children I save, there will always be more; and the second I choose to buy an extra cup of coffee, I make the value decision that I want that coffee more than I want to save the next child. I was surprised that you said Rand practiced charity. Doesn't that go against everything she stands for? Could you please give me some examples of her charity?

Recent publications which give some knowledge on this would include Anne Heller's "Ayn Rand and the World She Made," pages 181 - 182.

"Readers familiar with Rand's disapproval of institutionalized altruism often assume that she frowned on private charity. This is not so. She seems to have had a fairly conventional approach to helping others and was personally generous in the years before a cult following increased her tendency to be self-protective and suspicious. She made small gifts and loans and offered professional help and hospitality to relatives and friends whom she saw as deserving - that is, as competent, energetic, and capable of getting on their feet. But she did not see it as a moral duty, and her style of expressing her views on the subject could seem self-serving as well as immoderate and harsh."

Barbara Branden, in The Passion of Ayn Rand, speaks of Rand's generosity to Thadeus Ashby, inviting him to move in with her and Frank O'Connor on the ranch when he had no money and no job. (page 197)).

"Ayn soon invited him to live with them on the ranch so that he could work there without having to hold a job. She wanted to spare a young writer a painful struggle. While ayn never believed that charity was a moral virtue or requirements, and did not give money to organized charities, she occasionally was financially helpful to people in whom she saw ability. In later years, she gave gifts of money, informal scholarships, to young people who could not otherwise complete their educations and in whom she saw intelligence and promise."

Bill P

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bill.

Thank you for the quotes.

I believe those good enough for examples.

Michael

[Kat]

Charities and non-profit organizations are funded mainly by donations. If you believe in the organization and its work, there is nothing wrong with giving generously to the charity. (May I recommend giving to the Atlas Society)

Most people give to charities and there is nothing wrong with it. As an Objectivist though, I probably focus more on organizations based on my own self interest and causes I can relate to. For example, my son is autistic and every year we donate and raise money by walking for Autism Speaks. I, in turn, regularly sponsor friends raising money for their causes. I also do other volunteer work such as tax preparation that helps me look good to my employer and gives them bragging rights about caring about the communities. Giving feels really good when it comes from one's own values.

The problem comes when giving feels like a sacrifice or redistribution of wealth... such that emotional blackmail BS you described about a cup-o-joe or saving a starving child in Africa. Oh Puleeeeeze. I have no problem saying no to those people who would like to lay a guilt trip on me for not being poor. I decide where to spend my hard earned dollars. I have no obligation or moral duty to give. I do it freely and voluntarily... keeping in mind that one's need is not a claim on another's personal resources.

Kat

[Jerry Biggers]

Jordan,

For a detailed discussion of how Objectivism views charity (there is no objection to voluntary charity under certain circumstances), you may wish to consult the following article and two books:

"Benevolence versus Altruism", by Nathaniel Branden. The Objectivist Newsletter, July 1962.

Generosity: Virtue in a Civil Society, by Tibor R. Machan (1998)

Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence by David Kelley (rev. ed., 2003)

The two books are likely available through Amazon, or Laissez Faire Books. The article can be found in the bound volume containing all issues of The Objectivist Newsletter, which is probably also available through Laissez Faire Books.

[Alfonso Jones]

Jordan,

For a detailed discussion of how Objectivism views charity (there is no objection to voluntary charity under certain circumstances), you may wish to consult the following article and two books:

"Benevolence versus Altruism", by Nathaniel Branden. The Objectivist Newsletter, July 1962.

Generosity: Virtue in a Civil Society, by Tibor R. Machan (1998)

Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence by David Kelley (rev. ed., 2003)

The two books are likely available through Amazon, or Laissez Faire Books. The article can be found in the bound volume containing all issues of The Objectivist Newsletter, which is probably also available through Laissez Faire Books.

Jerry -

Good references.

Regards,

Bill P

[Jerry Biggers]

Jordan,

For a detailed discussion of how Objectivism views charity (there is no objection to voluntary charity under certain circumstances), you may wish to consult the following article and two books:

"Benevolence versus Altruism", by Nathaniel Branden. The Objectivist Newsletter, July 1962.

Generosity: Virtue in a Civil Society, by Tibor R. Machan (1998)

Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence by David Kelley (rev. ed., 2003)

The two books are likely available through Amazon, or Laissez Faire Books. The article can be found in the bound volume containing all issues of The Objectivist Newsletter, which is probably also available through Laissez Faire Books.

Jerry -

Good references.

Regards,

Bill P

Bill,

Thanks!

Jordan,

Here are some other discussions of the concepts of charity, benevolence, and altruism, and the distinctions and differentiations that Objectivism makes:

Ayn Rand: in her book, The Virtue of Selfishness (1964); the chapters, "Collectivized Ethics," and "The Ethics of Emergencies" (both originally published in The Objectivist Newsletter);

Nathaniel Branden: The Vision of Ayn Rand: the Basic Principles of Objectivism. Cobden Press/Laissez Faire Books(2009)[ www.lfb.org ]. This is the transcribed set of lectures given at the Nathaniel Branden Institute, from 1958 to 1968, and is the first systematic presentation of Objectivism (outside of Rand's books, but endorsed by her). See especially, the chapters 11 - "Justice versus Mercy;" 12 - "The Evil of Self-Sacrifice;" 19 - "The Nature of Evil;" and 20 - "The Benevolent Sense of Life". Also, the Epilogue.

Nathaniel Branden: The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem (1994) See the index for discussions of about "benevolence," and also, "compassion".

Nathaniel Branden: Taking Responsibility: Self-Reliance and the Accountable Life (1996) Especially pp. 213-214 for a discussion of "charity."

There are also some very good discussions pertaining to charity in the Q&A Section (dropdown from the "Objectivism" tab, Q&A (FAQ), "See all Q&A") on the website of The Atlas Society, www.objectivistcenter.org

"Benevolence and Self-Assertiveness" (8/21/2002)

"Charity" (7/19/2002)

"Charity for 2004 tsunami victims" (1/3/2005)

Edited June 7, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[Hazard]

Michael,

I misunderstood what you meant by charity. I definitely agree with helping those who you care about and who will not be a leech. Kat, I also understand the type of giving that you explained. Thank you all for the insight and thank you Jerry for the references. I will look into those.

Jordan

[Xray]

The Renaissance occurred (i think) because technology finally allowed mankind to have extra time that didn't have to be spent on mere survival. The reason I have been able to develop my mind and learn about things like Objectivism is only because my society is technologically advanced. Does this not make me an object of charity to the men whose inventions made them the permanent benefactors of mankind? If I were, say, born in a poor village in Africa where disease was rampant and we could barely grow enough food to survive, I would not be able to develop my mind past the level of a cave man: the basic survival ethics.

This is the conundrum that I am faced with: I have the capacity to succeed, not by my own will and effort, but because I am lucky. I cannot justify using that success for selfish ends when it was bestowed upon me and not earned. It seems reasonable that I should, in turn, use my success to provide others with a means to success; just as it was done for me. However, this line of thought brings me to the frightful conclusion that I would be taking the whole worlds misfortunes upon my shoulders (like Atlas). I would not be able to justifiably enjoy any luxury (from a soda to a car) while there is still suffering and misfortune.

Note: I have read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem

Rand's logic makes a lot of sense to me. But "for the cost of a cup of coffee a day you could provide for a child's life." Therefore, the question determining if I should live by her values or the ones stated above is: Can I justify valuing my small luxuries (like a cup of coffee) above the very lives of others, especially when my good fortune that allows for my success was not of my own effort but of the effort of those before me?

Jordan,

I have read your post with great interest, and also the replies.

My impression is that you are a very empathetic person, which implies a heightened awareness of the suffering of others.

You are also a person who realizes with clarity that many things in our life are not the result of our doing, for example the circumstances we happen to be born in.

Yes, it was pure chance that you were born into a technologically advanced society where you have far more rights than most people in the rest of the world. But since you are not responsible for this pure coincidence, you need not feel any guilt about this.

Instead, you could see it as an opportunity. For example (if this suits you) by contributing to a charity organization you approve of, to share with those less fortunate part of what you have got to help them advance.

"Contributing" is not limited to contributing money. You can also share skills, maybe even by choosing a profession in the social field.

I can imagine this could give you sense of accomplishment and personal fulfillment which does leave a lot of room for you enjoying your cup of coffee "without guilt".

I'm by no means advocating an altruism suggesting you put others' needs first.

Nor do I believe that there can exist any "objective moral duty" based "objective moral truths" for my position is that "moral" truths don't exist.

So my post is to be understood as a mere suggestion of what I believe might work for you; it is actually based on what has worked for me.

I have no obligation or moral duty to give.

Would you agree that there exists no such thing as "moral duty", and that skepticism regarding every philosophy advocating "moral duty" is warranted?

I still believe that it is one or the other. No matter how many children I save, there will always be more; and the second I choose to buy an extra cup of coffee, I make the value decision that I want that coffee more than I want to save the next child. I was surprised that you said Rand practiced charity. Doesn't that go against everything she stands for? Could you please give me some examples of her charity?

Recent publications which give some knowledge on this would include Anne Heller's "Ayn Rand and the World She Made," pages 181 - 182.

"Readers familiar with Rand's disapproval of institutionalized altruism often assume that she frowned on private charity. This is not so. She seems to have had a fairly conventional approach to helping others and was personally generous in the years before a cult following increased her tendency to be self-protective and suspicious. She made small gifts and loans and offered professional help and hospitality to relatives and friends whom she saw as deserving - that is, as competent, energetic, and capable of getting on their feet. But she did not see it as a moral duty, and her style of expressing her views on the subject could seem self-serving as well as immoderate and harsh."

Supporting persons financially who are seen as deserving because they fit one's personal value profile differs substantially from contributing to organized charity.

Bill P:

Barbara Branden, in The Passion of Ayn Rand, speaks of Rand's generosity to Thadeus Ashby, inviting him to move in with her and Frank O'Connor on the ranch when he had no money and no job. (page 197)).

"Ayn soon invited him to live with them on the ranch so that he could work there without having to hold a job. She wanted to spare a young writer a painful struggle. While ayn never believed that charity was a moral virtue or requirements, and did not give money to organized charities, she occasionally was financially helpful to people in whom she saw ability. In later years, she gave gifts of money, informal scholarships, to young people who could not otherwise complete their educations and in whom she saw intelligence and promise."

Wasn't her real motive in inviting Thadeus Ashby to live with them a combination of

- the prospect of him writing a novel and play consistent with her own values

and

- the sexual attraction she felt toward him? (See BB, TPOAR, p. 198)

Edited June 10, 2010 by Xray