Recently this statement from Ayn Rand sparked some debate with me and my friends. "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
To this I said, "Objectiveism! Actually, this is the only part of objectiveism that I don't believe in-its anti altruistic." One of the friends then said, "Jason, a disdain for altruism is the primary component of Objectivism." Needless to say I disagree.
Ayn Rand believes there is a certain glory and necessity to selfishness, and that altruism leads to collectivism, and an infringement on individualism. - if this is true than altruism may in fact be bad, I do not believe that this is true though.
It is argued by Cicero of Rome, and Marcus Aurelius that one can be an individual- but ones primary goal in life is somewhat altruistic. And that Altruism makes one happy, To this I agree with.
Consider this:
If your motivation for altruism is to do good, and receive the joy that comes with doing good to others, isn’t that motivated my self-interest? Therefore, are some types of Altruism motivated, to some extent, by personal gain? For example, lets say I see a homeless man on the street, if I don’t give him a dollar then I am being selfish, (A trait Ayn Rand argues is essential to life) and equates some level of individualism and personal gain= more money. But if I do give him a dollar, in hopes to get that “warm fuzzy feeling inside” (Joy) that comes with helping others isn’t that also motivated by personal gain= Joy and happiness, that you get from serving others, and therefore individualistic?
Ayn Rand’s argument is that Altruism leads to less individual rights, and that leads to socialism.- This is not true!!!
Take the United States for example, we just sent $100,000,000, an aircraft carrier, troops, supplies, and so on and so on over to Haiti, this made me happy, and joyful, I am proud of our government for doing that, our reaction time was swift, and our donations supreme--that was altruistic; and yet our county still maintains a high degree of individual rights and liberties. But you see other counties that are already denying individual rights are actually less altruistic that the USA (a free nation) take for example Communist china, they sent $1,000,000, 0 troops, and 0 supplies to Haiti, less altruistic than the United states, yet some how we still have more freedom. Hillary Clinton said recently “that Denmark was the Happiest country in the world, because they have socialized health care (an obvious infringement on individualism) Yet, how many dollars, and troops, and supplies, and Aircraft Carriers did they send to help Haiti= None, nothing 0!
Look at the 3 examples I have shown you, The USA, China, and Denmark . . . Who do you think has more freedom, and individual liberties? The USA!!!!! Yet who is more Altruistic, The USA!!! And finally who do you think is happier? The USA!
Altruism, is not a bad thing- if it is something you choose to do, Notice- people have to be forced to live under communism, nobody, NOBODY would by choice choose to live under communism; remeber communism is a seemingly altruistic form of government. You see forced Altruism does in fact infringe on indavidualism, and freedom. But if every individual chooses, for themselves, to be altruistic, still living under a capitalist system- then you still maintain a degree of good selfishness, and yet, you still help others, and act altruistically, and still maintain freedoms and indavidual rights- and that my friend, is how it should work- and how it is working now.
What Ayn should have said was, "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never be forced to live for the sake of another man, nor force another man to live for mine."
You're confusing "altruism" with "charity" or "benevolence" or "caring for others". Look up the definition as laid down by it's originator August Comte- altruism is the philosophy that says not that you must give a beggar a dime but that you have no right to NOT give him the dime- it requires the sacrifice of your interests regardless of the recipient- all that matters is that you give up for the sake of some "other" whether that is a person, a group, a collective or the race. Here's a video:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ0jFyBwC7A
Answer me this, Can one live by ones moral code, and still be anti-altruistic? And pro capitalism?
ReplyDeleteThis is your commment under Your youtube video,
ReplyDelete"Pretty much! Objectivism doesn't say don't help others- it says don't consider helping others the standard of the good- your life is the standard of the good. Helping an 'other' who is inimical to your life- loving your enemies, etc out of duty- that is self-destructive and evil. Helping an other that you care about - even if it is just general benevolence towards people - that is serving one's own life and values. "
If your forced to be altruistic, or in this case, "caring for others" then it is evil, if it’s your choice, its self serving and good. Isn’t that what I was arguing? I was already aware of the definition that you present, of altruism. And my argument was a generalization, which I’ll admit, aimed towards benevolence, and charity. And even with the traditional definition of "altruism" isn’t my same argument true?
I believe this is what the Founding Fathers would believe, Jason. The point you make is probably as close to what they intended to hope for America.
ReplyDeleteIasthai
ReplyDeletexcowboy2 has the correct position on this. You are confusing the matter by trying to use the word altruism with both of its meanings at the same time. Personally, I am not ready to accept what you call the "traditional" meaning (if you mean benevolent charity) as valid any more than I am ready to accept that theft is a "selfish" act. Only the concepts matter. In a case where usage is trying to swap the concept a word represents, it is imperative that you define your terms before you start opining.
You are correct that benevolent charity is a selfish act, but for that very reason it cannot be labeled as "altruistic." In xcowboy2's dictionary, the two words selfish or altruistic have opposite meanings, as they should. In yours they overlap such that using them can only confuse. I believe that the opportunity blogs and forums give us to counter the definitions of words that have been revised and distorted for ulterior motives will enable a broad effort by Objectivists to reverse such corruptions. Those who traffic in them will quickly tire of us correcting them.
You cannot evade the fact that an ethic of altruism precludes egoism's demand for individual autonomy in the application of reason and action in the service of one's life, by asserting a generic duty to others in general. If that is not collectivism, what is?
This is my conclusion: Marcus Aurelius once said, “Always follow these two rules; first, act only on what your reasoning mind proposes for the good of humanity, and second, change your opinion if someone shows you its wrong” This can relate to this argument into two premises-
ReplyDeleteFirst, ‘act only on what your reasoning mind proposes for the good of humanity’. My developed reasoning mind tells me that it is my right to obtain value, and it is moral for me to keep said value, it is not immoral for me to obtain and keep for myself a value, while others have no value themselves. However, it is my moral and inborn belief that I have an optional obligation to help humanity! An opportunity per say to help the life of another, this is not my moral Responsibility, nor the responsibility of others, but an ‘individual’ choice made by myself. My developed reasoning mind tells me that Altruism (as you define it) is inherently evil! My innate moral mind tells me that altruism (as I define it) is necessary for me to live with myself, and accept the person I choose to become. This being said:
Second, “change your opinion if someone shows you its wrong”. My naïve yet innate perception of the definition of ‘Altruism’ was, in this argument, elucidated inaccurately. The way Comte describes the initial meaning of Altruism, (Ironically, I come to now find out that- altruisme, from autrui: "other people", derived from Latin alter: "other") is in fact wrong, and supportive of collectivism. The way I described Altruism in this argument was indeed false. You have shown me truth. However, There is a civil war inside myself, I was born with the innate moral believe of altruism, but my developed reasoning mind has a logical belief in Capitalism! You must understand, with my perception of altruism being based from a thought of pure benevolence, it was generally easy for me to defend altruism. Now I see I was wrong. This does not change my moral but possibly illogical belief in altruism, or my logical and reasonable belief in Capitalism, and individualism!
However, how are you not ready to accept benevolent charity? And how is Theft not selfish?
ReplyDeleteBefore you pursue this or any other philosophical issue you must stop and wrestle your way through some basic principles regarding knowledge and how we obtain it — epistemology. You have made in this comment a number of references to innate perceptions and beliefs. It is not immediately clear whether you mean that they are deeply felt or actually inborn.
ReplyDeleteIf you mean the former, say that and not "innate". If you mean the latter, you need to investigate determinism and the fallacy that it is. It is ultimately self-defeating to claim inborn ideas, because if there were any, it would be impossible to discern which are and which are not, and you would have to abandon any claim to the truth of anything you might say.
Your only access to the nature of yourself and the rest of existence is the information gleaned by your senses — your perceptions. Reason is the capacity to abstract from those perceptions essential characteristics and integrate them into concepts that you integrate into complexes of concepts, all logically, in order to identify reality and draw conclusions about it that can be tracked through that chain of logic back to the original perceptions to validate them.
There is no magic shortcut — like instincts or feelings, or inborn ideas. So, stick with reason and logic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRead some Cicero! I have faith in the human soul, in man’s inborn love of truth, and his divine capacity to reason. Knowledge of Natural Law and the lust to seek truth are inborn within us all!-Not determinism, our inborn knowledge does not dictate how the universe is to unfold, only how the laws of the universe are manifested unto us all. You claim access to me and the nature of ones self is through perception in life only, subjective reality over objective reality? I would argue otherwise, I believe we are all born with our own innate personalities (Read ‘The People Code’) and knowledge for Natural Law. “I know that in a world where absolute truth exists, but cannot be known, one must rely on reason and faith.”-Delouse Conner. Reason and logic are imperative- but faith is a key component, feelings are key.
ReplyDeleteI believe we are both "students of Objectivism." Though, you much more than I. I have a feeling that you and I agree on a lot more than what appears in this argument. We just need to find the space to determine it.
"However, how are you not ready to accept benevolent charity? And how is Theft not selfish?"
ReplyDeleteI meant that I do not accept the traditional meaning of altruism that includes benevolent charity. Altruism properly refers only to dutiful charity as xcowboy2 explained. To be altruistic an action must be contrary to your long term self interest and accepted as ethical solely out of a duty or obligation to someone or something other than oneself.
Theft is not selfish, because it is never in one's long term self interest, no matter how big the booty. An act of theft contradicts the recognition that the primary value of a rational man is autonomy in the application of reason to action in the service of life. It values one's own autonomy while denying that of another human being to whom the same principle applies. Furthermore, when that ethical principle is extended to the social context as the right to own property, the act of theft likewise constitutes a self-contradiction. One cannot violate a right to property without implicitly denying one's own right. A moral code of values is necessary to the pursuit of a successful life. Once the integrity of one's morality is breached, the flood gates are open, and the consequences, both physical and psychological, inevitable.
The determinism I referred to is not about the unfolding of the universe. It is about the content of your mind. The body has many automatic functions. Thinking is not one of them. It starts with the reception and processing of perceptions at birth. You are not born with knowledge, ideas, or beliefs in your mind. And feelings are not cognition.
ReplyDeleteTo persist in maintaining that is to deny objectivity altogether. There is nothing to be gained by me or anyone else from a discussion with a pre-programmed robot.
I am done with this argument, not in a negative sense, but in a way that means that I no longer feel able to contribute anything else to the topic. I have learned a great deal from you Michael, and I thank you for your willingness to devote your time and effort to spreading your opinion, and aiding those whose opinions are still being developed. It is a great freedom that we have here, able to debate things like this, sharing our differing opinions. There are things we have both said that we both disagree with, but I thank you for your perspective. And in some areas, you have indeed changed my opinion. I will end this post with this:
ReplyDeleteUpon my word, Socrates, I do not know.
"It is upon our own realization of our own ignorance that we become open to the teachings of our mentors."