jefftk

Only through fulfilling my values. I don't think I'd be able to feel from halfway across the world the effect of even $50K/year of donations to effective charities working in the developing world. More obviously, in the asteroid example, I could donate to an organization that was only working on asteroids had the potential to hit the earth after I would be dead. Sorry, what are you saying here? That's what confuses me! It sounds a lot like "the definition of altruism" yet if I choose it because I think it best fulfills my values then it sounds like it's fully Objectivist and not altruistic at all (in the Comptean sense). I think GiveWell's charity investigations are pretty good. I've read the details of their reviews, which are very thorough, and have convinced me the money would be spent well. Imagine there's a giant asteroid out there somewhere that's in danger of hitting earth and killing everyone. Through investments in detection we might spot it earlier than we would otherwise, which would give us time to deflect it. This isn't really the sort of situation that a team of scientists could take advantage of to save themselves while letting everyone else die. Clearly me dying is not good. I'm not talking about dying to benefit others. But after I die (ideally of "natural causes" at a nice old age) I'd like humanity to continue on, and reducing the chances of an asteroid hitting Earth might be important. (I think asteroid detection research is probably not actually that important, because I think we've already found almost all the potentially dangerous ones, but it makes for the right thought experiment.)

Say I want people to get to lead good lives, free from oppression, disease, restrictions, and I fund an organization working toward that end. Does this organization provide me with value (in the Objectivist sense of the word)?

So even though donating a large fraction of my income sounds a lot like "living for others", as long as I do it fully voluntarily and it's the best way of satisfying my values it's the right thing to do under Objectivism?

If my doctor tells me that eating less salt would be good for my health, and so I give it up, I would think of that as a sacrifice. It sounds like you're using the term in a specific way here, where it wouldn't be a sacrifice? Because if given the choice between a world where I get to eat salt and have higher blood pressure and one with neither I freely chose the world I would prefer?

I see how this is literally true: if donating most of my income is what best fulfills my values then it's not a sacrifice. But by that approach no moral choice includes a sacrifice. Say I'm driving through a remote area late at night and I pass someone who's car has broken down. They have no water, their cell phone isn't working, and they ask me for help. While I recognize that Objectivism wouldn't obligate me to help this person, perhaps my values would be best satisfied by helping them voluntarily. That help might require something that would normally be considered a sacrifice, however, such as spending some time dealing with the problem, letting them make a call on my phone, maybe giving them a ride somewhere. Would you just say "those wouldn't be sacrifices because by your values you come out ahead"?

I'm not sure I understand. It sounds like the Objectivist view is that helping others is fine as long as you're doing it for selfish reasons. Selfish reasons can include "fulfilling my values", but that seems like a back door through which the "morality of altruism" can sneak back in. What if I value strangers having good lives? Say my values are best fulfilled by living on $10K/year and donating all the rest of my income to the best charity I can find? I'm not placing other people above myself because the decision to donate or not is mine alone, but this sounds a lot like what Objectivism opposes about altruism.

I'm trying to understand the Objectivist view of altruism. For example, imagine I want to reduce the chance that an asteroid wipes out humanity and so donate to an organization working to improve asteroid detection. For simply improving my life or that of my descendants there are much more effective things I could spend my money on, but I want to help future people by increasing the chance they get to exist. Is it wrong for me to try to help these future strangers from whom I will of course get nothing in return? In reading Objectivist writing against altruism the argument tends to be is "this form of trying to help people actually backfires, and has negative effects". For example, the idea that feeding the hungry creates dependence, and makes them worse off than they were before. I see people saying things like "what Africa needs is good institutions that respect property rights, not more handouts". But what if there's a good organization working to create those good institutions? Is it bad to donate to them? If the problem is that "altruism doesn't actually help people" doesn't that just mean you're doing it wrong and should figure out how to do it in ways that actually make people's lives better off? Is it simply wrong to take actions that make other people's lives better without improving your own? Or is it impossibly difficult to actually help people, because without the feedback of the market you end up doing the wrong things? Or something more subtle I'm not understanding? (Objectivist writing spreads ideas that should make the world better, right? But doesn't that mean writing Objectivist books is an altruistic act?)