Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Questions about altruism

Rate this topic


jefftk

Recommended Posts

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?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Altruism, according to Rand, is an ethical system based on living for others. This is distinct from how the average Joe uses the term to mean help for others. Rand said altruism is wrong because it can't be consistently practiced. She believed that it causes a host of problems, including ever more emotional damage as the altruist fails to consistently practice his principles. Objectivism holds that to live happily you have to think of yourself first. It organizes its ethics around egoism, but that doesn't preclude an Objectivist from helping other people. All of the good acts you mentioned could be done in a selfish way, and therefore could be perfectly moral, according to Objectivism. What Objectivism rejects is the idea that a rich person has to donate money in order to be a good person. Promotion of that last idea is evil, but helping others can often be an extremely fulfilling value.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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?)

 

Altruism, for Objectivism, is NOT helping others.  Altruism is the moral code that requires individuals to act in a way that the desires, values, and interests of others are above your own, and that you must sacrifice your values to others.  Altruism requires you to place these goals of others above your own interest.  In any conflict between what  you value and what others value, you are to sacrifice your values and pursue the values of others.  

 

Feel free to donate to whomever you want that you think furthers your values.  

Edited by A is A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

Like others have mentioned, it depends on why you're donating. If it's because you value society, that you feel it enriches your life and that you think donating to asteroid detection could help prevent its destruction, then it's very moral to donate.

 

In fact, if you felt that your society were threatened (even if you, yourself, were not physically at risk) and you believed that a donation could help alleviate or reduce the threat with a donation, and you felt that society was a value worth pursuing, then it would be less moral to keep your money than to donate it. (I hesitate to say immoral here, although it may well be the case that it'd be immoral.)

 

For example, if we'd been living in a fully capitalist society when 9/11 happened and the President had come on national television and asked for donations to help fund an expanded 'anti-terrorism' branch of the military - one that would aim at the destruction of those responsible and the protection of our rights and lives, I think most (if not all) moral individuals capable of donations would donate. That said, moral individuals would cease donations once they felt that the government had stepped over its bounds or wasted their money.

 

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?

 

Dependence and backlash from donations can be a negative consequence, but it's not the reason you should or should not donate. Future negative consequences should be given weight to your donations, but they shouldn't stop you if you decide that your values are best upheld by donations now.

 

I, personally, believe that Ayn Rand understated the importance of charity. I agree with her in principle, but I'd argue that charity serves a great deal of moral (selfish) ends. One reason to donate to charity is that it makes a strong statement. When you donate, you show how inefficient government welfare is.

Put another way, I think that the argument for state welfare would be stronger if no one ever donated to charity or helped out others willingly. If we removed government handouts and even a small number of American citizens began dying of starvation, I'd imagine almost anyone would begin to think a 'safety net' was a good idea. However, people do donate to charity, so even the potential argument of the necessity of forced charity is diffused. (Although that doesn't stop many people from making it.)

Edited by Mushroom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

That is not a "backdoor" for Objectivism.  Your values are yours to choose.  The difference is, do you have a right to exist, as a moral human being, if you DO NOT choose to give your money away to others and pursue your self interest in other ways besides helping others?  An altruist will always answer in the negative.

Edited by A is A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

And what will you do with that $10K/year?  Under altruism, will you use it for your own self interested values?  Then you are immoral according to altruism.

Edited by A is A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key is to understand is that a moral choice can never include a sacrifice. Contrary to what some say, it is not selfish to give away something at your own expense simply because you want to, where what you are giving is a higher value.

This is a little confusing.  What is "at your own expense" referring to?  Just monetary value or ethical value?  What does "simply because you want to" mean?  That is not the standard for evaluating values.

Edited by A is A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key is to understand is that a moral choice can never include a sacrifice.

 

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"?

Edited by jefftk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Helping others is not a primary ethical concern within Objectivism. The primary concern is in helping you define values that enable you to support your life and achieve happiness.

 

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.

How did you earn your money that you are using to donate to others? What is your ethical evaluation of your actions while you earned that money? What standard were you using to guide your actions when you were earning the money above the $10K/year? How did you choose what occupation to earn the extra money that you donate?  Did you choose an occupation that made you happy or miserable?  Did it make a difference to you whether you were happy or miserable when  you were earning such money to give away?  If your ONLY object was to give away money to others and if that is your ethical standard, then would you rob, murder, blackmail others to get such money? If not, why not?  Obviously, helping others is not your only value.

 

Who deserves greater moral praise?  You, for earning the money you donate, or others, for being in need of your help?

Edited by A is A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A is A said:

"What is "at your own expense" referring to? Just monetary value or ethical value? What does "simply because you want to" mean? That is not the standard for evaluating values."

At your own expense meaning "trading a higher value for a lesser value", where the expense is the higher value. That one "wants to" is not the standard of value is exactly my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A is A said:

"What is "at your own expense" referring to? Just monetary value or ethical value? What does "simply because you want to" mean? That is not the standard for evaluating values."

At your own expense meaning "trading a higher value for a lesser value", where the expense is the higher value. That one "wants to" is not the standard of value is exactly my point.

Got it.  Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jefftk said:

" 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"?"

The definition of a sacrifice is trading a higher value for a lesser one. Keeping that in mind should clear this up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The definition of a sacrifice is trading a higher value for a lesser one. Keeping that in mind should clear this up.

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what will you do with that $10K/year?  Under altruism, will you use it for your own self interested values?  Then you are immoral according to altruism.

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that helped clear this issue up for me, was realizing that Objectivism is about defining what values to pursue, while other philosophies are typically concerned with actions.

 

The questions, "is it moral to help people" or "is it moral to give to charity," aren't relevant to Objectivism. What is relevant is, "does this person or organization provide me with rational, objective value." Once you can answer that question, deciding what actions to take are a lot easier.

Edited by Dormin111
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"“Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. “Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. “Sacrifice” is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t.

If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and give it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is.

If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself—that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.

If you renounce all personal desires and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate—that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"“Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. “Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. “Sacrifice” is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t.

If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and give it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is.

If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself—that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.

If you renounce all personal desires and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate—that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

That's not a sacrifice if you value good health more than eating lots of salt.

 

Think of it like this in an extreme case to illustrate the point: Let's say that your doctor says that eating any food that is red will kill you, starting tomorrow. And let's say that somehow this is true. But you have always loved lots of red food. You'd like to be able to keep eating red foods, but now you know that they will kill you if you do. So you have a choice: Eat red food, in all its tastiness, and die. Or "sacrifice" by giving up red foods, and live. 

 

Is that really a sacrifice? Not really. You are trading red food, but gaining life. Red food might have had some value to you for its tastiness in the past, but now its value must be weighed together with all that it brings you, and now it also brings you death. So you are not sacrificing in actuality. You are trading a lesser value for a higher value. Note, they might both have value, but one has lesser value, and the other has higher value, and you can't have both at the same time. That's key.

Edited by secondhander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

Yeah, Ayn Rand does this. She takes common words and uses them to mean something a little different than their common definition. "Selfish" to her means something more like "having a self" or "rational self interest" than the common "stinginess resulting from a concern for your own welfare and a disregard of others" (Source http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Selfishness)

 

Similarly, you'll find that "evil," "sacrifice," "virtue," "value," and other words are very specifically defined in Miss Rand's books. Most of the time, her use of words is close to the common use - virtue and value are pretty close to what the dictionary says. Selfishness and sacrifice are two that almost mean opposite of what most people would assume.

 

I, for one, find altered definitions to be a bit distracting, but it's not uncommon for philosophers or their translators to do it.  The best way, I've found, to understand how a philosopher uses words is to try to keep in mind his or her formal definitions when you read a very dense argument. Try mentally substituting their definition for a particular word (Rand is helpful by usually providing a clear definition of any words she is taking in a more rigorous philosophical sense). Usually this makes the arguments a bit clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Ayn Rand does this. She takes common words and uses them to mean something a little different than their common definition. "Selfish" to her means something more like "having a self" or "rational self interest" than the common "stinginess resulting from a concern for your own welfare and a disregard of others" (Source http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Selfishness)

 

Similarly, you'll find that "evil," "sacrifice," "virtue," "value," and other words are very specifically defined in Miss Rand's books. Most of the time, her use of words is close to the common use - virtue and value are pretty close to what the dictionary says. Selfishness and sacrifice are two that almost mean opposite of what most people would assume.

 

I, for one, find altered definitions to be a bit distracting, but it's not uncommon for philosophers or their translators to do it.  The best way, I've found, to understand how a philosopher uses words is to try to keep in mind his or her formal definitions when you read a very dense argument. Try mentally substituting their definition for a particular word (Rand is helpful by usually providing a clear definition of any words she is taking in a more rigorous philosophical sense). Usually this makes the arguments a bit clearer.

 

While Ayn Rand used these words differently from common usage, I think in many cases this was done for the sake of clarity. Colloquial uses of words like "altruistic" and "selfishness" are often nonsensical and contradictory. Rand would cut through the nonsense and offer solid definitions. The whole point of definitions is to facilitate communication in the first place. So yes, it is annoying to have to explain to people would Rand means by "selfless" but that's partially because everybody thinks it means something different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Ayn Rand used these words differently from common usage, I think in many cases this was done for the sake of clarity. Colloquial uses of words like "altruistic" and "selfishness" are often nonsensical and contradictory. Rand would cut through the nonsense and offer solid definitions. The whole point of definitions is to facilitate communication in the first place. So yes, it is annoying to have to explain to people would Rand means by "selfless" but that's partially because everybody thinks it means something different.

 

 

Exactly. I might have preferred Rand substitute slightly longer phrasings, like "rational self interest" for selfishness, but yes, she did add clarity at the expense of a few misunderstandings by less careful readers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. I might have preferred Rand substitute slightly longer phrasings, like "rational self interest" for selfishness, but yes, she did add clarity at the expense of a few misunderstandings by less careful readers. 

 

She did use use the phrase "rational self-interest." 

 

The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. -- Introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness

 

Note, it's in the introduction. She was very clear on what she meant by her terminology, on the first pages of TVoS. I don't think anyone could rightfully argue that she wasn't crystal clear.

 

She also used the term "altruism" in the way that the philosopher Comte used the term. Comte is the person who coined the term. So, she is using the term exactly as it was meant. It's not really her fault that other people since have used the term in a much more loose way.

Edited by secondhander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...