Questions about altruism

[jefftk]

does this person or organization provide me with rational, objective value

 

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)?

[Dormin111]

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)?

 

Yes, living in a more rational, less oppressive, less diseased, less restricted world would benefit you. Once that is established, you have to determine if donating to an organization which furthers these goals would provide you with more value than doing something else with your money (like buying food or video games). Ultimately, that decision is up to your assessment of the potential values at hand.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Dormin111

[Spiral Architect]

The important thing to remember is to unravel the term from it's modern use.  Rand clarified the term in modern terms but she basically revived the classic definition, for whom we can thank Comte.  He was the one who put it into our lexicon and he made no bones about man's roll in society - A man was to sacrifice his life to society since that society made his life possible.  For example, Comte thought that suicide was selfish because it denied others the work you owed them. 

 

In modern terms, the term is a packaged deal of generosity, work ethic (as in you'll sacrifice fun time to work ahead in school), and social duty.  It's a false package however as being kind is a part of being human in a benevolent universe.  Demanding people give up what they value for something they don't value has been reworked into every bromide that killed 140 million people under communism through peace time initiatives. 

 

As Rand said, the idea is you have a right to exist if you don't give to others. 

 

Now, interpretation.  The important thing to remember is that reason is your guide.  You can say that living a hedonistic style is a value, but it is a value that is very unreasonable since eating and drinking excessively has well known repercussions.   You can't act against your self interest and pretend it is a value.  Or to put it another way, you cannot claim something is a value as a backdoor into doing whatever you want - That is whim worship.  You have to act in your rational best interests.

 

So, in one of your example, giving $10,000 a year to a charity is reasonable if the charity is important to you, you can afford the money and the loss does not hinder you, and the charity is not acting in some way against you.   A charity that researches a method of combating a disease you or a loved one has had is certainly of value.  You wouldn't do it if you couldn't pay your bills because of it, however.  You also wouldn't do it if the charity acted in some way against you, say advocated and funded laws that were incremental to you. 

 

I hope that helps clarify a few points.

[Repairman]

jefftk, I strongly recommend that you start your introduction to Objective through the actual books of Ayn Rand. Most of the questions I see can be answered simply by reading The Virtue of Selfishness. While I understand that these are situations supposed for the sake of argument only, and many of the afore mentioned arguments are well-reasoned, allow me to offer this perspective:

 

The asteroid scenerio: man is a helpless entity. First, this is not true.

 

You derive great value from giving endlessly of your earnings, paid for with honest and strenuous labor, to multitudes of strangers, while you subject yourself to abject poverty. This is quite nearly the definition of altruism. If you gave the significant volume of your wealth to organizations that insisted they could spend it more effectively for you, how would you rest assured that they (the organization) are spending it wisely? Maybe the team of scientists saves themselves and their families, and leaves you to die, in the asteriod scenio? Would that fulfill your highest values? If you wish the multitudes to survive or florish, while you parish, how does this equate to your "pursuit of happiness"?

Edited August 21, 2013 by Repairman

[jefftk]

living in a more rational, less oppressive, less diseased, less restricted world would benefit you

 

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.

 

 

The asteroid scenerio: man is a helpless entity. First, this is not true.

 

Sorry, what are you saying here?

 

 

You derive great value from giving endlessly of your earnings, paid for with honest and strenuous labor, to multitudes of strangers, while you subject yourself to abject poverty. This is quite nearly the definition of altruism.

 

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).

 

If you gave the significant volume of your wealth to organizations that insisted they could spend it more effectively for you, how would you rest assured that they (the organization) are spending it wisely?

 

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.

 

Maybe the team of scientists saves themselves and their families, and leaves you to die, in the asteriod scenio?

 

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.

 

 

If you wish the multitudes to survive or florish, while you parish, how does this equate to your "pursuit of happiness"?

 

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.)

Edited August 21, 2013 by jefftk

[A is A]

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?

Objectivism is a philosophy of general principles.  It does not tell you specific values to pursue.  It is not a religion.  It is up to you to define what values are in your interest.  You have to grasp the principles of Objectivism and apply them to your life and choices.  

 

What you really need to do is study the writings of Rand first-hand and not seek to understand Objectivism through the comments of others here on this Forum.

Edited August 21, 2013 by A is A