Is Altruism Defensible?

[One Prime Mover]

One of the fatal flaws of altruism, as I understand the Objectivist viewpoint, is that it necessitates the sacrifice of value. Superficially, that appears to be a sound and complete refutation of the concept; I do agree with Objectivists in stating that it is immoral to give a value away for nothing.

Human beings do benefit (i.e. derive value) from society. Division of labor and cooperative, mutually beneficial behavior allows people to derive far more from society than they would independently. The stronger a social workforce, the more educated and developed the lower rungs of the ladder, the more I stand to benefit from that society.

Altruism, while necessitating a sacrifice of value on the part of the giver, results in gained value for the receiver. In general, the value received by the weaker person will be much greater than the value sacrificed by the stronger (i.e. I don’t rent a movie tonight, the homeless man gets to eat). In a sense, altruism increases the ‘net’ value in a society by transforming a trivial value of one person into a great value for another. This net value, I would argue, is something I stand to benefit from.

If social assistance programs or other altruistic endeavors truly can help people improve their lives (and I believe that it’s short-sighted to claim, with absolutism, that altruism cannot make a lasting positive change), then it stands to reason that altruism can elevate people from weakness, empowering them to achieve and produce -- in effect, becoming contributing members of a mutually beneficial society. Welfare can help people send their kids to school, educating them. Charity can help the homeless find jobs and join the workforce.

In this sense, could it not be argued that altruism is not truly the sacrifice of value? If, by giving up a trivial value (say, a negligible amount of my tax money to charity or welfare), I potentially assist in the creation of productive members of society, is that not a positive exchange? Do I not stand to benefit, in the long run, from such an arrangement? Is it not worth the trade of a trivial value for that possibility?

If the answer is yes to those questions, then it stands to reason that altruism is not merely the sacrifice of a value -- it is, at worst, a trivially cheap investment with the long-shot potential for real gain in the creation of productive citizens. Taken in a social context at large, the adoption of altruism as a custom would give it that much more power -- and result in the strengthening of society as a whole, from which I stand to benefit.

In summary: Indulging in altruism is a fairly trivial loss of value that has the potential to create much greater value in a society. As I benefit from the strength of the society of which I am a part, I stand to benefit from the creation of net value -- the general result of altruism.

Don't I?

[iouswuoibev]

Altruism, while necessitating a sacrifice of value on the part of the giver, results in gained value for the receiver. In general, the value received by the weaker person will be much greater than the value sacrificed by the stronger (i.e. I don’t rent a movie tonight, the homeless man gets to eat). In a sense, altruism increases the ‘net’ value in a society by transforming a trivial value of one person into a great value for another. This net value, I would argue, is something I stand to benefit from.

In which case, it is not a sacrifice, and therefore not altruism. Sacrifice is the exchange of a greater value for a lesser or non-existent value. So long as the gain is real and not something imagined, there is no altruism in contributing en-mass.

Though I would say that there is no objective benefit in giving to a homeless person, neither for you or him. His problem is not his next meal, but his entire approach to life, and no short term aid on your part is going to change that.

[One Prime Mover]

In which case, it is not a sacrifice, and therefore not altruism. Sacrifice is the exchange of a greater value for a lesser or non-existent value. So long as the gain is real and not something imagined, there is no altruism in contributing en-mass.

Though I would say that there is no objective benefit in giving to a homeless person, neither for you or him. His problem is not his next meal, but his entire approach to life, and no short term aid on your part is going to change that.

Ahh, I see. So Objectivism does not condemn social systems like welfare or charity out of hand, only those systems that truly sacrifice value even in a 'net' sense? From what I've gathered from reading the posts on this forum, as well as OPAR, that doesn't sound quite right. Benefiting society at the immediate expense of one's own values doesn't seem to fit with what I understand of Objectivism; perhaps this misunderstanding is what's hamstringing my attempts to integrate Objectivist ethics.

Could someone, perhaps, please summarize the Objectivist position on altruism, with an eye towards my own interpretation of it above? I should probably have asked this in the 'Questions' forum; if a Moderator would like to move it there, please do so with my apologies.

[iouswuoibev]

Ahh, I see. So Objectivism does not condemn social systems like welfare or charity out of hand,

Welfare and charity have no moral status qua themselves. Their morality should be based on whether it is selfish to donate or not. Welfare provided by the government is ALWAYS immoral, because the sustenance they distribute was taken by force, not given to them voluntarily. (Charity is voluntary for all parties involved, so government charity is a contradiction in terms.)

Could someone, perhaps, please summarize the Objectivist position on altruism, with an eye towards my own interpretation of it above?

Have you not read the Virtue of Selfishness? It is all there.

[softwareNerd]

Ahh, I see. So Objectivism does not condemn social systems like welfare or charity out of hand, only those systems that truly sacrifice value even in a 'net' sense?

Welfare and Charity are different (at least the way the terms are usually defined).

Welfare is "government charity". However, the government does not have any money of its own except what it receives from taxation. So, this makes welfare a "charity" that is forced upon the taxpayer.

While there may be many contexts in which it is fine for me to be charitable, I would not presume the right to force you to be charitable.

[drewfactor]

I think you've created a picture of altruism based on the typical "package deal" that is often promulgated by altruists. That package deal consists of interchanging the idea of benevolence (charity) and altruism. These are two different concepts and are not interchangable terms.

Secondly, I notice several assumptions which seem to be made as if they were statements of fact, which in reality do not show to be true. One of them is the assumption that the person making the sacrifice is giving up a "trivial value" (ie. renting a movie or giving up a negligible amount of tax money) and the person gaining the value is necessarily gaining a higher value.

To illustrate the flaw in this thinking, think about that five dollars that you decide to spend on a movie and a snack, instead of giving it to the homeless person. The teenager working at the counter of the video store whom is saving his pennies to pay for college, the store owner who took the financial risk of operating a business, the vast industry surrounding entertainment employing millions of people etc...are all members of society too. The distinction here is that they are productive members of society, and your exchange of value for value by paying for that movie is immeasurably greater for everyone. Compare that to giving the money to a bum, who may pay for his next meal, but will more likely buy a substance for his addiction. Instead of promoting productivity, you promote the gaining of unearned value, while you ultimately gain nothing.

Do you really stand to gain from a society that supports moochers, parasites, and bums?

[Cole]

I think you've created a picture of altruism based on the typical "package deal" that is often promulgated by altruists.  That package deal consists of interchanging the idea of benevolence (charity) and altruism.  These are two different concepts and are not interchangable terms.

I would say that charity is always altruistic. Otherwise, it would be a purchase. It seems that most other people use the word this way, as well. When I hear the word "charity" used, it is used to refer to an action with the intent of benefiting the person being donated to, and not the person donating.

I invite you to explain a form of charity that is not altruistic, and explain why it is deserving of being classified as "charity" as opposed to being the same as any other value-for-value trade.

Secondly, I notice several assumptions which seem to be made as if they were statements of fact, which in reality do not show to be true.  One of them is the assumption that the person making the sacrifice is giving up a "trivial value" (ie. renting a movie or giving up a negligible amount of tax money) and the person gaining the value is necessarily gaining a higher value.

That is necessarily true by matter of definition. The essential attribute used to define sacrifice is that the action involves trading something of one value in exchange for something of a lesser value. If this isn't an attribute of the action being discussed, then the action cannot properly be described as a "sacrifice."

[Groovenstein]

I would say that charity is always altruistic. Otherwise, it would be a purchase. It seems that most other people use the word this way, as well. When I hear the word "charity" used, it is used to refer to an action with the intent of benefiting the person being donated to, and not the person donating.

I invite you to explain a form of charity that is not altruistic, and explain why it is deserving of being classified as "charity" as opposed to being the same as any other value-for-value trade.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but in order to understand, and perhaps change, my own principles, I'm going to give this a whirl. Of course, I am not speaking for Objectivism, this is just my own opinion at this time.

Are you suggesting that when one gives without getting an immediate, tangible benefit, that is necessarily altruistic? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but as I understand "charity" in layman's terms, the act of, say, giving money to the American Cancer Society would be considered "charity."

But if I thought that was an effective way to promote cancer research, which was important to me because I have a brother suffering from it (I don't, this is purely hypothetical), and I couldn't think of a better way to spend that particular few hundred dollars, how is that altruistic?

I wouldn't necessarily receive any sort of tangible benefit in that situation (unless they happened to find something that saved my brother), but isn't that kind of donation generally considered "charity"? I'm not really purchasing anything. Investing, perhaps, though as I hear that term used it generally means a stock kind of thing where a specifically tangible value (or the right to one) is received in return.

If not charity, what might you call the situation I described?

[Ayn+Im+ion]

Altruism, while necessitating a sacrifice of value on the part of the giver, results in gained value for the receiver. In general, the value received by the weaker person will be much greater than the value sacrificed by the stronger (i.e. I don’t rent a movie tonight, the homeless man gets to eat). In a sense, altruism increases the ‘net’ value in a society by transforming a trivial value of one person into a great value for another. This net value, I would argue, is something I stand to benefit from.

Instead of a homeless man if I bring a homeless 4-5 year old in the picture and use my trivial value to buy a meal for him, would I still be compromising with Objectivist mindset???

Its not sacrifice of value..............but is "Sacrifice" "OF VALUE"

Ok, lets get back to that homeless man

To illustrate the flaw in this thinking, think about that five dollars that you decide to spend on a movie and a snack, instead of giving it to the homeless person. The teenager working at the counter of the video store whom is saving his pennies to pay for college, the store owner who took the financial risk of operating a business, the vast industry surrounding entertainment employing millions of people etc...are all members of society too. The distinction here is that they are productive members of society, and your exchange of value for value by paying for that movie is immeasurably greater for everyone. Compare that to giving the money to a bum, who may pay for his next meal, but will more likely buy a substance for his addiction. Instead of promoting productivity, you promote the gaining of unearned value, while you ultimately gain nothing.

If one can guarantee that that teenager might use the money for his studies ONLY?? what if he falls for some addiction...........or for that matter if the movie is smash hit, that ticket which I was to buy could have very easily be bought by some other person........ and if the movie is a dud then to hell with the operating incharge who foolishly dared to put his money in the project. What if the money raised with the film is used by some mafia specializing in drugs and other unscrupulous activities.

What if the homeless man actually buys the meal from some food-cart owner who then uses the same money for his pupil studies...........oh... one can always put in their own stories to prove the point......lets keep the example as simple as put by One Prime Mover: who wants to use his trivial money to buy a day meal for homeless.

My answer:if thats the case its not sacrifice of value..............but is "Sacrifice" "OF VALUE". just make sure that your trivial Sacrificial money "of value" is used to buy a day meal only (or is used for good and not opposite).

I hate the term charity and never compare it with "sacrifice OF VALUE". But if its always possible for us to make sure that ones hard earned money is been used for good??? Altruism is sacrifice of value but what is "Sacrifice" "OF VALUE"?? I guess this falls within the Objectivist regime.

[ex_banana-eater]

Listen to the Leonard Peikoff lecture "Why one should act on Principle" AynImIon, before you bring up more questions like this. It is available for free online at the Ayn Rand Institute registered users page. You need to apply the principle of self-interest to all of those situations, so that lecture may help.

[drewfactor]

I would say that charity is always altruistic. Otherwise, it would be a purchase. It seems that most other people use the word this way, as well. When I hear the word "charity" used, it is used to refer to an action with the intent of benefiting the person being donated to, and not the person donating.

I invite you to explain a form of charity that is not altruistic, and explain why it is deserving of being classified as "charity" as opposed to being the same as any other value-for-value trade.

That is necessarily true by matter of definition. The essential attribute used to define sacrifice is that the action involves trading something of one value in exchange for something of a lesser value. If this isn't an attribute of the action being discussed, then the action cannot properly be described as a "sacrifice."

If someone gains an emotional benefit, a feeling that they "helped someone in need" then yes, I can see that charity (in that case) is different from altruism. Objectivist ethics does not forbid charity or any form of giving. The type of charity that One Prime Mover is describing (providing it is voluntary, not coerced as in gov't taxation), is not altruism. Aside from the feeling of "doing good for others" (a selfish gain), One Prime Mover is correct that we can gain selfishly from the bemefits society earns from our charity, however this is not altruism BECAUSE we are gaining selfishly.

[drewfactor]

If one can guarantee that that teenager might use the money for his studies ONLY?? what if he falls for some addiction...........or for that matter if the movie is smash hit, that ticket which I was to buy could have very easily be bought by some other person........ and if the movie is a dud then to hell with the operating incharge who foolishly dared to put his money in the project. What if the money raised with the film is used by some mafia specializing in drugs and other unscrupulous activities.

What if the homeless man actually buys the meal from some food-cart owner who then uses the same money for his pupil studies...........oh... one can always put in their own stories to prove the point......lets keep the example as simple as put by One Prime Mover: who wants to use his trivial money to buy a day meal for homeless.

My answer:if thats the case its not sacrifice of value..............but is "Sacrifice" "OF VALUE". just make sure that your trivial Sacrificial money "of value" is used to buy a day meal only (or is used for good and not opposite).

I hate the term charity and never compare it with "sacrifice OF VALUE". But if its always possible for us to make sure that ones hard earned money is been used for good??? Altruism is sacrifice of value but what is "Sacrifice" "OF VALUE"?? I guess this falls within the Objectivist regime.

You are right, I see the flaw in using stories (anecdotes) to prove a point. I'm not sure I'm clear on your last point there, it's a bit hard to decipher your point in the way you structured your typing or articulated your comments.

[One Prime Mover]

I agree that there is an important distinction between government enforced charity and what I'm questioning: Charity that, while uncoerced, is morally obligatory.

If it can be successfully argued that one given instance of charity is rational (i.e. where the value you are giving up is worth whatever chance of creating 'net value' the situation presents), then it follows that not giving to charity in such a case would be irrational. Would a rational society, while not forcing its citizens to give to charity, thus encourage it? Is charity necessarily altruistic? Would that rational society, then, necessarily support altruism?

I was intrigued by the distinction between charity and altruism proposed by drewfactor, but I hesitate to accept it completely. I think the confusion between self-serving 'charity' and sacrificial altruism may have more to do with a stolen concept than any real distinguishing characteristics between the two -- at least in popular understanding, that is.

Charity would certainly be defined as sacrificial. Those who do not understand the irrationality of selflessness would certainly identify charity as being selfless. To them, it is virtuous because it involves sacrifice. Charity is used to define everything from giving to the poor, to disaster relief, to research into serious illness. I would argue that an essential characteristic of charity is, in fact, self sacrifice. The same is true of benevolence; it does not imply kindness from mutually beneficial rationality, but kindness flowing from value, freely given, to those who have not earned it. Charity, benevolence and altruism are all linked by a common essential characteristic: Selflessness.

As Cole put it, charity is always altruistic -- otherwise it's a purchase. Objections to Cole's point consisted of examples of unaltruistic charity. Such a tactic is itself irrational, for one must first consider the possibility that those examples have been misidentified as charity -- and they have. Giving money to cure an illness that may threaten you or those you value, or donating to the relief or development of an economic foundation on which you expect to rely is selfish, not selfless. Thus, it is not charity -- it is an investment.

This, now, sheds light on the reason I always felt such animosity towards Christopher Reeve. Following his accident, he devoted his life to the funding of paralysis research. Rationally, this is self-serving -- it is commendable, in my eyes, as an indication of his unwillingness to give himself to despair. However, Reeve allowed himself to be glorified as a selfless, charitable man for his devotion -- negligently dishonest at best, and the source of my disapproval. I see that society as a whole permitted this because of the fallacy of the stolen concept, wrongly concluding that donations to paralysis research were necessarily selfless because they called themselves 'charities' and did work that was considered 'good.' The fact that charity implies selflessness was lost to my favorite of Ayn Rand's phrases: "Blank out."

The exchange of any value, then, should be rationally considered against the value (or potential value) being received in exchange. Donating $5 to a homeless man is likely irrational; given the man's current state, it is reasonable to conclude he doesn't handle money very responsibly. Giving $50 to a halfway shelter designed for those homeless who truly are making an effort to become productive members of society would indeed be rational, if you made such a donation as an investment into the quality and strength of the society from which you stand to benefit. Such a donation, it then follows, would be neither charitable, benevolent nor altruistic.

I like your points about the larger rammifications of giving to the homeless, drewfactor. I'm not an economist, so the intuitively obvious fact that a $5 bill is not an island unto itself escaped me -- to donate money on the assumption that you will be strengthening society, you have to rationally consider the possibility that the money could better perform that purpose if it were given elsewhere (i.e. to strengthen the economy by, say, renting a movie, as you pointed out). Even in the case of the $50 donation to the halfway shelter above, could that $50 do more good if it were spent in a mutually beneficial exchange with an already productive member of society?

I wouldn't say that altruism necessarily results in the sacrifice of a small value for the gift of a larger one, Cole; we all know that a lot of people are irrational, and in the case of a homeless alcoholic (or even one who's just financially irresponsible), it's quite likely that the small donation you give him will be squandered. Sure, economically-speaking the money's likely going to find its way back -- maybe it'll benefit a student working at the Beer Store instead of one working at Blockbuster. In general, though, it's certainly not doing enough to warrant encouraging a homeless man's irrational indulgences -- the sacrificed value has not resulted in a positive return.

Ayn+Im+ion, I'm having trouble understanding your post. Could you repeat your points with more clarity?

Have you not read the Virtue of Selfishness? It is all there.

No, I haven't. I've read Atlas Shrugged, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (mindblowingly excellent) and I'm just about finished the Ethics chapter of OPAR. I just started studying philosophy last November, and there's a lot to read. I've interrupted my OPAR studies to check out a few 'general philosophy' books so I can better understand the nature of the philosophies running counter to Objectivism, then heading back to OPAR, then reading the Fountainhead, then Anthem and We The Living. At least, that's my reading list at the moment

Edited April 19, 2005 by One Prime Mover

[Dufresne]

Altruism, while necessitating a sacrifice of value on the part of the giver, results in gained value for the receiver. In general, the value received by the weaker person will be much greater than the value sacrificed by the stronger (i.e. I don’t rent a movie tonight, the homeless man gets to eat). In a sense, altruism increases the ‘net’ value in a society by transforming a trivial value of one person into a great value for another. This net value, I would argue, is something I stand to benefit from.

To "sacrifice" a value means to give it away for a lower value or a non-value. One never benefits from a sacrifice; one always looses. How then can the giver benefit from increasing society's "net value" when it involves a sacrifice?

What are your reasons for using the term "net value"? It seems to me as if you are trying to make sacrifice appear more attractive by cloaking it as gains of "net values".

[One Prime Mover]

They give a value away for a lower value to them, such as handing a homeless person $5 and receiving nothing in exchange. If we look at value in general, however, independent of who it has meaning to, then we can see that such an act of sacrifice involved a small value (a $5 bill you were going to spend to rent a two hour movie) becoming a great value to someone else (the meal the homeless man would be able to buy with the $5, alleviating painful hunger).

That's the only distinction; in the above example, the person giving up the $5 bill is making a sacrifice, because he isn't the one receiving the greater value -- relative to him, value has been lost without anything being gained. Relative to society as a whole, however, his small value was transformed into a greater value to someone else.

I'm not defending this -- it would be irrational to give a homeless man $5 in such a way. The only rational example of such behaviour would be if you believed you stood to gain from such a donation. In that case (and this is my whole point) it wouldn't be a sacrifice and, thus, it wouldn't be charity, benevolence or altruism.

In conclusion: All things that are charity, benevolence and altruism are irrational, because they necessitate selfless sacrifice. However, not all things that are called charity/benevolence/altruism actually are those things. Donating/raising money to the research of a disease you suffer from is an obvious example of this (i.e. Christopher Reeve), and my problem with Reeve is that he misrepresented himself as a selfless altruist instead of a rational opportunist.

How then can the giver benefit from increasing society's "net value" when it involves a sacrifice?

Exactly. Thus, if the giver does stand to benefit from increasing society's "net value", then he has not made a sacrifice.

What are your reasons for using the term "net value"?

Human beings derive value from the society that they are a part of, in the form of division of labour, employment opportunities, goods and services, etc. Thus, human beings stand to gain if the society of which they are a part is strengthened. Each additional productive member of society is potentially beneficial, as is anything that strengthens a society's economic foundation. One must rationally consider the cost-benefit of each individual example of this, and decide if the cost is worth paying (i.e. if the exchange of value is mutually beneficial, i.e. it's not a sacrifice, i.e. it's not charitable/benevolent/altruistic).

It seems to me as if you are trying to make sacrifice appear more attractive by cloaking it as gains of "net values".

Please don't visit the motives behind what I'm saying; I don't appreciate it. Stick to the content of my posts, and I'll do the same.

[Groovenstein]

In conclusion: All things that are charity, benevolence and altruism are irrational, because they necessitate selfless sacrifice. However, not all things that are called charity/benevolence/altruism actually are those things. Donating/raising money to the research of a disease you suffer from is an obvious example of this (i.e. Christopher Reeve), and my problem with Reeve is that he misrepresented himself as a selfless altruist instead of a rational opportunist.

From where are you getting this definition of "charity" and "benevolence" that necessarily requires selflessness? A Rand work? A dictionary? I agree with your assessment of "altruism" as requiring selflessness. Why do you think "charity" and "benevolence" require it as part of the definition?

To everyone: I do not have a thorough understanding of words, definitions, concepts, etc., as expressed in the Objectivist works. If you have a thorough knowledge of these works in this context, and would gain from educating me, I invite you to do so.

[drewfactor]

I was intrigued by the distinction between charity and altruism proposed by drewfactor, but I hesitate to accept it completely. I think the confusion between self-serving 'charity' and sacrificial altruism may have more to do with a stolen concept than any real distinguishing characteristics between the two -- at least in popular understanding, that is.

Charity would certainly be defined as sacrificial. Those who do not understand the irrationality of selflessness would certainly identify charity as being selfless. To them, it is virtuous because it involves sacrifice. Charity is used to define everything from giving to the poor, to disaster relief, to research into serious illness. I would argue that an essential characteristic of charity is, in fact, self sacrifice. The same is true of benevolence; it does not imply kindness from mutually beneficial rationality, but kindness flowing from value, freely given, to those who have not earned it. Charity, benevolence and altruism are all linked by a common essential characteristic: Selflessness.

As Cole put it, charity is always altruistic -- otherwise it's a purchase. Objections to Cole's point consisted of examples of unaltruistic charity. Such a tactic is itself irrational, for one must first consider the possibility that those examples have been misidentified as charity -- and they have. Giving money to cure an illness that may threaten you or those you value, or donating to the relief or development of an economic foundation on which you expect to rely is selfish, not selfless. Thus, it is not charity -- it is an investment.

I like your points about the larger rammifications of giving to the homeless, drewfactor. I'm not an economist, so the intuitively obvious fact that a $5 bill is not an island unto itself escaped me -- to donate money on the assumption that you will be strengthening society, you have to rationally consider the possibility that the money could better perform that purpose if it were given elsewhere (i.e. to strengthen the economy by, say, renting a movie, as you pointed out). Even in the case of the $50 donation to the halfway shelter above, could that $50 do more good if it were spent in a mutually beneficial exchange with an already productive member of society?

Hmmm..You'll have to clarify your application of the stolen concept fallacy. From what I understand, the stolen concept fallacy is when someone tries to deny the existence of an axiomatic concept, but can't escape the use of the concept in their refutation. For example, stating "man cannot be certain of anything" - well, how can you be certain that man cannot be certain if cetainty is impossible? Sorry if I'm going off topic.

Again, I think you are creating a package deal by lumping together benevolence and altruism by the same conceptual common denominator. For a better discussion explaining why I am right, I refer you to this link: http://www.prodos.com/archive018benevolence.html

Hear Prodos, Dr. Bernsein (from ARI) and Dr. Hurd (Brilliant Objectivist psychologist) discuss why benevolence is not altruism, and why helping others is compatible with rational egoism.

[Ayn+Im+ion]

* Charity: sacrifice of value, which could be “selfless” (at times), “morally selfish” (most of the times), or “blatantly selfish” (at/most times).

** Altruism: sacrifice of value, which is touted as being selfless, ALWAYS. The more the degree of selflessness, higher is one’s altruist character.

Such that, selfless sacrifice of value (selfless charity)= altruism.

*** Sacrifice “OF VALUE”: sacrifice that’s HAVING value, but in No WAY it will lead me to sacrifice any of my values. and it is different from charity and altruism wherein one was sacrificing values, whether selfish or unselfish.

So, sacrifice having value=Sacrifice “OF VALUE” =! (read not equals) sacrifice of value

my point was sacrifice of values must not be allowed/encouraged but same shouldn’t be the case with sacrifice having value. As in that particular example where one was parting with a paltry sum, that was otherwise to be used in buying movie ticket, to feed a homeless (yes, say the homeless did use the money for eating). By doing so (strictly in the context of the mentioned instance) did one loose any of his/her objectivistic idea—according to me ‘No’, coz I didn’t compromise with any of my values.

Sorry for the confusion with sacrifice of value and sacrifice "OF VALUE". ("OF VALUE"= having value).

[One Prime Mover]

As I understood the stolen concept fallacy, it's when you use a concept without regard to its context. So, if a lot of people selflessly give money to paralysis research without expecting gains for themselves, then those are charitable donations. The company accepting those donations would be right in calling itself a charity. The fallacy of the stolen concept comes into play when you reverse the process, calling all donations to that company charitable because the company is a charity. A donation made to that charity for selfish reasons would not be charitable, yet may be called that because the concept 'charitable' has been stolen from its context ('selfless') and applied via a nonessential characteristic ('giving money to a charity'). I think.

This is assuming that an essential characteristic of charity is selflessness, though. I just continued along that assumption to illustrate what I understand the stolen concept fallacy to be.

I'll look at that link you posted when I get home from work (no speakers/headphones here...).

[Dufresne]

I'm not defending this.

You are not defending the sacrifice of a value in order to benefit from a "net value"? Because that is at least what I thought you meant when you wrote the following:

Altruism, while necessitating a sacrifice of value on the part of the giver, results in gained value for the receiver. In general, the value received by the weaker person will be much greater than the value sacrificed by the stronger (i.e. I don’t rent a movie tonight, the homeless man gets to eat). In a sense, altruism increases the ‘net’ value in a society by transforming a trivial value of one person into a great value for another. This net value, I would argue, is something I stand to benefit from.

Regardless of whether the above quote is your opinion or not, do you recognize the contradiction in the above quote? You wrote that the giver sacrifices a value and that you "would argue" that the giver benefits from that. Please correct me if I do not understand your position correctly but from what you wrote I have to conclude that you think that a person benefits from sacrifice if "society as a whole" gains "net value".

[y_feldblum]

the value received by the weaker person will be much greater than the value sacrificed by the stronger

You are comparing incommensurables. Also, you are advocating utilitarianism.