Altruism=evil, does that mean charity = evil?

[Puppy Dog]

Self explanatory question, Atlas Shrugged left me with some mixed feelings by what I felt was implied, ie - when they were in Galt's Gulch and a car was rented, and Miss Taggart asked in shock why he couldn't have just borrowed the car, and the response was the only word banned was 'Give'. This would seem to be anti-charity, even in the case of someone being a friend and you wanting to help them for your own selfish values.

I'm aware that elsewhere Rand says charity could exist but it wouldn't be compulsory, I just find whats implied in Atlas Shrugged to be confusing or maybe I don't fully understand it.

[softwareNerd]

<MOD NOTE>I moved this from the "Debate Forum" to "Questions about Objectivism".</MOD NOTE>

Objectivism is not against charity. Yet, no self-respecting person wants to be the object of charity as such. The Atlantis custom of paying a friend a few cents for something seems like a benevolent enough social custom to stress that one is not taking charity. Remember though: it's a device used in a fictional story to stress a certain point. It does not mean the author is recommending this as a real-life practice, nor that everyone should adopt such a clearly optional symbolic gesture, even if she did recommend it.

[Robert J. Kolker]

If an act of charity promotes a value of yours, it is a reasonable act. I donate my time to recording technical books (math, science and engineering) for blind folks.

1. I could be blind someday and I would appreciate the help. I would not ask for something I had not given, myself.

2. Recording math and physics text books promotes scientific knowledge and technique, things that I consider valuable.

I would not give to a charity or volunteer my precious time to something I did not think was worthwhile on my terms.

Bob Kolker

[Black Wolf]

I understand that Ayn Rand said there was nothing wrong with giving a few bucks to a beggar if you really wanted to... but what about owning and administrating a charity?

Edited February 6, 2010 by Black Wolf

[Atlas51184]

Charity ≠ altruism, so your inference doesn't go through. Are you willing to maintain that there are no selfish reason to run/work for a non-profit (no monetary profits) organization?

Edited February 6, 2010 by Atlas51184

[Tordmor]

I understand that Ayn Rand said there was nothing wrong with giving a few bucks to a beggar if you really wanted to... but what about owning and administrating a charity?

There's nothing wrong with charity as long as you understand that you do not sacrifice some of your own value without receiving a greater value in return. For example I value streets that are free from beggars so it would be valuable to me to have a charity that gives to those who have current financial problems. It is not for the beggars that I give the money but for my own value. I receive something that is of more value to me than the money that I give. That the beggars get a value too for which they did nothing is irrelevant. Operating a charity under that principle is no problem even if other people (ab-)use the charity for self-sacrificial purposes.

[Atlas51184]

Galt's Gulch is a device of fiction in AS, which has the purpose of dramatizing the trader principle (it does other things, too). We should read AS with an eye towards distinguishing between the concrete literary expression of a principle, and the principle itself. If we don’t, we'll run the risk of winding up like those 60's weirdoes who dyed their hair orange and went to architecture school. By reading AS as a bible to be followed in all concrete details, they make the same mistake as our less careful critics who accuse us of dogmatism.

[Maximus]

Charity ≠ altruism, so your inference doesn't go through. Are you willing to maintain that there are no selfish reason to run/work for a non-profit (no monetary profits) organization?

Non-profit simply means that all profit is channeled back into the organization. This does not mean that one works for, or runs, such an organization for free.

[Amaroq]

Why not just run a for-profit charity? Any charity can be selfishly beneficial that way.

[softwareNerd]

Why not just run a for-profit charity? Any charity can be selfishly beneficial that way.

Not sure if you're just kidding. A for-profit charity would not be a charity. If you run a hospital for profit, it is not a charity. If you treat some poor patients for free or at reduced fees, that aspect is charity and that aspect is not for profit. The basic question remains, but instead of being about the whole organization, it becomes a question about one aspect of it.

As with almost any moral question, one has to understand motive, if one is judging the person. Imagine a billionaire who has always been a little miffed that we have not yet figured out how to tackle cancer as well as we would like. He might take it up as something he wants to fund, even if it doesn't turn a financial profit. What is essentially different about a pursuit of a value like this, and Roark willing to give up financial gain to see a building built just as he wants it? Or, perhaps some actor who has made it big might look back at his early years and decide to fund a semi-professional theatre. Even if there is no personal reason from the past, someone (e.g. Carnegie) might decide he wants to establish libraries all over the country so that some bright, poor kids might get a leg up. Someone else might want to fund animal-shelters. There can be a host of motives for charity: some good, some bad.

Edited February 7, 2010 by softwareNerd

[whYNOT]

"I am not so much against Altruism (or charity), as I am for Egoism."

I think that Ayn Rand identified and isolated the rot that is at the philosophical core of Politics, the economy, and individual lives - and common to all these.

I am certain that she was much more ferociously opposed to the advocacy of altruism, than to the occasional, voluntary, free-choice, actions of an individual, for the benefit of another.

(The quote above is a fabrication, BTW; she didn't say this - as far as I know - it's just to convey my point. It's based upon Rand's statement "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason.")

Sorry for the temporary fraud.

[softwareNerd]

(The quote above is a fabrication, BTW; she didn't say this - as far as I know - it's just to convey my point. It's based upon Rand's statement "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason.")Sorry for the temporary fraud.

Don't do that dude. The next thing you know, this will be will be all over the internet!

I searched "the CD" for "charity" and almost everything Rand says is very negative. The largest snippet I found, if anyone wants to look, was in "The Journals" Part-4, Chapter-11 "The Mind on Strike".

Edited February 7, 2010 by softwareNerd

[freestyle]

Topic: Altruism=evil, does that mean charity = evil?

Charity does not equal altruism. Therefore, the answer to the topic is "no".

If I choose freely to give some of my money, as charity, to Alzheimer research in hopes that if I (or a loved one) is struck with that disease that there might be a cure, then it is simply me expressing my own selfish value. In this case, the want for a cure over a specific amount of money.

Now, if I gave charity to, say, the National Marxist Foundation, then (in my case) that would be altruism and most definitely evil. Altruism and charity are not interchangeable terms.

Edited February 7, 2010 by freestyle

[Jake_Ellison]

Altruism=evil, does that mean charity = evil?

No, but altruism = evil means sacrifice = evil. The difference is that charity is a less abstract concept, it involves helping a person without seeking profit from the transaction. Sacrifice, on the other hand, is a far more abstract (more general) concept, it means giving up a higher value in exchange for a lesser one. The principle of never sacrificing one's values is the logical consequence of selfishness. Based on it, one can decide when a charitable act is moral, and when it isn't. However, living by the rule "thou shalt never be charitable" would mean ignoring the more abstract principle involving one's hierarchy of values (ignoring the existence of the concept values altogether), in favor of a myopic, concrete-bound version of value (measured strictly in money, and immediate return on it), and an equally dumbed down solution to the problem of implementing the principle of selfishness (the no charity rule).

As for the scene in AS, it was a gesture meant to illustrate the contrast between the society in the gulch, and the outside. The refusal to rely on charity is evidence that the gulch was the better society, despite it having been created under far harsher conditions.

But nothing the characters do is meant to be taken literally, and mimicked as a commandment. That is spelled out in the novel (that men should not follow commandments), and toward the end, so are the abstract moral principles men should live by, built on the actions of the heroes.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[Hotu Matua]

The principle of never sacrificing one's values is the logical consequence of selfishness. Based on it, one can decide when a charitable act is moral, and when it isn't. .

I understand this is the way to make the distinction for you as owner of your mind, values, and actions.

To an impartial external observer, however, it will be normally very difficult to make a judgement on whether the help provided by person A to person B is charity or altruism.

We could not make that judgement based on, for example, the percentage of the money and time of A devoted to helping B.

We would have to know what helping B represents for A, in terms of the values and projects of A, and that is very difficult to attest.

To me, in practice, the only way I can tell charity from altruism in other people's behaviour, is in the presence or abscense of an attempt to exercise coertion on a third person, C, to help B.

Suppose I educated my daughters in such a way as to encourage them to pursue rational self-interest.

Years go by, they become adult, move to other city or country, and I stop seeing them for some period of time.

After that period of time, I visit one of them and find out she is spending many hours a day, and about 50% of her income, helping others in a non-for-profit organization. To have enough time for this, she has taken a half-time job.

She tells me it is all-right, since she gets a lot of fun and pleasure helping others. She says this non-profit organization addressess a problem which is of particular interest to her. She also states that the remaining 50% is enough for her to live. I take a look at her home, furniture, the food she eats, the dress she wears, the car she drives, etc. and conclude that she has a "modest" way of living. But other than "modest", I cannot find any reason by which that standard of living would qualify, even on my terms, as "miserable" or "poor". And she looks happy, at least, reasonably happy on my terms.

Can I make a judgment on whether this is charity or altruism?

I think that I can say this is only charity, based on the information I have. I cannot know whether she is happy. I can only say she looks happy. I cannot know whether the car, furnitire, house she owns are good enough for her.

And I will never look inside her mind to know how this activity really fits into her long term projects or personal values.

I could only call it altruism if I saw ,y daugther trying to make government enforce taxation to relieve the suffering of others, or despising and verbally attacking those who refuse to join her in her efforts to relieve suffering. Charity would "become" altruism (for an external observer) in the moment A expects C to consider a duty, or an obligation, helping B.

Do you agree with this view?

Edited February 8, 2010 by Hotu Matua

[softwareNerd]

Do you agree with this view?

Not completely. I agree that if they're willing to force someone else to perform charity then it must be because they think this is morally correct; hence, we can deduce altruism. However, we can deduce a lot about people's motivations from what they tell us about them. In the example you provided, if it were really your daughter, you simply ask about her moral views. Altruism is a particular ideology. You might even find altruism in someone who does not demonstrate any of the things you mention in your example: i.e., in someone who does not give that much to charity. In other words, there are people who agree with altruism but are hypocrites, thank heavens.

[Hotu Matua]

Well yes, I was thinking in terms of judging actions or observable behaviours.

Of course, there are ways to know about a person's ideology.

But even in the realm of ideology, many people would insist they are spending so much time and money in helping children with Down syndrome because this brings them personal pleasure, because they have a nephew with Down's syndrome, because it is in their best interest to live in a world with productive Down people, etc.

I mean, it would take a psychoanalyst to make these people recognize to themseleves that they are doing what they do because they feel compelled by a mystical or collectivist belief.

That's why I only feel uncomfortable about charity when the people involved in acts of charity start expecting others to do the same.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Hotu Matua

[Amaroq]

I said it in a joking tone, but I was totally serious about running a for-profit charity.

I keep 5% of everything you donate to me and use it for my own personal happiness. But the other 95%, is leveraged in an efficient and skilled manner towards the end this charity serves.

There's a sign on the front of the desk clearly displaying this, so you know before you give me anything.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Amaroq

[Greebo]

But even in the realm of ideology, many people would insist they are spending so much time and money in helping children with Down syndrome because this brings them personal pleasure, because they have a nephew with Down's syndrome, because it is in their best interest to live in a world with productive Down people, etc.

I mean, it would take a psychoanalyst to make these people recognize to themseleves that they are doing what they do because they feel compelled by a mystical or collectivist belief.

I'm amazed at your ability to divine the true values of these people more accurately than they are able to do so for themselves.

I mean, these poor deluded fools only think they enjoy doing it, but you know the truth!

Or perhaps these people actually *do* value helping those with Downs Syndrome, and as such are acting in a completely selfish and morally righteous manner.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Greebo

[softwareNerd]

I mean, it would take a psychoanalyst to make these people recognize to themseleves that they are doing what they do because they feel compelled by a mystical or collectivist belief.

Possibly. However, I was talking about the other class of folk: who make it very clear that they support altruism. I have no reason to think they're lying. Take Bill Gates, for instance. He is involved in charity and one might speculate that he thinks it's simply a cool challenge to try to raise life-expectancy in Africa. there even be an element of truth to this. However, if one reads (say) the speech he gave to Harvard students, one finds that he actually thinks of charity and "giving back" in a very conventionally altruistic way. Yes, he supports altruism as a moral code.

As for someone who tells me they're involved in a Down syndrome charity because they have a nephew who has Down syndrome, I see no prima facie reason to doubt such a claim. When I think of things to which I would donate money, things with that type of personal relevance form one of the major categories; so, I think it is reasonable for others to think the same way.

Still, I might see other evidence that makes me judge that someone's claim is false. Of course, one does not go around judging random people and sometimes one forms a preliminary judgement about a person that is good enough for one's purposes, but may turn out to be false if one wanted to investigate it closer. For instance, without being a psychologist, I might still think (about someone): "She says she does this because she loves X, but I see she's really sacrificing and seems unhappy". As long as I use such a judgement with full awareness of how tentative it is, and for purposes that are appropriate, I cannot really see a problem with it.

Edited February 8, 2010 by softwareNerd

[Hotu Matua]

I'm amazed at your ability to divine the true values of these people more accurately than they are able to do so for themselves.

I mean, these poor deluded fools only think they enjoy doing it, but you know the truth!

Or perhaps these people actually *do* value helping those with Downs Syndrome, and as such are acting in a completely selfish and morally righteous manner.

Just ask any altruist that gives, say, 10% of his time/money to others:

"Are you risking the well being of you and your family? Are you depriving yourself and your family from higher values in order to pursue lower ones? Are you sacrificing you and your family for the sake of others?"

I guess most of the times you will hear someting like: "Oh no, no, no, not at all. I get pleasure from giving. Giving is fulfilling, and I am no way endangering the projects or values of mine or my family by helping these other people. I do not regard it a sacrifice".

And a similar answer will be got from a person donating 20%, 30%, 50% or more than 50% to others.

How do I know that? Well.... people don't like to appear as martyrs or obedient sheep! In our world, that is not cool, even for believers or Marxists.

I was a very religious person and all my friends and relatives were religious people as well. However, we would have never answered that question in these terms "God asks us to be generous and sacrifice for others, just as Jesus did for us." We would always deny we were obeying God, but instead persuading ourselves that a "rational" God is asking us to be generous, beacuse that will makes us happier: "There is more happiness in giving than in receiving." "He who gives gets most of the benefit" "I give because that is the natural thing to do when you love yourself, that's why Jesus in the Gospel said: Love others as you love yourselves" and all that crap.

By the same token, it is not common to hear from a Marxist: "I am willing to surrender my life to the victory and glory of the proletarian State" but rather something on these lines: "I prefer to live in a world where people care about each other and provide equal opportunities to each other. It is in my own interest that the poor are taken care of"

Swedish people who support taxation for sustaining a welfare state will tell you "I know that I am being taken 50% of my salary in taxes, but it is worthwhile because I get for myself and my family high standards of medical care, school, etc. so it is not a matter of self-sacrifice, but self-interest"

If altruism were so easy to detect, it would be an apple pie for Objectivism.

But the problem is that altruism is deeply embedded, cleverly concealed, perversely disguised and integrated into a personality that still wants to appear as if it were independent, cool and rational.

I think only insane people would be openly altruist, since altruism contradicts reality and human nature. (Mother Teresa was probably insane).

Most people are not insane, just neurotic, and so can deal with the contradiction by keeping it at a deeper level.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Hotu Matua

[Greebo]

Just ask any altruist that gives, say, 10% of his time/money to others:

"Are you risking the well being of you and your family? Are you depriving yourself and your family from higher values in order to pursue lower ones? Are you sacrificing you and your family for the sake of others?"

I guess most of the times you will hear someting like: "Oh no, no, no, not at all. I get pleasure from giving. Giving is fulfilling, and I am no way endangering the projects or values of mine or my family by helping these other people. I do not regard it a sacrifice".

And you know they're wrong! Again you demonstrate amazing, nay, miraculous powers of divining the real truth behind people's motivations! Your absolute certainty is amazing - it's almost as if you've proved that A is not A simply because you think they're wrong!

And a similar answer will be got from a person donating 20%, 30%, 50% or more than 50% to others.

How do I know that? Well.... people don't like to appear as martyrs or obedient sheep! In our world, that is not cool, even for believers or Marxists.

People do not like to appear as martyrs or obedient sheep.

If a person is giving more than they afford and do not really want to, they are being martyrs and/or obedient sheep.

Therefore, all people who are giving to others are giving more than they can afford.

Do you begin to understand the gross error in your reasoning yet?

I was a very religious person and all my friends and relatives were religious people as well.

Yes yes, so was I. My father is a Lutheran Minister. I struggled for years between the battle of my reason and my sense of obligation and guilt for not believing what I was told I should believe. That is my personal experience, however - and yours is yours.

You are applying your personal experience to OTHERS as if you know their own values better than they do. That is fallacy.

Listen - I have *no* doubt that what you say is true for *some* because it (giving) is a question of personal values.

But it is not true for everyone because everyone's values vary.

I personally derive a very strong sense of satisfaction from my own chosen forms of charitable giving. I don't give anywhere near 10% (though one day I intend to) - closer to 2%, not counting my own time, - but I give, when I feel that the giving will really help someone. In my own case, the kind of charity work I do is to give financial counsel to people who are struggling with personal finances. I spend time teaching them how to budget, the importance of living within their means, strategies for getting out of debt, etc. Financially, I give them books and other materials to help them learn the principles I feel are so important, that everyone should follow when it comes to money. I get no monetary reward for what I do - but I get deep personal satisfaction in seeing these people turn their lives around.

But by your absolutely flawed reasoning, I'm being a martyr. I'm putting my family at risk for the sake of others for no personal gain. Never mind that 15% of my gross income goes to retirement savings and another 7% of my gross income goes into an emergency savings plan. Never mind that I have no consumer debt whatsoever, I have rental properties that generate a profit on top of my daytime job, and my mortgage payment (with Tax and Insurance) for my residence only takes 19.4% of my income. By YOUR reasoning, *I* am putting my family at risk. Simply because you know SOME people who are martyrs, everyone who gives must be a martyr. About 2% of my income goes to helping others - and the result of that help is that their lives are changed for the good for as long as they live - but I'm brainwashed into thinking that's rewarding - in reality I'm falling on my sword for them.

Now do you understand why your logic has failed you in this matter?

Edited February 9, 2010 by Greebo

[Hotu Matua]

Hi Gleebo:

I was just describing a phenomenon I believe is common: the in-the-closet altruist.

I never meant that all people who are into charity are altruists in the closet. I also give a % of my income for a charity project, and I no longer consider myself an altruist.

I invite you to read my posts again.

Read how I used expressions like "many people", "most of the times", "I guess".

And the only time I used te verb "know" "How do I know that?" I finished the sentence with a smiley emoticon, so that it wouldn't be taken so seriously.

And yes, I think there is a fundamental contradiction between what people says about altruism, what people thinks about altruism, and what people actually do. In essence, that is the perversion of altruism: it makes people live in a contradiction with their own mind and with reality.

And as I have said in this forum, precisely becasue an external observer cannot know the true values and life projects of an stranger, the only way to really know someone is into altruism instead of into charity, is the observation of a particular behaviour: the moment when this person expresses his/her expectation about a third person joining the charity efforts. When person A starts telling person C "You must help person B: it is your duty to join me " then I realize that person is an altruist. This is the kind of person that will, sooner or later, support the initiation of force to deprive person C from the product of his mind to help person B.

[ZSorenson]

Self explanatory question, Atlas Shrugged left me with some mixed feelings by what I felt was implied, ie - when they were in Galt's Gulch and a car was rented, and Miss Taggart asked in shock why he couldn't have just borrowed the car, and the response was the only word banned was 'Give'. This would seem to be anti-charity, even in the case of someone being a friend and you wanting to help them for your own selfish values.

I'm aware that elsewhere Rand says charity could exist but it wouldn't be compulsory, I just find whats implied in Atlas Shrugged to be confusing or maybe I don't fully understand it.

This question reminds me of an incident from the grocery store last night.

I was walking down a hallway, and saw a woman yelling after a family member. Her hands were full of groceries which were slipping from them. I had a basket with one or two items in it.

In my previous life, I was involved with a religion (like most) which taught that the clear response to this situation is to give your basket to this woman, and then just go get a new one, carrying your two items in your hands. You would relieve her burden at a low cost to yourself, and make the world a better place. I think most everyone in society today would look extremely favorably on such a decision.

But I've since learned better, and maybe my decision will reveal what sort of answer is possible to your question. The fact is that the woman had chosen this situation for herself. We were in a warm, spacious store, with plenty of carts and baskets. The woman involved probably was dealing with an obnoxious child who stormed away with the cart. Again, people here are making explicit decisions. I chose to get a basket for my use, and my convenience. The woman had no needs, and despite the littleness of it, it would be a sacrifice for me to give her the basket which I had appropriated for a specific use. Learning to value people and most especially yourself means being willing to see the world and people as they are. It would have been wrong for me to give her the basket.

Consider this: I am involved with an Objectivist club, and we have cookies during discussions sometimes. For a while, the idea was that the responsibility for providing the cookies was by rotation. In other words, you paid for your share, by bringing cookies at some future time. Wrong! I realized that if each person paid a buck, or even .50 each time then whoever provided the cookies would have the ability to pay for it. Society would say that that is silly! Why not just share the responsibility, when a club is a social event? Well, there is a better way. Acknowledging that there is a value to everything in life, and living accordingly is the right way to go.

Is charity evil? Yes. There is a standard definition, but let me use one more explicit. My former religion defined charity as the "pure love of Christ" and this means specifically the "inestimable suffering and eternal sacrifice" he engaged in in order to make happiness possible to man. Charity then, is complete and total division between self and self. A is non A. Self becomes relieving everyone else's suffering, divorced from source of value creation: your mind, and your body. It is the destruction of value.

Instead of charity, try the word benevolence. You wish others well objectively when their virtues are valuable to you. If that woman was walking alone through the snow, with heavy bags her older body could barely handle, and had boots that just couldn't get traction on the ice, but she strove to bring home the food anyway - in these conditions I would help her. I am youthful, and there is no cost to me in terms of walking through snow. Not compared to the woman's efforts, and the resulting virtue. If I value virtues like productiveness, then I would gain from this situation. If the woman was merely older, but not financially desperate, I would expect, but not require, that she make a small payment to me - a can of tuna, a dollar or two. If she was desperate, her virtue alone would be enough payment. If I was elderly, then maybe I could agree with the woman to go grocery shopping together, and share the burden of the carrying - each person holding one handle. These are all moral ways to operate in the social marketplace, none are charity.

If you grew up as a homeless child, or lived with frightening, smelly bums in your neighborhood, you might have a good reason to start and administer a 'charity'. But your goal would be to help people develope their virtues, not relieve their needs. Being willing to work, and do any task despite seeming menial, for food, is virtuous - make the soup kitchen line clean your shelter, etc. In the end, you are improving and raising the value of your neighborhood and society, and as a member of it you will benefit.

Do you see the difference between benevolence and altruism? Altruism, charity, means giving for the sake of need. Benevolence, for the sake of virtue. That's how I figure it, at least.

[L-C]

Altruism != charity, so no. It is perfectly possible for charity not to be sacrificial for the one doing it.