Is it moral to accept sacrifical offerings from altruists?

[Axiomatic]

This is something I have been pondering lately. Excluded form this question is the issue of government programs and such as one is just as much a sacrifical animal in that system as a person who recieves the funding (given that one works and pays taxes for some length of time).

To give a concrete example: An altruist who does not have much, as has not managed to produce, wishes to offer all that he/she has to you. You actually detest this person and have openly rejected thier moral code and have even spoken as to give them a chance to understand and accept a proper morality. They completely reject proper morality as anticipated and instead wish to sacrifice everything they have on a whim to yourself (perhaps in order to justify the validity of their morality?).

Is it moral to accept it? My current understanding is that it would be perfectly moral to accept it, but I have had some doubts.

Another corrorally question that could be asked is, would it be immoral to refuse it if it would certainly benefit you to a large degree?

Thoughts?

I guess this could be moved to the Ethics section, but here may do for now.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Axiomatic

[DavidOdden]

My current understanding is that it would be perfectly moral to accept it, but I have had some doubts.

I thought initially you meant "perfectly immoral", but I see, no. I cannot see how it would be moral, so perhaps you could start by explaining how you think it could possibly be moral. I'm having a hard time seeing that. Are you assuming that a rational man's ultimate goal is the maximum acquisition of stuff? (If so, I could imagine a scenario where more free stuff would be good).

[Axiomatic]

I thought initially you meant "perfectly immoral", but I see, no. I cannot see how it would be moral, so perhaps you could start by explaining how you think it could possibly be moral. I'm having a hard time seeing that. Are you assuming that a rational man's ultimate goal is the maximum acquisition of stuff? (If so, I could imagine a scenario where more free stuff would be good).

I see it as moral because one is not advocating that another sacrifice themselves for you. In fact if one explicitly outlines that one does not accept that morality and they sacrifice anyways and it benefits you, (lets say monetarily but the benefit could be anything) such as write up a will and continue their self-destructive behavior in the name of their morality, then to say that one should reject that concrete benefit in the name of ones own morality, would that not be self-sacrificial and hypocritical?

The situation that would be appeasing altruism would be if one encouraged or asked for another to sacrifice themselves implicitly or explicitly. But if you do not do so, and they are going to sacrifice themselves anyways for any whim, then why not it be you who benefit? Would it not be moral to benefit in this way.

As I said I still have doubts hence my posting this question.

[TLD]

'Axiomatic'

To give a concrete example: An altruist who does not have much, as has not managed to produce, wishes to offer all that he/she has to you. You actually detest this person and have openly rejected thier moral code and have even spoken as to give them a chance to understand and accept a proper morality. They completely reject proper morality as anticipated and instead wish to sacrifice everything they have on a whim to yourself (perhaps in order to justify the validity of their morality?). 


Is it moral to accept it? My current understanding is that it would be perfectly moral to accept it, but I have had some doubts. 


Another corrorally question that could be asked is, would it be immoral to refuse it if it would certainly benefit you to a large degree?[/code]


It is not possible to be so thoroughly altruistic and survive. So I think your example is overly hypothetical.

But in a normal altruistic act of giving, and where you have discussed with that person why he should not sacrifice himself and he still wants to give, then you have no moral obligation to refuse. Further, what appears to you to be sacrificial might not actually be so to him.

[Jake_Ellison]

Is it moral to accept it?

Of course not. What kind of a man agrees to live off of the work of someone they despise, and condemn?

[DavidOdden]

I see it as moral because one is not advocating that another sacrifice themselves for you.

That would indicate that the act is not profoundly evil; I'm suggesting that you've set the bar too low, and that you're focusing on the relationship between your act and the life of the other, in your computation of morality. It is common for people to address moral questions by deciding "First, is there initiation of force; second, am I encouraging others to be morally bad?" -- I'm suggesting that the first question really ought to be "In what way does this benefit my life?". An egoistic ethics starts with "I", and an altruistic ethics starts with "others" (that is, after all, the root word behind "altruism").

But if you do not do so, and they are going to sacrifice themselves anyways for any whim, then why not it be you who benefit? Would it not be moral to benefit in this way.

You are presuming that you benefit simply by acquiring stuff. I don't see that. In what way is free stuff an intrinsic "benefit" to me?

This is all a bit too hypothetical; some element of generality is necessary because we're talking about moral principles, not just a single concrete situation. The way you set it up, accepting the object is not a recognition of a valued friendship -- you detest the person. If you detest the person, that alone should provide your answer. OTOH if this is actually a friend, then I might accept the gift as a recognition of that relationship. If I were suffering unfortunate circumstances and needed $10,000, I might accept a gift from a benevolent stranger (assuming I failed to secure a loan, and could not get the guy to lend me the money).

So back to my question: how is this a benefit to you? Are you claiming that it is always a benefit to get stuff, and that how you get it isn't a significant issue (i.e. whether or not it was earned)?

[Axiomatic]

Of course not. What kind of a man agrees to live off of the work of someone they despise, and condemn?

Again, lets concertize. say a relative that you despise dies and leaves you with a large sum of money, would you take it? Or on the principle that you hated and condemned the person, would you refuse?

[Axiomatic]

That would indicate that the act is not profoundly evil; I'm suggesting that you've set the bar too low, and that you're focusing on the relationship between your act and the life of the other, in your computation of morality. It is common for people to address moral questions by deciding "First, is there initiation of force; second, am I encouraging others to be morally bad?" -- I'm suggesting that the first question really ought to be "In what way does this benefit my life?". An egoistic ethics starts with "I", and an altruistic ethics starts with "others" (that is, after all, the root word behind "altruism").You are presuming that you benefit simply by acquiring stuff. I don't see that. In what way is free stuff an intrinsic "benefit" to me?

This is all a bit too hypothetical; some element of generality is necessary because we're talking about moral principles, not just a single concrete situation. The way you set it up, accepting the object is not a recognition of a valued friendship -- you detest the person. If you detest the person, that alone should provide your answer. OTOH if this is actually a friend, then I might accept the gift as a recognition of that relationship. If I were suffering unfortunate circumstances and needed $10,000, I might accept a gift from a benevolent stranger (assuming I failed to secure a loan, and could not get the guy to lend me the money).

So back to my question: how is this a benefit to you? Are you claiming that it is always a benefit to get stuff, and that how you get it isn't a significant issue (i.e. whether or not it was earned)?

You bring up some excellent points and some good questions. I'll have to think some more before I respond. Thank you.

[Jake_Ellison]

Again, lets concertize. say a relative that you despise dies and leaves you with a large sum of money, would you take it? Or on the principle that you hated and condemned the person, would you refuse?

I don't despise any of my relatives. If I did, I wouldn't take their money. But that really is besides the point, your original story is perfectly concrete and very different from this new dead relative one.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[TLD]

This is all a bit too hypothetical; some element of generality is necessary because we're talking about moral principles, not just a single concrete situation. The way you set it up, accepting the object is not a recognition of a valued friendship -- you detest the person. If you detest the person, that alone should provide your answer. OTOH if this is actually a friend, then I might accept the gift as a recognition of that relationship. If I were suffering unfortunate circumstances and needed $10,000, I might accept a gift from a benevolent stranger (assuming I failed to secure a loan, and could not get the guy to lend me the money).

So back to my question: how is this a benefit to you? Are you claiming that it is always a benefit to get stuff, and that how you get it isn't a significant issue (i.e. whether or not it was earned)?

There is always some benefit in getting stuff; e.g. financial gain. And some things come our way without earning them; e.g. inheritance.

Yes, the context certainly helps determine what to do.

However, even if you detest the person - for his morality I assume here, he knows how you feel about his values and he still wants to give you something, then you are not morally obligated to refuse him. That then leaves you the choice, depending on other factors; i.e. you may still have reason not to accept the gift.

Edited March 6, 2010 by softwareNerd
Added quote-tag

[Axiomatic]

I don't despise any of my relatives. If I did, I wouldn't take their money. But that really is besides the point, your original story is perfectly concrete and very different from this new dead relative one.

My original story pertains to self-sacrifice of a self-destructive person. If this were further concertized to a relative dying of a self-inflicted condition then it does not change the context much but gives on pause for thought. I did not ask whether or not you despised your relatives, nor do I care. I am asking you to consider the situation.

I agree that there are issues to work through on this point hence why I made this thread, but you are not getting to the crux of the situation at all, so please either add something with proper reasoning to the thread or go away.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Axiomatic

[Jake_Ellison]

My original story pertains to self-sacrifice of a self-destructive person. If this were further concertized to a relative dying of a self-inflicted condition then it does not change the context much but gives on pause for thought. I did not ask whether or not you despised your relatives, nor do I care. I am asking you to consider the situation.

I agree that there are issues to work through on this point hence why I made this thread, but you are not getting to the crux of the situation at all, you are just moralizing, so please either add something with proper reasoning to the thread or go away.

There's nothing to add. Moral men act on reason. You haven't given any reasons why it would be moral to accept the money, all you did was rationalize.

So I don't have any specific arguments against your unsupported assertion that something in Objectivism suggests this is moral (you haven't named that something), but I guess I can point out some of your errors in reasoning, so let's start at the beginning.

I see it as moral because one is not advocating that another sacrifice themselves for you.

Objectivist Ethics is not the Ten Commandments, where if you manage to not break any of them, you're all good. Objectivist Ethics is made up of a set of positive principles, guiding man's actions. Any kind of reasoning which tries to argument actions based on what commandments it isn't breaking is just a rationalization, not a logical link to anything Rand wrote about Ethics.

In fact if one explicitly outlines that one does not accept that morality and they sacrifice anyways and it benefits you, (lets say monetarily but the benefit could be anything) such as write up a will and continue their self-destructive behavior in the name of their morality, then to say that one should reject that concrete benefit in the name of ones own morality, would that not be self-sacrificial and hypocritical?

Refusing to accept handouts is sacrificial? Not according to Rand's definition of sacrifice it ain't.

As for the hypocritical accusation, that's begging the question. (it's hypocritical if you're right that the selfish thing would be to take the money, but you're citing that to prove that the selfish thing to do is take the money)

The situation that would be appeasing altruism would be if one encouraged or asked for another to sacrifice themselves implicitly or explicitly. But if you do not do so, and they are going to sacrifice themselves anyways for any whim, then why not it be you who benefit?

By accepting someone's sacrifice, you are clearly appeasing the act. That's just a fact of logic: if you did not do A (accept), then the person's attempt to do B (give you the money) would have failed. A was a condition of B, and since A is entirely in your power, you contributed to B. Saying that it would've happened anyway is a commonly used technique for rationalizing. Would you also accept it if a person guilty of accessory to murder were to argue that his buddy would've committed the murder anyway, so what's the harm in tagging along, getting a share of the loot? The logic is exactly the same.

My original story pertains to self-sacrifice of a self-destructive person. If this were further concertized to a relative dying of a self-inflicted condition then it does not change the context much but gives on pause for thought.

There's an obvious difference: in your first example, you're a participant in the act of self destruction, while in the second example, the act was committed before your involvement began. (that is unless you somehow signaled to the relative that you would be willing to take their money if they were to ever kill themselves, then, we're back to square one)

To keep with my murder example, the logical error there is the same as saying that there's no essential difference between accessory to murder, and accessory after the fact (helping to hide the crime). In fact, just because they're both wrong, there is an essential difference: in one, the person is a murderer, in the other he's only guilty of obstruction of justice.

[Capitalism Forever]

You play slot machines for fun, expecting to lose a couple dollars, but you happen to win a huge jackpot. Is it moral to take the money? Yes, if you are going to invest it into productive activities. No, if you are going to spend it on hedonistic debauchery. Is it moral to build a career around the expectation to win money from slot machines? No.

It is similar with gifts from altruists. They are in effect windfall income--they do not add to your productive achievement, they are not anything to be proud of or happy about, but they are also not anything to be ashamed of, and they may open up opportunities for you that you may not have had without them. They are like Gail Wynand's earnings from his papers, which eventually served as a "fertilizer" for Roark's buildings. Wynand was not acting morally when he built his career on irrational people paying him for a non-value, but he did act morally when he eventually decided to invest this money into a rational productive enterprise.

[TLD]

'Jake_Ellison' 

By accepting someone's sacrifice, you are clearly appeasing the act. That's just a fact of logic: if you did not do A (accept), then the person's attempt to do B (give you the money) would have failed. A was a condition of B, and since A is entirely in your power, you contributed to B. Saying that it would've happened anyway is a commonly used technique for rationalizing.[/code]


I don't agree. If the giver is an altruist and he knows you are not and that you don't approve in principle, but he wants to give it anyway - to you or someone else, then there is no moral issue involved in accepting the gift; and that would not be appeasement - nor rationalization. A person who is altruistic is not evil; his values may not be rational, but - in this context - he knows what he is doing and still wants to do it.


Further, it is not one's responsibility to always judge the degree of another's altruism and to base one's action on that.

Obviously, if one wants to give to the point of true self-destruction, you should attempt to stop him and not be the recipient; but I ruled that case out earlier as being unrealistic.

[Black Wolf]

Would it not be altruistic to deny yourself something that is vital to survival if it's offered to you?

Would it not be altruistic to sacrifice your long-term goals to teach other people the importance of not being altruistic?

[TLD]

Would it not be altruistic to deny yourself something that is vital to survival if it's offered to you?

Would it not be altruistic to sacrifice your long-term goals to teach other people the importance of not being altruistic?

Certainly not / Of course. But Oists teach others all the time without sacrifice.

[DavidOdden]

There is always some benefit in getting stuff; e.g. financial gain.

Okay, so give me your argument that getting stuff is an intrinsic good. I can be persuaded, if you have a decent argument.

And some things come our way without earning them; e.g. inheritance.

It's true, some people do gain money for mo reason other than the fact that there is an unchosen genetic relationship. Are you arguing that it is good to take the unearned, or simply observing that it happens. So, can you explain why it is good to automatically inherit money from a person that you don't know?

[Black Wolf]

Well, is it bad to?

And is there a middle-of-the-road between good and bad? Because I doubt that's moral either.

[Jake_Ellison]

I don't agree. If the giver is an altruist and he knows you are not and that you don't approve in principle, but he wants to give it anyway - to you or someone else, then there is no moral issue involved in accepting the gift; and that would not be appeasement - nor rationalization. A person who is altruistic is not evil; his values may not be rational, but - in this context - he knows what he is doing and still wants to do it.

Further, it is not one's responsibility to always judge the degree of another's altruism and to base one's action on that.

Obviously, if one wants to give to the point of true self-destruction, you should attempt to stop him and not be the recipient; but I ruled that case out earlier as being unrealistic.

Ok, so you don't think it's possible to be truly self destructive. But the OP and I do, that's why we're having the conversation. Without admitting it's possible for someone to be self destructive, the conversation doesn't have a point. So allow me to take this opportunity to officially rule it back in......concentrating, concentrating...... yep, it's back in.

[ZSorenson]

It's moral if you can recognize what virtues you possess that might be the cause for the gift. If the sole reason for the gift is because you absolutely don't deserve it, then accepting it would be absolutely immoral.

Imagine your rich aunt is a big altruist, but notices that you befriended an amusing and intelligent homeless guy that discusses the news with you each day while you wait for the bus. You eventually help him get housing and a the like so he can find a job. She admires this act as an 'altruist', she admires your ability to help someone. Since your helping the guy was rational, to you, it doesn't matter that your motive is not part of her calculation. She noticed that you are smart and helped someone, and admires something about your value system even though it is not the same as hers. Well, she dies and gives you all of her money. The reason is because she admired you for some thing you did, and that thing you did was not in contradiction with your values. So there are no contradictions.

Now, if her wealth was from government subsidies....

[DavidOdden]

Well, is it bad to?

As I said, it is not unforgivable evil. It is moral mediocrity.

And is there a middle-of-the-road between good and bad? Because I doubt that's moral either.

You should never strive for the middle road -- that which is not virtuous, but not unforgivable evil.

[TLD]

Okay, so give me your argument that getting stuff is an intrinsic good. I can be persuaded, if you have a decent argument.It's true, some people do gain money for mo reason other than the fact that there is an unchosen genetic relationship. Are you arguing that it is good to take the unearned, or simply observing that it happens. So, can you explain why it is good to automatically inherit money from a person that you don't know?

I did not say intrinsic good, just some benefit.

Receiving something from someone else without "earning" it (e.g. inheritance) does not imply you should not receive it.

We are not taking something by force. It is not a moral issue whether or not to accept what someone wants to give you unless there is some negative consequence of receiving it. If someone I did not know left me something - highly unlikely and not in the previous discussion, I would inquire as to why; but given no good reason to refuse it, I would likely accept it. Likewise, if I found money on the street, I would see if there was a way to determine who lost it; short of that, I would keep it. In neither case does that imply "taking the unearned."

[TLD]

Ok, so you don't think it's possible to be truly self destructive. But the OP and I do, that's why we're having the conversation. Without admitting it's possible for someone to be self destructive, the conversation doesn't have a point. So allow me to take this opportunity to officially rule it back in......concentrating, concentrating...... yep, it's back in.

When I say "true self-destruction" I mean Altruism to the point of death. We are talking about Altruistic acts far short of that.

[Capitalism Forever]

It's moral if you can recognize what virtues you possess that might be the cause for the gift. If the sole reason for the gift is because you absolutely don't deserve it, then accepting it would be absolutely immoral.

What I think the OP refers to is this scenario: I possess virtues like productivity, justice, and pride--virtues that the altruist thoroughly despises. The altruist thinks that I am completely evil, and for that precise reason, she decides that I am the most undeserving person to receive her gift--so she gives it to me.

Imagine your rich aunt is a big altruist, but notices that you befriended an amusing and intelligent homeless guy [...]

OK, that sounds more like your everyday mixed-premises guy rather than a pure altruist(*). I think in this case, I would tell her that my help for the homeless guy was not charity but an investment. I did it strictly for profit, based on a cold calculation. If after this she still wanted to give me the gift, I would take it, under the principles described in my previous post.

(*) A pure altruist would hate to see a homeless guy joining the ranks of the "rich." See the quote by Phelps Adams.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Capitalism Forever

[Axiomatic]

As I said, it is not unforgivable evil. It is moral mediocrity.You should never strive for the middle road -- that which is not virtuous, but not unforgivable evil.

After reading through and thinking about your previous reply this is where I'm at now also. Its not a moral act due to the fact that it was not earned by ones own merits for oneself, and it is not an immoral act due to one not advocating the sacrifice.

This is quite an interesting dilemma as previously I thought of ethics and being black and white with no really 'neutral' grounds.

So my next question is, is there a moral grey area with regard to receiving sacrificial offerings? Or is it just simply not within the sphere of ethics at all?