Is it moral to accept sacrifical offerings from altruists?

[DavidOdden]

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.

Maybe it would be useful to be clear about what a "moral" act is. We agree, I presume, that morality is a "code of values" which we choose -- "code" means that we're speaking of something abstract and conceptual rather than a list of arbitrary concretes, and "value" indicates that it is something that we act to gain and keep that thing. This code of values is not arbitrary, rather the code correctly identifies those things of value which are, objectively speaking, proper to your existence as a rational being. So a moral act would be acting to gain or keep a thing that, objectively judged, moves you in the direction of your ultimate goal (existence proper to your nature -- i.e. not as a pile of meat cubes or a slave). Anything else would be not moral, which means immoral.

Whether or not a thing is good for you or bad for you has to be judged in the context of all of your knowledge. You must weigh the upside of taking that pill against the downside -- perhaps the pill is poison and it might damage your internal organs, but the pill stops a disease which is likely to kill you. If you conclude that the chances of death by disease are greater than the chances of death by organ degeneration, then take the pill, otherwise don't. The "greyness" comes in integrating your knowledge and reaching a conclusion. It may be difficult to judge correctly what the chances are that you'll actually die if you don't take the pill, or how harmful the pill really is. In this respect, ethics is black and white. There is an actual correct answer, but it may be difficult to determine which is the correct answer based on unsatisfactory levels of knowledge.

In the kind of situation you describe (and variants therein), you have to assess what the consequences of a choice would be. On the positive side, you come to be in possession of a new car. On the negative side, this technical new property of yours is not the product of your mind and labor. If you cleverly invent a new widget and sell it, you can buy a new car which stands as a monument to your accomplishment, a proper source of happiness over achieving your goal, namely living as a man. The car itself doesn't generate happiness. I just do not see how a man can evade the knowledge that he did not earn the car, that it is not properly related to one's happiness and cannot, as far as I can see, be related your ultimate goal of existing as a man.

I said that accepting an unearned gift from a person you despise is not unforgivably evil. That simply means that you can judge how far from proper to man's life an act is and how obvious it should be to any man that the act is immoral -- Adolph Hitler was unforgivably evil, Neville Chamberlain was evil, and Ronald Reagan was bad. It is not universally obvious that accepting an unearned gift from a person you despise is immoral, which is why we're having this discussion. That doesn't change the nature of the act, it simply means that it is difficult to understand the nature of the act. Which, I conclude, is that the act is immoral.

[TLD]

'DavidOdden' 

I said that accepting an unearned gift from a person you despise is not unforgivably evil. That simply means that you can judge how far from proper to man's life an act is and how obvious it should be to any man that the act is immoral -- Adolph Hitler was unforgivably evil, Neville Chamberlain was evil, and Ronald Reagan was bad. It is not universally obvious that accepting an unearned gift from a person you despise is immoral, which is why we're having this discussion. That doesn't change the nature of the act, it simply means that it is difficult to understand the nature of the act. Which, I conclude, is that the act [i]is[/i] immoral.[/code]




This by itself is unclear. I assume you are not saying that it is immoral simply because the nature of the act is difficult to understand. One does not need to know precisely why a gift is given in order to accept it.

I would say, however, that accepting from one you despise would be hypocritical.



My previous comments were based on the initial premise that the receiver detested the giver's moral code; and other examples that followed were not dealing with detestable persons that would imply such hypocracy.

Most people, unfortunately, have bad values, but they are basically decent people. For the most part, it would not be immoral to accept gifts from them.



[code]Axiomatic

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. 


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?

Again, it does not need to be earned in order to be moral; e.g. inheritance or where one simply wants to give something to you knowing who you are. I think it takes some moralizing (existing in many of these forums) to come to your more strict conclusion. That is not to say that you would not appreciate the gift more if it was earned.

No, the "grey" can virtually always be eliminated with proper application of principles. Those circumstances where this is a moral issue have been pretty well defined.

Edited February 27, 2010 by TLD

[Capitalism Forever]

The car itself doesn't generate happiness.

That's right, but it doesn't generate unhappiness, either, does it? You didn't earn it, but you have an opportunity to be its rightful owner, so why pass it up?

If I am offered a free sample of a product, should I say, "Sorry, cannot take that, I didn't earn it, it wouldn't make me happy" ?

If I accepted the gift but instead of keeping it, donated it to the government so it could serve the protection of individual rights, would that change your evaluation?

[DavidOdden]

I assume you are not saying that it is immoral simply because the nature of the act is difficult to understand. One does not need to know precisely why a gift is given in order to accept it.

That basically follows from the fact that one does not need to be omniscient in order to act. Morality is judging an alternative in the context of your knowledge. If a man evades knowledge of causes, that is an immoral choice; if such an evasion enables a choice that "technically" allows you to claim innocent error, then I don't see that it matters hugely whether you deem the act of accepting versus the act of evading to be immoral.

Most people, unfortunately, have bad values, but they are basically decent people. For the most part, it would not be immoral to accept gifts from them.

You keep asserting: how about arguing (providing evidence and logic) in support of that claim? What makes it fundamentally "moral" to accept gifts? It is not an automatic objective value to "acquire stuff".

[TLD]

'DavidOdden' 

You keep asserting: how about arguing (providing evidence and logic) in support of that claim? What makes it fundamentally "moral" to accept gifts?[/code]




I've already argued that this is not generally a moral issue. And no one has presented a good argument for why it is.



[code]It is not an automatic objective value to "acquire stuff".

Who said it has to be? All that has been said is that acquiring stuff can be of value, earned or unearned.

This discussion is now going nowhere.

[Jake_Ellison]

I've already argued that this is not generally a moral issue. And no one has presented a good argument for why it is.

Are you saying that this is a question Philosophy in general shouldn't try to answer? Why not, and where should people seek the answer then?

Or are you saying some other branch of Philosophy should answer it, not Ethics? Which one?

it is not an immoral act due to one not advocating the sacrifice.

That doesn't follow, logically. (unless the only immoral act in the world was to advocate sacrifice)

Edited February 27, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[Black Wolf]

Let's say you were in love with someone, but two years later they started to become a real prick. But they gave you diamonds and gold. You break up with him.

Are you going to keep the diamonds and gold, or you going to tell him he can go ahead and have them? Wouldn't want to accept gifts from someone that you hated, would you?

Edited February 28, 2010 by Black Wolf

[Alfred Centauri]

On one hand, it is reasonable to argue that accepting the gift will not be in your long term self-interest for a number of reasons, e.g., it might be harmful to your self-esteem or there may be altruist "strings" attached to the gift.

On the other hand and barring such considerations, would an appeal to the trader principle resolve this? The altruist values self-sacrifice so, by accepting his presumably valuable (to you) gift, you trade value for value.

Here's a twist. Let's say you needed a kidney and, like in the news recently, an altruistic stranger offers you one of theirs. Is it immoral to take it?

[DavidOdden]

I've already argued that this is not generally a moral issue. And no one has presented a good argument for why it is.

Not only have you not argued that it is not a moral issue, it is obviously a moral issue, since accepting a gift is a choice, and all choices are morally evaluable.

Who said it has to be? All that has been said is that acquiring stuff can be of value, earned or unearned.

There's a difference between saying, i.e. just asserting, and showing. I cannot even imagine how unearned stuff-acquisition could be good for your life, so you might start by making at least a single case for it being good.

This discussion is now going nowhere.

I agree that you're not getting it, so if you want to stop posting in this thread, I won't be offended.

[TLD]

Let's say you were in love with someone, but two years later they started to become a real prick. But they gave you diamonds and gold. You break up with him.

Are you going to keep the diamonds and gold, or you going to tell him he can go ahead and have them? Wouldn't want to accept gifts from someone that you hated, would you?

That is a new context. The gift was somewhat conditional - intended for one who loved you. It should be returned; but if the giver refused it back, then it can morally be kept.

[TLD]

It is obviously a moral issue, since accepting a gift is a choice, and all choices are morally evaluable.

I cannot even imagine how unearned stuff-acquisition could be good for your life, so you might start by making at least a single case for it being good.

Now you are moralizing.

Yes, while morality is a code of values for the purpose of guiding man's choices, all choices are not dictated by morality; e.g. the flavor of ice cream you choose - subjective.

The choices we have been discussing re. receiving gifts from an altruist (where such would not be harmful to you, would not be hypocritical, etc.) are subjective and not philosophical.

You can argue all you want about where to draw the line, and examples have been presented here to help determine that line. In each case, one has to determine whether or not it can be shown to be right or wrong. In cases where it is not determined to be wrong (examples already presented), there should be no harm in receiving the gift.

*** Mod's note: For an extensive spin-off discussion on the choice of flavor, see this thread. -sN ***

Edited March 6, 2010 by softwareNerd
Thread-split notice

[Capitalism Forever]

On one hand, it is reasonable to argue that accepting the gift will not be in your long term self-interest for a number of reasons, e.g., it might be harmful to your self-esteem

In what way could it be harmful?

or there may be altruist "strings" attached to the gift.

That would change the picture completely, of course. The assumption in this thread has been that it is a genuine gift, i.e. no strings attached.

On the other hand and barring such considerations, would an appeal to the trader principle resolve this? The altruist values self-sacrifice so, by accepting his presumably valuable (to you) gift, you trade value for value.

Hehe, no, of course not. "Valuing self-sacrifice" is a contradiction in terms: self-sacrifice means precisely that you give up a value without getting a value in exchange. The trader principle is all about mutually beneficial trades, but the altruist's purpose is to make a transaction where you benefit but he loses.

Since you receive a value out of the transaction, though, I don't see where the problem is.

[Capitalism Forever]

Let's say you were in love with someone, but two years later they started to become a real prick. But they gave you diamonds and gold. You break up with him.

Are you going to keep the diamonds and gold, or you going to tell him he can go ahead and have them?

I would probably want to return the gifts, as a symbolic way of making it clear that I consider the relationship to have been a mistake. If for some reason giving them back is not possible, or I don't find the symbolism important, I would sell them on the market and keep the money.

[Grames]

Yes, while morality is a code of values for the purpose of guiding man's choices, all choices are not dictated by morality; e.g. the flavor of ice cream you choose - subjective.

The term Objectivism uses for choices that are trivial is "morally optional". But how can one tell that a choice is trivial without doing some non-trivial thinking? When all the outcomes are the same, or nearly the same. Having or not having a substantial gift is not nearly the same. One could imagine a circumstance in which the outcomes could be made more nearly the same — if you were tremendously wealthy then it would not matter to you if you accepted the gift or not and deeply considering the issue approaches the ice cream problem as a waste of time. But then the gift would not be substantial relative to the receiver, so it is not really the same problem.

The choices we have been discussing re. receiving gifts from an altruist (where such would not be harmful to you, would not be hypocritical, etc.) are subjective and not philosophical.

My reading of the first post was that it would be hypocritical, or else why hesitate at all?

The case of accepting an inheritance differs in important ways. Accepting an inheritance would not be accepting a sacrifice, if that person is already dead then no sacrifice is possible (extreme example: organ donations to strangers by victims in car accidents). Also, does a person get to choose whether or not to accept an inheritance? The state reassigns ownership in accordance with the will of the deceased and the law, then it taxes you on the value of the received property. You get the tax bill regardless of how you feel about person's gift. If you had a choice you would be wise to accept so you can pay the tax, and not accepting in this case would be the sacrifice. (I have not gone through this yet, correct me if I misunderstand probate.)

Morally trivial choices are not a loophole where subjectivism is valid. Philosophy applies to the point where you verify that the alternatives are equivalent in value, and only then can you justify picking one for trivial or arbitrary reasons because you have better things to do with your time.

[Alfred Centauri]

@ Capitalism Forever, you ask how could accepting a "sacrificial offering" from an altruist hurt one's self-esteem. From Galt's speech: "There is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value. The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material. It is the principle of justice. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved.

So, I contend that accepting the gift would be harmful to one's self-esteem if, in one's own judgment, one believes the gift is a (true) sacrifice and/or one is undeserving.

However, I think it's true that, in reality, many/most so-called altruists do not understand self-sacrifice in the way Rand did. That is to say, to many, self-sacrifice is denying ("sacrificing") one's desire for the material for some greater "spiritual" value. In other words, it is more likely that the giver in this scenario believes, in their own warped judgment, that giving away their possessions to you benefits them in some non-material way. As Rand wrote, true self-sacrifice involves denying that too: "“Sacrifice” is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t." If the giver truly doesn't value his possessions, where is his sacrifice?

[Capitalism Forever]

@ Capitalism Forever, you ask how could accepting a "sacrificial offering" from an altruist hurt one's self-esteem. From Galt's speech: "There is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value. The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material. It is the principle of justice. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved.

So, I contend that accepting the gift would be harmful to one's self-esteem if, in one's own judgment, one believes the gift is a (true) sacrifice and/or one is undeserving.

Thanks for your response. I agree that depending on sacrifices for your survival would be bad (to put it mildly) for your self-esteem, but if you know you can survive by your own productivity, and do actually produce a lot of wealth, then that will earn you a self-esteem that cannot be affected by an altruist doing something silly that happens to further increase your wealth.

As for the gift being undeserved: The altruist does indeed think you don't deserve the gift, but it doesn't matter what the altruist thinks. In objective reality, a rational man is more deserving of any piece of wealth than an altruist, simply by virtue of his being rational. Poverty is a just punishment for those who hate wealth, and if an altruist volunteers to administer justice to himself, the last thing I would want to do is stand in his way.

[TLD]

As for the gift being undeserved: The altruist does indeed think you don't deserve the gift, but it doesn't matter what the altruist thinks. In objective reality, a rational man is more deserving of any piece of wealth than an altruist, simply by virtue of his being rational. Poverty is a just punishment for those who hate wealth, and if an altruist volunteers to administer justice to himself, the last thing I would want to do is stand in his way.

That is an interesting take.

I think the main reason for such disagreement on this topic is how altruism is being defined.

If you view everyone who performs altruistic acts as true philosophical altruists, then (as AR said) there is potential conflict of interest and harm to one's self-esteem by receiving such a gift.

On the other hand, if most "altruistic" people do not truly believe that you don't deserve what they want to give you - that they want to give knowing that you don't want them to sacrifice themselves, then accepting the gift is not acting as a "taker" of the unearned and is moral. And I believe this is the case: that most altruistic acts are not performed by true altruists and cannot be judged philosophically as if they were.

BTW, the same problem - applying philosophy inappropriately - is causing some to think that there are no choices made by man that are outside the realm of morality. Such errors - such judgments - contribute significantly to negative public reaction to Objectivism.

[Jake_Ellison]

As for the gift being undeserved: The altruist does indeed think you don't deserve the gift, but it doesn't matter what the altruist thinks. In objective reality, a rational man is more deserving of any piece of wealth than an altruist, simply by virtue of his being rational.

Personally, I think people deserve what they earn, I'm unaware of any other way to define "deserve".

On the other hand, if most "altruistic" people do not truly believe that you don't deserve what they want to give you - that they want to give knowing that you don't want them to sacrifice themselves, then accepting the gift is not acting as a "taker" of the unearned and is moral.

Ayn Rand makes it very clear what the only moral way to interact with others is:

"The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material."

There really is nothing you can say to rationalize around that. It's very clear.

[Capitalism Forever]

Personally, I think people deserve what they earn, I'm unaware of any other way to define "deserve".

Agreed. But how do you define earning?

Ayn Rand makes it very clear what the only moral way to interact with others is:

"The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material."

Really, Jake. So the only rational thing to do with terrorists would be to offer to trade with them? You seem to interpret that quote as saying, "if you interact with others in any other way than trade, you are being immoral"--but it is clear to me that Miss Rand cannot have meant that.

[TLD]

Really, Jake. So the only rational thing to do with terrorists would be to offer to trade with them? You seem to interpret that quote as saying, "if you interact with others in any other way than trade, you are being immoral"--but it is clear to me that Miss Rand cannot have meant that.

No, she did not. Jake's use of the trader principle is inappropriate here.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Ayn Rand makes it very clear what the only moral way to interact with others is:

"The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material."

There really is nothing you can say to rationalize around that. It's very clear.

That assumes the people you wish to trade with have peaceful intent and will act in good faith. With good decent folks, mutual trade leads to co-prosperity and a generally cordial relationship.

Bob Kolker

[Jake_Ellison]

Agreed. But how do you define earning?

Funny you should ask, she explains that in VoS:

"A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. He does not treat men as masters or slaves, but as independent equals. He deals with men by means of a free, voluntary, unforced, uncoerced exchange—an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgment. A trader does not expect to be paid for his defaults, only for his achievements. He does not switch to others the burden of his failures, and he does not mortgage his life into bondage to the failures of others."

So to earn a value, in the context of trade, is to gain it in a voluntary exchange which benefits both parties. Just as it's immoral to profit from someone's vices by selling them cocaine, it is immoral to profit from the vice of irrationality, which would cause an altruist to give you his belongings. They are both very much straight forward applications of the trader principle. The proper answer to irrationality is to walk away, not to take advantage of it.

Really, Jake. So the only rational thing to do with terrorists would be to offer to trade with them?

No, that's not a logical consequence of having the trader principle govern all of one's interactions with others. You're ignoring the possibility of refusing to interact with terrorists altogether, precisely because they have rejected the only ethical principle you could interact with them by. That is in fact the proper course of action.

You seem to interpret that quote as saying, "if you interact with others in any other way than trade, you are being immoral"--but it is clear to me that Miss Rand cannot have meant that.

It's exactly what she meant. She wasn't being ambivalent about it either, it's a very straight forward statement. Our interactions should properly be guided by the trader principle.

That assumes the people you wish to trade with have peaceful intent and will act in good faith. With good decent folks, mutual trade leads to co-prosperity and a generally cordial relationship.

And one should never wish to trade (or interact) with any other kind of people.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[TLD]

(Capitalism Forever @ Mar 1 2010, 05:24 PM) 

You seem to interpret that quote as saying, "if you interact with others in any other way than trade, you are being immoral"--but it is clear to me that Miss Rand cannot have meant that.[/code]


It's exactly what she meant. She wasn't being ambivalent about it either, it's a very straight forward statement. Our interactions should properly be guided by the trader principle.


But that principle does not apply to all interactions.

Yes, a "trader" is one who "earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved." That refers to one when he is dealing as a trader: he cannot resort to force, the trade cannot be coerced, he cannot expect the unearned, etc.


But in the case of receiving a gift as discussed here, there is no trade involved, there is no force imposed, there is no expectation of unearned gain and there is no conflict of interest. If the giver chooses to freely give knowing that you do not wish him to sacrifice, you have no moral obligation to refuse nor to judge the gift as unjust.

[Jake_Ellison]

But that principle does not apply to all interactions.

"The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material."

If the giver chooses to freely give knowing that you do not wish him to sacrifice, you have no moral obligation to refuse nor to judge the gift as unjust.

"One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment."

You just aren't talking about the same philosopher we are, that's all. The subject of this forum is Ayn Rand, the person who created Objectivism, not some subjectivist you studied wherever you studied. Read and understand Virtue of Selfishness, and then start responding to people's questions about Objectivist Ethics. If you're looking for somebody who doesn't moralize, Ayn Rand ain't your gal.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[Capitalism Forever]

You're ignoring the possibility of refusing to interact with terrorists altogether, precisely because they have rejected the only ethical principle you could interact with them by.

But what if the terrorists refuse to leave you alone? In that case, you have no choice but to interact with them--and to interact with them by FORCE.

When I meet another individual, my first choice is to interact with him as a trader. But a trade takes two traders, and if the person is not one, I cannot interact with him as a trader. This means I have to find what my second best choice is.

Usually, my second best choice is to walk away.

In the case of the terrorist, my second best choice is to blow him into pieces and then walk away.

In the case of the gift-bearing altruist, my second best choice is to take the gift, and then walk away.