Nonexistence of Self-Sacrifice

[mdegges]

"This is the law, keep it in your mind. FROM HIS CRADLE TO HIS GRAVE A MAN NEVER DOES A SINGLE THING WHICH HAS ANY FIRST AND FOREMOST OBJECT BUT ONE--TO SECURE PEACE OF MIND, SPIRITUAL COMFORT, FOR HIMSELF." Of course there can be secondary and tertiary reasons for your actions (ie: to help or please others) but the primary reason is always a selfish one.

A simple example of this is when a person gives money to a homeless man. This might seem selfless to an observer, but the primary reason it's done is selfish. Case 1: The giver donates money because he gets a feeling of gratification out of it, knowing that he did a good deed. Case 2: The giver empathizes with the homeless man, and therefore feels all the pain and sadness that the man feels. He wants to dispel these empathetic feelings because they've made him uneasy, and so he tries to alleviate the homeless man's pain and sadness (by giving him money). Case 3: The giver would not feel content if he didn't donate to the homeless man, so he does it to escape the discomfort (or shame) that he thinks he'll feel later.

Is this true, and consistent with Objectivism? Are men actually capable of self-sacrifice, or is it inherently against human nature?

(This is piggybacking off The Myth of Sacrifical Morality, but the OP in that thread was arguing that sacrifical morality is a (bad) choice.. whereas I'm asking if there's a choice at all, and how you arrived at your answer to that question.)

Edited August 5, 2012 by mdegges

[Dante]

This topic comes up fairly regularly in Objectivist circles, and I'm sure there's a thread here discussing it. There's an essay in The Virtue of Selfishness addressing the question, written by Nathaniel Branden and entitled "Isn't Everyone Selfish?" If you're interested in this issue, that's a good place to start, as it differentiates psychological egoism (the idea that all human actions are inherently selfish) from Rand's egoism.

[overt]

Objectivism defines 'selfishness' as your long-term, rational self-interest. It does not define 'selfishness' as something that you can somehow trick yourself into thinking is beneficial, nor something which makes you 'feel good', nor something which affirms an idea you hold simply because you hold it.

A typical argument goes like this: "I believe in altruism, so when I am altruistic I am being selfish, because I am doing something which agrees with my ideas." The fact that you arrived at a self-destructive idea with your own mind doesn't make what you've done affirm and further your life. Rather, you've merely functioned within the bounds of reality (used your own brain, which is your only option) to destroy your values, and thus yourself.

Doing something on a whim or because it gave you a positive feeling is similarly not selfish. Whims are not how a man ensures he is benefiting his life as a whole, and vaguely positive feelings are not the point of a man's existence.

[Reidy]

Another good source on this is the scene in The Fountainhead where Keating runs into Katie Halsey by accident, years after he dumped her.

[Devil's Advocate]

Are men actually capable of self-sacrifice, or is it inherently against human nature?

I equate self-sacrifice with self-destruction, and yes people are fully capable of throwing themselves under the bus, e.g. suicide.

[Nicky]

There is a difference between being altruistic, and being altruistic consistently. The latter is impossible (without dying), the former is very much possible and practiced by almost everyone in the world.

Conversely, it's possible to not be selfish on occasion, but it's not possible to live without ever being selfish.

As for the motivation for not being selfish, it can vary. But, whether it's religion (and the belief in the afterlife), or a belief in an irrational secular philosophy, the lies their beliefs are based on aren't honest mistakes in a selfish quest to understand the world. Therefor, it can't be said that they are being selfish, but in a misguided way.

Those underlying lies are the foundation of their life and character, and they are fundamentally immoral ( immoral meaning unselfish, because they were developed by denying one's own self - one's own senses and judgment - in favor of other people's opinions and bromides, or in favor of the arbitrary).

Edited August 5, 2012 by Nicky

[Nicky]

whereas I'm asking if there's a choice at all, and how you arrived at your answer to that question

I've arrived at that answer by being selfish in my thoughts (as opposed to my actions). By relying on my own observations and judgment, first, and treating everyone else's opinions as something worth considering but never worth accepting unless and until it's confirmed through my own judgment.

In other words, by never treating anyone else's views as facts. That is what altruists don't do. They don't read their Bible or anointed "great" philosophers as the works of men with opinions. They read them as containers of facts, and with the purpose of informing themselves of those facts.

If one does the former instead of the latter, arriving at the same answer is inevitable.

Edited August 5, 2012 by Nicky

[Eiuol]

Those underlying lies are the foundation of their life and character, and they are fundamentally immoral

Those are really good distinctions. What do you mean by underlying lies, though? It's a relevant question because if someone to some extent believes altruism to be good, then it would appear to have an element of selfishness, while seeing bad consequences of altruism yet still denying that altruism is bad would appear to have no element of selfishness. I'm not arguing that the former means that a belief in altruism is selfish if someone believes it is good, but that could be the root of the questions posed here. If you're being intellectually honest and truly are mistaken to believe in altruism, is it possible to be self-sacrificial? I think so, but I'll respond further once you clarify your meaning.

[mdegges]

Objectivism defines 'selfishness' as your long-term, rational self-interest. It does not define 'selfishness' as something that you can somehow trick yourself into thinking is beneficial, nor something which makes you 'feel good', nor something which affirms an idea you hold simply because you hold it.

The idea is that the underlying reason we take any action is to secure our own peace of mind. This isn't the same saying XYZ must make you feel good, but that by not doing XYZ, you would somehow feel worse. You have made a subconscious decision to go with the action that will leave you in the better state.

A typical argument goes like this: "I believe in altruism, so when I am altruistic I am being selfish, because I am doing something which agrees with my ideas." The fact that you arrived at a self-destructive idea with your own mind doesn't make what you've done affirm and further your life. Rather, you've merely functioned within the bounds of reality (used your own brain, which is your only option) to destroy your values, and thus yourself.

How do you know that doing a certain action is destroying someone else's values (and even further, their life)? If the statement in the thread starter is correct, that we all act primarily to secure our own peace of mind, then acting to destroy your own values is impossible.

[mdegges]

I equate self-sacrifice with self-destruction, and yes people are fully capable of throwing themselves under the bus, e.g. suicide.

There's different types of suicide. 1) A soldier throwing himself over a grenade, or 2) A person killing himself. Both end the same way.. but what are the reasons for these actions? In the case of 1, the soldier will be remembered as a hero long after his death, and get the recognition he primarily seeks. The alternative would be to live without any recognition and feel regretful or shameful for not having acted when he had the chance. In the case of 2, the man acts to avoid unbearable feelings of shame or guilt. The idea of killing himself gives him a feeling of self-contentment, that he would NOT have if he didn't. In both cases, the man is primarily acting to secure his own peace of mind.

[mdegges]

As for the motivation for not being selfish, it can vary. But, whether it's religion (and the belief in the afterlife), or a belief in an irrational secular philosophy, the lies their beliefs are based on aren't honest mistakes in a selfish quest to understand the world. Therefor, it can't be said that they are being selfish, but in a misguided way.

Those underlying lies are the foundation of their life and character, and they are fundamentally immoral ( immoral meaning unselfish, because they were developed by denying one's own self - one's own senses and judgment - in favor of other people's opinions and bromides, or in favor of the arbitrary).

Yeah, I see what you're saying, but what if nothing is developed by denying one's own self? That it's literally impossible to deny your own senses, judgements, and feelings?

What if, as an observer, what you think is selfless is just a facade for something that is selfish? A nun devoting her life to the church does it because she finds self-gratification in her actions. The same woman could not be a firefighter and feel the same sense of contentment. She has chosen a way of life that fufills her own needs, and other's needs secondarily.

If you're being intellectually honest and truly are mistaken to believe in altruism, is it possible to be self-sacrificial? I think so, but I'll respond further once you clarify your meaning.

Can it be that the feelings a person gets from being "altruistic" are neccessary to maintain his own peace of mind? That the person believes he can't these feelings from any other acts? (I don't mean this as a general statement, because we all have different values and need different things to feel content. But in the case of a nun, or a priest, I wonder if this is true.) Also, when I say altruistic, I mean actions that appear to be rooted in selflessness.

(I honestly don't know if this is true or not. I was reading a book about this concept and can't personally find an example where it doesn't apply or make sense. So maybe I am 100% wrong, but that's why I've asked you to include "how you arrived at your answer.")

[whYNOT]

I think "altruism" is always going to confuse, as long as it's only seen as ACTING

FOR an other. The full context implicit throughout Rand's writing is LIVING BY,

THROUGH,and FOR - others. I think. "By", as in by the sanction and authority(minds)of

others; "Through", as in through others' eyes and their approval; "For" as in dedicating

a life to amorphous Others (expressly, to a vague collective, not those of value to one.)

All the above premises involve self-sacrifice.

For confirmation of this, turn them right around, and you arrive at rational egoism.

To not LIVE for others does not include those single, compassionate actions to aid others,

the strawman commonly employed to attack the morality.

[Devil's Advocate]

There's different types of suicide. 1) A soldier throwing himself over a grenade, or 2) A person killing himself. Both end the same way.. but what are the reasons for these actions? In the case of 1, the soldier will be remembered as a hero long after his death, and get the recognition he primarily seeks. The alternative would be to live without any recognition and feel regretful or shameful for not having acted when he had the chance. In the case of 2, the man acts to avoid unbearable feelings of shame or guilt. The idea of killing himself gives him a feeling of self-contentment, that he would NOT have if he didn't. In both cases, the man is primarily acting to secure his own peace of mind.

All types of suicide lead to the same result, and without knowing the motivation of the person involved, all that can really be said about those who choose to end their life is that they are acting with the same authority that those who choose to live do; that life, as a property, is theirs to dispose of. A right to life is not a mandate to live.

[Nicky]

Those are really good distinctions. What do you mean by underlying lies, though? It's a relevant question because if someone to some extent believes altruism to be good, then it would appear to have an element of selfishness, while seeing bad consequences of altruism yet still denying that altruism is bad would appear to have no element of selfishness. I'm not arguing that the former means that a belief in altruism is selfish if someone believes it is good, but that could be the root of the questions posed here. If you're being intellectually honest and truly are mistaken to believe in altruism, is it possible to be self-sacrificial? I think so, but I'll respond further once you clarify your meaning.

And example of such a lie would be Mother Teresa's dedication of her life to a God and to a religion she didn't even have faith in. I don't really know what kind of evasion allowed her to at the same time admit her lack of faith in private, and continue to lead the life of a poster child of blind faith, but she did.

She is not an isolated case. If anything, the honesty of at least admitting the absence of faith in private, is unusual. But the contradiction between the overwhelming evidence of the senses (and the inevitable "crisis of faith" which follows) and the professed beliefs of an altruist isn't. It's always there, and ignoring it is always the fundamental lie at the base of an altruist's life.

[mdegges]

There's an essay in The Virtue of Selfishness addressing the question, written by Nathaniel Branden and entitled "Isn't Everyone Selfish?"

Late thanks; it finally clicked. For future reference, Isn't everyone selfish? is the thread that discusses this essay. A lot of the posts there just lead me in circles.. (he's selfish, no he's not, he's selfish, no he's not).. or so I thought! For example, posters were saying that Peter Keating was sacrifcing himself for his mother's happiness. But the psychological egoist response is:

Why is the only reason possible for such a career change that the son believes he must sacrifice his life to his mother's will? Is it not possible that the son, while not feeling any obligation to his mother's desires, changes his career anyway because he values the approval of his mother more than he values this particular career? Can it not be that having a solid relationship with his mother is more important to him than this particular job? If he values the mother aspect more than the career aspect, switching his career to align with his mother's desires is certainly selfish.

But reading the actual essay really helped. The confusion lied in the definition of selfishness: you can't make decisions that are in your own self-interest without actually reasoning through them. The process of finding out why you should choose to do one thing over another is what's important. By agreeing that someone is inherently selfish, you're negating them of all responsibility for their actions.

[Eiuol]

She is not an isolated case. If anything, the honesty of at least admitting the absence of faith in private, is unusual. But the contradiction between the overwhelming evidence of the senses (and the inevitable "crisis of faith" which follows) and the professed beliefs of an altruist isn't. It's always there, and ignoring it is always the fundamental lie at the base of an altruist's life.

You gave an example of intellectual honesty, and not merely an "honest error". Apparently Mother Teresa knew of the consequences to her actions being so old and an intellectual activist for her beliefs. It's imprecise to say it was overwhelming evidence of the senses since ethics is an abstraction and isn't like denying a table exists when it's right there in front of you, but it's an evasion nonetheless. Altruists like this would be denying knowledge they are capable of grasping.

I don't think most people are like this, though. A lot of people that I've met are more towards the selfish end and are really only mistaken on their beliefs when wrong. If anything, many altruistic beliefs are due to a mistaken belief that it's good for one's life. Such a belief immoral to the extent the belief is not life furthering, but it's not an outright evasion. Inconsistent selfishness, in other words. In practice, they are not being selfish, despite their intention. You couldn't say these are underlying lies, because *there are no lies* in this kind of person. It is not self-evident that altruism is bad in the long-run. Peikoff in Understanding Objectivism talked about this specifically, and he was quite clear in saying altruistic beliefs can be honest, just like any other mistake. I agree. It takes some time to judge if a person is in fact mistaken, or totally evasive. You might even discover numerous errors that for you are quite clear.

Even I was a bit altruistic when I was younger, mid high school for a short amount of time. I really thought it was better to even do things for the greater good, because it was what my knowledge led me to believe. I did it for myself, because I thought it was in my moral interest, so therefore in my overall interest. Nothing was an evasion, as my knowledge context led to that conclusion. I changed my mind once I read various books in my senior year of high school, including Atlas Shrugged. That provided me with some additional knowledge for me to change my mind.