Against Altruism

Ethics
1

I’ve been going out with a very smart, though naive girl for the past little while. I’m easing her into the objectivism, but I sometimes have trouble delivering cogent arguments as its advocate (though I’m working on this*.) On our last outing, she stated that she believes strongly in the concept of altruism. The situation did not permit me to rebut, but I would like to spark a discussion the next time we are out. This girl is in university for art and design, and as such is philosophically inexperienced, though she is very logical and receptive to congruency. I need some help building an argument against altruism. Analogies and real world references would be more successful than abstract philosophy. Can someone give me a hand?

* However this does seem to contradict one of my favourite A.S. quotes:

‘We never make assertions, Miss Taggart,’ said Hugh Akston. ‘That is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell - we show. We do not claim - we prove.’

2

Here’s something relatively short I told a friend several years ago shortly before I became acquainted with Objectivism, which I’d hope will mean it is simple enough to be understood by somebody not familiar with much philosophy. Think of a bunch of random people and each of them we’ll assign a letter. Altruism would tell you that “A” should be striving to do things for “B” and not “A.” But then it also says “B” should be doing things for “C” and not “B.” So “A” does something for “B” (say, “A” gives “B” an apple), but then “B” is supposed to not keep things for “B” and instead pass them on too and so the apple gets passed along to “C” again too. But “C” is also obligated to do and give up for the sake of “D” and so on and so fourth. All this stuff is being done and given, but nobody is ever supposed to be the one where the benefit ultimately rests, it just keeps getting passed on and never actually accepted and enjoyed ever. Altruism, if practiced consistently, winds up with everybody working for nobody’s benefit. The only way to avoid this is if altruism is at least partly inconsistently applied, either by not being applied at all times or not being applied to all people. Only when somebody can be an end in themself is there any end for all this striving to go toward at all.

For more ideas to draw on for making up your arguments, perhaps try reading over the entry on altruism from the lexicon. Altruism

Also, giving the rational basis for something to try to convince somebody is not the same as just putting out an unsupported assertion and demanding it be accepted on that alone. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

3

I would ask her to clearly define altruism before you attack her philosophy. If she means it to be helping others that she loves, or because she enjoys the response/gratitude, etc, it would be innappropriate to assume she means self sacrifice for the good of others, since her doing good is in fact in order to receive some value herself. If she does indeed mean self sacrifice, I’d think as an Objectivist or Objectivist student you would be able to explain your position. For real world examples, though, look at every socialist state that ever existed.

4

I would put the burden of proof on her.

Most people do not think (rational) selfishness is moral, but they can easily understand WHY people want act in their own self-interest. The reason is pretty obvious to most people: their life and happiness demand it.

While they do not regard it as moral they do regard it as practical, to the extent they want to live and be happy. Most people want to live and be happy. (Unfortunately, this give rise to the moral-practical dichotomy. But that is an issue for another day.)

So at least implicitly, everybody knows why (rational) selfishness “makes sense”, even if they do not feel that they can morally justify it. After all, most people understand why people generally want a good job that pays well, or a good education, or have sex, or a nice house, or a nice car, or a hobby, or play video games, watch movies and listen to music, i.e., entertainment.

In fact, I would argue that most people would be baffled if you asked them: “Why is this good? Why is it good to pursue sex, money, housing or education? So what if it makes you happy? So what if it makes you enjoy life?”

No, the real question is and have always been: “WHY on earth, should we sacrifice ourselves? Why? Is there any rationally justifiable reason for it, at all?” So ask her questions such as: “Why should we give up our happiness - for the sake of others? Why should we sacrifice ourselves - for the sake of others? Why should we spend our days in misery - for the sake of others? Why? Why? Why? Give me just one good reason, one rational and logical reason.”

I would not be suprised if it turns out that most of her reasons will be illogical. (See Craig Biddle’s article “Altruism: The Morality of Logical Fallacies”.)

If you ever get her to question altruism, then make sure she understand the the essence of the alternative, that is of rational selfishness. How? Get her to read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

If she is not willing to do that right away, then you should at least explain to her that a rational egoist lives by the guidance of his reason - not his whims; he thinks and acts long-term - not short-sighted; he regard honesty, justice and integrity as virtues; he do not believe that the happiness of one man demands any sacrifice - he believes that life and happiness demands a trade of values.

Thereby you clearly indicate that a rational egoist is NOT a S O B who would hurt others in their pursuit of their own happiness. This would also indicate that there is an alternative between sacrificing yourself to others and sacrificing others to yourself: pursuing your own happiness, by your own actions, without sacrificing anybody for anybody.

One final advice. Concretize, concretize, concretize. Give as many examples you can come up with. If you want to be sure the examples are good, then take them from Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Think of the characters in those novels. That should make even the most abstract aspects of the discussion easy to follow.

Good luck.

5

I would ask her to clearly define altruism before you attack her philosophy. If she means it to be helping others that she loves, or because she enjoys the response/gratitude, etc, it would be innappropriate to assume she means self sacrifice for the good of others, since her doing good is in fact in order to receive some value herself. If she does indeed mean self sacrifice, I’d think as an Objectivist or Objectivist student you would be able to explain your position. For real world examples, though, look at every socialist state that ever existed.

Yes. In the past I’ve been overly belligerent with intellectual opponents, however this has waned with age. I’m near certain she has a more “casual” understanding of altruism, as you mentioned one that’s in stride with helping others that she loves, etc. This is of course a selfish action given the fact that she is deriving pleasure from it.

I’m building up my ammunition. The first line of the wikipedia page for Altruism (Ethics) is very solid.

Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest.