As I was rereading Atlas Shrugged, I came across a passage that reminded me of an issue that I had never really clearly resolved: Rand’s view of altruism.
The passage is:
“I shall charge you for your room and board–it is against our rules to provide the unearned sustenance of another human being. Some of us have wives and children, but there is a mutual trade involved in that, and a mutual payment”–he glanced at her–“of a kind I am not entitled to collect.”
Now in order to discuss this and avoid confusion we need to agree on terms and I’m more than happy to use Rand’s terms. I’ll offer these (feel free to correct):
Altruism: The welfare of other people is the measurement of ethical action.
Sacrifice: The surrendering of a greater value for a lesser value.
Selfishness: Using one’s own welfare is the measurement of ethical action.
Benevolence: Mutual respect for the values of the self and of other people.
Now, to my point:
I have argued in these forums and elsewhere with objectivists and libertarians of various stripes about what Rand meant in her condemnation of altruism and whether she was right to condemn it. The reason that I gave the above definitions is that often people criticize Rand on the basis that she was opposed to helping others. A moderate position that many (e.g. libertarians) take absent force, there is nothing wrong with altruism, often called charity.
I believe that the passage quoted above suggests that Rand was opposed to more than forced altruism. Altruism, as defined above, applies whether or not someone is forcing you. If you are simply evaluating two options it is wrong, Rand says, to weigh the choice on the basis of the welfare of others irrespective of whether there is a punsihing authority involved or not. An ethical choice, she would say, must be made on the basis of value to one’s self. This include’s not just the beggar on the street but one’s own wife and children who must pay their own way in some sense. To give the starkest example, if you had to choose between your own life and that of your wife or children it would be immoral to sacrifice yourself for them.
Now there is a lot of wiggle room in the area of happiness (I prefer Tara Smith’s flourishing concept). As the saying goes, when momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy. This, then, leads to a lot of complicated analysis of mutual benefit and domestic harmony. Things can be even more difficult when we are considering charity. If I give to a beggar on the street am I being altruistic? What if it gives me the warm and fuzzies? More importantly, it is often prudent in social situations to be the first to give and to develop a reputation for benevolence absent mechanism to enforce mutuality.
Which brings us to the problem of benevolence. Often it is stated as a condition: I will respect your rights if you respect mine. Otherwise, my respect for your rights is unconnected to your respect for mine. I can’t control your respect for my rights. At most I can respect your rights conditionally. People often imagine enforcement mechanisms where none exist. The real choice is often between giving without certainty of getting or not giving. Without an enforcement mechanism benevolence can look a lot like sacrifice and altruism.
(There have been some older threads on this topic but none were focused where I intended to focus so I decided not to hijak them.)
