Altruism Revisited

Ethics
21

It might be useful to remember context. 

 

Atlas Shrugged was a novel and things that are said in there, while certainly reducible to her philosophy, reside in the context of the characters and the story.  It is also a dramatization.  Rand herself always said that in real life ordinary things are marginal while in a story they are to omitted if they do not support plot, them, characterization, etc.   Her books were not about generosity, which is good as generosity as a theme sounds more like an after school special to be truthful. 

 

Modern talking heads simply confuse the point by package dealing Altruism (as sacrificing yourself to society i.e. Comte) with goodwill/generosity (traditional).  Altruism, which she reiterated in her speech quote you highlighted, is a core philosophic point that is the backbone of many other ethical and political justifications and she hammered the point to keep it unpackaged.    Atlas Shrugged dramatizes that point.  For general generosity, she didn’t spell it out since it was not a theme of the book but if you really want to understand it you can look at how she dramatized people’s actions.  Notice that the heroes of the book consider how the government’s policies will affect others while the looters who preach altruism claim to want to help the poor while ignoring how their actions do the opposite (because they really want power).  Dagny is desperate to get farm loads shipped so people so they will not starve.  It is not a sacrifice, society collapsing and others dying is certainly not in her interests either, but yet the fact is true goodwill does not conflict with rational self-interest.  The looters sabotage this, even redirecting trains to crony projects, while wringing their hands about sacrifice, unconcerned of the real harm they are doing. They know it conflicts with rational self-interests but expect others to compromise towards the sacrifice.  Generosity and goodwill is not compatible with altruism and it’s all over the book. 

 

There are many more examples of goodwill.  Reardon gives his brother a charity check to make him happy and gets slammed for it.  Reardon sees it as being generous and nice to his brother while his brother criticizes Reardon for being personally motivated and doesn’t want his name tied to the money.  James Taggart expects Cheryl to love him for nothing selfish and treats her badly while Dagny actually tries to give her moral support.  Stadlar thinks people are animals and not to be trusted while Dagny gives the tramp a warm meal. 

 

You might not have noticed them since Rand was pounding the big picture while these flowed naturally from the characters, but they also happened for a reason.  It’s just not the point of the story.

1 Like
22

I think Rand is very ambiguous on this point and I’ve had countless debates on this with other readers. The quote i cited in the OP is one that seemed pretty hard. There are, as you cited, examples of generosity and benevolence. But what I remember is that some of the most awkward and artificial dialog consisted of her justifying these examples. I can’t swear she did it every time but it was common.

Her definitions are very precise but they don’t always fit well with how words are commonly used. I’ve been in plenty of arguments about whether are genuinely altruistic even when they try to be.

23

It’s useful to think about other people’s needs. It’s often useful to err on the side of giving.

Our minds are finite; to think about one thing necessarily prevents us from thinking about another thing.  Obviously this isn’t absolute (even the act of integration requires some amount of multitasking) but it is a constant and pervasive part of us.

Mental time, space and effort is every bit as finite as physical.  This means it must also be spent wisely. 

Now, it can be useful to consider other people’s needs- but only under certain circumstances.

 

When speaking to someone who insists on evading the truth, it is immoral to spend one’s thoughts on them (either their beliefs or their feelings).

When working alongside someone who is incompetent, it is immoral to worry about their self-esteem.

When someone wants you to behave in opposition to your own mind, it is immoral to accept their terms.

 

Now notice that in every situation where benevolence is immoral, it is because of the other person’s choices- and that the same applies to those situations where benevolence is moral.

 

“Altruism,” even in its milder forms, places all other people on equal ground- regardless of their relation to you.  The problem therein is not that benevolence is immoral, as such, but that it is only moral when it is useful.

Benevolence must stem from selfishness; it’s a matter of hierarchy.

24

And to treat every human being as essentially “good” because of one’s own uncertainty, results in a still-weaker variant of altruism.

 

The problem with the “problem of induction” is that possibilities cannot be used interchangeably with actualities.  Finding a black swan is not the same as the possibility of such.

This also applies to other people.

One must spend one’s mental resources (and benevolence) on those who deserve it, and not on those who don’t, according to the context of one’s current knowledge about them.

 

Anything else would contradict the nature of the human mind (and hence be functionally useless).

*Treating every human being as essentially “good until proven bad” is, however, analogous to my grasp of ‘rights’- the crucial difference being that “benevolence” is different from “mutual consent”.

25

Are free samples of goods or services, altruism?

 

In the past I have gotten a free packet of shampoo, dishwashing detergent, grocery stores often give away morsels of food for free.

 

What is the “altruism” status of such things?

26

How do you spell ‘advertisement’? As a merchant, I would be ‘betting’ that the value gained from experiencing for yourself what a particular product has to  offer, is going to pay off in a long term relationship of ongoing sales.

27

Are free samples of goods or services, altruism?

No, this is done with a profit motive. Thus is not altruism, even in the casual sense of “helping others, with no material gain expected in return”.

When a store like Panera sends unsold goods to a soup-kitchen at the end of the day, it would qualify in the casual sense of the term; but, even this is not altruism in the strict philosophical sense.

28

Are free samples of goods or services, altruism?

Not if they’re given away with the intention of attracting customers.

In retrospect I see where you may be identifying that with uncertainty; I may have been wrong (slightly) this morning.  Will have to reexamine later.

29

No surprise here at all.

 

A little free food now (short term loss) on an individual basis (certain loss) is not altruism on the part of the company giving away the food… because statistically speaking and in the long term, a benefit will accrue to the company.  That overall total benefit must be greater than the particular certain losses from giving away food in order for it to be feasible.  It is a question of intelligent marketing of the samples that ensures overall the company benefits from the campaign, otherwise the campaign would not be run in the first place.

 

 

Altruism cannot be attributed to isolated short term incidents if the purpose is not solely or primarily for others.  If the course of action is one which intelligently takes into account wide considerations of risk and possible profit and is taken ON THE PREMISE that the behaviour will lead to an overall benefit to the actor, the little actions are not altruism.

 

Also recall anti-Objectivists argue the zero sum game.  Objectivists do not.  Another person benefiting from an action I take for the purposes of benefiting myself does not somehow change the fact that I benefit nor that it was done for me.  In fact ensuring a side effect benefits others when possible if it does not detract from my aim… can benefit me in the future.  Objectivists are not anti-cooperation or anti-partnership.

 

 

Some niceties cost little and have an overall return… in effect, benevolence is like giving away free samples.  The magnitude of that campaign of course needs to be properly managed… if it is to remain effective for one’s selfish interest.

 

 

Also, has anyone raised the issue of “selfish” benevolence? 

30

. . . in effect, benevolence is like giving away free samples.

That’s an elegant way to grasp it.  Thank you; I think I’ll use that in the future.

 

Also, has anyone raised the issue of “selfish” benevolence? 

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=24929&hl=benevolence#entry305943

 

They discuss the distinction between selfish and selfless benevolence in that thread.

Considering the extent to which it’s misunderstood by the general public (seems to be their primary objection to Objectivism), it could probably use a bit more elaboration.

31

On 3/10/2014 at 3:31 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

“Altruism,” even in its milder forms, places all other people on equal ground- regardless of their relation to you.  The problem therein is not that benevolence is immoral, as such, but that it is only moral when it is useful.

Benevolence must stem from selfishness; it’s a matter of hierarchy.

So can one define altruism as being “useless benevolence”? It works for me.

But I don’t know if it includes the idea of “not worth my while benevolence”. I was trying to put something together below to get my head around it:

  • Benevolence

    • satisfactory benevolence

      • gifts to loved ones
      • helping the team you are rooting for

    • unsatisfactory benevolence

      • forced benevolence

        • Christmas Gifts
        • Taxes

      • useless benevolence

        • giving money to an active drug addict
        • investing in a bad investment to look ok
        • ??
32

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

So can one define altruism as being “useless benevolence”? It works for me.

But I don’t know if it includes the idea of “not worth my while benevolence”. I was trying to put something together below to get my head around it:

  • Benevolence

  • satisfactory benevolence

  • gifts to loved ones

  • helping the team you are rooting for

  • unsatisfactory benevolence

  • forced benevolence

  • Christmas Gifts

  • Taxes

  • useless benevolence

  • giving money to an active drug addict

  • investing in a bad investment to look ok

  • ??

IMHO your dividing it up into three categories is misguided.

Benevolence is when you give something happily, you are glad to give it when you do so.  If you are rational, your being glad to give it means, the gift is voluntary.

So 1. there is no such thing as forced benevolence.

Moreover as a rational person, benevolence, which by definition is voluntary, if it is to make you happy or glad while acting, must be the opposite of a sacrifice.  Observe first that an exchange of something with the exact same value, inspires nothing but indifference.

So 2. There is no such thing as indifferent or unsatisfactory benevolence, i.e. when things having the exact same value in the value hierarchy are exchanged.

Back to the opposite of a sacrifice… recall, giving something which has a higher value in your value hierarchy in exchange for something (“something” here literally means anything, a service, a good, an outcome, something pertaining to the mind, admiration, friendship, an act, a promise to act, a promise to refrain from an act, money… etc. )  which has a lower value in your value hierarchy IS a sacrifice.  In order for benevolence to obtain to a rational being, the giving (happily and gladly) must be of something lower in your hierarchy of values than whatever you receive.

So how is this depart from the trader principle?  It does not.  It is in complete harmony with it…  the distinguishing feature of this particular kind of trade, is that you are happy to make the trade… and in fact some of what you take as value from the trade is in the happiness you create in  the other person.  [[Edit: Notice happiness is not something you “give away”, in the sense that you must lose some happiness for someone to gain it… you can create happiness in other people without “spending” any of your own happiness.]]

E.g. you have something you think is junk.  An old paint set and brushes.  You thought you would like painting but you find it tedious and your fine motor skills are lacking and your results always underwhelmed you.  Your neighbors kid would love to get into painting.  That paint set is far higher on his value hierarchy than on yours, and he offers to mow your lawn in exchange for your paint set.  Regardless of how much money the paint set could get in a garage sale, or how much you could pay someone else to mow your lawn, you know it would simply be worth it to you make the exchange, you could sit back on a Saturday instead of mowing your lawn, and think about how much fun your neighbor’s kid will enjoy painting.  Perhaps you also get a kick out of seeing what the kid could paint (which you couldn’t).

Recall also, a valid trade always conveys value to both parties.  If no value or a disvalue was conveyed to either party, the trade would not happen, unless the party was mistaken, mislead, or forced (or is acting irrationally to self-sacrifice).

So. 3. Benevolence is not a contradiction of or an exception to the trader principle, it is a recognition of the beneficence, the “win-win”, every valid trade actually embodies.

1 Like
33

39 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

IMHO your dividing it up into three categories is misguided.

Benevolence is when you give something happily, you are glad to give it when you do so.  If you are rational, your being glad to give it means, the gift is voluntary.

 

The word Benevolence has been hijacked. The current definitions do not emphasize voluntary. 

Dictionary.com has these definitions.

1.desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness:
to be filled with benevolence toward one’s fellow creatures.
2.an act of kindness; a charitable gift.
3.English History. a forced contribution to the sovereign.

41 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

So. 3. Benevolence is not a contradiction of or an exception to the trader principle, it is a recognition of the beneficence, the “win-win”, every valid trade actually embodies.

Now, this is new, I have to think about how to incorporate this. Here you are saying the natural economic trade is a type of benevolence. This will bubble up to mean that capitalism is the freedom and opportunity to be benevolent. The key is_ to make the case that “every free trade” results in an agreement that will improve both parties._

44 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

So 1. there is no such thing as forced benevolence.

How would you characterize a “forced smile”? There’s no such thing? Your tax money buys you exactly what you want? The point I am making is that with the common usage of the term, it denotes an ugly reality. The only way for me to show it to people is to concretize their own definition and let them see the absurdity it results in. By twisting the definition of benevolence by their omitting “voluntary”, “forced benevolence” ends up denoting something, “fake benevolence”.

People don’t distinguish between “fake benevolence” and “benevolence”. They are considered interchangeable. The absurdity of “useless benevolence” allows them to start distinguishing.

34

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

So can one define altruism as being “useless benevolence”? It works for me.

But I don’t know if it includes the idea of “not worth my while benevolence”. I was trying to put something together below to get my head around it:

  • Benevolence

  • satisfactory benevolence

  • gifts to loved ones

  • helping the team you are rooting for

  • unsatisfactory benevolence

  • forced benevolence

  • Christmas Gifts

  • Taxes

  • useless benevolence

  • giving money to an active drug addict

  • investing in a bad investment to look ok

  • ??

Benevolence = Wanting to do this for others because they are a value to you.   

Altruism = You have to do this for others because they need you.   

35

6 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The word Benevolence has been hijacked. The current definitions do not emphasize voluntary. 

Dictionary.com has these definitions.

1.desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness:
to be filled with benevolence toward one’s fellow creatures.
2.an act of kindness; a charitable gift.
3.English History. a forced contribution to the sovereign.

Now, this is new, I have to think about how to incorporate this. Here you are saying the natural economic trade is a type of benevolence. This will bubble up to mean that capitalism is the freedom and opportunity to be benevolent. The key is_ to make the case that “every free trade” results in an agreement that will improve both parties._

How would you characterize a “forced smile”? There’s no such thing? Your tax money buys you exactly what you want? The point I am making is that with the common usage of the term, it denotes an ugly reality. The only way for me to show it to people is to concretize their own definition and let them see the absurdity it results in. By twisting the definition of benevolence by their omitting “voluntary”, “forced benevolence” ends up denoting something, “fake benevolence”.

People don’t distinguish between “fake benevolence” and “benevolence”. They are considered interchangeable. The absurdity of “useless benevolence” allows them to start distinguishing.

Wow.  I sincerely regret wasting my time here.

 

36

On 10/31/2017 at 8:45 PM, StrictlyLogical said:

Wow.  I sincerely regret wasting my time here.

 

I found it radiantly concise and coherent, even if he didn’t.