I agree that there is an important distinction between government enforced charity and what I’m questioning: Charity that, while uncoerced, is morally obligatory.
If it can be successfully argued that one given instance of charity is rational (i.e. where the value you are giving up is worth whatever chance of creating ‘net value’ the situation presents), then it follows that not giving to charity in such a case would be irrational. Would a rational society, while not forcing its citizens to give to charity, thus encourage it? Is charity necessarily altruistic? Would that rational society, then, necessarily support altruism?
I was intrigued by the distinction between charity and altruism proposed by drewfactor , but I hesitate to accept it completely. I think the confusion between self-serving ‘charity’ and sacrificial altruism may have more to do with a stolen concept than any real distinguishing characteristics between the two – at least in popular understanding, that is.
Charity would certainly be defined as sacrificial. Those who do not understand the irrationality of selflessness would certainly identify charity as being selfless. To them, it is virtuous because it involves sacrifice. Charity is used to define everything from giving to the poor, to disaster relief, to research into serious illness. I would argue that an essential characteristic of charity is, in fact, self sacrifice. The same is true of benevolence; it does not imply kindness from mutually beneficial rationality, but kindness flowing from value, freely given, to those who have not earned it. Charity, benevolence and altruism are all linked by a common essential characteristic: Selflessness.
As Cole put it, charity is always altruistic – otherwise it’s a purchase. Objections to Cole’s point consisted of examples of unaltruistic charity. Such a tactic is itself irrational, for one must first consider the possibility that those examples have been misidentified as charity – and they have. Giving money to cure an illness that may threaten you or those you value, or donating to the relief or development of an economic foundation on which you expect to rely is selfish, not selfless. Thus, it is not charity – it is an investment.
This, now, sheds light on the reason I always felt such animosity towards Christopher Reeve. Following his accident, he devoted his life to the funding of paralysis research. Rationally, this is self-serving – it is commendable, in my eyes, as an indication of his unwillingness to give himself to despair. However, Reeve allowed himself to be glorified as a selfless, charitable man for his devotion – negligently dishonest at best, and the source of my disapproval. I see that society as a whole permitted this because of the fallacy of the stolen concept, wrongly concluding that donations to paralysis research were necessarily selfless because they called themselves ‘charities’ and did work that was considered ‘good.’ The fact that charity implies selflessness was lost to my favorite of Ayn Rand’s phrases: “Blank out.”
The exchange of any value, then, should be rationally considered against the value (or potential value) being received in exchange. Donating $5 to a homeless man is likely irrational; given the man’s current state, it is reasonable to conclude he doesn’t handle money very responsibly. Giving $50 to a halfway shelter designed for those homeless who truly are making an effort to become productive members of society would indeed be rational, if you made such a donation as an investment into the quality and strength of the society from which you stand to benefit. Such a donation, it then follows, would be neither charitable, benevolent nor altruistic.
I like your points about the larger rammifications of giving to the homeless, drewfactor. I’m not an economist, so the intuitively obvious fact that a $5 bill is not an island unto itself escaped me – to donate money on the assumption that you will be strengthening society, you have to rationally consider the possibility that the money could better perform that purpose if it were given elsewhere (i.e. to strengthen the economy by, say, renting a movie, as you pointed out). Even in the case of the $50 donation to the halfway shelter above, could that $50 do more good if it were spent in a mutually beneficial exchange with an already productive member of society?
I wouldn’t say that altruism necessarily results in the sacrifice of a small value for the gift of a larger one, Cole ; we all know that a lot of people are irrational, and in the case of a homeless alcoholic (or even one who’s just financially irresponsible), it’s quite likely that the small donation you give him will be squandered. Sure, economically-speaking the money’s likely going to find its way back – maybe it’ll benefit a student working at the Beer Store instead of one working at Blockbuster. In general, though, it’s certainly not doing enough to warrant encouraging a homeless man’s irrational indulgences – the sacrificed value has not resulted in a positive return.
Ayn+Im+ion , I’m having trouble understanding your post. Could you repeat your points with more clarity?
Have you not read the Virtue of Selfishness? It is all there.
No, I haven’t. I’ve read Atlas Shrugged, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (mindblowingly excellent) and I’m just about finished the Ethics chapter of OPAR. I just started studying philosophy last November, and there’s a lot to read. I’ve interrupted my OPAR studies to check out a few ‘general philosophy’ books so I can better understand the nature of the philosophies running counter to Objectivism, then heading back to OPAR, then reading the Fountainhead, then Anthem and We The Living. At least, that’s my reading list at the moment 