Is altruism immoral?

[abcbac]

I have been reading Ayn Rand's books and she says altruism is evil. I mean America was built on altruism. How can it be evil? Don't we need altruism so society can progress?

[lycan]

Originally Posted by abcbac

I have been reading Ayn Rand's books and she says altruism is evil. I mean America was built on altruism. How can it be evil? Don't we need altruism so society can progress?

Why do we need society to progress?

[Promoman]

Altruism isn't evil. The deficiency of altruism is one of the main reasons our culture has made the world the toilet it is now.

[lycan]

Originally Posted by Promoman

Altruism isn't evil. The deficiency of altruism is one of the main reasons our culture has made the world the toilet it is now.

Do you resent the fact that others don't sacrifice themselves to you?

[ZephyrusX]

I haven't read anything by Ayn Rand, so I can't tell you why she thinks altruism is evil. I can only offer my own opinion. I was brought up with the idea that altruism and selflessness is good, but to be frank, I've been gradually distancing my self from this concept. There is nothing good about a concept that denies the needs and desires of the self. Rather than thinking in terms of altruism, I prefer to think in terms of 'win-win' situations. I see value in working and cooperating with others who share similar interests and values in order to arrive at mutual goals.

Having said that, I don't mean to say that I would never go out of my way to selflessly help another being without some sort of benefit. I just mean to say that I wouldn't do so if the sacrifice to my self is significant.

Originally Posted by abcbac

I have been reading Ayn Rand's books and she says altruism is evil. I mean America was built on altruism. How can it be evil? Don't we need altruism so society can progress?

[Promoman]

Originally Posted by lycan

Do you resent the fact that others don't sacrifice themselves to you?

People have the capacity to advance society in a positive sense but due to human nature, most people don't want to do what's needed.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by Promoman

People have the capacity to advance society in a positive sense but due to human nature, most people don't want to do what's needed.

I don't think it necessarily follows that people have to act altruistically in order to advance society and culture in a positive manner.

[elucidate]

Zeph: I get what you are saying, and I think for me I started to question whether I was doing things to help out of feeling obligated to> It all stemmed back to how others would perceive me if I didn't, and back to the whole people pleasing, needing approval thing. Now I ask myself if it'something I really WANT to help with before I jump in...and if I feel like I am being made to feel guilty, I will walk away. I don't like feeling trapped into doing anything.

[ZephyrusX]

Yah, this is more or less what I'm getting at. I remember the discussion we had a few months back on this issue and I feel like I've been making a lot of progress in sorting out my values and direction in life.

To be honest though, I feel pretty foolish. I've had people give me the advise, 'follow your own values and goals!', since a very young age and thought that I understood this. Its 'such obvious advise!' Not quite. The need for external validation and approval really has a way of tangling it self into the roots of your life. What seemed like my values and goals was really just me trying to get approval by playing up to social standards on altruism and selflessness. Such selflessness not only has a way of denying what you really want and need, but it has a way of being perpetually unsatisfying since your external circumstances are always changing.

Supertom gave me a copy of 'Living on Purpose' and I've found it useful how it differentiates between inherited purposes and... er... lets call it 'core purposes'. I've actually had to set the book down though because it was causing me so much anxiety and confusion. There is an exercise in there that asks you to imagine what your future life would be like if you could do anything in the world, and believe it or not, I am finding this incredibly difficult to do.

Originally Posted by elucidate

Zeph: I get what you are saying, and I think for me I started to question whether I was doing things to help out of feeling obligated to> It all stemmed back to how others would perceive me if I didn't, and back to the whole people pleasing, needing approval thing. Now I ask myself if it'something I really WANT to help with before I jump in...and if I feel like I am being made to feel guilty, I will walk away. I don't like feeling trapped into doing anything.

[elucidate]

I think it's even harder for many women, since we are hardwired to be caring, and to look out for others first. It comes back to that whole label of being 'selfish' which we seem to fear like it's the plague or something.

I've had trouble with it too at times, especially in relation to the women I am friends with who have kids and who just expect me to help them whenever they ask...which most of the time I'm happy to do, I just don't like that it's expected of me, and that I risk getting their disapproving looks if I say "Uh, hang on, are you giving me a choice here, or are you telling me this is what I have to do to stay friends with you?"

I've noticed that I am better at it with things like, say, volunteer work.

I have volunteered my time for an organisation I believe in for the last 4-5 years on and off, and I enjoyed being able to come and go whenever I wanted, and could take a few months off here and there, if I needed to concentrate on looking for work or a home etc.

I noticed that many of the other volunteers there had a hard time being able to leave, even though I know they wanted to, because this particular organisation do not receive a lot of help from people, so they are struggling, which makes the people who do give their time feel guilty and stuck, like they have to stay or they will be terrible people for leaving them in the lurch.

I'm pretty good at not giving into the guilt though, and remember that I chose to give my time and can leave whenever I want...essentially I have that freedom and don't owe anyone anything. Yes, they struggle, but they've managed for the last 30 years with this same issue, and are still here.

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Yah, this is more or less what I'm getting at. I remember the discussion we had a few months back on this issue and I feel like I've been making a lot of progress in sorting out my values and direction in life.

To be honest though, I feel pretty foolish. I've had people give me the advise, 'follow your own values and goals!', since a very young age and thought that I understood this. Its 'such obvious advise!' Not quite. The need for external validation and approval really has a way of tangling it self into the roots of your life. What seemed like my values and goals was really just me trying to get approval by playing up to social standards on altruism and selflessness. Such selflessness not only has a way of denying what you really want and need, but it has a way of being perpetually unsatisfying since your external circumstances are always changing.

Supertom gave me a copy of 'Living on Purpose' and I've found it useful how it differentiates between inherited purposes and... er... lets call it 'core purposes'. I've actually had to set the book down though because it was causing me so much anxiety and confusion. There is an exercise in there that asks you to imagine what your future life would be like if you could do anything in the world, and believe it or not, I am finding this incredibly difficult to do.

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by lycan

Do you resent the fact that others don't sacrifice themselves to you?

Why make this about Promoman when he's talking about general/world issues? Why get personal?

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I haven't read anything by Ayn Rand, so I can't tell you why she thinks altruism is evil. I can only offer my own opinion.

She was brought up in Soviet Russia, hated it, then moved to the USA, loved it, then wrote a whole philosophy around why altruism is bad and selfishness is a virtue.

Her ideas are severely flawed, which is why university philosophy courses don't cover her (maybe a few do, but it's not the norm). People just don't act as honorably in laissez-faire capitalism as she'd like to think. None of her characters would pull a stunt like the sub-prime mortgage swindle, for example. In fact in her world, there probably wouldn't be as large a financial industry. Since it produces nothing, her characters wouldn't be interested.

However, I love the two books of hers that I've read (Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead), and they have good concepts in them - being self-validated, being your own judge of yourself and your work, dedication to competence, doing work you love, spending time with people who energise you and dropping people who drain you, treating people with respect, fighting pointless bureaucracy, and so on.

Well worth reading for those aspects. They are such long books that you can't help have them influence you. That's partly because they are somewhat repetitive, all the characters can be broken into two categories, and all people in each group have the same values, beliefs, dreams, points of view, they talk the same, etc. So it really drills her philosophy into your head. A very effective teaching method, really, unlike many philosophy books which bore you to death after the 5th page.

[lycan]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I haven't read anything by Ayn Rand, so I can't tell you why she thinks altruism is evil. I can only offer my own opinion. I was brought up with the idea that altruism and selflessness is good, but to be frank, I've been gradually distancing my self from this concept. There is nothing good about a concept that denies the needs and desires of the self. Rather than thinking in terms of altruism, I prefer to think in terms of 'win-win' situations. I see value in working and cooperating with others who share similar interests and values in order to arrive at mutual goals.

Having said that, I don't mean to say that I would never go out of my way to selflessly help another being without some sort of benefit. I just mean to say that I wouldn't do so if the sacrifice to my self is significant.

I think you would enjoy Rand's writings. That is pretty much her philosophy. Her motto is: "I will never sacrifice myself to another man, nor ask another man to sacrifice himself for me." Her focus is that people should exchange goods and live in joy, not perform mutual sacrifices and live in guilt of being alive.

[lycan]

Originally Posted by Promoman

People have the capacity to advance society in a positive sense but due to human nature, most people don't want to do what's needed.

What is needed?

[lycan]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

Why make this about Promoman when he's talking about general/world issues? Why get personal?

There is no such thing as general/world issues. Everything is personal.

Her ideas are severely flawed, which is why university philosophy courses don't cover her (maybe a few do, but it's not the norm).

There are, I believe, flaws in her philosophy. That is not why university philosophy courses don't cover her. Most of the things university philosophy courses do cover are severely flawed.

People just don't act as honorably in laissez-faire capitalism as she'd like to think. None of her characters would pull a stunt like the sub-prime mortgage swindle, for example.

That is completely nonsensical. Laissez-faire capitalism requires the government to act honorably (a delusional idea?). It doesn't require anybody else to behave in any special way, other than following the laws. She regards the issue of individual ethics as primary however, more central than the issue of politics. Her argument for laissez-faire does not require people to be perfect. Her argument is, in a nutshell, that only under laissez-faire are people allowed to be moral. If they choose to be or not is irrelevant. Laissez-faire allows people to walk their own path freely.

In fact in her world, there probably wouldn't be as large a financial industry. Since it produces nothing, her characters wouldn't be interested.

That is a fallacy. The financial industry does produce something.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by lycan

There is no such thing as general/world issues. Everything is personal.

That's only true of you, personally.

[taylor]

If altruism is what you choose to do, then it's one of your values, and therefore fulfilling your value of altruism is good, not evil.

If altruism isn't what you choose to do, then it's not one of your values, and therefore fulfilling altruism against your will is evil, not good.

If I recall, Rand's only saying it's not a must or should, it's a choice. Religion and society preaches that it's an ethical duty, she disagrees.

Rand believed man should always be free to achieve his personal values unless it hurts others.

There are many good aspects to Objectivism, though I feel there are other really great lenses out there if you're on the market for one.

I think if you are solely focused on personal achievement and feel no impulse within you to contribute and bless others as well, that's probably a symptom of a closed off heart which means you're limiting your own happiness. Therefore serving others seems quite a reasonable selfish thing to do.

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by abcbac

I have been reading Ayn Rand's books and she says altruism is evil. I mean America was built on altruism. How can it be evil? Don't we need altruism so society can progress?

America was built on altruism? I would say the exact opposite. America was built on independence and self reliance. They are considered cornerstones of American culture.

I am in no way an objectivist but I'm going to defend Ayn a bit here. Ayn Rand is against institutionalized altruism. A great many injustices have been perpetrated by the idea that we are doing it for the greater good. Ayn Rand came from the former Soviet Union, where every manor of horror could be justified by some altruistic statement by the state claiming it was for the greater good. This is what Ayn saw as truly egregious and an incredibly slippery slope. Once the state starts embarking on altruistic endeavors for the ‘greater good’ then eventually some individual or group will get into power who will use that idea and abuse it….Stalin and Hitler just to name a few.

She was so dedicated to rallying against the evils of institutionalized altruism that she refused to address the fact that individual altruism is a much different thing. She wanted absolutely no contradiction in her message and so in public she would never make the distinction. Honestly I think it hurts her message, and is the biggest reason she is so reviled.

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by Spinoza

America was built on altruism? I would say the exact opposite. America was built on independence and self reliance. They are considered cornerstones of American culture.

Let's not forget slavery and the theft and murder of the Indians that were there before hand.

[SatvikBeri]

Originally Posted by Spinoza

She was so dedicated to rallying against the evils of institutionalized altruism that she refused to address the fact that individual altruism is a much different thing. She wanted absolutely no contradiction in her message and so in public she would never make the distinction. Honestly I think it hurts her message, and is the biggest reason she is so reviled.

Not quite.

Rand defined altruism as self-sacrifice, in the sense that you help others at the cost of your own happiness/values. With that definition she was against even individual altruism.

On the other hand, Rand was an advocate of individual generosity/helpfulness-as long as it was in line with the person's own values.

[lycan]

She repeatedly spoke of how those who volunteer to be sacrificial animals were worse than those who force others to be sacrificial animals. She was not a libertarian. She wasn't against generosity/helpfulness/kindness but she was very clear on her views and if this is why people dislike her, then at least they dislike her accurately.

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by SatvikBeri

Not quite.

Rand defined altruism as self-sacrifice, in the sense that you help others at the cost of your own happiness/values. With that definition she was against even individual altruism.

On the other hand, Rand was an advocate of individual generosity/helpfulness-as long as it was in line with the person's own values.

I totally agree with your statement, but the word altruism in the individual sense generally means a desire to help others. She may want to define it her way but that isn't what people understand when they use it for individuals. I don't think the desire to help others conflicts with her philosophy, the principle of benevolence and mutual aid is entirely compatible with an ethic of self-interest, but this is often confused by what she says with regards to things about altruism used by the state.

[lycan]

Originally Posted by taylor

If altruism is what you choose to do, then it's one of your values, and therefore fulfilling your value of altruism is good, not evil.

Value in relation to what?

If I recall, Rand's only saying it's not a must or should, it's a choice. Religion and society preaches that it's an ethical duty, she disagrees.

It is a choice with consequences. Her claim is that it is a choice that leads to death, and therefore, if you choose to live, is an immoral choice, within the context of that primary choice.

Rand believed man should always be free to achieve his personal values unless it hurts others.

Rand believed man should be free because that is a requirement, in principle, of his achievement of his primary value, which is life. Freedom is not, in her philosophy, the primary standard.

You probably need to read The Virtue of Selfishness before commenting again on what she thought.

[Tanemon]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I was brought up with the idea that altruism and selflessness is good, but to be frank, I've been gradually distancing my self from this concept. There is nothing good about a concept that denies the needs and desires of the self. Rather than thinking in terms of altruism, I prefer to think in terms of 'win-win' situations. I see value in working and cooperating with others who share similar interests and values in order to arrive at mutual goals.

Yeah, I like win-win solutions or situations, too.

I think it's a matter of balance. Farmers don't give away all the food they grow for free - they need to eat, too. A helpful neighbor who assists the repair of some part of your house or yard also feels the need to have a decent, functioning house & yard. We're all more or less in the same boat, in terms of needs.

Having said that, I don't mean to say that I would never go out of my way to selflessly help another being without some sort of benefit. I just mean to say that I wouldn't do so if the sacrifice to my self is significant.

I've known a number of parents who willingly sacrifice a lot of their time for the sake of their kids, and the kids have been turning out well. It's a significant sacrifice. And the parents feel good about it. And I admire these people.

I've known people who will sacrifice significantly, sometimes, to help a friend out. Seems okay to me.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Spinoza

America was built on altruism? I would say the exact opposite. America was built on independence and self reliance. They are considered cornerstones of American culture.

Agreed. Not much else to say.

[BenMacdui]

When I saw and heard about Objectivists out campaigning against charities collecting for the victims of the Boxing Day Tsunami, I decided that Ayn Rand and her followers were nothing more than selfish scumbags....

[TeranDios]

When I saw and heard about Objectivists out campaigning against charities collecting for the victims of the Boxing Day Tsunami, I decided that Ayn Rand and her followers were nothing more than selfish scumbags...

So base on what you're saying..should I blame all the christian for the witch hunts? Should I blame Christians also for the holy wars? Should I blame Jesus for what the christian are doing?

Your logic is false and wrong..if the people actually follower of Ayn Rand philosophy..they wouldn't have done those things..they would'd simply wouldn't attend the charity. So don't jump to conclusion in this thread to attack someone philosophy when only there followers are in the wrong.

[BenMacdui]

Originally Posted by TeranDios

So base on what you're saying..should I blame all the christian for the witch hunts? Should I blame Christians also for the holy wars? Should I blame Jesus for what the christian are doing?

Your logic is false and wrong..if the people actually follower of Ayn Rand philosophy..they wouldn't have done those things..they would'd simply wouldn't attend the charity. So don't jump to conclusion in this thread to attack someone philosophy when only there followers are in the wrong.

I'll state in advance that using the "Don't Blame Christians for the Crusades" argument doesn't resonate with an atheist like me, as I believe that people perpetuating irrational dogma at all levels is what allows evil to happen and perpetuate, but that is my particular Dawkinsian view and I admit it can be challenged.

Also, the protests started following a December 30, 2004 article issued by the Ayn Rand Institute - "U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims" by David Holcberg. The article, critical of state-funded altruism and donations is no longer listed on the Ayn Rand Institute website but was reprinted in other sources linked from http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/002608.html. So to say that this was some random rogue Objectivist acting against the rules and interest of Ayn Rand-ism as a whole is frankly a bit rich.

[Tanemon]

Coming back to this... There is such a thing as being phoney about morals, such a thing as being a hypocrite - putting on a show of being nice, or decent, or considerate.

But, also, there is such a thing as actually being considerate of others, or acting decently toward others. In principle, it's pretty simple. That's the basic reality of "being moral".

And there's nothing immoral about it.

[Self Exploration]

The subject seems straightforward yet it isn't.

Mainly because Ayn Rand's perspective is based on objective reality.
In fact her philosophy is called objectivism.

It helps illuminate and clarify the deficiencies of communism.
And the proof is in the pudding, communism is now pretty much discredited.

But most people talk about altruism in subjective sense, not an objective sense.

Objectively, you should never ever make a sacrifice. You never give something of higher value for something of lower value. Or encourage others to do that. Things will fall apart.

But subjectively, it feels like we do.

We can feel like we make sacrifices, we can decide to make sacrifices, in the end for the good. We may want others to do the same. But that is a subjective sense, not seeing it objectively.

In life we do choose the harder path ahead in order to get more fruit in the end. That subjectively, can be a sacrifice and it is good, but objectively, it is not a sacrifice, you are getting something better in the end (it is evil not to)
.

So in one sentence you hear sacrifice is good and yet it is not good at the same time.

There is a lot of confusion about that.

[JDuff]

I disagree with the above! I think that altruism involves acting for the greater good. For example, consider if the "good" is human welfare. Consider if you can give $10 to save somebody's life. Consider a person is in dire need of medical treatment, the only car nearby is a taxi, and he will only take the passenger if you pay the $10.

Now, you could be altruistic, or as others advocate, take your interests into account. Consider that you want those $10 to buy a meal for your family tonight.

The good that will be objectively achieved will be greater than the subjective good you will achieve by satisfying the hunger of 4 people for one evening. So, altruism is good because it maximises the objective good. To value what Ayn Rand proposes, would be to say it would be best to keep the money for yourself because it is what you want. Consider that you don't want to help the stranger. I still think you should.

I think it is obvious that altruism is good when it has better effects than not being altruistic. I would go as far as to say that to choose actions which do not maximise the overall good to a reasonable degree as morally wrong. As a consequence, I consider following Ayn Rand's ideas to be immoral. I consider moral obligations to be demanding regardless of how you feel about them. You cannot wish away moral demands by choosing to weigh your own considerations vastly above others, i.e. to act for a small benefit to yourself when a different action could have a huge benefit to others.