RoR: Forum

You've actually hit on the major problem I have with Objectivism. Rand's 'straw man' conception of altruism. Personally I've started to suspect that the whole Altruist/Egoist debate has been kind of like one giant red herring for philosophy. That is, I suspect that neither altruism nor self-rational is really relevant to ethics. I think that sometimes self-interest is good, other times altruism is good. What is relevent to ethics is really values. After all, if you think that it's good to help others (altruism) you could then ask: Help others to do what? And if you think that you should act in your own rational self interest you then have to ask: What is in my self-interest?

So really, what you actually need to do is pursue some values, and whether pursuit of these values is or is not self-interest or altruism is really quite irrelevent. Neither the general term 'altruism' nor the general term 'self-interest' is of any real help in determining which course of action to take in specific situations.

In fact I don't think 'rational self-interest' is the correct justification of Libertarianism at all! (Yes I know this comes as a horrific shock to you Objectivists but please try to stay calm). Rand said: Each man is an end in himself . (And indeed that part of her argument is correct) But that's actually (shock, horror) altruism. Sorry, but that's what altruism is: Valuing someone's life as an end in itself. If you think that you should pursue rational self-interest at all times, then other people's lives can only ever be a means to your ends. To a pure egotist, other people cannot be ends in themselves. So I am claiming that Ayn Rand was a closet altruist.

What I do like about the Objectivist ethics is the 'affirmation of life' imperative. That is, ethics is based on the idea that staying alive and flourishing requires a continuous application of volitional consciousness. But strictly speaking, this idea is equally compatible with both self-interest and altruism. That is, the Egotist/Self-Interest debate is a red herring. The real value here is the affirmation of life.

Post 1

Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 5:25am

According to Merriam-Webster:

altruism: behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

egoism: a doctrine that individual self-interest is the valid end of all actions

I think this dictionary of common use of American English supports Ayn Rand's employment of those terms. That said, I agree with Orion that we need to retain context when seeking to understand others' use of these terms.

I know I keep harping on Hyrum Smith. But while he does not use these terms at all, his books from Franklin Covey do support the notion of earned self-esteem through discovering, defining and actualizing one's own internal values hierarchy. One Objectivist critique did raise the correct point that these values need validation through a rational process of examination. That critic suggested Tara Smith's book Viable Values as offering a methodology to do just that.

I agree with Marc that the thrust of genuine rational human being lies in the pursuit of rational values. I disagree that this view remains at odds with Ayn Rand's concept of rational egoism. I also disagree that a person must embrace altruistic notions to treat others as ends in themselves. Each person is an end in himself. Each relationship is a means to the participants' ends. This falls right into line with the Hyrum Smith model of "roles", where the Self is the hub of a wheel with each spoke running out to a small circle representing a Role that the Self plays. Values the Self produces flow out to that Role and the playing of that Role generates higher values delivered back to the Self. The Role represents a relationship; the Self, the proper beneficiary. A rational relationship produces desirable, rationally egoistic values for each participant.

Post 2

Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 5:38am

Orion, Marc,

The American Heritage^� Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

altruism

SYLLABICATION:	al�tru�ism
PRONUNCIATION:	ltr-zm
NOUN:	1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness. 2. Zoology Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: al�tru�ism

Pronunciation: 'al-tru-"i-z&m
Etymology: French altruisme, from autrui other people, from Old French, oblique case form of
autre other, from Latin alter
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits
       others of its species

Cambridge International Dictionary of English

altruism
noun [U]
willingness to do things which benefit other people, even if it results in disadvantage for yourself:

Both the following from:   Dictionary.com
al�tru�ism

P Pronunciation Key (

m)
n.

Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

altruism
\Al"tru*ism\, n. [F. altruisme (a word of Comte's), It. altrui of or to others, fr. L. alter another.] Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; -- opposed to egoism or selfishness. [Recent] --J. S. Mill.

Methinks you both need a good dictionary.

Regi

Post 3

Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 5:48am

I liked this article. Thank you for writing it.

It seems to me that another word Objectivists lose their cheese over is "selfish." In everyday conversation a person might describe someone as "selfish" when they mean that the person has taken unfair advantage of another person. I don't think the best thing to do is jump in with the "well, what's wrong with that? Selfishness is a good thing!" lecture.

You seem to be promoting a more benevolent nature toward others with regard to discourse, and that is something I am very much in agreement with.

Post 4

Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 6:00am

Orion wrote with great prescience:

"When an Objectivist hears by mouth or in print the use of the word "altruism" or "altruistic", they tend to go a wee bit nuts ... "

Post 5

Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 6:45am

Ayn Rand constantly harped on about the need to think rationally and to keep context.

If those two principles were consistently followed, then it would be impossible for an "objectivist" to go ballistic at just hearing one word.

Although, I do realise that it is hard to remain impartial when you hear a word or phrase being constantly used over and over in order to justify something that you are opposed to. There are many phrases that fall into the category that can raise my blood pressure: "working class, third world, public duty, public good, public services, public money, community, society, welfare, green, global warming, animal rights, disadvantaged and under-privileged".

To be honest I rarely hear the word "altruism" being used in conversation or in the media. So I would be surprised, rather than disgusted, if I heard it being used.

Post 6

Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 6:46am

I was going to point out the sentence Ashley wrote about altruism, but she beat me to it.

And, yes, there's a difference between altruistic, selfishness (in the conventional sense of the word) and egotistic (Objectivst version of selfishness). That's why, when talking to non-Objectivists about the topic, I use egotistical instead of selfish; because it isn't so loaded, it keeps them from "war" mode, and keep them in "friendly discussion" mode.

(Edited by Joe Trusnik on 7/31, 6:47am)

Post 7

Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 7:00am

Joe Trusnik wrote:

I use egotistical instead of selfish...

I thought the proper term was "egoistic" and not "egotistic". The latter, which Merriam-Webster defines as "the practice of talking about oneself too much [or] an exaggerated sense of self-importance", implies the sort of behavior that does indeed sacrifice others to self as well as a pseudo-self-esteem rather than authentic self-esteem. Howard Roark spent little time "talking" about his accomplishments, much less bragging. He just accomplished and then reflected quietly on the accomplishments.

Post 8

Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 10:30am

Marc,
Luther,
Ashley,

Glad you liked it... That it's being patiently considered gives me a pretty good feeling.

Post 9

Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 10:30am

Marc,
Luther,
Ashley,

Glad you liked it... That it's being well received gives me a pretty good feeling.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 7/31, 10:32am)

Post 10

Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 10:58am

Orion,

A great article. One which touches more on the Spirit-of-the-Law, regarding rational discussions, than I had when I wrote that Letter-of-the-Law treatise on proper discussion-based actions and reactions: RDT 2.1 (Rational Discussion Treaty; version 2.1).

Ed

Post 11

Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 11:17am

This thread serves as an excellent trial-by-fire for my work-in-progress philosophical dictionary (SingleSpeak: A Noncontradictory Integration of the English Language). Pertinent terms seem to be the following (displayed for public comment):

*selected, adapted excerpts from m-w.com; unless otherwise stated

altruism
a : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to - or may be harmful to - itself but that benefits others of its species
b : the acceptance of one's sheer need or lack as a moral claim on another's wealth or ability; b-1: Fundamentally-Intractable Incoherency: If the needs of others create moral claims on our time and resources, why do we honor some of these claims and not others?

(adapted from: Kelley, David. Unrugged Individualism. Poughkeepsie, NY: IOS,1996)

benevolence
a : disposition to do good in the world (to create value); as distinguished from altruism (to sacrifice value; value that has been created by someone, but taken away from them and redistributed to someone else)
b : a deliberate, thoughtful commitment to a policy of action (benevolence is not a mere "feeling"); a commitment to achieving the values derivable from life with other people in society, by treating them as potential trading partners, recognizing their humanity, independence, and individuality, and the harmony between their interests and ours; the generalized respect we should have for others as beings capable of virtue and achievement

(adapted from: Kelley, David. Unrugged Individualism. Poughkeepsie, NY: IOS,1996)

friends (virtuous)
We tend to think of friends as people who help each other in need, but virtuous friends do not have such needs. (Gifts and favors may enter the relationship, but they cannot play a large part.) Such friends do not act for one another but with one another.

(adapted from: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciHal2.htm)

generosity
a : willingness to provide others with goods without the expectation of a definite return; Rationally-justified in 2 situations - which are related in the general sense that one's own life is improved by living in a world with better, happier, more fully realized people in it:

1) either as an aid in an emergency

2) as a generalized investment in someone's promising potential for creating value; we benefit from the rationality of others - productive people in an integrated economy make marginal contributions to our well-being

(adapted from: Kelley, David. Unrugged Individualism. Poughkeepsie, NY: IOS,1996)

good (real)
[moral sense of the term (instrumental in full context of human life - both spiritual & material); opposed to the "acontextual, arbitrary decree" sense]
a : what is good for all human beings everywhere at all times; what makes their lives "good lives" (what everyone, being a human, inherently needs); opposed to merely apparent goods (that which someone "thinks" is really good), which may have been uncritically adopted by individuals - you can think the wrong thing, but you cannot need the wrong thing; every real need is a right desire - something really good for a person, whether they think so, or not; EXAMPLE: food is good for you, whether you think so, or not (self-starvation, e.g. anorexia nervosa, is a wrong desire - a disorder)

individualism
a : a doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount; also : conduct guided by such a doctrine
b : the conception that all values, rights, and duties originate in individuals
c : a theory maintaining the political and economic independence of the individual and stressing individual initiative, action, and interests; also : conduct or practice guided by such a theory

Any comments?

Ed

Post 12

Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 12:23pm

Just to let you folks know, I'm not intending to double-post the same message. Somehow it's just happening.

Post 13

Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 7:35am

Thanks for writing this article. "Knee-jerk reaction" is something I have had problems with, and it helped to have another person clarify the issue. The reaction can have a serious blinding effect...for example, at the end of your article, I read the phrase "reaching out to others" and just about missed the meaning of the rest of the sentence (including "of kindred spirit," an important qualifier).

Post 14

Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 11:31am

Thanks for the article, Orion. I think you've clarified a really important issue. My own experience bears out that it can be very profitable to diminish emotional reactivity to others' language. It makes it so much easier to understand where someone else is coming from and to communicate in an effective way.

I'd also add that when I learned to lessen my emotional reactivity to others' language, I found myself able to profit from the work of other thinkers and writers working outside of the Objectivist context. This really surprised me at first -- very pleasantly so.

I'd also add, given the nature of this forum, that I think lessening out-of-context emotional reactivity can be conducive to passion, in that it can eliminate a great source of de-energizing and unnecessary stress.

Best wishes,
Andrew

P.S. By the way, since I'm relatively new to this forum, hello everybody!

Post 15

Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 7:53pm

Ben,

Thanks for the feedback... And yes, I think it's very important to develop an almost obsession with precision in language. It used to not be that way with me, until somehow I realized that that which is left explicitly unsaid should likely remain completely unknown. When I used to teach math, I would tell my students that they have to show their work "because ESP doesn't exist and hasn't been invented yet", and that no one will know what they're thinking otherwise.

=============================

Andrew,

Exactly... I notice a lot of needless exhaustion and conflict that can arise from the misperception that one has an ideological enemy in their midst, when in fact that whole perception may arise from the different meanings that two people may attach to the same term.

As you say, getting past this allows us to get to the heart of the problem, which is the actual addressing of core philosophies and the logic behind those core philosophies.

By the way, welcome to the forum.

Post 16

Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 7:56pm

Ed,

Looks good... I guess now you find an agent? I don't know how all that works...

Post 17

Sunday, August 1, 2004 - 4:58pm

Yes, I understand the need for patience and civility in discussions with others. Yet, perhaps certain people react so strongly to the term because altruism versus self-interest is a fundamental concept of Objectivism to which everything else is dependent. You can not defend your life, your loves, your passions, your very essense without attacking the concept of "service to others" in which altruism is the basis. The concept of altruism is too important to be imprecise. The very nature of your life, and our future depends on it.

Altruism is not a "brainwashed form of self-sacrifice" but the concept that no act is moral unless others are the beneficiary of the action. It serves as the foundation for the confiscation of one's life. Altruism serves as the foundation for all collective, authoritarian, anti-life regimes, and is the basis for the attack against capitalism and the profit motive. Even the voluntary, New Age altruism of Jimmy Carter is just a matter of the absence of force versus coercion in the name of service to others, such as one sees in Castro's Cuba.

Only under a morality of rational self-interest, can one defend one's right to a autonomous life, to happiness, to the pursuit of pleasure--in short to everything that makes life worth living.

Post 18

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 12:21am

Luther said:

I agree with Marc that the thrust of genuine rational human being lies in the pursuit of rational values. I disagree that this view remains at odds with Ayn Rand's concept of rational egoism. I also disagree that a person must embrace altruistic notions to treat others as ends in themselves. Each person is an end in himself. Each relationship is a means to the participants' ends. This falls right into line with the Hyrum Smith model of "roles", where the Self is the hub of a wheel with each spoke running out to a small circle representing a Role that the Self plays. Values the Self produces flow out to that Role and the playing of that Role generates higher values delivered back to the Self. The Role represents a relationship; the Self, the proper beneficiary. A rational relationship produces desirable, rationally egoistic values for each participant.

I don't see this sorry. How can an egotist justify treating each person as an end in themselves? Egoism by definition means treating others as means to your ends. I don't see the distinction between regarding each relationship as a means to the participants ends (as you admit the egotist has to do) and regarding each person as an end in themselves, since how you regard others is ethically linked to how you relate to them. Could you please explain to me how 'regard others as ends in themsleves' can possibly be consistent with pure egoism?

Here's an example to illustrate my doubts about egoism: Suppose you witnessed an unprovoked murder on the street. The egotist can by definition only regard this as bad because it hurts his own rational self-interest. But ask yourself if this is really the only reason why you would regard the murder as bad. Isn't it really the case that you regard the murder as bad because you actually value the life of others quite independently of whether or not the life of others would ever produce some benefit for you?

Suppose a man becomes a drug addict. The man is doing something immoral. He is hurting his own rational self-interests. Yet Objectivists would never say that the government should arrest the man and force him to stop being an addict. Let's go back to the unprovoked murder example. According to the theory of pure egoism, the only thing the murderer has done wrong is act contrary his own self-interests. So why should the murderer be arrested? Why not just let him suffer the consequence of acting against his own self-interests just as in the drug addict example? Isn't it the case that the real justification for arresting the murderer is actually the altruistic one?

Methinks you both need a good dictionary.

Regi

Regi, methinks Objectivists need to consult a good dictionary to check the definition of egoism. The theory of pure egoism by definition is that other person can only be treated as a means to your ends. This actually directly contradicts Libertarianism, which says that other people are ends in themselves.

Post 19

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 1:00am