Merlin writes:

I turn Steve's style of "thinking" on him: He wants to reduce ethics to motives, etc. Actions, rights and justice are irrelevant.

There was no need to be snarky and put "thinking" in quotes as if what I do isn't thinking.

Nor was it a good idea say that I want to reduce ethics to motives - I don't.  I want to retain the relationship between them.

Nor should he say that I believe "actions, rights and justice are irrelevant" - that just is not supported by anything I've ever said.

It would be better to argue against what I've actually written.

-----------------

He has ripped motive, intention, goals, desires, and beliefs from an action as if they were never in any way connected to or part of that action. Then he approches the external results of the action and attempts to measure "benefits."  As if there could be measurable benefits or meaning in some bizarre stipulative world that has no moral, ethical or psychological components. When this is pointed out, he says the venn diagram is a "tool" as if that makes sense of something suffering from a major flaw... and then he engages in ad hominem attacks.
----------------------

And then he said that he does sometimes take motive under consideration when deciding which category to use, but that he didn't put motives on the venn diagram because it make it a huge, unusable mess. Well, if the motive he found was a belief in sacrificial duty, then what do we need that venn diagram for? And what if the motive he finds doesn't coincide with the external 'benefits' that he measured - what then?

You can't determine the ethical nature of an act apart from the belief that spawns that act.
----------------------

I don't like the personal attacks but this subject and the opportunity to post on this thread have been valuable to me. Until now some small part of me was a bit uncomfortable with Rand's position on altruism as only acts involving sacrifice. I was a little uncomfortable with the strength of the rhetoric she used in many of her arguments.  But now I see exactly where she was coming from. Those people who start mushing altruism and egoism together with this business of "primary beneficiary" are losing the crucial distinction and breaking the integration of the standard of life with the acts that flow from it at different levels of motivation.  

Read the two quotes from Ayn Rand below.
-----------------------

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”

     -- Ayn Rand

 

There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into one “package-deal”: (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance.

 

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.

    -- Ayn Rand

 

Having read those passages of Rand, think about a venn diagram that obliterates the difference between these:
  1.) a morality where one is not the owner of their life, and where their happiness and well-being are not the purpose of their life
        ...versus...
  2.) a morality that holds that man should exist for his own benefit.

On the surface the little venn diagram looks smart and as if it gives us a better way to view a spectrum of actions. But it has a toxic flaw. It uses a measure of who is the primary beneficiary to determine altruism versus egoism. That short circuts the chain of moral values that follow from the standard of value - just as it severs the link between motive and action.

Merlin disagrees with me that his use of "primary beneficiary" and his venn diagram remove motive, intention, goals, desires and beliefs from an action. He wrote:

Consider a commonplace example -- a mother buys clothes for her own pre-teen children. She has some motivation, else she wouldn’t do it. A typical mother’s motivation/goal/desire for such an action is she wants her children to have nice, suitable clothes. If the children like the clothes, that is even better. The material benefit is entirely for her children. In material terms it is a cost, not a benefit, to her. This action would fit the 4th area (counting left to right) of my Venn diagram. I regard whatever good feeling she might have about the action as secondary, and the children might even have more good feeling about the new clothes than her. I have specified the motivation/goal/desire here. To classify an action where motivation/goal/desire isn’t specified, I would assume a typical one for that sort of action.  [Emphasis mine]

He starts by saying she has some motivation. True, we assume that much.

Then he proceeds to tell us what the typical mother's motivation is. But he doesn't dwell on the fact that he had to make up and assume a motivation to even proceed. He doesn't admit that the assumed motivation could be totally wrong. The mother could hate spending that money on the kids, and do it only because she feels a moral obligation to make a sacrifice for the kids, or because she feels a social obligation to keep them well-dressed, or because her husband won an argument about whether or not they needed new clothes, or because she really loves them and it gives her joy to take care of them, or because it is what all of her neighbors do and she doesn't want to look stingy.  This points out how out of whack this process is:  "Hey, I don't know what the motive of action X is, so I'll assume it is altruistic.  Good, now I can categorize the act as 'Altruistic Action'.  All done!"

Then he talks about material benefit being the only aspect he measures. This leaves out the whole arena of human happiness, self-esteem, pride, joy, etc. That alone would render this venn diagram process bizarre.  And how can he say he is only measuring the material benefits when he admits he 'assumes' a motive?
--------------

In post 5, I wrote: “Part of what you called "psychology" I rather think in terms of goals, costs, and even rights.” There I say “goals” as plain as day, yet Steve says I “rip it out.” Steve wrote in post 6: “A human action will have a motivation.” I agree, but Steve insists that I “rip motive from action.”

Merlin replied to me, in a post, using the word "goal" but it is nowhere in his process or his diagram. In these the person who gets the most material benefits is the 'primary beneficiary' of an action and by that measure the action is judged altruistic or egoistic. If someone's goal in an action is to fulfill a sacrifical duty by giving alms to a poor person versus the same exact action where the person's goal is to recieve some joy from giving a small amount of money to someone they like those are different goals. You cannot judge the action without the motive/goals/desires/intentions... and Merlins process and his venn diagram do indeed rip goals from actions.

----------------

If I were to draw a Venn diagram of “egoistic motive” and “altruistic motive” rather than “egoistic action” and “altruistic action”, I wouldn’t draw it any differently and I would designate the subcategories the same way. But I think classifying actions is far more useful. Actions are observable; motives aren’t.

A venn diagram of motives rather than actions would be a different story altogether. It would be correct in form. It would make sense. People act on motives. Motives are built of a mixture of emotions, values, expectations, goals, and an underlying moral belief system. These elements are not as directly visible to the human eye as billiard balls rolling about on the billiard table, but then we aren't billiard balls. Cause arises from identity and in our identity as human beings, these elements are crucial to explaining our actions. I have no problem with classifying actions, as long as they are classified by something that makes sense. If you are building a tool for examining some area of morality - contrasting altruistic and egoistic actions - then you must first find the motive of an action. Once that's done, you can put it in a category.

But, Merlin's venn diagram adventures take him into a different area. He goes into that area where altruism gets defined as an outcome of primary material beneficiary being the self or other or both. His diagram has "sacrifice of self" and "sacrifice others" on it, but without motives and with only the observable aspect of an action, that is meaningless. That definition of primary beneficiary by material measurement takes away the concept of sacrifice which is a moral motivation, and when that element is lost to the definition of altruism, then there is no longer a logical path from a standard of life being one's own life, or the benefit of others.

I was hoping Merlin would reply to my last post on this subject, but he may have tired of the exchanges, as many as there are between him and Steve.  However, perhaps I've failed to address a key point in his article.

He wrote, "Rand’s depiction of altruism allows no room for benefitting others without self-sacrifice."  Merlin, are you simply saying that you disagree with Rand's definition of "altruism" -- that she defines it in a way that is incorrect?  It is true that there is a colloquial sense of the term in which to say that someone is acting altruistically simply means that he or she is acting in a way that benefits others, regardless of whether the motive for doing so is self-sacrificial or self-interested.  If that is your objection, then I think Rand would agree with you that the term often is used colloquially in that particular sense, just as she would acknowledge that the term "selfishness" is often used to refer to someone who pursues his own interest in disregard of the rights and interests of others.  

However, when she uses the term "altruism," she is using it in a strict philosophical sense -- the way that August Comte, who coined the term, used it -- to mean placing others above self.  According to Rand:

"August Comte, the founder of Positivism, the champion of science, advocated a "rational," "scientific" social system based on the total subjugation of the individual to the collective, including a 'Religion of Humanity' which substituted Society for the Gods or gods who collect the blood of sacrificial victims.  It is not astonishing that Comte was the coiner of the term Altruism, which means: the placing of others above self, of their interest above one's own." (For the New Intellectual, p. 39)

Comte defined "altruism" as "living for others" (vivre pour autrut).  Here is what he says:

"The individual must subordinate himself to an Existence outside himself in order to find in it the source of his stability. And this condition cannot be effectually realized except under the impulse of propensities prompting him to live for others.... Thus the expression, Live for Others, is the simplest summary of the whole moral code of Positivism." (1973a. System of Positive Polity, Volume 1: Containing the General View of Positivism & Introductory Principles.  Translated by John Henry Bridges.  New York: Burt Franklin. (original work published 1851.), pp. 565-56.

In The Fountainhead, Howard Roark tells the court, "Altruism is the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self." (p. 712)

Very clearly, Rand is using the term "altruism" in the same sense in which Comte, who coined the term, used it.  Granted, this sense of the term is not widely recognized, but it is a legitimate philosophical sense nonetheless, and Rand was a technical philosopher.  In discussing her views, one must recognize that she was perfectly within her rights as a philosopher to employ the same meaning of "altruism" as the philosopher who originally coined the term.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/06, 8:36am)

Now that's a good point, Steve -- really an excellent one!  The same idea would apply to selfishness, to the idea that even if the term "selfishness" were never defined the way Rand did, but continued to be used only to refer to boorish, inconsiderate behavior, there would still be the need for a concept in which one's primary goal is the pursuit of one's own objective self-interest, which in turn would require a respect for the rights of others if one's own rights are to be properly recognized and respected.  True selfishness has needed a defender, which Rand and Objectivism have provided.

Yes, I was and remain tired of Steve's hogwash about motives.

Ludwig von Mises's magnum opus is titled Human Action. Like me, he thought that human actions have motives. In the book he wrote about the profit motive and "motive" appears several other times. But he doesn't dwell on motives; he takes them for granted. But being as ridiculous as Steve, L. von Mises ripped/severed motivations/goals/desires from action and mind from body, because none of these other words are in the title.

Steve wrote: A venn diagram of motives rather than actions would be a different story altogether. It would be correct in form.

Oh, I get it. Being as ridiculous as Steve, Steve believes it is fine to rip/sever actions from motives and body from mind.

Steve wrote: This points out how out of whack this process is:  "Hey, I don't know what the motive of action X is, so I'll assume it is altruistic.  Good, now I can categorize the act as 'Altruistic Action'.  All done!"

Wrong again, twice. There are three subcategories of 'altruistic action'. If the mother's motive were self-sacrificial rather than typical, I would put her action in the 5th area rather than the 4th area of the Venn diagram. Similarly, I could give a pair of examples, the same action but the motives differ, which would put one in the 1st area and the other in the 2nd. I can think of even more pairs, action the same but different motives put them in different subcategories. This further proves how ridiculous is Steve's allegation that I rip/sever motives from actions.

Where I put trade in my Venn diagram (the 3rd area) was the result of a practical decision. In many trades the actor benefits the other party, but is not motivated or does not intend to do so. The motivation or intent is entirely self-interested. On the other hand, in some trades the actor simultaneously intends to benefit both self and another party. Examples are a medical doctor, a nurse, a teacher, and somebody researching a disease and/or finding a cure for one. Another example is when the other party to the trade is a friend as well as a trading partner.

Perhaps Steve believes I ignore motive because, in addition to it not being explicit in my Venn diagram, I don't even mention it in my article that started this thread. However, motives are addressed in my (longer) JARS article, Egoism And/or Altruism. On the other hand, I regard action as more important than motive. Adapting an old adage: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but motives will never hurt me.

Dwyer wrote:  It is true that there is a colloquial sense of the term in which to say that someone is acting altruistically simply means that he or she is acting in a way that benefits others, regardless of whether the motive for doing so is self-sacrificial or self-interested?

It isn't merely colloquial; it is common. It is Comte's and Ayn Rand's meaning that is uncommon, except among Objectivists. For example, in the book Altruism I referenced earlier, a reasonable-sounding philosophy professor makes a stipulative definition: "an action is altruistic only if it motivated by a regard for others. Both concern and respect for others motivate departures from the pursuit of purely self-regarding satisfactions" (post 11). In the same book, Comte and what he meant by altruism is confined to the first two paragraphs of the introduction. That indicates how insignificant Comte is to the authors.

Like we both said, Comte coined the term altruism (more exactly, the French altruisme). But part of the etymology is earlier. Autri (French) and altrui (Italian), both meaning "other people", already existed. There isn't simply one "correct" meaning of altruism and any other meaning is wrong. Also, autri and altrui are descriptive, not normative. Comte hijacked the latter and made altruism normative.

For my Venn diagram including 'altruistic action' I used "altruistic" most like the French autri and the Italian altrui. I used it descriptively -- an action that benefits others. In retrospect I might have used 'altruisticly motivated action' (and 'egoisticly motivated action'). I didn't foresee any need for that.

Dwyer wrote: In discussing her [Rand's] views, one must recognize that she was perfectly within her rights as a philosopher to employ the same meaning of "altruism" as the philosopher who originally coined the term.

Her meaning of "altruism" fits the 5th area of my Venn diagram. Do you believe her right nullifies my right to use a different meaning?

I wrote: "It is true that there is a colloquial sense of the term in which to say that someone is acting altruistically simply means that he or she is acting in a way that benefits others, regardless of whether the motive for doing so is self-sacrificial or self-interested?"

Merlin replied, "It isn't merely colloquial; it is common. It is Comte's and Ayn Rand's meaning that is uncommon, except among Objectivists."

I wonder though:  In pursuing his own profit, a businessman benefits consumers.  Do people therefore refer to him as "altruistic"?   Or is the term generally reserved for people whose service to others entails a sacrifice?  

People can read the thread and decide if they think that Merlin makes a better case for what Altruism really is than Rand.  I'll  repeat some of the points I've already made.... 

- In post #29 Merlin says, "There isn't simply one 'correct' meaning of altruism and any other meaning is wrong."  Actually, there is a problem when the different meanings for the same words conflict - it means 'chose one.'  There is a concept of a moral code based upon sacrifice.  Altruism must be seen as requiring sacrifice, otherwise it isn't altruism, otherwise, if someone wants to use a different meaning than that, then they also need to tell us the new name for the morality based upon the concept that an individual is morally bound to make sacrifices.  Rand was not arguing against the French or Italian descriptive terms for 'others.'  She was arguing against the concept that sacrifice was moral and selfishness was immoral.

- The article at the head of this thread doesn't mention motive and the venn diagram doesn't mention motive, but without motive you can't tell whether the person acted out of altruism or egoism.  And, with motive what one is looking for is sacrifice - not who benefits, but the moral 'why' of the action. Merlin wrote in post #29, "I regard action as more important than motive." But he says he isn't separating action and motive.  And in post #22, "I think classifying actions is far more useful. Actions are observable; motives aren’t." Quite often, in every discipline, we find that the causal agent of actions and events is not readily observable, but we don't decide to ignore cause-effect, we search for ways to discover and validate the cause.  And the cause of an action by man lies in his motive.  And the only motive that makes sense in this context is did the person choose to make a sacrifice or not.  And that only makes sense if you define altruism in relation to sacrifice.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 8/18, 10:04am)

In the article at the head of this thread, Merlin writes:

Auguste Comte coined the term altruism, but more common meanings are not as extreme as his.

That's true, but so what? That isn't a logical argument.  "Extreme" is like a statiscal observation, and not a bad thing, unless we are defining a process of staying close to whatever others are mostly thinking as a new standard of truth.  

-------------

Rand’s use of both words [altruism and selfishness] is often cited as one of the biggest barriers to Objectivist outreach.

Her goal wasn't "outreach" but to boldly challenge the idea that man wasn't an end in himself, and that altruism does mean sacrifice and that is evil.  I applaud her challenge and see it as just what the world needs.  Overturning a moral code as old as the one requiring self-sacrifice with such a new idea as rational self-interest is not something that happens easily or overnight.

-------------

Moreover, her [Rand's] use of the term ['selfishness'] has caused Rand's arguments to be frequently misrepresented and made a frequent target by critics.

If our goal were to be liked and understood by our opponents we could just adopt their position. They misrepresent and target her for criticism precisely because she dared to name the alternative to sacrifice as the basis of a moral code.  People can make an argument that her style was unnecessarily confrontive in some venues, but that is different from giving away the store by letting the morality of required sacrifice become something without a name, and to never describe the alternative as a morality based upon man as an end in himself.

-------------

Despite Ayn Rand’s many polemics against altruism as a moral ideal, it is not the case that she totally rejected altruism in the practical, concrete sense. For example, the following is from John Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged. “Do you ask if it's ever proper to help another man? No—if he claims it as right or as a moral duty that you owe him. Yes—if such is your own desire based on your own selfish pleasure in the value of his person and his struggle” (AS975).

Again, Merlin gets trapped by his own misunderstandings. Rand was very clear that helping another when MOTIVATED by selfish pleasure in the value of another was moral.  But Merlin, trapped in his floating abstraction of a benefit disconnected from the motivation of the act that provided it, and divorced from the universe where the standard of value is either a man's own life, or it is someone or something else instead of his life, says that Ayn Rand "...totally rejected altruism in the practical concrete sense."  What do we infer from the use of "practical, concrete sense" as modifiers of "altruism"?  That there can be an altruism that is warm and fuzzy as long as it is only examined in terms of who benefits, and that such an altruism is practical?  And that a morality based upon required sacrifice has no name, or doesn't exist?  But that avoids the central issue of the standard of value and it is the standard of value that is the foundation for this discussion and Merlin's approach disconnects altruism from sacrifice and that leaves nothing to use to differentiate between those standards of value.

I don't know if this has been covered in previous posts, but in his article, Merlin wrote the following:

Despite Ayn Rand’s many polemics against altruism as a moral ideal, it is not the case that she totally rejected altruism in the practical, concrete sense.  For example, the following is from John Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged. “Do you ask if it's ever proper to help another man? No—if he claims it as right or as a moral duty that you owe him. Yes—if such is your own desire based on your own selfish pleasure in the value of his person and his struggle” (AS975).

This strikes me as an odd use of “selfish” when the primary beneficiary of such action is somebody else. 

But in Galt's statement, the primary beneficiary of such action is not somebody else; it is you, the actor.  If, as Galt says, your desire to help him is based on your own selfish pleasure, then you are the primary beneficiary.  

Steve,

We must also remember that for Rand, one's motivation -- goal or purpose -- in choosing one's action is but a necessary condition for the morality of the action, not a sufficient condition.  A robber may be motivated to advance his own interests, but that does not make his action moral.  What is also required is that one's choices conform to a rational standard of value -- that they further one's actual, objective self-interest.  A looter or moocher is not a real egoist, even if he is motivated by the desire for personal gain.