| | I missed Sharon's post #32, in which she wrote, Altruism is not a word in my everyday vocabulary. It is a clinical psychological term to me, and has nothing to do with family life. I see how Objectivists like to beat others over the head with the word; but it is overused where personal relationships are concerned. "Altruism" in the sense that Objectivists use it refers to a policy of placing the interests of others above self, and is enshrined in the selfless cliche that "it is better to give than receive." Altruism is an ethical viewpoint, not a clinical or psychological one. Also, it has never been my impression that Objectivists "beat others over the head with it." If anything, it is just the opposite. Altruists have been beating others over the head with it for centuries.
Consider the words of Martin Luther: "Cursed and condemned is every kind of life lived and sought for selfish profit and good; cursed are all works not done in love. But they are done in love when they are directed wholeheartedly, not toward selfish pleasure, profit, honor, and welfare but toward the profit, honor, and welfare of others." (What Luther Says; An Anthology, ed. E. M. Plass (3 vols., St. Louis, Concordia, 1959), III, 1282.)
Or consider the words of Adam Smith, often thought to be an advocate of self-interest: "The wise and virtuous man is at all times willing that his own private interest should be sacrificed to the public interest of his own particular order or society. He is at all times willing, too, that the interest of this order or society should be sacrificed to the greater interest of the state or sovereignty of which it is only a subordinate part: he should, therefore, be equally willing that all those inferior interests should be sacrificed to the greater interest of the universe, to the interest of that great society of all sensible and intelligent beings of which God himself is the immediate administrator and director." [The Theory of Moral Sentiments, in Adam Smith's Moral and political Philosophy, ed. H. W. Schneider (N.Y., Harper Torchbooks, 1970), p. 249.]
Contrast Smith's view with that of Rand's: Once...you conceded it was evil to live for yourself, but moral to live for the sake of your children. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your children, but moral to live for your community. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your community, but moral to live for your country. Now, you are letting this greatest of countries be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe. A man who has no right to life, has no right to values and will not keep them." (Atlas Shrugged, p. 1055)
Speaking of rights, here is what August Comte, nineteenth century altruist and positivist had to say about them: "In politics we must eliminate Rights. . . . Positivism only recognises duties, duties of all to all. Placing itself, as it does, at the social point of view, it cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, obligations to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service. Where, then, in the case of man, is the foundation on which we are to rest the idea of rights? . . . Rights, then, in the case of man, are as absurd as they are immoral." (The Catechism of Positive Religion, pp. 331-333).
Remember John Stuart Mill, nineteenth century philosopher and economist who wrote that classical ode to freedom, "On Liberty"? Here is what he had to say about altruism: "It is as much a part of our scheme as of M. Comte's, that the direct cultivation of altruism, and the subordination of egoism to it, far beyond the point of absolute moral duty, should be one of the chief aims of education, both individual and collective. . . . every person who lives by any useful work, should be habituated to regard himself not as an individual working for his private benefit, but as a public functionary; and his wages, of whatever sort, not as the remuneration or purchase-money of his labor, which should be given freely, but as the provision made by society to enable him to carry it on..." Auguste Comte and Positivism (Ann Arbor, U. of Mich. Press, 1961), pp. 146-148.
I could go on, quoting other philosophers, including Kant, who have literally been "beating us over the head" - and thereby warping our cultures, our societies and our political systems - with the malicious and misanthropic doctrine of self-sacrifice. In the face of this kind of precedent, it is virtually impossible for Objectivists to overdo their opposition to it. However much they object to altruism, they will never equal the support that the doctrine is receiving from the wider culture. How do you differentiate between cooperation and altruism, Bill? Cooperation is voluntary and is often undertaken for entirely selfish reasons. For example, when people trade with each other by mutual consent to mutual advantage, they are engaging in a form of cooperation, but their motivations are entirely selfish; they are interested only in gaining from the trade - in getting more than they are giving up. Do you consider cooperation to be collectivist? No, because in cooperating, all parties are voluntarily pursuing a common goal, so no one is being forced to sacrifice his or her goals for the sake of the collective. If you want to understand true collectivism, consider the words of Hegel, who inspired Marxism and Communism: The individual's duty is to maintain "the independence and sovereignty of the state, at the risk and the sacrifice of property and life, as well as of opinion and everything else naturally comprised in the compass of life." [Hegel's Philosophy of Right, trans. T. M. Knox (London, Oxford U.P., 1967), p. 209.]
Or consider this statement by him: "The noble type of consciousness. . . assumes a negative attitude towards its own special purposes, its particular content and individual existence, and lets them disappear. This type of mind is the heroism of Service . . . the type of personality which of itself renounces possession and enjoyment . . . That alone is true sacrifice of individuality, therefore, in which it gives up as completely as in the case of death . . ." [The Phenomenology of Mind, trans. J. B. Baillie (N.Y., Harper Torchbooks, 1967), pp. 526-9.] I am, however, very interested in introducing the word sacrifice into our dinner conversations. We'll be drinking toasts: to those who sacrificed their energy and time to produce this magnificent meal. Thanks for the idea Bill. I can't wait to see the reactions. In the sense of "sacrifice" that you know is relevant to Objectivism, if they truly did sacrifice their energy and time to produce the meal, then they must have considered their resources to have more important uses elsewhere, in which case, why would you drink a toast to this kind of self-sacrificial behavior? All it would indicate is that they didn't really want to do it, but did it only out of a sense of selfless duty. That wouldn't make me feel very good to know that they would rather have done something else with their energy and time than to cook the meal that I am now enjoying.
- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/08, 1:26am)
|
|
