A Philosophy Professor Discusses Ayn Rand in his Ethics Class

[Cain]

Altruism and Egoism -- The Objectivist Straw man.

"Objectivists" typically define altruism as "self-sacrifice." We have a hierarchy of values, you see, and "selfishness" simply means pursuing what we value most while "altruism" means sacrificing greater values for lesser values. For an "Objectivist," a woman can "selfishly" skip a meal so her kids can eat, or a man can sacrifice his life to save a spouse. So what they're saying is essentially ********.

In reality, ethics is about what we ought to value, and egoism generally means valuing one's own well-being versus something like utilitarianism, which is about promoting the greatest good for the greatest number.

It's kind of funny to see Apollo argue that Rand really knew what altruism meant when she's an immigrant writing in a second language, the person who notoriously confused "egotism" with "egoism." She took full personal responsibility for that error by blaming it on a dictionary. (A dictionary nobody has managed to identify.)

 

[Dinwar]

It's kind of funny to see Apollo argue that Rand really knew what altruism meant when she's an immigrant writing in a second language

You are either intentionally ignoring my posts, or are hoping that no one will notice your dishonesty.

Rand did not formulate the definition of "altruism" she used. The person who coined the term did. Rand merely acknowledged the proper definition of the word. Thus, yes, Rand DID know what altruism meant--far better, in a demonstrable way, than those who argue that her definition is wrong.

 

[Cain]

You are either intentionally ignoring my posts, or are hoping that no one will notice your dishonesty.

Admittedly, I do breeze past them. They're on the light side.

Rand did not formulate the definition of "altruism" she used. The person who coined the term did. Rand merely acknowledged the proper definition of the word. Thus, yes, Rand DID know what altruism meant--far better, in a demonstrable way, than those who argue that her definition is wrong.

This is more ********. First, the most important part of my post is the manner in which "Objectivists" attempt to frame the argument: selfishness is about pursuing higher values while altruism involves forfeiting higher values for lesser values (see Virtue of Selfishness, I believe it gets explicit treatment in an essay by Nathaniel Branden). Interestingly, you chose to completely ignore this in favor of arguing semantics. Shocking.

As for your post, you keep mentioning the "proper" definition of the word without -- in recent times -- bothering to provide this definition. And though it should not require stating, words mean what we commonly accept them to mean. You can say the common definition is inconsistent with the original definition, but we can code things however we please provided we're all on the same page.

The problem for "Objectivists" is that they're intent on loading words, such as, for instance, smuggling "rational" into "selfishness."

 

[Cain]

An Objectivist went to see an eye doctor. Doctor said he was color-blind. The revelation struck him like a rock outta the clear orange sky.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Not our problem. Go to the philosophy that defined the term and complain to them. All Objectivists do is use the term honestly.

We can now add to the sins of Objectivism the strategic misuse of "honesty" as well as "altruism". It is not honesty to use a term in an archaic sense which you know is incredibly likely to be misinterpreted.

If you wanted to be honest and your claimed definition of altruism was what you really wanted to communicate you could call it "extreme self-sacrifice" or "sacrificing more than you want to" or something similar.

Deliberately using misleading terms doesn't make you better than everyone else, even if your cult mythology tries to put this particular misleading use of terms on a pedestal.

And if you abandon logic, you can define ANY action as doing something you want to do. I mean, you always have the option of killing yourself, right? So those people in the concentration camps WANTED to suffer! Yes, I know, Godwin'd and all that--but I'm proving a point. There's no difference between THAT argument, ridiculous as it was, and " Any act that would normally be described as altruistic can be interpreted as being done to satisfy some personal goal/whim/desire/need if you unpick it enough."

Someone has abandoned logic all right, but it's you.

You just tried to compare an injury inflicted by someone else with an injury taken willingly. That's silly. Even if it were really true that there were people willing to be shot for some secretly-selfish goal like a desire to be seen as a martyr, that would say absolutely nothing about whether or not it is good to shoot people who don't want to be a martyr.

Now there are indeed reasons to be suspicious of people who say things like "They guy who threw himself on a grenade to save his platoon must have actually wanted to throw himself on a grenade to save his platoon or else he wouldn't have done it. He got something out of it, even if it was irrational, because he did it". But you have not put your finger on them.

 

[marplots]

Are Objectivists necessarily atheist as well?

I ask because of what I alluded to earlier. If God desires me to be as altruistic as possible to please him and so that I may get my reward in heaven, then it is in my rational self-interest to follow God's dictates.

I understand Rand was an atheist and that morality based on theology is troubling for her, but is atheism a requirement?

 

[Sword of Apollo]

If I have sired a child but wish to have no contact and to separate myself from raising it, do I still have a duty to support that child? If so, why?

If you aren't married to the mother, then you should have no legal obligation to support the child.
Morally, you should have integrity and abide by your prior agreements (when the other party was honest and held up her side.) If you agreed to support the child with the mother, then you should support the child. (Integrity is in your self-interest: it preserves your mental functioning and helps preserve the harmony between your thought and emotions. Integrity, along with honesty, also shows people that you're responsible and can be trusted in future dealings. Other, moral people won't find it in their self-interest to deal with an unprincipled and irresponsible person.)

Whoever has custody of the child should have a legal obligation to take care of the basic needs of the child, since children are dependent by nature. But the parent(s) can also pursue the option of adoption.

And can I shift the burden if I offer to pay for an abortion but the mother decides to keep the kid?

If you're not married, then there should be no legal problem, as mentioned above. If you're married and you don't want a child but the mother does, then you as the husband should have, say, a month from the time you find out she's pregnant to make known in notarized writing that you don't intend to support the child, if it's born. If the wife then pursues the pregnancy, the (ex-)husband won't be responsible for child support. Ideally, something like this should be written into a standard marriage contract. The particular couple can modify it if they like.

 

[Sword of Apollo]

[...]
Further, in the examples cited, there is what I think of as a false separation between altruism and egoism, since I may act in my own self interest now so that I can act altruistically (and more effectively so) in the future.

It doesn't seem as though you've absorbed the nature of altruism here. Acting altruistically "effectively" means being very effective at destroying your long-term happiness. The essential aspect of altruism is not that other people gain, (this happens far more in egoistic trade) but that you lose. Your self-sacrifice won't help anyone else out overall and in the long-term (unless you're in an emergency/life-boat scenario.)

Altruism gets the harshest, most robotic and functional treatment, while egoism is allowed a great deal of nuance. So that if I do not immediately kill myself to allow you more air to breathe, I am not a good altruist, while you may sacrifice as you see fit and still be an egoist (so long as your sacrifice feels good and hence has value to you).

The picture is one of a fleshed out being contrasted with a cartoon cut-out. I call foul on that.

It is not the case that just because something feels good, it is in one's self-interest. A human life, to be maintained in the long-term, has objective requirements. No one's emotions automatically tell him what is in his own long-term self-interest. Someone may feel good about doling out soup at the homeless shelter, instead of studying for an important presentation at work. But this doesn't mean that that choice was self-interested.

 

[Buckaroo]

The essential aspect of altruism is not that other people gain, (this happens far more in egoistic trade) but that you lose.

Please define "lose," explain how this definition is universally applicable across value systems, and give real-world examples of an altruistic "loss," consistent with Rand's definition of altruism.

Someone may feel good about doling out soup at the homeless shelter, instead of studying for an important presentation at work. But this doesn't mean that that choice was self-interested.

Says who? I would think that determination should be left up to the person who made the decision, based on their own personal values, rather than on some half-assed pseudo-intellectual freshman-level twaddle. And I love how you sweep under the rug the profound sense of personal fulfillment that contributes to giving meaning to many people's lives with the dismissive phrase "someone may feel good about." Your use of this phrase speaks volumes about Objectivism, and its inability to deal with actual human motivations.

 

[Sword of Apollo]

Please define "lose," explain how this definition is universally applicable across value systems, and give real-world examples of an altruistic "loss," consistent with Rand's definition of altruism.




Says who? I would think that determination should be left up to the person who made the decision, based on their own personal values, rather than on some half-assed pseudo-intellectual freshman-level twaddle. And I love how you sweep under the rug the profound sense of personal fulfillment that contributes to giving meaning to many people's lives with the dismissive phrase "someone may feel good about." Your use of this phrase speaks volumes about Objectivism, and its inability to deal with actual human motivations.

Sounds like you've already decided that whatever I have to say will be worthless, so I see no reason to write out a full response. This will serve as my only response; make of it what you will:
Values Are Relational But Not Subjective

 

[jimbob]

It doesn't seem as though you've absorbed the nature of altruism here. Acting altruistically "effectively" means being very effective at destroying your long-term happiness. The essential aspect of altruism is not that other people gain, (this happens far more in egoistic trade) but that you lose. Your self-sacrifice won't help anyone else out overall and in the long-term (unless you're in an emergency/life-boat scenario.)



It is not the case that just because something feels good, it is in one's self-interest. A human life, to be maintained in the long-term, has objective requirements. No one's emotions automatically tell him what is in his own long-term self-interest. Someone may feel good about doling out soup at the homeless shelter, instead of studying for an important presentation at work. But this doesn't mean that that choice was self-interested.

I'm aware of the tortured definitions of altruism and selfishness used by objectivists - to use a phrase coined by Douglas Adams they are as much use as a pair of foetid dingo's kidneys.

The members of the international Brigades who went to fight Franco were idealists and acted for their beliefs. I'd say that it is still fine to say they were altruistic.

The Americans who joined the Eagle Squadrons to fight in the Battle of Britain, risking fines from the US were acting altruistically.

A drug addict who pays a dealer for another hit is not acting altruistically although they are destroying their long term happiness whilst helping the dealer's interests. (Self destructive might be accurate)


It is more useful to accept that people act for others due to compassion or a sense of justice (which are evolved traits) or because it coincides with their beliefs and that this is not of itself a bad thing. A sacrifice does usually aim to gain something, but it is still a sacrifice.

 

[jimbob]

I'd say that if you are performing an act for some believed material gain (including in a believed next world) then it isn't truly altruistic. If you do it because you think it is the right thing to do, or to help someone and you would feel bad if you wouldn't do it, then it can still be altruistic.

 

[Buckaroo]

Says who? I would think that determination should be left up to the person who made the decision, based on their own personal values, rather than on some half-assed pseudo-intellectual freshman-level twaddle.

Sounds like you've already decided that whatever I have to say will be worthless, so I see no reason to write out a full response. This will serve as my only response; make of it what you will:
Values Are Relational But Not Subjective

Having visited the link, I stand by my assessment. No need to take it personally, though; I'm not directing my scorn at you in particular. This is is not my first exposure to Objectivism -- it was quite popular among my peers in college 20 years ago, and as a callow youth I found Rand to be somewhat persuasive. But with greater intellectual maturity and improved critical thinking skills came a realization that Objectivism is absolute nonsense. My experience with it is common, so you may yet come around.

 

[Cain]

Morally, you should have integrity and abide by your prior agreements (when the other party was honest and held up her side.) If you agreed to support the child with the mother, then you should support the child. (Integrity is in your self-interest: it preserves your mental functioning and helps preserve the harmony between your thought and emotions.

This shows how "Objectivist" psychology subsidizes "Objectivist" morality. Here the move is to show that if someone lies, cheats, or steals their way to material gain, it will almost invariably result in a loss of self-esteem, which does sometimes happen. Yet sometimes it does not. Certain sociopaths are not vulnerable to what they might call this emotional plea. One of the more clever examples asks us to imagine an Objectivist Vampire. The nature of the vampire is to feed on human beings; it is what they're designed to do. Does that make it right?

I think it's in the "Objectivist Ethics" where Rand imagines an "indestructible robot." Since the robot does not face the question of non-existence, it can do whatever it pleases without acting immorally. This would also presumably apply to Yahweh (if he existed).

 

[jimbob]

So is a heroin addict paying their dealer for some more drugs acting altruistically (according to the objectivist definition) as they'll lose in the long run from such a trade?