I posted the following answer:
Ayn Rand observed:
Why impossible? Think of the psychology that altruism leads to in practice. If my first duty is to live for others, then not only am I putting the one life I’ll ever have “on the back burner”; by logical extension I must conclude that it is other people’s first duty to live for me. Put more directly, each of us has no moral responsibility to support ourselves materially or spiritually, because that is other people’s responsibility. On the contrary, each of us has a moral right to other people’s time, effort, and property, because it is their responsibility to support us. In other words, altruism turns us all into predators, where any person with an unfulfilled need, unsatisfied want, or penchant for bad behavior can rightfully demand that other people fix his life. In practice, then, every person represents a threat to everyone else. What measure of kindness, good will, or respect is possible in a world where each of us is surrounded by moochers and predators? What measure of kindness, good will, or respect is possible under a moral code that encourages, as an ideal, that each of us to become a moocher or a predator?
It’s not hard to see, when you think it through, where a moral “ideal” that says everyone is responsible for everyone one else, but not himself, ultimately leads. Altruism—properly understood, as I believe Ayn Rand does—is a corrupt, predatory moral ideology that leads to all kinds of destructive personal, social, and, ultimately, political consequences.
It is important to understand that Rand’s understanding of altruism is derived from Auguste Comte, the 19th Century philosopher who coined the term. To Comte, altruism is an uncompromising, absolute duty to “live for others” in every circumstance and at all times, always putting the interests of others above one’s own, no exceptions: “[F]rom every point of view,” Comte wrote, “the ultimate systematisation of human life must consist above all in the development of altruism.”
You don’t have to take just my word for it. In Altruism in Auguste Comte and Ayn Rand by Robert L. Campbell, The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 7, no. 2 (Spring 2006): 357–69, Campbell quotes Herbert Spencer, who “rejected ‘pure’ or ‘perfect’ altruism as perverse.” Spencer critiques Comte as follows:
Ayn Rand observed:
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.
Why impossible? Think of the psychology that altruism leads to in practice. If my first duty is to live for others, then not only am I putting the one life I’ll ever have “on the back burner”; by logical extension I must conclude that it is other people’s first duty to live for me. Put more directly, each of us has no moral responsibility to support ourselves materially or spiritually, because that is other people’s responsibility. On the contrary, each of us has a moral right to other people’s time, effort, and property, because it is their responsibility to support us. In other words, altruism turns us all into predators, where any person with an unfulfilled need, unsatisfied want, or penchant for bad behavior can rightfully demand that other people fix his life. In practice, then, every person represents a threat to everyone else. What measure of kindness, good will, or respect is possible in a world where each of us is surrounded by moochers and predators? What measure of kindness, good will, or respect is possible under a moral code that encourages, as an ideal, that each of us to become a moocher or a predator?
It’s not hard to see, when you think it through, where a moral “ideal” that says everyone is responsible for everyone one else, but not himself, ultimately leads. Altruism—properly understood, as I believe Ayn Rand does—is a corrupt, predatory moral ideology that leads to all kinds of destructive personal, social, and, ultimately, political consequences.
It is important to understand that Rand’s understanding of altruism is derived from Auguste Comte, the 19th Century philosopher who coined the term. To Comte, altruism is an uncompromising, absolute duty to “live for others” in every circumstance and at all times, always putting the interests of others above one’s own, no exceptions: “[F]rom every point of view,” Comte wrote, “the ultimate systematisation of human life must consist above all in the development of altruism.”
You don’t have to take just my word for it. In Altruism in Auguste Comte and Ayn Rand by Robert L. Campbell, The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 7, no. 2 (Spring 2006): 357–69, Campbell quotes Herbert Spencer, who “rejected ‘pure’ or ‘perfect’ altruism as perverse.” Spencer critiques Comte as follows:
Mark the consequences if all are purely altruistic.
First, an impossible combination of moral attributes is implied. Each is supposed by the hypothesis to regard self so little and others so much, that he willingly sacrifices his own pleasures to give pleasures to them. But if this is a universal trait, and action is universally congruous with it, we have to conceive each as being not only a sacrificer but also one who accepts sacrifices. While he is so unselfish as to yield up the benefit for which he has labored, he is so selfish as willingly to let others yield up to him the benefits they have labored for. To make pure altruism possible for all, each must be at once extremely unegoistic and extremely egoistic. As a giver, he must have no thought for self; as a receiver, no thought for others. [My emphasis]
Does this state of affairs sound like a prescription for good will among people?
This absolutist concept of altruism created by altruism’s founder obviously clashes with the mushy way the term is commonly used, which mixes self-sacrifice [Comte-ism] with self-interest driven generosity—a mixture Rand referred to as a “package deal” and which she viewed as corrupt. Some people might think that the mixture is workable. But Rand saw this package deal as akin to mixing poison in with one’s food—altruism as poison for human morality.
Whether out of deceit or ignorance, Rand has been vilified as an enemy of social harmony because of her anti-altruism. This is grossly dishonest and unjust. Rand opposed altruism precisely because it is incompatible with social harmony, which depends on universal respect for each person’s moral right to pursue the values his own life depends on. Agree with Rand or not on the merits, but fairness demands that one understand precisely what Rand was attacking when she attacked altruism. It is the undiluted, literal, pure altruism of Comte to which Rand refers, and the influence of which Rand seeks to unpackage from human morality. With this in mind, I do not believe that Ayn Rand was wrong about altruism.
Related Reading:
Is Science Catching Up to the Objectivist Ethics?
"Give Back" is a Sinister Ploy to Guilt Achievers Into Giving Up What They Have Earned
Is It Now ‘Respectable’ to be a Moocher?
The Worship of Need: The Path to Communism
Our Pick-Pocket Nation
Bezos Should Focus On Running His Company
The word "altruism" (French: altruisme, from autrui, 'other people', derived from Latin alter 'other') was coined by Auguste Comte, the French founder of positivism, in order to describe the ethical doctrine he supported. He believed that individuals had a moral obligation to renounce self-interest and live for others. Comte says, in his Catéchisme Positiviste,[2] that:
[The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, 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.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely."
Related Viewing:
The saga of The Twentieth Century Motor Company in Atlas Shrugged, in which the company founder’s heirs took over a profitable business and implemented the Marxist/Altruist principle, “From Each According to His Ability, to Each According to his Need.” Parts one, two, and three.
* [Quora is a social media website founded by two former Facebook employees. According to Wikipedia:
Quora is a question-and-answer website where questions are created, answered, edited and organized by its community of users. The company was founded in June 2009, and the website was made available to the public on June 21, 2010.[3]Quora aggregates questions and answers to topics. Users can collaborate by editing questions and suggesting edits to other users' answers.[4]
You can also reply to other users’ answers.]
You can also reply to other users’ answers.]
No comments:
Post a Comment