This Quora Answer Shows Why Ayn Rand Was Right About Altruism

In my answer to the Quora question, “Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism?,” I wrote:

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.” 

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. 

In another answer to the Quora question, Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism?’‘, Greg Larsen posted:

She was absolutely wrong.

As many of the other answers here have pointed out, altruism carried to ridiculous exteme [sic] is self destructive. However, Rand believed and argued that any gesture of altruism whatsoever was already ridiculous extreme.

When you are young and strong and lucky, the attitude “I have mine, and you would too if you hadn’t made bad choices, “ seems good.

But bad stuff happens to people who don’t deserve it.

It is better for all of us if we internalize a philosophy that we need to share our good fortune, so that we can expect help when our fortunes turn.

Most of us actually know or feel that to some extent.

I don’t give so much to charity that my wife and I are endangered by it, but I do give.

This is why altruism is so corrupting. Like most people, Larsen packages together altruism with good-will generosity. Thus, opposing altruism means opposing good-will generosity, which leads to “never help anyone”—a position that Ayn Rand never advocated. Notice how quickly Larsen jumps from bait to switch; from “any gesture of altruism is bad” to never helping anyone who ran into underserved “bad stuff.” Larsen’s grave error is that he uncritically swallows the “package deal.” Rand indeed “believed and argued that any gesture of altruism whatsoever was already ridiculous extreme.” That’s because altruism, by definition, mandates the “ridiculous extreme” of self-sacrifice. 

Larsen seems to agree. Notice that Larsen himself acknowledges that he would never go to the “ridiculous extreme” that altruism demands. Notice that Larsen does not “give so much to charity that my wife and I are endangered by it.” Precisely the point. Larsen values sharing his good fortune, but only because he expects the recipients to return the favor should the tables be turned—and only if it does not entail a personal sacrifice! 

Well, why not? If a “gesture of altruism” is sometimes good, then why doesn’t he sacrifice his good fortune to the point of being “endangered by it,” and with no expectation of anything in return, ever? There is no non-sacrificial altruism. Altruism by definition demands precisely to do what Larsen himself refuses to do--give so much to charity that my wife and I are endangered by it!

Quoting again from my answer:

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. 

Larsen’s completely wrong-headed answer proves decisively why Rand was uncompromising in seeking to remove all influence of altruism from human morality. As she observed, altruism corrupts one’s moral view to the point of making “kindness, good will, or respect for the rights of others . . . impossible,” precisely because altruism is to morality what poison is to food. Larsen falls for the altruist trap: He equates altruism with non-sacrificial good will, and then jumps to the false assertion that by opposing altruism uncompromisingly, Rand rejects good will. Larsen is flat out wrong.

Related Reading:

Altruism—the Ayn Rand Lexicon

The Virtue of Selfishness—Ayn Rand

QUORA: Is Ayn Rand's 'Selfishness' 'the middle between altruism and selfism?'

Books to Aid in Understanding Ayn Rand's Rational Selfishness

The Link Between "Control, Power, or Socialism" and "What's Morally Right"