I received several comments on my QUORA answer to Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism? The following comment inspired a response from me:
I just was learning about echoism which is the opposite of narcissism. I believe having a purpose that helps us make up for the atoms that we are created from and our need to consume during life helps balance us and carry our spirit and makeup into the next generation. So it’s both filling our own needs now and then in the future. And ensuring that our community will be healthy for the next generation. So it’s healthy when you have a healthy amount of altruism just like it’s healthy when you have a healthy amount of narcissism. You have to care about yourself and others in order to have a safe society to live in and a healthy life for yourself.
My response, posted as a reply to Lauretti:
There is a common theme running through recent comments to the effect that the definition of altruism that Rand relies upon is “extreme” and therefore has no practical relevance to people’s lives. It’s true that, as I observed in my answer, people’s conception of altruism is mixed and contradictory. The so-called “middle” ground actually entails two opposites, non-sacrificial vs. self-sacrificial concern for others’ interest. This is logically untenable. To conceive of both forms of concern for others’ interest in a single concept—altruism—is to violate two of the three basic laws of logic, the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle. The issue at hand involves two distinct and logically opposing concepts, rational self-interest vs. altruism, each having their own objective—that is, “extreme”—definitions, and thus opposite practical effects.
An “extreme” definition is an actual, proper definition. Any proper definition, by definition, is “extreme”, in the sense of being non-contradictory, unambiguous, and fact based, or it’s not a proper definition. A “non-extreme” definition never works logically, because a “non-extreme” definition is an attempt at obfuscation by approximation, vagueness, and inexactness. A “non-extreme” definition is no definition at all. Nothing is more destructive to human reason and communication than the approximate, the vague, the imprecise, the ambiguous, the non-objective, or the non-exact. Those who evade “extreme” definitions are condemned to logical and moral incoherence.
I maintain that the “extreme”—that is, accurate—definition of altruism has damaging real life practical consequences, not only in the more detached world of politics but also on a direct personal level.
Which brings me to K Lauretti’s point about echoism. The practical value of Rand’s “extreme”—i.e., precise—understanding of altruism becomes plain in this comment.
The precise definition of altruism holds that the standard of moral action is self-sacrificial concern for others.* This is the definition generally accepted implicitly, even as some mistakenly conflate non-sacrificial acts of concern (including charity or helping out) for others’ interests with the self-sacrificial acts that altruism demands. Lauretti’s reference to echoism in fact proves Rand’s point, in the form of highlighting the inherently corrupting influence of altruism on the human soul. To see why, one must unpack the mushy, mixed understanding of “altruism” into its mutually exclusive opposites.
Echoism is a personality trait only recently identified by psychologists. Craig Malkin Ph.D., writing for Psychology Today, observes
Echoism is a trait that my colleagues and I have begun measuring, and like all traits, it exists to a greater or lesser degree in everyone. People who score well above average in echoism qualify as echoists, and their defining characteristic is a fear of seeming narcissistic in any way.
[my emphasis]
Narcissism, strictly speaking, is of course not a virtue. But here I take Lauretti’s use of the word narcissism to be a blanket reference to self-interest generally. A “fear of seeming narcissistic” amounts to, “I don’t want to be seen as thinking of myself.” If echoism “exists to a greater or lesser degree in everyone,” then it is safe to say that my claim that Rand’s “impractical” understanding of altruism is in fact very practical is correct.
I hold that underlying this irrational “fear of seeming narcissistic” is altruism, precisely and properly (extremely) defined.
This fear highlights how altruism, properly understood, has real-life consequences on the personal level. Since altruism ascribes a negative moral significance to prioritizing one’s self-interest, even though one cannot live without being substantially selfish, altruism's corrupting effect manifests in unearned guilt. If echoism “exists to a greater or lesser degree in everyone”, we can readily see altruism’s widespread effects—the widespread infection of unearned guilt. The fear of seeming narcissistic is actually unearned guilt. Unearned guilt can have very damaging consequences for the individual, leading to damaged self-esteem and moral confidence.
As I said, the mushy, contradictory ways that altruism is used today violates the basic laws of logic—specifically, the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle. Altruism cannot mean both sacrifice and non-sacrifice. It is either/or. People can hold mixed premises. But in any real life issue involving others, it’s either/or. It’s either a self-sacrifice to others, or rationally self-interested; altruism, or benevolence; unhealthy, or healthy. Altruism is what it is -- self-sacrificial service to others by moral duty, and nothing else. Altruism is not charitable; it is not benevolent; it is not respectful.
I agree with Lauretti that “You have to care about yourself and others in order to have a safe society to live in and a healthy life for yourself.” But caring for yourself does not preclude caring for others. Certainly, charity and/or helping others can and often is consistent with promoting your own rationally selfish value hierarchy. And that concern for others, including strangers, needn’t, and shouldn’t, be self-sacrificial. Indeed, no respectful person would ever expect or demand of others self-sacrifice for their sake. A culture full of people demanding and expecting sacrifices from others for their own benefit is not a healthy culture. A healthy culture is a respectful culture, where people co-exist and interact by mutually beneficial relationships, neither sacrificing themselves to others nor expecting sacrifices from others. Concern for others can certainly be healthy. But there is no “healthy amount of altruism.”
Finally, observe how “selfish” is regularly used as a stand-alone criticism or accusation. “You’re selfish” is almost universally accepted as a pejorative, as if being selfish in and of itself is a vice. It’s intended to put the target on the defensive, sidestepping any judgment on what the accused is actually being selfish about. It implies that looking out for one's own interests is ipso-facto a bad thing. That is altruism just as Rand understands it.
Far from being too “extreme” to have practical consequences in real life, altruism’s widespread corruption is evident everywhere across everyday life.
* [A sacrifice is the giving up of a value for a lesser value, or no value at all, as opposed to giving up a lesser value and receiving in return a value that is more important to you than that which you gave up.]
Related Reading:
QUORA: Is Ayn Rand's 'Selfishness' 'the middle between altruism and selfism?'
Books to Aid in Understanding Ayn Rand's Rational Selfishness
QUORA: Is Ayn Rand's 'Selfishness' 'the middle between altruism and selfism?'
QUORA: What does Ayn Rand think about vitrues [sic] such as charity, selflessness, and friendship?
QUORA: What do people misunderstand about Ayn Rand's ideas?
Understanding Ayn Rand’s Original Ethics Requires Original Thinking
No comments:
Post a Comment