Reply Responses to QUORA *: ‘Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism?’ - 4

I received numerous comments on my QUORA answer to Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism? The following comment inspired a (partial) response from me:

William Delouvrely commented:

To me, and I could be wrong, there is a basic problem with Ayn Rand. Let me assure you that “I have not always been wrong.” (Churchill quote).

Ayn Rand and her followers have the habit to see everything in a purely ‘yes or no’, ‘black or white’, or ‘extremely correct or totally wrong’ frame of mind. The great majority of humans do not live and do not want to live within such a ‘permanent logic or bust’ standard. This is not a ‘wobbly mealy-mouthed argument’. If you can imagine it, in Ayn Rand’s world there is no room for feelings, kindness, for music, poetry, art and theater, because don’t all these distract from the ‘purely rational 100% productivity only, no jokes, no laughter, no good times allowed’ systemic standard that must be applied to all people of all ages, or else my philosophy is wrong, and we can’t have that as I always must be right, at all costs, no matter the human costs, no matter the consequences.

Do I still make sense, as I am trying to climb down into the rabbit hole of Randian logic?

In one way, to put a lighter spin on it, Ayn Rand is the philosophical personification of Jerry Seinfeld’s ‘Soup Nazi’. Wham, bamm, no soup for you!

In another way, the harshness that is shown by devoted, harsh, zealous, uncompromising followers of such political fashions as Nazism, Capitalism, Communism, as well as by militant & irrational proponents of any and all world religions & cults, all that points to the paranoid and super-logical world view espoused by Ayn Rand.

Do you want to live in a world like that, where a three year old might be expected to already be a productive member of society, and a seventy-five year old is expected to work until she croaks while at work? Well, me neither.

I remember that old Greek riddle: “What animal is this? It walks on four legs in the morning, on two legs at noon, and on three legs at nightfall?” The answer is of course, the human being, as it crawls on all four as a toddler, in the morning of life, on two legs at noon in the productive time of life, and on three legs (two legs and a cane) near the end of life. Ayn Rand would not have guessed it. Or would she?

Which gets me back to the beginning, where I said something like ‘well, I haven’t always been wrong’.

I’ll say that a civilized society cannot exist without a certain degree of altruism, which of course has to be counter-balanced [sic] with a degree of reason and willingness to assert oneself. Just taking without giving is as unsustainable as only giving without taking. 

There, now I am going to shut up.

My emphasis.

I do not know where this Mr. Spock depiction of “Ayn Rand and her followers” comes from. His is just another complete strawman, which I will not waste my time responding to. Just the fact that he equates Nazism and Communism with Capitalism shows that Delouvrely does not know what he is talking about. But Delouvrely does close with a point that requires a response for the benefit of serious readers of this site. Here is my reply:

“Just taking without giving is as unsustainable as only giving without taking.” 

Rand most emphatically rejected that premise as a false choice. In fact, she convincingly argued that that “choice” is really two sides of the same coin. I made this point clear in my answer above. 

The alternative to that false choice that Rand posited is the trader principle—the win-win relationship.

Relationships need not be win-lose or lose-win, necessarily  involving both an exploiter and a victim. People can get better together, with each neither taking without giving or giving without taking. The values exchanged can be material or spiritual, or a combination of both. But the ideal human relationship Rand promoted would leave each side better off.

Related Reading:

Reply Responses to QUORA *: ‘Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism?’

Reply Responses to QUORA: ‘Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism?’ — 2

Reply Responses to My Answer regarding QUORA: ‘Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism?’ - 3

This Quora Answer Shows Why Ayn Rand Was Right About Altruism

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

Books to Aid in Understanding Ayn Rand's Rational Selfishness

QUORA: ‘Did Ayn Rand support the idea of giving to charity or donating your own money to help other people?’

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?’

Auguste Comte on altruism

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."

Reply Responses to My Answer regarding QUORA: ‘Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism?’ - 3

I received several comments on my QUORA answer to Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism? The following comment inspired a response from me:

 

From K Lauretti · 15h

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: ‘Did Ayn Rand support the idea of giving to charity or donating your own money to help other people?’

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

Reply Responses to QUORA: ‘Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism?’ — 2

I received several comments to my QUORA answer to Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism?

From Eddie Pilchard 

She applied pure philosophy to human beings, and her experience of human beings was… unusual. Moreover, she had a circle of followers who, through an almost religious belief in her put her needs before their own in extremis, including a woman who willingly let her husband have a relationship with her. Sounds almost… altruistic..?

The definition she gives for altruism is a textbook one; but in reality few people live their lives entirely without regard for their own needs. Most altruism is in the form of altruistic acts not an entirely altruistic life. You may do something supremely kind at your expense without it being to such an extent you could be said to entirely put others first.

And that's my major issue with Rand: she didn't know real humans. Her experiences were of unusual and extreme circumstances, not of the average. And so she describes scenarios and personalities that are based on academic and false assumptions. As for the visions she paints, rather than a utopian idea of how the world might be they all share one thing: that in reality to live in her future world - if applied to people as they really are - would be just awful. [sic]

My reply:

Actually, Ed, I have found Rand’s thinking on this subject very relevant to real life (though not always her particular application to her life). It is up to each individual to apply philosophic principles to her/his own life, and one does not have to agree with every aspect of Rand’s (or other Objectivists’) individual choices to find value in Objectivist principles. 

Rand sharply distinguished between altruism and rational benevolence/generosity. This has been very helpful in how judging and shaping relationships with others fits into my hierarchy of values.

It is true that “in reality few people live their lives entirely without regard for their own needs.” Altruism has its greatest, and most destructive, application in politics. Note that few people in their personal relationships would demand the sacrifice of others’ wealth or interests for their own needs or interests. But, when turning to politics, where the reality is more abstract, these same people often have no problem expecting the state to forcibly redistribute others’ wealth—hence, the spreading entitlement mentality and our runaway welfare state. Note the politicians’ incessant calls for sacrifice. Altruism, even when only part of an “average”, is a malignancy.

And yes, altruism does get and has been applied in its extreme. The utopian visions of communism and fascism are based on the complete subordination of the individual to “others”, with the state as the embodiment of the others, in the cause of some collectivist good, with real life devastating results. These atrocities cannot and have not been justified or implemented except by reference to the strict textbook definition of altruism, coupled with the explicit rejection of the individual’s rationally self-interested right to his own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

I have found Rand’s observations on altruism, and Objectivism more broadly, to be well-grounded in reality and a good guide to practical living.

Related Reading:

Reply Responses to QUORA *: ‘Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism?’

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

QUORA: ‘How would you describe Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism?’

 QUORA: ‘How would you describe Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism?’ [sic]

I posted this very succinct answer:

I describe Objectivism as a philosophy of life before death.

For a little more detail, see Crawford’s answer.

For more depth, visit Introduction to Objectivism.

A Few Passing Thoughts on Objectivism

A few years ago, Anoop Verma shared an article on Facebook from his Verma Report titled Is Ayn Rand’s Objectivism a Philosophy? The article is no longer available. But Verma’s preamble indicates hostility toward Objectivism:

My honest view of Ayn Rand's objectivism:

"There is more than one excuse for being an Ayn Rand, but there is no excuse whatsoever for being an objectivist."

I posted this comment:

Rand is to philosophy what Pavarotti is to opera. Pavarotti brought opera out of the highbrow world of the Italian elites to the enjoyment of the popular “masses”. Rand brought philosophy out of the Ivory Tower and made it a practical life guide for the average person. 

I’ll leave it to “philosophers” to debate how many angels (or straw men) can dance on the head of a pin. Objectivism has given me valuable insights and principles, in clear and understandable terms, that has helped me navigate life and make sense of the world. As a practical philosophy, Objectivism is invaluable.

A comment thread ensued, which is available here. Following are two replies of mine responding to others’ comments. 

I'm with you, Rich. Any belief system, whether or not it fits some technical definition of a philosophy, can be treated as a dogma. I have found that Objectivism, when applied diligently, works against dogmatism. But you always have to be on guard against the temptation of dogmatism, even with Objectivism. 

---------------------------------------------------------

Philosophically, rationalism is a belief in innate knowledge divorced from observation or experience. Peikoff has a book, “Objective Communication,” that has a whole chapter on rationalism. The Objectivist position holds that “Knowledge is . . . the integration of logic and experience, not an either-or situation.” 

Sean, I’m not sure what you mean by “the Peikoff brigade” a while back. He used the analogy of the spiral, with the top of the spiral being abstraction, and the bottom representing concrete reality. The point is to keep one’s abstractions grounded in reality, even as one draws out the abstract principles involved. I found it quite helpful. 

Related Reading:

Pavarotti and Rand

Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff 

Happy Birthday, Ayn Rand --America's Last Founding Father

Ayn Rand, a Russian Immigrant who escaped Communism to become an American novelist and philosopher, was born on February 2, 1905, in Saint Petersburg, Russia. 

After she came to America, she established herself as one of history’s foremost champions of reason, freedom, and individualism. Her place in history is that of an heir to a long line of intellectuals of The Enlightenment and of Americanism.

Rand once called Aristotle “America’s first Founding Father” because of his discovery of the laws of logic, which helped form the philosophic foundation for The United States of America. Since Rand established fully and explicitly, through her philosophy of Objectivism, the moral foundation of America’s Declaration of Independence, I believe she deserves the title America’s last Founding Father.

Her written works, interviews, and speeches are all still readily available for anyone interested.

I consider Ayn Rand to be one of the most important champions of individual liberty in world, and American, history. 

So, on this February 2, 2022, in recognition of her great intellectual and philosophic achievements, Happy Birthday, Ayn Rand.

Related Reading:

Ayn Rand’s Philosophic Achievement, Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4

QUORA: ‘Do you think rational selfishness compel you to donate money to causes, e.g. curing illnesses or to education?’

 QUORA* : ‘Do you think rational selfishness compel you to donate money to causes, e.g. curing illnesses or to education?’

I posted this answer:

To be rationally selfish is to think carefully about the values likely to contribute to your happiness and flourishing within consideration for the full, long term context of your life. To be rationally selfish likewise impells you to consciously place your values in a hierarchy of importance to your life, and to act accordingly. Certainly, there can be charitable causes that can fit into your hierarchy of values and to which you deem worthy of your donation. To donate to such causes would therefore be a rationally selfish thing to do, not as a duty or a sacrifice but as a reflection of your values. The only “rule” would be that you should never, as a rationally selfish person, sacrifice a higher value for something you value less. So your donations should be made as and when you can afford it, to causes you value, but not at the expense of giving up something you value more highly, such as the welfare of your children or your next mortgage or rent payment.

Related Reading:

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

QUORA *: ‘Is Ayn Rand wrong about altruism?’

Books to Aid in Understanding Rational Selfishness

QUORA: ‘Did Ayn Rand support the idea of giving to charity or donating your own money to help other people?’

QUORA: What does Ayn Rand think about vitrues [sic] such as charity, selflessness, and friendship?

Is Science Catching Up to the Objectivist Ethics?

QUORA: ‘What do people misunderstand about Ayn Rand's ideas?’

QUORA: 'How many libertarians know that Ayn Rand based her philosophy on a famous child murderer?'

 QUORA: 'How many libertarians know that Ayn Rand based her philosophy on a famous child murderer?' 

I posted this answer:

I'm not even sure it's a serious question. If it is, it's the stupidest critique I've ever seen written about Objectivism. As a believer in Objectivism, I’m offended. But unlike “cancel culture” cowards, I’ll meet the question head-on, even though I’m not a Libertarian (whatever that vague term means). 

Though this has nothing to do with Objectivis­m or the current debate, I’ll comment anyway. You are guilty of major context-dr­opping. Rand did not idolize a serial killer, but abstracted an apparent individual­ist character trait of [ William Edward] Hickman’s for the purpose of creating a profile for a potential novel character (which was never written). Isolating an attribute from an otherwise monster does not imply supporting the monster. People have often commented on the charisma of Hitler. Acknowledging that demagoguery and charisma often go together is not an endorsement of demagogues, or a condemnation of charisma. No one would accuse someone of basing their beliefs on a racist mass murderer simply for observing that Hitler had charisma. Plenty of great leaders had charisma. Likewise, just as admiration for the intelligen­ce of a master thief does not imply idolizatio­n of the criminal or his crime nor invalidate the virtue of intelligen­ce. How often do we read about a serial killer whose neighbors are shocked that such a “good neighbor and family man” could be such a cold-blooded killer? Does this mean that those neighbors’ beliefs are “based on a “famous serial killer?” Don’t make me laugh.

So it was with the 23-year-ol­d Ayn Rand in regard to Hickman. It should be noted Rand’s musings on Hickman are part of her private notes, published for educational purposes. They are not part of Objectivism, Rand’s developed philosophy. In Rand’s case, she observed an element of independence in Hickman’s character, and mused about a fictional character infused with that trait. Being an advocate of independence, it shouldn’t be surprising that she zeroed in on that element of Hickman. Plenty of good people have an independent mind. That doesn’t make independence a vice. I don’t believe that other people should exist for me, nor do I think they should. That belief is certainly better than being a parasite who believes the world owes me a living or happiness. Does that mean that my philosophy of life is based on Hickman? Give me a break.

Rand abhorred the depravity of Hickman's behavior, of course, and said so. Hickman is discussed extensively in "Journals" on pages 22, 27, 36-39, and 40-44. On page 22, I quote from editor David Harriman:

Hickman served as a model for Danny [Renahan, a character in Rand's "The Little Street"] only in strictly limited respects, which AR names in her notes. Danny does commit a crime in the story, but it is nothing like Hickman's. To guard against any misinterpretation, I quote her own statement regarding the relationship between her hero and Hickman:

"[My hero is] very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."

A question like this indicates a mind at an intellectual dead end. Unable to refute Rand’s ideas, the dead ender resorts to guilt by association and context-dropping.  Isolating and abstracting out a particular statement or character trait that one considers admirable is not an endorsement of that person’s life in full. Isolating and abstracting out is all that Rand did. 

Context is always crucial, and it’s right there in its entirety in “Journals of Ayn Rand”. It was 1928. One should take care to take isolated bits from never-inte­nded-for-p­ublication private journals and twist something ridiculous out of it. That statement is not an endorsemen­t of murder, as your quoting it absurdly implies. The totality of her published writing is an unequivoca­l condemnati­on of the initiation of physical force in human relationsh­ips, which she regarded as an unmitigate­d evil. How does that jibe with idolizing a killer? To believe that is to put yourself in the market for the Brooklyn Bridge.

Typical of her opponents, the questioner resorts to the cowardly ad hominem fallacy. It’s easy to cherry pick errors of thought or character flaws of thinkers, real or imagined. But Rand was 28 years old. Her philosophy was not fully developed until three decades later. Her chosen philosophical heir, Leonard Peikoff, systemized her philosophy in Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, published in 1993. The life and passing private thoughts of any intellectual can be anecdotally picked apart. But Rand’s philosophy is not called “Randism.” It is officially titled Objectivism, Rand’s own choice. If you’re going to critique Objectivis­m, then just do it. If you can find one shred of evidence that Objectivism is based on Hickman or any murderer, I’d love to see it. You can’t, because nobody can.*  To say that “Ayn Rand based her philosophy on a famous child murderer” because of musing in her private notes is a sign of a person who does not know what s/he is talking about and is at a mental dead end.

* [By the way, the link provided along with the question is of no help. Thom Hartmann’s article should be disregarded by anyone who objectively wants to make her own independent judgement on Objectivism. Hartmann’s screed boils down to an attack on Capitalism by a person who can’t refute Rand’s powerful defense of Capitalism on the merits.]

Related Reading:

Introduction to Objectivism from the Ayn Rand Institute

Books to Aid in Understanding Rational Selfishness

Did Ayn Rand Support the ‘Native American Genocide’?