The most dangerous religion

[pjclarke]

It wouldn't be selfless then. So no, they can't.

So we can agree to differ. A good thing.

My chief objection to Rand and her followers is this: she redefines altruism as a Bad Thing. And yet it only takes a moment for me to remember examples when I have benefited from others 'altruism' (e.g. the midwives who oversaw the birth of my son). Does caring about my boy's welfare count as stupid self-sacrifice? I am pretty certain that Rand's take on the human condition is lacking. Lacking the insight that only becoming a parent endows.

[SpontaneousOrder]

when I have benefited from others 'altruism' (e.g. the midwives who oversaw the birth of my son).

But that's the thing... it's an imaginary conflict. How is a midwife overseeing a birth of a child altruistic? Rand certainly would never describe it as being altruistic at least - and it's her ideas that we're discussing.

Bringing home food to a hungry family, and then giving it to a stranger's kids instead (e.g. in a self-sacrifice as a virtue kind of way that christianity has espoused over the years) would be altruistic.

Rand is essentially agreeing with Aristotle, and putting it into a mid 20th century context, when he says:

it is said that we should love our best friend, and the best friend, is he who when he wishes for someone’s good does so for that person’s sake even if no one will ever know. Now a man has this sentiment, primarily toward himself, and the same is true of all the other sentiments of which a friend is defined. For as we have stated, all friendly feelings toward others are an extension of the friendly feelings a person has for himself. All these sentiments will be found chiefly in a man’s relation to himself, since a man is his own best friend, and therefore should have the greatest affection for himself.

There is nothing wrong with man helping his fellow man, so long as that man himself is his own highest value & gives the help because it pleases him to do so, and the recipient is worthy of it.

It's the difference between helping someone out in a time of difficulty, and giving half of your income away to charity as a matter of course - because the good of the collective is more important than the good of one's self.

[Cenobite]

Bringing home food to a hungry family, and then giving it to a stranger's kids instead (e.g. in a self-sacrifice as a virtue kind of way that christianity has espoused over the years) would be altruistic.

I tried reading "Atlas Shrugged" once but just couldn't get through it. However, I listened to a great podcast about Objectivism recently which explained how criticism of Rand is essentially criticism of Aristotle Freedomain Radio Podcasts from Stefan Molyneux

[d000hg]

See? I can make meaningless throw-away comments too.

Nobody was under any doubt about that.

[pjclarke]

In which case the word loses most of its usual meaning. Under that definition a talented graduate (say)who decides to pursue a poorly-rewarded career as a teacher, or nurse rather than going to work for an investment bank, because he finds it more rewarding in some emotional way, is in fact acting selfishly. Hmmm...

As usual, Rand takes the idea to an extreme

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. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”

The Ayn Rand lexicon.

Which is at odds with, for example the wikipedia entry on altruism which starts

Altruism or selflessness is the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures and a core aspect of various religious traditions and secular worldviews, though the concept of "others" toward whom concern should be directed can vary among cultures and religions.

So the mainstream definition is ' principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others' while in Rand's world it is not to be confused with 'kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others'

As rational wiki says,

'Objectivists commonly take a word, change its meaning to fit their needs, and then complain that no one else is using their definitions. This has often led to confusion in debates, as neither side knew that they were both speaking two different languages. '

[SpontaneousOrder]

Under that definition a talented graduate (say)who decides to pursue a poorly-rewarded career as a teacher, or nurse rather than going to work for an investment bank, because he finds it more rewarding in some emotional way, is in fact acting selfishly. Hmmm...

yes.

Which is at odds with, for example the wikipedia entry on altruism which starts

I gave you 2 entries from dictionaries, and you ignore them and come back with a snip from wikipedia?! It doesn't look as though truth is what you're interested in.

You need also to remember that language, apart from often being used/understood poorly, is dynamic. Rand wrote this stuff long before you were born.

So the mainstream definition is ' principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others' while in Rand's world it is not to be confused with 'kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others'

No... you quoted:

Altruism or selflessness is the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures and a core aspect of various religious traditions and secular worldviews, though the concept of "others" toward whom concern should be directed can vary among cultures and religions.

Note the bit in bold (although if you weren't trying to pretend you didn't see the dictionary entries it wouldn't matter).

As rational wiki says,

[I]rationalwiki is a site maintained by a load of wind-up merchants from the sceptic community (atheists who think they are amazing brainiacs because they have realised that god is a delusion and therefore don't need to apply any real thought to anything else they choose to comment on) , in response to the fundie christian conservopedia. It's generally bollocks, and why would you expect anything else from a group of guys who are such losers that they feel the need to put such effort into making non-atheists look silly - anyone with half a brain would already know that if you're not an atheist you're off your rocker. The fact that so much effort is put into engaging with religious folk speaks volumes about the credibility of that sceptic community.

Apart from that, why do you assert that she altered the meaning of words, and then quote rationalwiki as some kind of argument from authority? She either did or didn't - how does rational wiki's opinion make any difference?

[pjclarke]

Cos, as I wrote, she takes it to the extreme. According to her altrusim is not altruism unless it involves 'self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction'.

Personally, I can help an old lady across the street without pouring petrol over myself and getting friendly with a match.

She also wrote, when redefining my other example, charity,

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal . .

which I disagree with; in my view altruistic behaviour is a consequence of the benevolent impulse, not a corruption of it. And, as Chris Hitchens wryly remarked, it takes a strange mind indeed to look around us and conclude that there is just too much altruism (using the usual definition) in the world .....

But we did this one.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I tried reading "Atlas Shrugged" once but just couldn't get through it. However, I listened to a great podcast about Objectivism recently which explained how criticism of Rand is essentially criticism of Aristotle Freedomain Radio Podcasts from Stefan Molyneux

I've just started reading The Fountain Head. People generally say to read that first, to get the most out of Atlas Shrugged. I read AS first, but I'd already read some of her non-fiction.

If you ever get around to trying again, the story is actually really good - you just have to wait a long time for plots to unfold because it's so big. The genius thing about it, I think, is that given that it's 1100 pages of small print - full of lots of character detail - pretty much every single piece of that detail exists for a reason, as it unfolds.

Don't be tempted to watch the films - they don't even make sense in the context of the book's story. They're junk.

On a different topic, Molyneux did a good vid about Emma Watson's (harry potter girl) feminist speech at the UN recently.

[darmstadt]

I've just started reading The Fountain Head. People generally say to read that first, to get the most out of Atlas Shrugged. I read AS first, but I'd already read some of her non-fiction.

If you ever get around to trying again, the story is actually really good - you just have to wait a long time for plots to unfold because it's so big. The genius thing about it, I think, is that given that it's 1100 pages of small print - full of lots of character detail - pretty much every single piece of that detail exists for a reason, as it unfolds.

Don't be tempted to watch the films - they don't even make sense in the context of the book's story. They're junk.

On a different topic, Molyneux did a good vid about Emma Watson's (harry potter girl) feminist speech at the UN recently.

Its 'The Fountainhead' and its a novel, its not real, bit like the Bible actually.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Cos, as I wrote, she takes it to the extreme. According to her altrusim is not altruism unless it involves 'self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction'.

Personally, I can help an old lady across the street without pouring petrol over myself and getting friendly with a match.

Right, but that's not altruism!!! you can't just keep on insisting that words mean what you want them to mean - when they don't.

She also wrote, when redefining my other example, charity,



which I disagree with; in my view altruistic behaviour is a consequence of the benevolent impulse, not a corruption of it. And, as Chris Hitchens wryly remarked, it takes a strange mind indeed to look around us and conclude that there is just too much altruism (using the usual definition) in the world .....

But we did this one.

Yeah, we did. But Hitchens was wrong - looking at the history of the last century, the cult of altruism is a major cause of much of the cruelty and suffering we've seen.

Re altruism & benevolent impulses - it's when that benevolent impulse is self-sacrificial in nature that it's altruistic. I.e. If you value justice for example, and you give up your time and effort to help someone see justice, then your actions haven't been altruistic ; You've laboured to make the world a better place - for YOU. You recognised and acted to further a virtue, which result's in pride - the root of all real human happiness.

When you see a beggar in the street and you buy him a cup of coffee out of pitty, you don't suffer for that. The cost of the coffee is insignificant. You've indulged your emotions (an essential art of being a man) and have had the rational self-interest to only buy him a coffee - not to give him your house. That isn't altruism.

If you're out on a cold night and you give your coat to a stranger - to relieve his suffering and take it upon yourself instead - then that is altruistic; You've exchanged another's suffering for your own - not to buy some other virtue, as an investment - but because you have valued yourself less than (or equal to) another.
The doctrine of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is altruistic.


Rational self-interest cannot be altruistic - they are exactly opposed. Rand's work on selfishness (rather than self-destruction) as a virtue makes the disctinction clearer.