Bring4th

Full Version: Food for Thought: A passage on altruism
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I want to see what people's thoughts on this passage are. It's from a woman that advocated ethical selfishness as a concept:

Quote:What is the moral code of altruism? 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. 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.”

-Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who needs it?

True, false or both in certain degrees?
I'm of the mind that even being here is a sacrifice. We gave up things to be here.
She has a warped definition of altruism. As she has defined it, I would not seek altruism. It is not our moral imperative to sacrifice ourselves just to justify our existence. Self destruc4tion is pointless and serves no higher moral purpose. One part is not more important than another part, no matter who that part is. The Whole is more important than the parts though. But much like a body, the health of the whole is a factor of the health of the parts. So sacrifice for the whole is purposeful and moral from the perspective of the Whole (positive polarity).

Oneness recognizes that all is Self. Even others. We are all part of the same Self.

Whether we call serving that greater Self, at the expense of the little self, altruism or not does not concern me. There is no infinite morality to which all beings must adhere to. There is no right or wrong.

There is just intent, and those thoughts and behaviors which are consonant with that intent. Do you wish to serve the greater Self or the little self? Do you wish to polarize positively, or negatively? Do you seek connection or separation? They each have their rewards, and their sacrifices. Each enjoys a different picnic. But if you are basking in the warmth of the sunlight, you are not basking in the cloak of darkness, and vice versa.

Realities are energized or given beingness/value by the contrast of their sacrifice/opposites. That is the nature of duality.

So in that sense, all beings are sacrificial. But it is only sacrifice if you recognize the value that which is being given up. Otherwise, you are still in the garden, waiting to be offered the fruit by the snake. Wink

Fang

There are few names in this world which will put a shiver down my spine like "Ayn Rand"

Unbound

The core problem with her approach, imo, is the assumption that all people have desires which are self-centric and so she appears to be incapable of fathoming the idea that for some people the needs and the desires of the self ARE the desire to help/love others. Thus, she views all giving to others as self-sacrifice because she views all individuals as innately selfish and that any giving to others is at the cost of the self. However, I strongly believe that there are those who give to others and it is not ever a sacrifice because the giving is exactly what they want to do and also how they give to themselves. The idea of altruism is, of course, flawed so long as the assumption is made that everyone is, by their nature, innately selfish.

So, that being said, I think her whole argument is an abstraction that doesn't actually include all the factors that are at play. She is arguing against a particular form of 'altruism' which, I bet, is modeled after the christian concept of it.
From other things I've seen from her, her philosophy seems built on negative perceptions of others. On the face of it there is a certain logic to the above, especially in this modern world where there is so much suffering..we can't fix everything. But as Tanner said, sacrifice isn't sacrifice if that's what gives your life meaning. To support her argument, she'd have to consider the how's and why's a beggar exists, and if those things concern her.
Ahh, 'randian' philosophy...

*Hides inside cave for a while"
If we look at people from different stages of development in life (from 0 to adults), Ayn Rand's take on the virtues of selfishness is akin to late childhood stage. Perhaps this is the appeal of Atlas Shrugged among youth and why we've seen narcissism (not as a clinical disorder but as a personality trait) become very prominent in our society. By adolescence and even pre-adolescence you do observe how teens are able to share resources with each other and think beyond 'what would be pleasurable to me and satisfy my own needs'. When we see how narcissism and selfishness is justified, really, we're dealing with teens who misunderstand authority and autonomy from this childhood tendency towards satisfying their own needs. We're entitled to satisfying our own pleasures and pursuing our pleasures without consideration for how we affect others. Whereas, those adolescents who moved on are more apt to realize that the world doesn't revolve around their needs and pleasures.

What Rand does is to attempt to reject the blue vmeme value of following authority and structure (which she learned via her own experience w/ dictatorial and oppressive communist Russia) by elevating the orange vmeme that has to do with personal achievement and individualism. Only when we begin to understand how we interact with each other and value our connection with others do we get to the next stage of development (pluralism - the acknowledgment that there are other ways of being and doing, that there are other people!) - the green vmeme. So Rand's philosophy is very much regressive and reactionary. Her critics have even gone as far as suggesting the sociopathic nature of her philosophy lol but you can't be a sociopath unless you actually violate other people's human rights and have gone to jail for it (sociopathy is a 'mild' version of something more serious like psychopathy).
(05-14-2014, 01:03 PM)reeay Wrote: [ -> ]...Whereas, those adolescents who moved on are more apt to realize that the world doesn't revolve around their needs and pleasures...
I thought infinity founded this universe on the fulfillment of experience being its desire. I thought worlds were designed to fulfill needs and pleasures.

If I don't serve my pleasures, whose am I to serve and why are their pleasures above mine? What kind of relationship does this build over the long-term? People throwing themselves into a fiery pit for the good of mankind so that we may not burden mother Earth with their worthless mouths that need to be fed?

I see no justification for your arguments of development.
Developmentally speaking, maturity means that your awareness and consideration is more 'far-reaching' or 'expanded' than just the self - that you are able to make decisions based on information gained from own self (e.g., own needs) and about others, about groups/society, and about future generations, even. More complex. It says nothing about sacrifice lol.

Not saying developmental theories tell people what to think, it highlights the complexity of how people make decisions. As we expand our awareness and consideration to a wider range, we're acknowledging that we're connected (our actions can have consequences for others) and thus more able to take responsibility for our decisions.
And how did Rand advocate for the disconsideration of others? She speaks on respecting the rights of others under the non-aggression principle?

"In an essay called "Man's Rights" in the book "The Virtue of Selfishness" she formulated: "The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. ... In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.""
I see Ayn Rand's philosophy as the result of a complete unwillingness to look beyond the self and see the value in other-selves, and as such it limits the development of the self in the way the one interacts with and find meaning in relationships with others. I've always found her philosophy kind of childish, and without any basis in reality. In fact her philosophy of self-reliance is difficult if not impossible for one to abide by in human society, as can be seen by the fact that in her later years Ayn herself signed up for both Social Assistance and Medicare, becoming the exact sort of "social parasite" that she criticized so much in her books, as a result of illness. Her sickness itself was a reflection of her bullheaded denial of reality: she smoked two packs a day her whole life and refused to believe studies that showed cigarettes caused cancer, saying they were the result of the “unscientific and irrational nature of the statistical evidence.” She stopped smoking only when shown an x-ray of her lungs showing cancer, yet when approached by her collective about telling some of her fans that still smoked about the dangers of smoking she still refused the evidence as unscientific.

To find more evidence of Ayn's hypocrisy and it's effects on her personal life you just have to look at her love life. for someone who found emotionality to be irrational, she sure had a lot of intense lovers spats with the young men she would seduce. Tongue

What's scary to me is that her philosophy was and is so intoxicating to young minds, and has had such a strong impact on our society. Generations of men and women seduced by the selfish desire for power have sought government office or high positions in the financial system, the most notable perhaps would be Ayn's protege Alan Greenspan who ran Wall Street for decades. Ayn's influence can be seen in how uncaring and impersonal our society has become, how we see emotion and caring as weaknesses. And mirroring her own dysfunction, our nations have become highly dysfunctional.

tl;dr I feel that it is a strength to care for others and it makes our society strong and I cannot wait for us to move out of Ayn Rand's shadow.
She had paid for said social assistance her entire life in the US through her income taxes and social security payments, if not for more than what she was given.
(05-14-2014, 01:37 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]And how did Rand advocate for the disconsideration of others? She speaks on respecting the rights for others under the non-aggression principle?

"In an essay called "Man's Rights" in the book "The Virtue of Selfishness" she formulated: "The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. ... In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.""

I'm not saying it's disconsideration rather than it is very self-centric. I know her use of selfish is not as we use it typically (which is kind of the flaw here bc she's using a highly emotionally charged word and of course people will react to it). It's a stance where you're saying I am not going to sacrifice myself for the needs and want of others or I am not going to not do something bc that means I'll be giving up something that I rationalized as being a benefit to all. memememememememememe lol
Anyways, I think Objectivism is a poorly-thought philosophy; however, I don't find the arguments against it here to be very complete. I know for a fact the woman would think I'm a parasite but that doesn't stop me from having an honest intellectual lens over her work.
(05-14-2014, 01:46 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]She had paid for said social assistance her entire life in the US through her income taxes and social security payments, if not for more than what she was given.

thus proving the value of such institutions
(05-14-2014, 01:46 PM)reeay Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2014, 01:37 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]And how did Rand advocate for the disconsideration of others? She speaks on respecting the rights for others under the non-aggression principle?

"In an essay called "Man's Rights" in the book "The Virtue of Selfishness" she formulated: "The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. ... In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.""

I'm not saying it's disconsideration rather than it is very self-centric. I know her use of selfish is not as we use it typically (which is kind of the flaw here bc she's using a highly emotionally charged word and of course people will react to it). It's a stance where you're saying I am not going to sacrifice myself for the needs and want of others or I am not going to not do something bc that means I'll be giving up something that I rationalized as being a benefit to all. memememememememememe lol

What if nobody ever sacrificed themselves? What would happen in your view?

(05-14-2014, 01:48 PM)Spaced Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2014, 01:46 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]She had paid for said social assistance her entire life in the US through her income taxes and social security payments, if not for more than what she was given.

thus proving the value of such institutions

The money was forcibly taken from her. She didn't have a choice. Should she have never taken her money back?

She could have easily proved otherwise, or at least had the chance to, if she re-invested her money elsewhere for private care.
lol I find other critiques to be more mind boggling like these but it has some element of truth in them.

[Image: cc7b106657e7038377d89618509a84ebfd639e3a...fa59e1.jpg]

Quote:There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
(some dude)
This is a very intellectually invigorating discussion.
Why does it have to be sacrificing?
I will define sacrifice in my own personal context:

Sacrifice is suppressing the desires of the self significantly in order to meet a desire of the self, towards serving the desires of another and/or serving the desires of the self.
As stated above by others, Rand's use of altruism is completely different from Ra's use of the word altruism: Ra states that in the positive or altruistic path the self is an other self also to be served.

(05-14-2014, 03:55 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]I will define sacrifice in my own personal context:

Sacrifice is suppressing the desires of the self significantly in order to meet a desire of the self, towards serving the desires of another and/or serving the desires of the self.

Depends on how the sacrifice is processed. I think there are some sacrifices (dying for a worthy cause that saves many other innocent lives etc) that is not a suppression of desire as much as it is a reconciliation of conflicting desires. All of one's desires rarely point in one direction. You don't necessarily need to suppress a desire in order to resolve this conflict.


However, I would agree though that many people suppress desires (or control desires) in order to resolve conflicting desires rather than to ponder and contemplate how they truly wish to resolve their conflicting desires at a deep level (or accept/understand that some desires will not be fulfilled at this time).
(05-14-2014, 03:55 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]I will define sacrifice in my own personal context:

Sacrifice is suppressing the desires of the self significantly in order to meet a desire of the self, towards serving the desires of another and/or serving the desires of the self.

and what's your personal relationship to the concept of 'sacrifice' Adonai?

I mean, is 'sacrifice' something that you would consider, or do consider, or practice?

(in your own context, of course, as per the definition you gave)
I followed the words of my school teachers and my parents completely since a young child. It compromised my ability to socially develop, it compromised my ability to work for I always feared reprisal from said teachers. I woke up one day realizing that they had no power over me and that their requests were optional.

I walked out of class that day, told my mother that school did not benefit me and made it final. I never went to school again with little approval from my parents initially but I made my choice to respect my mental health. This was in late high school.

I had sacrificed all of my life and then I saw that sacrifice was unnecessary. I suffered afterwards looking for a meaning and a good career without higher education. I almost went through the pattern of self-sacrifice again by joining The National Guard or an oil rigger -- after Wal-Mart.

Instead, I made a request to the universe for a teacher, guidance. My wife showed up through a series of events. I also received spiritual guidance on how to balance myself, accept myself.

By not choosing to sacrifice myself, life has been much better for me and I feel I will be able to better aid people because of my choices, rather than be in poor physical and mental health after working a sacrificial job by "serving my country" either by war, oil... or retail.

I am currently using magical ability (requests to the universe) to manifest most of my desires. I live by faith literally in all ways. Not sacrifice, not conviction to one goal but an openness to always being provided for in some way.
thanks Adonai. It's appreciated.

So if I am understanding correctly, one day you just decided that you would no longer submit to others (the system, the authority etc) and decided to make your own way through life, to assert your own desires and will?

I actually made a similiar decision myself when my parents were making us kids go to chinese language school on one day of the weekend (making my school week a 6 day affair, although the language classes were usually held in the city etc).

But I might have been 11 years old I think? But I made a decision, and then expressed to my parents in no uncertain terms that those classes were irrelevant to me (I grew up speaking English in an English country) and that I would no longer attend. My parents sort of recognised a powerful 'will' and not only did I no longer need to go, but my younger brother and younger sister both were withdrawn as well (much to their relief).

So standing up for yourself and what you believe in does prevent one from being rolled into the ground by the larger system.

After all, we are all unique individuals and don't need the same 'program' to develop.

peace brother.
It never occurred to me to quit school, even when it got hard.
I guess I liked punishment, since I went through my masters degree.
But a doctorate would be too specialized and would not serve me at work.
In fact the masters just cost me more money (in loans) and does not help my position at work.
(05-16-2014, 03:39 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: [ -> ]It never occurred to me to quit school, even when it got hard.
I guess I liked punishment, since I went through my masters degree.
But a doctorate would be too specialized and would not serve me at work.
In fact the masters just cost me more money (in loans) and does not help my position at work.

Yeah doctorate degree isn't that useful (unless profession requires it, even then it depends what exactly you want to do in career). In some ways I do regret going for one and in others it made sense.

If you'd asked high school-Rie whether she'd get advanced degrees she'd prob be like, you cray-cray to think that. lol