altruism as neutral if voluntary, dangerous, or always harmful?
Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
Lucky posed an interesting question.
I don't think that you can call voluntary "altruism" altruism. By the very fact that it is voluntary, it was chosen to be done by the individual. Ipso, facto, it must be in the self-interest of the individual, thus should more appropriately be called benevolence. Benevolent action is good, as it is action that the individual does because it serves them first, as well as others.
Altruism must be imposed on you.
Those are my thoughts. What say you?
I don't think that you can call voluntary "altruism" altruism. By the very fact that it is voluntary, it was chosen to be done by the individual. Ipso, facto, it must be in the self-interest of the individual, thus should more appropriately be called benevolence. Benevolent action is good, as it is action that the individual does because it serves them first, as well as others.
Altruism must be imposed on you.
Those are my thoughts. What say you?
That doesn't mean that acts of charity are necessarily self-destructive. They might (in moderation) be consistent with one's well-being. However, one's judgment and volition are important to ensure that the act is part of one's personal flourishing.
I see nothing wrong with charity and benevolence if it is not self-sacrifice and if it is a value to you. I believe you receive something in return, even if it is just a good feeling, or "satisfaction." If it brings you pleasure or peace and you value that more than the currency or your time...Their is nothing I am aware of that precludes your freely given true benevolence or charity.
From Rand:
"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral and primary virtue." Playboy, March 1964
"The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.
It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helpless 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...
To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism's terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste---then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.E., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver's virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such." "The Question of Scholarships," The Objectivist, June 1966, 6
More: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charit...
So, it matters why you give and how it is received. If you know the people receiving your generosity have good character, but just need a little help and might return the favor, then it would seem you are not sanctioning/rewarding an undeserved demand or bending to the duty/altruism others may push on you. It is fine if you are giving to someone with or without out need, just because it makes you feel good... again, so long as it is not demanded of you or forced by others or out of some sense of altruistic duty.
Regards,
O.A.
So, altruism is not the act, but the intentions of the act? Both of the giver as well as the receiver?
There is something wrong with Robbie's statement but it does recognize the importance of the topic. In AS, Rand portrays the social workers as on a power trip, I am not clear if they are government workers or volunteers. Even if they were, could they have prevented Cheryl from jumping into the river? and how should they be paid or rewarded?
As I see it, the Austrian position is that the giving of one's own money is always ok and no analysis or follow up is valid, Objectivism however requires actions to support values.
More thought is needed.
From the AS Part 3 dvd fresh in my mind as received only last week.
My answer to your question may surprise you, Yes.
If you give to unfortunates who are down but trying, or if they are truly incapacitated, that is charity. If you give to those who can but do not try, that action only diminishes yourself, and it encourages sponging. To alleviate the suffering of the dying, provide medical care to the careless or unlucky, honorable. To encourage dependency is only worthless sacrifice.
There is no avoiding the need to use your mind whatever your heart says. (Re JohnGalt's advice to Dagny on making a decision).
A quote from old Persia- 'If grief like fire should give out smoke, ever it would be night on earth'.
There is no end to worthy causes, so do not waste resources on the worthless.
Robbie, a q. for you. I am not going to answer, I am out of it for a few days: Is there a contradiction in my argument above?
So, assuming that you are enough of an Objectivist to understand the whole "living for another" concept, then how do you rectify the need to take into account the whole issue regarding the motivations of the recipient of a charitable action? Wouldn't that be "living for another?"
Have you not heard about the scams that after some disaster, money is collected for the victims but does not get thru? The givers are partly to blame by using heart and not head.
Now, if you are asking me if I have a problem with the 'strong' form of Objectivism which condemns, but would not stop, any charity, then yes I do, but I may have misinterpreted. I find Galt's speech in AS 3 easy to like.
What do you do with your money?
1. spend on coke and hookers, pleasure.
2. give away without thought, warm smug feeling.
3. give away after checking, warm smug feeling justified as you have done some work that gives you some assurance that the money goes where you want.
You may have a religion that says pleasure and warm feelings are bad, so then you have to use wealth in a way you dislike, some contradiction here.
All this needs more analysis and codification. Certainly more thinking, reading and tighter logic from me. Altruism properly defined may fit entirely in Objectivism.
Ok, what do you, Robbie53024, think?
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/1e...