Question for you regarding Altruism
Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 8 months ago to Philosophy
We've had a totally voluntary military for about 40 years now.
The ultimate altruistic act would be to willingly give one's life for others.
We've had several periods of conflict over those 40 years.
How do Objectivists view those who volunteer for the military? Especially the Army and Marines who have been the brunt of the casualties in the past 40 years.
Isn't volunteering for something that might result in the ultimate sacrifice, one's own life, for the benefit of others, the ultimate form of altruism?
Should those who volunteer for the military be admired, or vilified?
The ultimate altruistic act would be to willingly give one's life for others.
We've had several periods of conflict over those 40 years.
How do Objectivists view those who volunteer for the military? Especially the Army and Marines who have been the brunt of the casualties in the past 40 years.
Isn't volunteering for something that might result in the ultimate sacrifice, one's own life, for the benefit of others, the ultimate form of altruism?
Should those who volunteer for the military be admired, or vilified?
What anyone admires or vilifies is based on their values. I value individual human life and liberty and I admire those who take actions to protect and preserve it. I despise those who take actions which destroy it.
Individuals take actions based on their values. This may include self-sacrifice and serving others.Taking "value based" actions will result in greater happiness, or at least less guilt than not taking them.
Avoiding painful emotions may not be "true" happiness, but that doesn't change the fact that it's human nature to seek happiness and find a way to achieve it.
The "typical American" who volunteers for military service does not do so because they want to sacrifice their life, though some of them know that could happen.
The government of United States was based on the concept of unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I admire those who are willing to fight and, if necessary, die for those principles and I do not equate that with altruism in the least
I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Isn't military service "living for the sake of other men?" If you do not yourself volunteer for military service, but accept their protection, aren't you "asking others to live for mine?"
Not trying to be antagonistic, but trying to understand how Objectivists rectify this situation.
For some, that is their altruistic purpose. For others it the free education, room, board and training. For others it is what their step-father demands. For others they want to fly a fighter jet. For others...
It is all about the individual.
What about those who do so for "love of country" or "patriotism?"
There is not one right answer to this that includes everyone's views about values. We are NOT Borg.
I offer my gratitude as a small payment to those who have protected my liberty.
And even if she did subject herself to possible harm, how is that different from a soldier? Both do what they do in service to others.
If one person concludes it is in their self interest and another does not, how can they come to different conclusions based on the same data? Doesn't A=A?
What if nobody decided it was in their self interest, and the military ceased to exist, thus putting all at peril of being oppressed by an outside force?
So, a nation of such people that exists in a world of other beliefs would need to maintain a countervailing force to protect itself from the initiation of force by others (am I correct here? Or do you believe that such a force could only be assembled after being aggressed upon?). It is in the personal interest of each citizen to have such a force, is it not, as it protects the liberty of all?
Since such a force must be comprised of somebody, and it is in the personal interest of each individual, is it not logical that each individual should agree voluntarily to perform this activity? It is in their interest to do so.
If none chose to do so, wouldn't that open up all to the application of aggression by outside forces?
People aren't all the same. Even given the same situation and using their rational minds, they can come to different conclusions, don't you agree?
If none chose to do so, then your country is clearly not a very good country.
Really you argument boils down to the fact that you think it is important and therefore you think you should have the right to force other people to undertake military service.
It might be in my best interest to buy a certain car, let's say a Honda civic because I am single and because I commute 50 miles a day. That does not mean that it is in your best interest to buy a civic, if you have four kids and have to take them to school.
Love of Country depends on the country, it depends on the particularly time in that country. England was a great country worth of much love in the early 1800s. In the 1950s, England was a basket case not worthy of much love at all.
Whether the conscript feels altruistic or not is moot, since no choice is given.
People ignore the filter perception at their own peril.
The world is a messy place and you have to make judgments continually. You make that judgment using the best facts you have and your own reasoning and perception.
This is one of the areas where schools are really sticking it to the students. Teaching people to never judge anything is basically teaching them to never think for themselves either.
Do you consider yourself an Objectivist?
In short, I consider myself such but who knows what others think.
Matters not to me in any case.
So far, the interchange on this thread has been disappointingly void of information to understand the Objectivist views on the question.
Cops have no interest in protecting others, that's the part of their job they hate the most.
I volunteered both to give back to our country for what it had given me, and to change my life, and the potential tradeoff that I could become injured or killed was part of the fair exchange of value for value. Anyone who walks in not realizing that (ESPECIALLY nowdays) has their head in the clouds.
For me (and most people who served) it's not even an altruistic thing - it's a chance to get something, in this case maturity, training, and leadership qualities (and for the "o" ranks excellent management experience as well) for the cost of a few years of your life for something you love and believe in.
That's why most of us vets are not liked by the current dotgov... because we took that oath, and too it seriously. And *that* scares those people - that we made a promise, not to the Fuehrer but to the Nation and the Constitution, and have the backbone to keep it.
The part of your statement that causes me confusion is the "cost of a few years of your life for something you love and believe in."
I can assume by your confusion you haven't served. If you did, I would be surprised (shocked?) by not understanding that simple trade off.
I love my country and what it stood for. If its that part you don't understand, then we have no common ground to talk about.
On top of that, I got a multifaceted education, hands-on (and nerve wracking) leadership and decision making experience I wouldn't see in civilian life for many years. And it turned me from a no-account immature naïve person to someone who could stand up for her beliefs, convictions, and values, who could think under fire and make decisions impacting lives - and continue on.
You can't *buy* that at any cost, except by trading something of equal value.
Nothing "altruistic" in that at all. I did it for me, and for my home, family, and nation. I think - no, I *KNOW* - I came out way ahead on the deal.
Like I said... if you haven't been there, you can't understand.
Do you consider yourself an Objectivist? If not, then you probably cannot answer my queries. If so, the issue is with your statement that you did it for "something you believe in." That is not objective, it is subjective. I cannot observe, touch, test, measure what you "believe in." I thought that was anti-thetical to Objectivism. I'm trying to rectify that inconsistency.
I can't love giving something of value (my time, sweat, tears, investments, etc.) to get something in value in return?? Huh??
I can't desire capacity to increase my earning? I can't choose to spend (literal) my time to make my country someplace I want to live in?
Even worse, why does someone else have to measure - in their terms - what I do or do not hold as something of value? That's about the most anti-objective thing I can fathom. That's like saying just because I don't see the value in a pot of pig iron, then it has no value. Bull.
It's not up to another person to make the determination what has value to someone else. That's both non-objective and absolutely irrational, sorry.
Read Galt's oath - really grok that puppy - and tell me where I should have to base what I value on what another person feels is its worth.
There is a profound inconsistency in many here regarding such perspectives.
I don't negate your value in such things. Why do Objectivists negate mine?
I feel sorry for modern and future soldiers, in a military where PC inclusiveness and "feelings" matter more than winning wars.
I think it's only fair to the discussion that you offer your views on the questions. I'm interested in your thoughts on the subject.
Edit... Oh wait... thought you said "egoTist"... my bad. (they don't let me delete my posts...)
A draft would be considered evil because it is about forcing someone to fight, but Ayn Rand argued that it is good for men to volunteer to fight for their freedoms because it is in their self-interest to do so. (So keeping with objectivism.)
Fighting for your own home, or to protect yourself or your family I see no conflicts. But to potentially give your own life to save the lives of others, that would seem to be evil altruistic behavior. Can you clarify that for me?
And speak to any soldier, particularly those who were actually in combat. They will tell you that their motivation was almost exclusively collectivist (I fight for the guy in the other foxhole, and he fights for me).
"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.” '-AR, Philosophy Who Needs It?
I guess it is a warrior thing. Some of us have it, many don't. Those of us who ran (in my case flew) to the sound of gunfire would rather save the warrior next to us if we are both going to die if I don't fall on that grenade or I don't made that bomb run into intense anti aircraft fire to protect troops in contact (TIC). The film "Act of Valor" is a representation of true Navy SEAL acts of valor. They are spliced into a single fictional but credible story line. But they all happened some where to a real Navy SEAL. Lone Survivor is the same thing. A little Hollywood, guns blazing and bombs exploding in the last 10 minutes, but the rest was true to brave men who died that day in Afghanistan.
Cheers
Would an Objectivist, steeped in a philosophy of rational self-interest evaluation respond by throwing themselves on the grenade? I think not. They would either instinctually dive away (as would most - and I don't count me out of that group, I just don't know) or they would be tied up in an ethical discussion with themselves while the fuse burned down and it exploded.
No, it takes someone with a moral foundation of giving for their fellow human with greater reward in another life to take such an action instinctually. At least that's how I read the situation. You, of course, are free to disagree.
You can -1 me all you want, I don't care about points.
You are trying to make an argument about someone who makes rational analyses and decisions. With the grenade you don't have that luxury.
Stand up for your friends, that's fine with me. I'm here for honest and rational discourse, not to make/support friends.
It isn't a sacrifice, Robbie. It is a "visceral" reaction to preserve / save / protect something of such great value to yourself, that you would instantly risk your life. Such an action is in no way automatically defined as altruistic. Doing so would be to disregard or deny the truth of what happened. Atheists, Objectivists, Christians, or whatever have no doubt reacted for those very reasons in similar scenarios without a bit of altruism as the motivation.
I don't mean this flippantly, but please check your premises on this one. Other people, that you acknowledge have a greater grasp of Objectivism than you do, have been patiently trying to explain how your conclusions are not valid. When I said it wasn't hard to understand, I meant that honestly, not as a personal dig.
Have you ever put yourself in a situation where you might be called upon to make a decision to give your life - without rational thought and evaluation but "because it was the right thing to do?"
If so, then I'll give your perspective due respect and authority on the subject.
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I've been a soldier. I've trained in these situations. I've read about those who have made these types of decisions. I've never encountered, nor can imagine having being in the situation, an instance where not having a profound belief in something greater than oneself would lead to throwing oneself on a grenade - whether to save others, even those they valued highly - or not.
WWII is replete with instances of soldiers doing incredible acts of courage to save/protect fellow soldiers, even those they had absolutely no relationship with other than that they were fellow soldiers. This is not a rational evaluation, it is more visceral.
I ask you to check your premise.
Thank you.
Why would an Objectivist throw themselves on a grenade? They would be steeped in self interest. They would instinctually want to preserve themselves and dive away. At best, they might struggle with what to do, and with a grenade, you don't have time to struggle. You do, or you are dead.
Only one who has an instinctual basis to dive on that grenade will do so. Even one who values their friends highly will not instinctually dive on that grenade. They have to have a belief in something greater than themselves. That is not something that Objectivists have.
Your trite response is not worthy of your otherwise thoughtful posts.
A bit less plebian?
I DON"T CARE ABOUT THE POINTS - other than I find it amusing to see the trolls go through and down vote all my posts because they are so insecure in their own beliefs that they can't handle a rational challenge.
As for the altruism angle - this is one of the basic problems that I have with Objectivism. If I could get around this, perhaps I could be more aligned. Alas, the discussion here has had little to dissuade my views.
The simple answer to your first question is that they volunteer out of love for their country (the idea of America), not the people who happen to live in it.
It is also not as selfless an act as you make it out to be. Many people feel its very gratifying to have served in the armed forces.
You also make it sound like if you sign up you're probably going to die, that is not nearly the case at all. Commuting to work on an interstate highway is more likely to get you killed than joining the armed forces.
Would you insinuate that I risk my life for my boss every time I drive to and from work?
You can disparage the inquiry, that's OK. If it's clear to you, you can either help me better understand or just skip the discussion.
http://www.atlassociety.org/objectivism_...
I would not have volunteered for war, but would not have hesitated in the least if that were the assignment.
As it was, "peace" broke out in the '90's and military advancement slowed WAY down. Not a place for someone with aspiration. One of the reasons that the sr leadership isn't the best right now - the best got out and those with little competence/drive stayed behind (just my biased opinion, clearly).
People volunteer for the military for a whole panapoly of reasons only a few of which could be considered altruistic. In my case, as well as every vet I have ever discussed "why" with, it was never a single reason. Nor did I ever talk to anyone whose primary reason for joining was pure altruism. Nor did I ever talk to anyone who did not find any personal value in their own service.
What others think about my service matters less than nothing to me. It was something I did for my own benefit on a lot of different levels, not for the benefit of others.
Given what our society has been devolving into now, if I were to look at it on the basis of my service being pure altruism, I would come to the conclusion of "why on earth did I bother".
Your premise of altruism assumes that the volunteer gets no value from their service. That could not be further from the truth. Although much of the value gained is nearly impossible to explain to others.
Service in the military winds up being a mix of reward and sacrifice as follows any other life changing decision.
In the end whether you personally decide it was a good choice depends totally on you and what you make of it.
Are there risks? Absolutely
Is anything in life risk free? Absolutely not
Are there benefits? Absolutely, and obvious. In my opinion the obvious benefits far outweighed the risks.
Your mileage of course may vary.
My time in the Marines was rewarding, and had a lot more "fun" involved than any job I have had since.
OK. Take all of what you said, and apply it to Mother Theresa. I've seen Objectivists vilify her, yet I cannot see anything that you have described being any different for her serving the poor.
Do you see a difference?
If so, how do you rectify such difference?
Why should service in the military trigger either type of regard purely based on that fact without any other information on that individual?
We are more than our associations past or present.
Do you consider yourself an Objectivist? (I am not)
If you do, then I've seen numerous others make the case of vilifying MT and just want to get your take.
Objectivism fits me very well, so in that respect I would consider myself one, if you force me to self label.
Are there areas of friction between Objectivism and my personality? Yes
If I am required to be 100% in line with every tenet of Objectivism I guess the OI would say I am not.
I am not an atheist, so if that is your criteria of exclusion then I am not an Objectivist.
Some here would "shun" me on that basis, some would not.
I fear that you also cannot answer my query, as we have very different views on the issue than hard core O's. It is they whom I wish to engage.
I have dealt with this one before. For me it comes down to where one places the freedom of their posterity and loved ones in their hierarchy. If you cannot live with the consequences of seeing your loved ones (or your countrymen for that matter) live under tyranny of various degrees then you may determine that your sacrifice is in your best interest. If you would rather die to see someone else live because you could not live with the alternative... You may voluntarily enlist for many reasons even if a direct threat to your person is not imminent. Certainly one should take up arms in retaliation, but it is not outside objectivist doctrine to choose the life of another over one's self. The difference is between coercion/force and choice.
"Concern for the welfare of those he loves is a rational part of one's self interests. If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a "sacrifice" for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies.
Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him. In the above example, his wife's survival is of greater value to the husband than anything else that his money could buy, it is of greatest importance to his own happiness and, therefore, his action is not a sacrifice."
..." If it is the man or woman one loves, then one can be willing to give one's own life to save him or her---for the selfish reason that life without the loved person could be unbearable."
TVOS, pages 51-52
The principle is universal.
Regards,
O.A.
So, I think that we can agree that love is a sufficient motivator to offer oneself, up to and including death, to protect those whom the individual loves. And this is not an altruistic act, but an act of rational thinking, do I have that correct? That the sacrifice, should it come to that, is not an act of living for another but in one's own self interest?
I think this has played itself out. Find my reply to OA here - my feeling is that the word is stretched beyond it's actual meaning and O's insist on giving it meaning beyond what it is, which confuses folks like me because you are not using the word precisely.
Indeed. Many things one does are actually self motivated and rewarding. Charity for instance may not be altruistic if one receives a sense of satisfaction from the giving. Your own sense of well being, of esteem, is a matter of self interest. I do not believe in altruism. I have never made a "sacrifice" of choice without receiving something in return. Compulsory/ coerced giving/sacrifice is something altogether different.
Regards,
O.A.
To whit: Altruistic - having or showing a concern for the welfare of others (from Merriam-Webster). One can tell a lot about the overall context of the meaning of the word by examining it's synonyms - beneficent, benevolent, do-good, eleemosynary, good, humanitarian, philanthropic - none of which seem to carry the connotation of obligated servitude.
The extreme definition of altruism that seems to be the common interpretation of O's I would call slavery or bondage. Those, are evil.
There's another tortured definition that I have a problem with, but for the life of me, I'm at a loss to remember it at the moment. When I do, I'll add it.
This changes everything.
And if it has already been identified that she did so intentionally, then my evaluation probably has merit. Thanks.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/af...
Well, it looks like we are on the same page. :)
Regards,
O.A.
Selfish has other connotations, that I agree, she wanted as they are provocative. She intentionally wanted to draw attention.
There is much more to it than that and her source for the particular meaning is provided in at least one of her books, but at the moment it escapes me.
I think this can easily happen when we are discussing definition of words with ethical systems. In this case "altruism" vs. "egoism." They are related but the concepts are somewhat different.
Perhaps Altruism could be considered an "unintended consequence" of serving in the military
Funny how the usual crowd has been quiet on this topic.
The choice is voluntary now. Military participation provides value (experience, camaraderie, discipline, scholarship opportunity) in exchange for human participation value. The choice is at least partly selfishly made, but likely not completely.
I express gratitude to all who have participated in the military. I did not ask you to live for my life, but given that you did so or are doing so, I will gladly say "Thank you."
I asked the questions elsewhere, but will summarize here - If voluntary military service is in one's interest for one, why wouldn't it be for another? If it is in one's self interest on a voluntary basis, why would that be different for compulsory service?
This area, like a couple of others, raises contradictions, at least in my mind, on some of the fundamental tenets of Objectivism that I cannot seem to reconcile.
If someone dies in voluntary defense of their ideas and values, and it saves countless others as a secondary consequence, there is no contradiction. That person didn't die in the fight "for them", that person died in a fight for what they thought was personally important.
Before you decide something is a contradiction, just be sure you are starting from the correct premise.
You're a smart guy that makes great point now and then, but it seems you are only interested in sniping at Objectivism while trying to cloak it in curiosity. You've stated recently, you don't think Objectivism is worth further investigation on your part. That's fine. Rational people will disagree at times. It's part of learning.
I'm not looking for someone to "lay it all out" for me. This is a rather narrow and I think self-contained issue. Why is it so difficult to provide an answer?
It hasn't been difficult to provide you with good answers. Multiple people have given you great answers on this topic. That you seem to want to further beg the questions, as if you haven't received valid information from them, comes off below your level of intelligence.
Come on, Robbie; you've been on this forum for almost 2 years and you have almost 400 topics. Don't you think you've tested the waters enough to read a little book like The Virtue of Selfishness, or Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal? Be a sport. :D
You're standing in the Dollar General. A maniac walks in, and pulls a gun. You stand up, pull your own, which you've practiced with for hours and hours, and shoot him dead.
Did you shoot him for the lives of everyone else in the store? No, you were defending your own life, and in the process the lives of everyone else in the store, even those who prefer not to carry their own weapons.
Do they owe you? No. You did it for practical purposes. That it also saved them is just a nice bonus.
btw - I can now do some of that practicing that you speak of. Found a stash of 22LR and I've been buying it as fast as I can. Limit is 3 boxes of 100 per visit (they say per day, but morning noon and eve has gone fine). They still have a couple cases left and I'll get it all if I can. 10 cents a round - highway robbery.
Is it altruistic to defend and protect the country that guarantees your freedoms?
This is not a one single firm answer from the collective mind type question. It's all about the individual and what each person values.
Isn't protecting that freedom rational?
Can a rational mind come to a different conclusion?
“Isn't protecting that freedom rational?” I'd say most would say, yes. Most would also ask, "at what cost?"
“Can a rational mind come to a different conclusion?” What conclusion is that?
Check your premise.
http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com...
Proud Legions:
http://space4commerce.blogspot.com/2006/...
"Everywhere Matt Ridgway went, however, he found the same question in men's minds: What the hell are we doing in this godforsaken place?
If men had been told, Destroy the evil of Bolshevism, they might have understood. But they did not understand why the line must be held or why the Taehan Minkuk – that miserable, stinking, undemocratic country – must be protected.
The question itself never concerned Matt Ridgway. At the age of fifty-six, more than thirty years a centurion, to him the answer was simple. The loyalty he gave, and expected, precluded the slightest questioning of orders. This he said:
The real issues are whether the power of Western Civilization, as God has permitted it to flower in our own beloved lands, shall defy and defeat Communism; whether the rule of men who shoot their prisoners, enslave their citizens, and deride the dignity of man, shall displace the rule of those to whom the individual and his individual rights are sacred; whether we are to survive with God's hand to guide and lead us, or to perish in the dead existence of a Godless world."