Did John Galt practice altruism?

Posted by Solver 9 years, 7 months ago to Philosophy
15 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Robbie53024 inspired this post, stating that Merriam-Webster defines “altruism” simply as,
“having or showing a concern for the welfare of others”

John Galt risked his life for another. And so did Francisco and Ragnar.
So did John Galt have or show concern for the welfare of others?
If so, using this definition, doesn't this prove that John Galt practiced altruism?

Going the other way,

Merriam-Webster defines “selfish” less simply as,
“having or showing concern only for yourself and not for the needs or feelings of other people”

So did John Galt have or show concern only for himself?
Did John Galt not have or show concern for the needs or feelings of other people?
Unless both questions above can be answered, “yes”, using this definition, doesn't that prove that John Galt was NOT selfish?

So seemingly, using these common definitions of the words, this proves that John Galt was not selfish and practiced altruism.
So how many things can you find wrong with this logic?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ShruginArgentina 9 years, 7 months ago
    I was thinking about this question (thanks to Robbie) last night after I went to bed. I wasn't thinking about John Galt, however, when I reached into my bookcase and retreived the only book I now own that was written by Ayn Rand.

    I haven't reread it in decades, so it took almost three minutes to find the following on page 636:

    Roark smiled. "Gail, if this boat were sinking, I'd give my life to save you. Not because it's any kind of duty. Only because I like you, for reasons and standards of my own. I could die for you, but I couldn't and wouldn't live for you."

    "Howard, what were the reasons and standards/"
    Roark looked at him and realized that he had said all the things he had tried not to say to Wynand.

    He answered: "That you weren't born to be a second-hander."

    Two of the questions Robbie posed in his intital post were:

    How do Objectivists view those who volunteer for the military?

    and

    "Should those who volunteer for the military be admired, or vilified?"

    I won't repeat the answer I gave last night but I will add that the "second-hander" is the one who is primarily concerned with how others view his actions is of greater importance to him than his own judgement. An independent indiviual who thinks for him/herself does not base his opinions of him/self on the oinions of others.

    Trying to claim that John Galt was or was not selfish or altrusitic based on a few specific actions does not deal with the moral premise of altruism

    The basic premise of altruism is that the (moral)puropse of life is serving others, not pursuing one's own self interest or happiness, and that sacrificing one's self interest and happiness for the sake of others is of greater value than achieving it.

    Few who advocate altruism (and reject Rand)recognize thae fact theat John Galt did not seek his own happiness at the expense of others, Nor do they realize that those of us who are selfishly cling to reason in real life do not do so, either.


    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ShruginArgentina 9 years, 7 months ago
      I cannot edit the above post. The last sentence should read:


      Few who advocate altruism (and reject Rand) recognize the fact that John Galt did not seek his own happiness at the expense of others, nor do they realize that those of us who are selfishly clinging to reason in real life do not do so, either.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 7 months ago
        Hello ShruginArgentina,
        Good material. It often boils down to free will; doesn't it?
        What is going on in Argentina with the default/bankruptcy? I've only heard a little bit on the news a few days ago...
        Regards,
        O.A.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 7 months ago
    Often, as in this situation, there are multiple reasons for taking action (or not), some of which may be selfish and some of which may appear altruistic. I realize I didn't answer Solver's questions.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 7 months ago
    The problem with confusing everyday definitions with philosophical definitions is that you cannot build an ethical system around ““having or showing concern only for yourself and not for the needs or feelings of other people.” How much concern do I need to show? If someone says they are going to die if I don’t give them my kidney, does that mean I have to give them my kidney? Or will a “I’m so sorry” suffice?
    Altruism has a well defined philosophical meaning that was developed by the proponents of this ethical system. Here is how Comte, who first coined the termed, explained altruism:
    “[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."

    If you read carefully, you will see this is the ethics of slavery, but it borrows the unearned (guilt) obligations from Christianity.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ KahnQuest 9 years, 7 months ago
    I'm no philosopher, but what I find wrong with this logic is that it assumes a zero-sum game; i.e. that Galt was *only* concerned with the welfare of the individual whose life he saved. In that context, I would argue that unless Galt surrendered his life in place of the one he saved, the move cannot be entirely altruistic. Even if he simply liked the person's company, a selfish motive was present.

    By the way, relying on dictionaries for proper definitions of these terms is probably not a good idea. The dictionary.com definition of "egosim" gives "egotism" as one definition, and then tells you (farther down the page) that egoism and egotism can be confused with each other.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 9 years, 7 months ago
    This is the online definition from Webster:
    : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
    Having a devotion to the welfare of others can be unhealthy in my opinion. To do so often means giving up things that are important to you. I care about all the people in my life but not to the point that I don't live my life my way.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 7 months ago
      "Having a devotion to the welfare of others can be unhealthy in my opinion. To do so often means giving up things that are important to you. I care about all the people in my life but not to the point that I don't live my life my way."
      If it's just what you like to do, I think it's fine. It becomes unhealthful when it's an obligation, a way to manipulate people, or forced. It's tricky b/c those unhealthy aspects can work their way into what starts as a labor of love.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertasAutLetum 9 years, 7 months ago
    You cannot label someone as "altruistic" just because they act like a decent human being. You do not have to be "altruistic" to pull an injured person out of a burning car. Doing so simply indicates that you have a shred of decency and choose not to allow someone to suffer a horrid and painful death. Now on the other hand if you dedicate your life to going around and looking for burning cars from which to pull people, then one can be considered "altruistic".
    As personal, real life example I submit the following;
    When I was 17 I climbed a tree to rescue a cat that had been stuck on a limb about 20' up for more than a day. I scruffed the fury creature and dropped it gently into a pool net someone else had extended up to the branch. The animal was safely lowered to the ground and returned home for some food and drink. As I attempted to descend I lost grip and fell the full 20' landing with the impact squarely at the point between my shoulder blades and the back of my neck. I was convulsing. I could not breath and I could not move for several minutes. An ambulance was summoned and by the time it arrived the shock began to wear off. I was strapped to a back board and brought to the hospital for x-rays. Everything was fine, just some severe contusions and a few hyper extended muscles. I could have died, or much worse, been paralyzed as a result of my compassionate deed.
    Labeling me as "altruistic" for doing what I did would be a fallacy as I do not live my life to serve animals.
    I just really like cats.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 7 months ago
    Altruism seems to always be the label slapped over the actions of someone else, not the person applying the label.

    Since that is a case of tagging an action with your perception of the motive, for you the label might be true, but has no bearing on the motives of the person doing it.

    Only they can affirm or deny if the action was in fact altruistic on their part.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertasAutLetum 9 years, 7 months ago
    I do not understand your obsession with tattooing this label on people. The term "altruism", around here anyway, is used in the context of living your life for the benefit of others, regardless of your dictionary definition.
    Allow me to present an analogy; A person who does not normally drink alcohol can go to a party once in a while and get blitzed without being labeled an alcoholic. So why then must a person who is generally considered self-centered be labeled an altruist because they perform an occasional act of compassion?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 7 months ago
      The problem is when people try to make you show compassion or not compassion. The Rand view that I understand is it's your life to be compassionate all the time like a compassion addict or to avoid all compassion. It's the person's choice.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
    Did anyone notice that Robbie's definition for “altruism” is actually the Merriam-Webster's definition for “benevolent?”
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
    Did anyone notice that the dictionary definition for “selfish” is a "package deal" while the Robbie's definition for “altruism” is not?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo