It could be proposed that those committing such acts had altruistic motives in their minds reenforced by whatever convoluted or twisted logic they conjured up. We can ask, "What were they thinking?" but we can never be sure except in the case of Hitler who wrote much of it down in 'Mein Kampf'. This plays out in the politics in our country today, each side claiming altruistic motives about immigration, climate change, COVID, the list goes on. A thinking person has to weigh the differences, better yet, follow Descartes and throw out everything you think you know and start afresh with what you can prove yourself.

Rand was very precise with her words. "In the name of an altruistic motive" refers to the rhetoric used to make the population comply. Every individual has to think they are less important than their society.

Self interest at the expense of the self interests of others, isn't that the same as saying I know what is best for you and I am doing this for your own good?

I would certainly consider the concentration camps in Nazi Germany. Or the gulags in Stalin's Russia. Or the current prisons for the Uighers in Communist China. Or the forced abortion plans in Communist China. I'm struggling to determine what kind of "altruistic" motive there was behind these...

I think the TARP Act of 2008 would qualify as a major mistake that was not in the name of altruism. I know that from a trickle down point of view someone could argue it was really for the "people" but who really thought that. TARP was passed to save the Orrin Boyles and Wesley Mouchs of the world.

There are many horrors that didn't have altruism as their basis, but I can't think of any horrors that didn't have either altruism or self-interest at the expense of others' self-interest. Self-interest is one of the highest values as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's self-interest.

You got me smiling here, Commander, and I agree. However, consider "an informative placative methodology" on the edge of an axe or guillotine. Dead dissenters are pretty passive and are informative to those contemplating dissent.

I believe it was Kublai Khan that said a virgin princess with a treasure can be placed on an ass and walk unmolested from one end of the empire to the other, because death was the only punishment for such molestation. Internally the empire was supposed to be at peace. Obey the Emperor and live in peace or be at peace in the graveyard. The same rules are still with us from those whose desires are a socialist utopia with themselves at the lead. The 20th century up til today has seen millions placed prematurely at peace. All for the greater good, of course.

Yet, is not Altruism of an informative placative methodology? A means of passive influence? Misdirection?
Even though, I cannot disagree with you. The "Greater Good" has had quite a broad spectrum of manifestation.

Tough call here, Commander. You could say his goal was to end tribal warfare by forcefully uniting the Mongolian tribes with himself at the head - all for the greater good you see. Then he expanded that goal on the warring kingdoms of China.

Most people think altruism means helping others, especially those in need. But, if that were true, the most altruistic people would be the entrepreneurs and business people in a rich, capitalist society such as we had before the first world war and still have elements of, today.

Altruism, to Rand and Objectivists, requires sacrifice which means going against one's self-interest. That is the essence of both altruism, (putting the good of others against the interests of the self) and collectivist philosophy of utilitarianism, which is putting the 'greater good of all', (however the 'leaders' choose to define it), above the rights of an individual or small number of individuals.

Wars, including wars of oppression against the citizenry by government, are always justified by altruistic motives.

No, she was correct. Hitler, in his Mein Kampf thought god was on his side in ridding Europe of Jews. Evil is always done with the best of intentions.

I really don't know what you are talking about but The Fountainhead is one of my favorite books. You gotta love Roark. Whatta guy!

You are probably correct. He was probably more of the ‘conquering for the sake of conquering’ type.

I'm not too sure Gengis Kahn was altruistic.