Altruism or Benevolence?
This is an area badly in need of clarification. So, with a little help from some perceptive minds, let's explore: There is a great confusion in the minds of most people concerning the nature of altruism or that it derives from the principle of benevolence, good will and kindness toward others.Advocates of altruism take great pains to encourage this belief--to establish a "package deal" so as to conceal from their victim the actual meaning of altruist morality .
The view that altruism and benevolence are the same is a great error. Altruism holds that man must makethe others above self. Such a view is worse than mistaken; it is a perversion entailed in the technique called "the big lie."It represents the exact opposite of the truth;altruism and benevolence are not only different, they are mutually inimical. man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the moral justification of his existence, that self-sacrifice is his foremost duty.A philosophy that tells man that he is no more than a sacrificial animal . This is not an expression of benevolence or good will.
Let us do a thought experiment, a device which served Einstein so well.:Ask yourself what your reaction would be if the person you loved were to tell you:"Don't imagine that I want to marry you out of any selfish expectation of pleasure.Don't imagine that I see anything to admire in you,or that I find your company interesting, or that I enjoy our relationship any manner whatever.In fact, I find you boring and thoughrolly unappealing.But, I wouldn't be so selfish as to seek anything personally from our marriage.Don't imagine that your thoughts or feelings are of any actual interest to me or that I do any of the things I do for you because I care for your happiness -- don't think that there's anything in it for me whether you're happy or not. I'm not an egoist, after all I'm marrying you out of pity,out of charity, as a duty I'm marrying you out of compassion for your flaws, not admiration for your virtues because I know that you need me. I'm doing it as an act of sef sacrifice"
The view that altruism and benevolence are the same is a great error. Altruism holds that man must makethe others above self. Such a view is worse than mistaken; it is a perversion entailed in the technique called "the big lie."It represents the exact opposite of the truth;altruism and benevolence are not only different, they are mutually inimical. man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the moral justification of his existence, that self-sacrifice is his foremost duty.A philosophy that tells man that he is no more than a sacrificial animal . This is not an expression of benevolence or good will.
Let us do a thought experiment, a device which served Einstein so well.:Ask yourself what your reaction would be if the person you loved were to tell you:"Don't imagine that I want to marry you out of any selfish expectation of pleasure.Don't imagine that I see anything to admire in you,or that I find your company interesting, or that I enjoy our relationship any manner whatever.In fact, I find you boring and thoughrolly unappealing.But, I wouldn't be so selfish as to seek anything personally from our marriage.Don't imagine that your thoughts or feelings are of any actual interest to me or that I do any of the things I do for you because I care for your happiness -- don't think that there's anything in it for me whether you're happy or not. I'm not an egoist, after all I'm marrying you out of pity,out of charity, as a duty I'm marrying you out of compassion for your flaws, not admiration for your virtues because I know that you need me. I'm doing it as an act of sef sacrifice"
I saw far fewer males with this attitude. I have been blessed with a quick mind, excellent health, and an instinct for staying out of financial trouble, and have engaged in what I believe as acts of benevolence for people down on their luck if I thought they deserved a break. I definitely don't go eagerly hunting for situations where I can sacrifice myself or well being, so I guess I'm not guilty of altruism. Some have tried to tell me my military service was altruistic, but I tell them it was a worthwhile investment of my time, to help retain the concept of a government intended to serve the free individual.
The county jail, several stories high, was right next to the one-floor newspaper I worked for. One day an "outlaw woman" with a kid was seen pointing up at a jail window and heard saying, "Look, there's daddy at that window. See? He's a jailbird. Wave. Say "Hi, Daddy. Hi, Jailbird."
A woman chooses a man that she can change for the better, she never succeeds.
A man chooses a woman hoping she will never change, she always does.
As for altruism and benevolence, so much does more harm than good which is not surprising when noting that actions are often based on feelings. I am unconvinced that it must be like that as Rand describes in Atlas Shrugged. This is a good topic and I hope for some good contributions.
For this forum the starting point is that trying to do good with other people's money is Wrong, and very likely to fail. But that is just the starting point.
I wonder what would happen if those men were indeed "saved" and rose up as strong individuals. It would be revealed to be a horrible Jim and Cherryl relationship. They want to be patted on the back for taking in strays rather than have a real relationship with another person.
The first two definitions are voluntary, the last compulsory by claim of authority. I think one of the first and largest problems of humanity to think and act for one's rational self interest is the belief that authority can command the violation of morality and the subjects must give in until permission is given to be objective and act on one's own volition.
You cannot use violence to make people free so a rebellion is useless. If people do not choose it they cannot be forced, that is the antithesis of objectivism. Socialism will only work with the use of violence for even those who believe in it would not choose it if others around them were not living it. They would see the obvious difference and live objectively even if they believed in collectivism. They might still try to convert others but if they could not demand it (enforce) there would be very few who would actually try to live it. For those who made that choice that would be okay for them.
What is the alternative? Before the advent of the computerized society I had a plan I think would have worked much like Galt's Gulch. Now with the entire world being monitored except a few tribes deep in the jungle or on isolated islands in the Indian Ocean the only choice is to try to live unobserved which will become increasingly difficult as RFID chips become implanted in everything we might own (including ourselves) and tracked you won't be able to trade or sell something to another without it being tracked, monitored, approved, licensed and taxed, or forbidden. If you think of an alternative let me know.
Since most people are religious, they are used to bringing emotion to the table rather than thinking. Many people believe that they can fake reality, because, they believe that they can get away with it long enough to live out their lives and to hell with morality. What do they need morality for?
https://youtu.be/JhmUzP4ahmc
He calls capitalism a sexist, homophobic "system", which I think is categorically wrong. Private ownership of the means of production has nothing to do with bigotry.
Later he says people must be prepared to take up arms if necessary against laws passed by a democracy that creates tyranny of the majority. I agree with him on that point.
I’d be curious to see if any critical thinking is done in the Q/A session.
Your sedulous distinction tween
Altruism and benevolence is
unexpurgated. Agreed the connection in the big lie is essential . The greatest evil (IMHO) is to fraud the world of their voluntary generousity and benevolence to assist humanity during natural disasters.
Leaving the victims worse of then before.
I am going to nominate this for post of the year.+1
ish devotion. (I think I had been reading too much of Erich Fromm's stuff). But I could not imagine myself
falling in love and loving someone with a totally un-
selfish devotion; even free of mercenary taint, there would still be the fact that I loved the person because I got some sort of pleasure in his existence, it was still self, self, self, and I believed myself incapable of love. And I thought that my parents must never have loved me, or I would have somehow "caught" it from them. And one night in the Waynesboro library, I saw books on a swap shelf (donate one and take one away and keep it), and I saw The Virtue of Self-
ishness by Ayn Rand (and with a few articles by
Nathaniel Branden). I was intrigued by the title,
expecting cynical stuff. I leafed through it a little
bit, and traded for it, and took it away. And, even-
tually, Ayn Rand's philosophy straightened me out. (I have also had some remorse for the way
I had unjustly blamed my parents--although they
didn't repudiate altruism, either).
cause he is so amusing, etc., that is selfish,too. (Of
course, if you're the parent, the kid is sort of your instrument for living on, but if you are not, if it is just your sister, or someone else's baby, that selfishness applies, too). As to the "macho-ness"
of boys, don't I know it. The way they were so aggressive in the hallways, kicking me in the butt, or other such stuff, I couldn't stand the punks, either.--And to this day, I have no great liking for adolescent punks, and no disposition to put up with any of that macho s***.
I say commendable because the confusion will be permanent as long as humans populate this earth. It is not because the distinction if difficult to perceive, it is because humans are lost in the great fog of society's rules, which makes sure the distinction will never be clear.
Even though there is an easy way to know it: one is mandatory the other is voluntary.
Your example of the person admitting that he/she is marrying another out of self sacrifice is a case of pathology. There are cures for that but considering that the majority of humans suffer from some kind of psychological condition, it is commonly accepted. Very few possess the logic of John Galt.
But, Let's look at this another way: How can one, "love thyself" AND be altruistic at the same time...this is where the Organization of the teachings goes south, I'm talkin Socrates south here.
So let's put these concepts back into perspective: "Love thyself" - care for yourself and your own survival in appreciation of existing.
That seems to be a rationally "Celf Interested realization of that statement.
But at the same time we are to help others, which actually means, "Share one's abundance, (what ever you have in excess beyond your own happiness and survival" (which humans seem to do without so much as a pointed waving finger...if allowed to)...That seems to me to be the meaning and intention of, "benevolence" or what I would call: Mutuality. Something mankind could not have survived this long without.
Now, Altruism...does not fit the "Human" narrative when considering the above concepts. It is purely a "Collective" concept, one inwhich would eradicated mankind off the face of this earth.
BUT...it does have it's use IF we apply it to Governments. I envision this being applied in the sense of an individual, having enough abundance to survive and wishing to dedicate the time, knowledge and good will, toward the protection of everyone else's natural rights of property, contracts and happiness.
I really do not think that a "Conscious being", actually sacrifices him self in the service of or protection of, others or even an ideal. One might calculate the odds of survival and take the risks in spite of the odds, but I don't think, one actually thinks they will not survive those risks.
Not one cell in the body sacrifices itself for the survival of the community of cells we call you.
And That is the Caveat. Obviously, only the "Non-Conscious" entities could be altruistic: sacrificing self for an ideal or the collective. We see that, certainly in regards to islam and many like them throughout history.
That is Progressive revisionism and confounding of our language...Un-confounded by your's truly, the best way I can.
Once one understands these concepts, yes, it's simple but remember, it is progressivism and the uneducated left that has confounded these concepts.
I saw the need to untwist them from altruism.
Never had the problem while writing the first book, now that I am writing all the time...F.Fumbling seems to happen often.
Must be the additional cosmic radiation messing with my coordination skills.
Name, publisher and best place to buy books written by esteemed compatriot, Old Ugly Carl
Grounding gives one a cone of protection similar to a mast on a sailboat.
Authorhouse or any other book site (download): The Fight for Conscious Human Life. PDF format.
Now that I have become a slightly better writer, I'm not so proud of my first attempt.
Referring to a time when she, nor I were spoken for...but you get the drift anyway.