Ayn Rand changed my life. once I learned about objectivism and that altruism, selfishness and self interest and what what they really are I was so much happier adn became better. I love her thoughts on philosophy. her mind is truly a gift
***** Certainly not the most misunderstood philosopher. That'd be Max Stirner or in paticular Friedrich Nietzsche. Americans should start reading them and not believe anything was original by Ayn Rand, Sigmund Freud or Jean-Paul Sartre.
She is misunderstood by people who think she is "great" or "original". Made up name, made up personality, 100% cigarette addict, adolescent's view of the world as black and white. Real cool to read her when I was a teen. Quickly outgrown and regretted when I became a working adult. Don't waste your time. Gary Cooper is good in The Fountainhead, but it is really a fantasy movie.
Because she believes in capitalism, which is associated with Republican conservatives, which is "obviously" evil, even though Rand herself would probably not even consider herself a conservative.
Rational selfishness is what she believed in...meaning,if you want to help a cause or situation,from your own free will then its fine. And she was right!....why should any one be forced to do something they actually don't want to do?...
I see altruism as immoral and altruists as evil because if one good man destroys his life with altruism then he cannot continue helping others. Helping people help themselves solves this problem. In Cancun there are opportunities for the poor in the tourist business, they are not fleeing the country, but in the rest of Mexico you see they begin to lack opportunity.
@@leerman22 I would love to know how doing a kind thing as opening a door for someone without the need of a reward for doing so is self harmful. I think this is the entire problem is how people are defining altruism, elephant's are naturally altruist's and we don't see them going extinct due to slitting their throat's in order for another to live if that is how you define altruism. Human's are naturally selfish because we are smaller animals which lived as prey for a time, bigger animals such as elephant's that live in a safer world are naturally altruist's. There has been more harm in the world because of human selfishness than there has ever been done in human altruism, as selfishness is where the evil of man comes from. However those that are still wired to our natural selfish surviving trait would see altruism as evil and immoral, that's why they are not altruist's and are selfish, however like it or not, altruism is the result of a more wiser species, because fear is a very primitive and immature emotion.
@@Starnerdz Opening a door for someone doesn't destroy your wealth, no self-harm doing something of simple decency.; no self-destruction. In fact it may be more profitable to your public image, not to mention ego.
@@leerman22 Sure, it can make someone feel good for doing so, but this is the problem is definition and how people define it. When we talk about existential reward's, it show's a completely different story and that is what people define as altruism. I will grant you that doing altruist act's causes a emotional reward for doing so, but that's not really existential as there is no personal benefit they have gained, or lost. Narcissist's do good to benefit their image, and so by your logic you assume everyone is a narcissist, and everybody lack's empathy since empathy is a altruistic emotion while fear is a selfish one.
zupergozer I agree with her in the regard, that men are stronger if they are prepared to do for themselves, instead of feeding on the efforts of others, but I do not believe compassion is evil, or a weakness.
This is just speculation as I don’t want to put words in her mouth, but I think she may have got caught in either her eureka moment or lost in translation when describing altruism as an “evil”. I think she much more meant to call direct altruism a “polarizing force” for productivity of an individual. But she does later iterate that altruistic activities are often motivated by the self in the end. So performing an altruistic activity to make oneself feel better or isn’t necessarily taxing on the self, but performing an altruistic behavior at the expense of doing things that you know won’t be fulfilling for you would be an evil/negative force towards your conviction. Hopefully her interpretation was more on a personal motivation for determining her own morality that she thinks is best for her productivity rather than a belief in an objective moral structure oriented around self-preservation or self-fulfillment. If this was the case, I’d probably mostly agree if this is the case
Altruism holds back human progress and innovation. If every human being prioritized becoming there best possible selves, the world would be a better place.
What Rand did not consider, and that i will insist you consider, is that, based upon the findings of psychologist who specialize in social-cognition and humanism, helping others is in fact in your own selfish personal interest. Not for reasons such as social status and social reward, but because higher order thinking mammals who can consider concepts of self worth and self-identity need to contribute to their species well being inorder to feel personally well. Help others to help yourself, and do as rand suggests as well, help yourself to help others. Truth is often found in the duality between collectivism and objectivism.
The crux is though that it's in your self-interest to help your in-group. To help your out-group, however, is counterproductive. You could try to define your in-group as the entire human race, and in some contexts, that would apply (say alien invasion or crazy people like PETA placing animal welfare above human welfare). However, generally speaking, it's natural to concern yourself with your own welfare first and foremost and that depends, if at all, only on the welfare of those close to you.To go against that is, imho, unnatural and undermines the very principles that made us what we are today. Our ancestors rose from primitive single-cell organisms to the incredibly complex beings that we are today on those precepts. All animals place their own interests and that of their family or group above those of anything else.
thelol77 Yup. Ayn Rand would probably disapprove. ;) That said, it's not a baseless "it's good because it's natural" deal. Improvement through competition between individuals, groups, businesses etc. has happened without fail. I think it's rational to accept it as the premier model for improvement of the human race, especially since attempts to deviate (à la communism) have always failed.
NewForm, considered that maintaining an efficienct united cooperative human race would practically be the most singularly beneficial thing that could happen to an individual. As in, using government to successfully create situations where your in group is the entire human race would be the result of the most substantial cultural and technological Renaissance the world has ever seen, and with it corresponding decreses in world strife would be inevitable*. In addition to what i said about self-concept. I urge you to consider not promoting isolationism, the only thing scarier than the human ingenuity when it is in full competition two human ingenuity working together. Real communism has never really been tried, nor is the world anywhere near ready for her, but things as simple as global postal systems cant start working at peak efficiency until isreal lets palestine lay rail (or drive trucks or whatever things relevent to postage that makes my example work) though their nation. Cooperation, assimilation of culture, and sharing of resources is a necessary component for a more perfect world. Nessecary, not just incredibly helpful. We cannot have rougue people and nations not complying to reasonable international standards, and i genuinely and whole heatedly believe, that that can be done without violating a single civil liberty or diminishing a single spark of individuality. Any rational man would chose his most rational best option, which is socialism.
+Erich Richter Most just don't understand Ayn Rand's reasoning. One must read through all here stuff to understand it. This is a good starter point since it quotes from her writings and some of Leonard Peikoff's writings. aynrandlexicon.com/
Rand was right, it really is "much earlier than you think." Collectivism and leftism, far from representing "progress", is the same-old tribalism; altruism is the morality of existential cowards and slaves. Altruism does not allow men to regard themselves as sovereign, independent entities, but as a mere component of some kind of amorphous collective non-entity, "others". That's the Big Lie of altruism: everybody regarding himself as a beast to be sacrificed on the altar of others, and as a parasite whose moral value and meaning is derived from "others".
Environmentalism requires altruism. Environmentalists MUST be willing to sacrifice their own wealth for the sake of future generations which they will never meet. Without environmentalism the human species could easily go extinct.
libertarianfreedom8 There are two basic reasons why people don't believe in environmentalism: they either don't believe in science or they don't believe in morality. Randriods believe in neither.
+urdisturbing Do you know the best means to combat Climate Change? It isn't government regulation, that will only very very slightly slow it down. The only means to combat climate change is technological innovation which regulation stagnates. Poverty is the natural state when born and need is not a claim on the productive. A man's mind is his means to survive, literally to be or to not to be. And stop generalizing people by calling them randroids. Faith and belief won't grow your food.
Why would you want human freedom, wealth etc.? Altruism. Social security was enacted because old people were literally freezing and starving to death in the street. What loss of freedom? South Korea went from one of the poorest countries in the world to one of the richest in such a short time because of a government regulated economy and government involvement in commerce. Are corporations evil because they do what they do? If they didn't, their competitors would. Ayn is a psychopath.
She is absolutely brilliant. Self care, self preservation, and self reliability and responsibility MUST come first or else you might as well give yourself to cannibals. I was initially shocked when I saw the title “Altruism is evil”, but after having listened to her reasoning, it makes perfect sense.
She doesn't identify a theoretically mapped-out doctrine that carries the name "altruism". Nor does she describe an actual behavioral phenomenon in which the self is never considered. She essentially made up a boogy man in her mind on the basis of some root signifier in the word without any regard how it is actually understood.
I think the qualifying word for altruism is sacrifice. when one self sacrifice his being, life, limb, safety, or property for another who is not even blood related to him, he is committing altruism. But one who is just helping somebody which is not a sacrifice to the self of the one doing the help, there is no altruism.
She always uses the original strict definition. Remember her ideas were formed early last century. Today we use the word "altruism" with a more vague meaning of "kindness". So it is us who have applied an odd new definition to the word, but that is just the evolution of language. To understand her point you have to think a bit deeper to understand what she meant back then, not what someone would mean when using the same words today.
felicia Covington I agree.. and think. ...if we all took care of ourselves we would be much more fit and in better position to help others. when we please.
She understands that altruism is the sacrifice of a higher value for a lower one. Or put differently, it is the sacrifice of your rational self-interest for someone else's benefit.
I wasn't really talking politics but ok. Those things aren't altruistic. They're government programs. The government belongs to us. It exists to serve us. Is a hammer being altruistic to the carpenter? Those things help the overall health and security of our nation. Which one's and to what extent we support them I agree is up for debate but surely you wouldn't do away with social security would you?
I think the main lessen here is that caring and being beneficial to others is not inherently evil, but to do so to the point of damaging yourself, to whatever physical, emotional or spiritual extent, in the process is in itself evil. I believe she saw the concept of Altruism as the opposite extrema of complete selfishness. That is to say that neglecting or exploiting yourself in favor of helping others is, in her perception, just as evil as neglecting or exploiting others too benefit yourself. I personally don't see self-sacrifice as inherently bad, but considering the type of toll that being a self-sacrificing individual can, and in most cases, will have on themselves, i can see people like Rand considering such a thing as evil.
TheChatterbox1991 Actually no. Ayn Rand's argument against Altruism is far more well thought out than that and far more important than simply talking in extremes of selfishness vs. altruism, I'll try to break it down for you, since her criticism against altruism, is why she's so hated, and also why her philosophy is so important. To understand Rand and her critique of Altruism, you have to go back to the Enlightenment. In Europe at the time: when the enlightenment was occurring, Christianity was under attack, and many people were rejecting religion. Since science was showing that man could understand nature primarily through reason, there was a revolution against the authority of church and supernatural powers of every kind. This led to a moral crisis, because if Christianity is B.S., whether it's protestant or catholic, why should anyone abide by it or it's rules? Certain people started taking this to heart, and it lead to a ton of debauchery in Europe, where a lot of people took advantage of this moral relativism (kind of like in the new age movement in the 60's and 70's). Many of the top figures in religion and philosophy saw this, and believed in some way shape or form, the morality of Christianity had to be defended, even if Science contradicted the theology, and it was the French Revolution and all the craziness that was the Reign of Terror, that made this become a far greater emergency. The philosopher, who provided the rationale, the path, and the way to dealing with this problem was Immanuel Kant. He basically convinced people that reason was limited, and that there were certain things that could only be understood by our emotions alone i.e. morality. After the horrors of the french revolution, which were blamed on the enlightenment, reason lost it's appeal, and there was a great surge in religion all through out the West including America. His philosophy, set the grounds not for just a resurgence of religion (that wasn't his ultimate goal), but the intellectual defense for emotionalism as a form of higher thought, where it was in Romanticism, Transcendentalism or even the modern day Evangelical Christians. You see Christianity is Altruism, and nowhere is this made more so obvious than in the example of Jesus Christ. He is the greatest of all the great moral people, and he is great because he sacrificed himself for all sinners. He is also the one who told us that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. He is also the same one in the bible who praised a woman who was poor, but still insisted of giving half her wealth away as an offering, as being the prime example of an ideal Christian. Implicit in Christianity, and the love of Jesus is a love of altruism. This way of viewing morality, is incompatible with Capitalism - one has to eventually give and bow out to the other. When Ayn Rand came to the U.S., she could see that Socialism was gaining prominence over American Culture, just as it had in the Soviet Union, and she saw how it was coming through, by the class of intellectuals, like many of the Conservatives of the times saw it too. The Conservatives, thought it was due to a conspiracy or some kind or a desire for a New World Order, Ayn Rand saw it differently: she saw the Socialists taking the ideas of Jesus far more seriously than the Christians did. After all, America is the richest country in the world, and over half of the 1% live in America (you are in the global 1% if you make over 30K a year), and she realized that the conservatives could uphold their love for capitalism and maintain their moral foundation of Christianity only by evading the contradiction, which to her meant there was very little hope for them. This is why Ayn Rand initially appealed to the left, but the leftist intellectuals rejected her, so she ended up pretty much by herself. The libertarians liked her, but had problems with her philosophy, because they were way more into moral relativism and didn't want to deal with her rejection of the supernatural and the primacy of philosophy over economics. Ayn Rand understood that morality is the driving force of where men decide to go in life despite their flaws (as America, in the pursuit of the ideal of liberty for all, was able to show from it's inception); that behind every ideal is the motivation of self-improvement towards moral perfection, whether it is achieved or not. If the ideal was Jesus, and that was the measure of perfection, then socialism would eventually win out, regardless of how many times it failed in practice, since it always had the moral high ground: "Why not build heaven on Earth, if all the technology and wealth created by Capitalism, makes it possible?" That is why Ayn Rand advocated Selfishness. Selfishness, being the working towards of one's moral perfection that has been built and worked towards to by reason. You could help others, but the desire to make yourself into the best person you could ever be is to be the measure of morality, not how much you do it in the name of other people. This is also why Ayn Rand relied heavily on Aristotle as the foundation of her philosophy: he was the first to attempt to establish a moral system based on reason; Ayn Rand's built her philosophy to make adjustments to it, and take out any reference to the supernatural, which she believed Aristotle received from Plato. Before arriving at Aristotle, and not understanding their could be a morality defended on the grounds of reason, she had embraced Nietzsche, who basically advocated for the Will to Power, as replacing the morality of Christianity. Once she discovered Aristotle, she rejected Nietzsche (Gail Wynand in the Fountainhead symbolizes him, he commits suicide in the end, by shooting himself in the head...so yeah), and was able to systematize her philosophy. If you can understand this insight by Ayn Rand, you'll probably be able to understand everything else she says, regardless of what the critics say or those who simply memorized and spit out her ideas but don't really understand the context in which they were developed.
Jevioso Orishas Wow, very informative and well thought out comment rather than reactionary vitriol. I learned something. It's a refreshing change from the kind of stuff you usually see in UA-cam comments, y'know the ones that make you question your faith in humanity.. keep up the good work!!
+Jevioso Orishas Hello, I have a question. I've been getting into these kinds of things and it seems extremely interesting. In fact, I first truly started to understand the term altruism....from an anime I watched (haha... I'm still young). Although it might seem a little childish, the anime (called Parasyte) talked about altruism and animosity and things like that, and it was extremely interesting to me. By defining altruism as "selfishness in disguise", isn't it possible to have altruistic behavior even without realizing and not for your own benefit? Or does it not matter, because it might be an unconscious realization that it could benefit you in a selfish way. Like someone taking a risk and trying to fight a man with knife just to protect some random strangers. What if that someone did it on instinct, not even realizing his deed could make him a hero? Or is it all one decision, even person isn't aware of it? Could altruism completely be applied to a mother and her child? And how often, a mother would take risk her whole life for her child, even though ( in a very cold-hearted thought) she could just make a new one? I think this is found in not only humans, but almost every animal. In the anime (called Parasyte; I actually recommend watching it), it even showed a parasite monster protecting it's child (which wasn't of the same species. It was a human baby). And one more thing: Isn't altruistic behavior when you know that you will benefit from the deed, and know it will not hurt you much in any way considered extremely selfish? Like a man fighting a guy to protect a girl, when the man is 10x stronger and faster? I, personally, have no problem with these actions. Us humans are a bit selfish in some ways, and maybe we do things that are extremely hard to comprehend. But that's why we're human. And I'm okay with that. Hopefully you can read all of this. Thanks (and sorry for any typos).
Sammy Wilson The essence of altruism is self-sacrifice. You're doing it because you are sacrificing yourself, the results don't matter. The guy who fights the man 10X his strength doesn't care if he wins or not, he just cares that he's sacrificing his life under altruism. Like Jesus, he wants to die. The essence of Rand's criticism of Altruism, is that it obscures a blatantly obvious part of what it means to survive and be human: producing more than we consume. If humans don't produce more than they consume, they die quickly...and if we're all dead, of what significance is altruism? Eventually, you run out of bodies to sacrifice. In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand explores this pretty thoroughly. It's a book that explores what happens when productive people stop producing, and those who constantly seek to redistribute wealth and organize others in the name of the common good don't have any more fuel to run their plans.
The right way is to "Love others as well as love yourself." Not altruism: "Love others and sacrifice yourself in the process of loving others." Ayn Rand simply teaches that we should both VALUE ourselves and others; however, the primary value one should have is the value of his or her self. Think of it this way: How can you truly love others if you can not truly love yourself.
It is really strange to have something you view as an absolute truth be challenged like this. I have always thought of self sacrifice for the benefit of others as one of the greatest virtues a man or woman could achieve. We applaud when someone with little material currency gives away much of it to others, we cheer the names of those who have given their lives so that others may live, we even fantasize about doing it ourselves. I still believe these things to be important, an almost subconscious part of mankind. but somehow through Rand's reasoning I have begun to question them a bit.
+mrgetrealpeople There would be an objective reason for me, the child's mother or anyone who valued the child so highly they would risk their own lives to save the two year old. Others may have reasons as well, such as wanting credit for being the rescuer or avoiding discredit for having done nothing while witnessing an avoidable death. Beyond that, there are few objective reasons to put one's own life at risk to save a stranger. It is a question of value. Few people value a stranger's life above their own.
+horeballa the thing is that, in that instance, you're not being totally selfless, but partially selfless. To act selflessly is to hold no regard for your own welfare. Now, personally I don't think that's evil, I think that's stupid. Then again, I believe Rand has a different definition of evil because she has different values. I may hold some contempt for altruism as the secular remnant of religiosity, but I haven't totally adopted the Objectivist ethic because I haven't done enough research. The question I still have is: is it altruistic to be charitable under any circumstances, even if you gain happiness from it? Personally I like to help people close to me and I even gain some happiness from helping those that don't know me as well, but is that altruism? Is the definition of altruism dependent on what we gain happiness from?
If your mother became crippled and had to move about in a wheelchair, but there was no nurse to take care of her for one years time, would you sacrifice for one year and be that nurse for your mother until a real one comes? You see... your mother is a "value" to you. People can be a value to you. What would you do without them if you were in a wheelchair like your mother? So here is where certain sacrifice becomes a noble thing. Never forget that
Most dislikes here are because they misunderstood what she is saying, and do not realize that what they call 'altruism' is in most cases 'selfishness in disguise', as Dawkins put it in "The Selfish Gene" I can however imagine a hypothetical situation in which a true altruist (who gets nor emotional pleasure, nor any "God points", nor any secondary gains for their action) would through acts of 'mass-altruism' produce a positive net effect in which people would be less inclined to practice true altruism, thereby helping humanity in some sense. So in this sense 'true altruism' is not necessarily bad.
6C1 Perhaps, but I do not believe that such a truly selfless being could exist. At least not a normal human being. which I think negates this argument. It reminds me of an argument I have often used against communism, which is that I do not believe true communism could exist, except for in a hive mind community. That said, I do not necessarily entirely agree with Ayn Rand either. I do not think it is a bad thing for the strong to pull up the weak. It is when those who you are pulling up, have no intention of giving anything to society in return, that there is an issue. When they refuse to do for them self, because they feel they are entitled to a free ride.
david boell I think you have made a very good point there, inequity in society causes greater harm the bigger it is, this is obvious when you consider few in power with immense wealth while the masses are in abject poverty. We all benefit when we are not so strongly stratified, when there is not such a gap between the haves and have-nots, and so with the strong and the weak, it is good to help those who cannot help themselves, to rehabilitate, to help them be strong again. And, with support and education, I'm sure that those who would otherwise refuse or feel entitled will, instead, be willing and able to give back and help rehabilitate the remaining weak
david boell hello there. Yes, I very much agree with you. The way I see it is that Ayn used the word "altruism" instead of "self-sacrifice", and it's partially a play of words which causes disagreements, and confuses a commoner. But I also believe she used "altruism" in her speeches to gain a greater response in public, and perhaps also in attempt to warn of the detremental commoner definition of "altruism = self sacrifice + act of benevolence" (so from my viewpoint, we can either remove "self-sacrifice" from the equation, or remove "benevolence" from the equation, and she removed the latter, hence defining "altruism = self sacrifice") So... having taken this confusion of definitions into consideration, I choose to avoid the word 'altruism' in non-philosophical conversations, and instead use the word 'benevolence' or 'welfare'. But more importantly, the word 'selfishness' causes more confusion! The way I see it is common people define selfishiness it as "Selfishness = 0% Self sacrifice + 100% inconsideration", IMHO, Ayn tried to remove the "100% inconsideration" from the equation, and therefore she called it "Selfishiness = 0% Self sacrifice". Instead, I use my personal definition as "Selfishness = Being Inconsiderate", such as when doing something at others' expense, and I'm not an advocate for this kind of selfshiness. Instead, I do advocate (in most cases) and am willing to 'publicly' stand up for what I personally call "mindful selfishness", meaning that I take others into consideration, but am not necessarily willing to self-sacrifice or be a "true altruist" which Ayn desribes. (therefore "Mindful selfishness = No True Altruism + Being Considerate") By the way, from her responses in some vids I sensed that Ayn is perhaps overthinking altruism, as in "hmm If I do this, would I then be an altruist?" whereas a common person would be more spontaneous, which I find is more true to your self.. Like I'm not gonna overthink some things and strictly not do it coz it disagrees with my philosophy ; instead I'll follow my heart and intuition at that moment (but followin ur intuition isnt infallable, and I think she desperately tried to avoid the fallacies, but I also think the price she had to pay in life with that attitude might have been greater than if she hadn't been overthinking it). Maybe that was her defense mode, because she felt in the past that people wanted her to be self sacrificial, then later she avoided it at all cost? Who knows, life is complex, we're all just want some loving affection and assurance not be hurt. Side (half-)joke: writing this long text down wasnt an act of altruism or to alter the mind of others who reads, but instead a mindfully selfish act, which allows me to restructure my thoughts, share ideas, be challenged by the other, and grow. Very selifsh, jst like Ayn would approve of :)
> We all benefit when we are not so strongly stratified, Oil firms need vastly more wealth than average people to provide gasoline to them. Even a socialist govt which owns oil firms would need that.
Yes I only have 500 words. It's not name calling. I'm not a psychologist but I've read about it a lot and I think she really is a psychopath. Psychopathy is characterized by a lack of empathy. You will find many psychopaths in positions of power, just like the characters in her book. The idea that the more productive humans on the planet will lead to some kind of utopia is laughable and I don't think she even thought so. As for exhibit A, what loss of freedom?
blind altruism is different than the responsible kind. her words are being used as reinforcement for selfishness as a moral choice. which can then be interpreted that taking advantage of people is not morally wrong. but i think her true message is that imposing altruism which demands sacrifice for the sake of an entity is wrong and can lead to great acts of suffering.
I didn't say it was taboo, I said it was evading actually answering my question. And you're right, it is quite common. I asked several very specific questions. 1. That if paying taxes = helping poor people, like you said, then,have you ever payed more into taxes than required and/or deliberately not taken every deduction you could? 2. So on what basis does the state stake a claim on a man's values (i.e. his property, labor, etc). 3. Are you a greedy person? You meet your own definition for it.
>selfishness is selflessness. In your imagination but not in the concrete, material universe as known by man's mind. Man is a living organism, facing the constant alternative of life and death. Man's actions either further or threaten his life. Selflessness is a rationalization of the desire to be self-destructive without being destroyed, to be consciousness without existence. This is mysticism.
I find that most who dismiss Ayn Rand’s morality don’t really understand it. Her “selfishness” is long-term, principled self-interest. People are a combination of the physical and mental, and your self-interest includes psychological values. Self-interest is not to be reduced to only the physical, such as money. Other people can be of tremendous psychological value (i.e. friends, lovers, children.) Rand recognized that benevolence toward strangers is in one’s own interest, in a free country.
+Jump Jump You mean the Soviet Union that she fled? The petty dictatorship that made her early years horrible? In the sense that she stood against it, then yes. Yes she is.
Pitting selfishness vs altruism is based on the assumption that you cannot balance the two, and you have to go extreme all the way into one direction - this of course is not true - you can make others happy and make yourself happy at the same time ... ayn rand probably cant though
You are talking about altruism in the casual way the word is used today. Rand was talking about "the philosophy of" altruism, which uses its original meaning of holding others as higher value than yourself. Thats very different to simply making others happy.
Altruism IS a survival trait, you are overtaken by dogma... How do you think the cycle of birth, life death is replenished? Selfishness is also a survival trait. Neither can be fully extended they need to be balanced. It is hypocritical to discount your entire first 16 years of life during which you were a beneficiary of altruism. Even basic laws you rely on for survival are based on altruism, for example, why is robbery illegal, or mugging.. any person who is physically stronger than you can overpower you and take everything you have including your life... however you rely on societal altruistic rules to save your life... and the list goes on
Granting of individual rights IS altruism - why the hell should society grant you individual rights which you have not fought for, and if you fight you would lose to a stronger person.. you guys are not thinking holistically.. also you're benefitting from altruism while lashing out at that thing you rely on for survival
the human race is not built on individual selfishness, in fact individuals enter life and are nurtured using the altruistic urges - whe they leave this life they cease to exist and their worth is measured by what they left behing for others, whether useful items, wealth or even inventions and art etc from their creative minds - measuring a person's worth from what they personally gain is not their value to society, that's what they are able to TAKE from society.. you measure a person's worth by what they GIVE to society...
in fact, even the financial system is designed to reward you when you SHARE or GIVE a product or service to the customer which is beneficial to them...ie selfishness is used to serve altruism in a holistic sense - the net effect is humans all doing things for each other using financial hypnotism (money has no real intrinsic value, its value is derived from YOUR value added to the process)
That tailchasing exercise makes my point. Objectivity is not in conflict with change. Change is reality and objectivity takes that in to account. Objectivity cannot be at variance with reality, otherwise it is not Objectivity. Objectivity is reality. Things have a fixed nature even when the circumstances around them change.
I had a similar experience, even argued certain Altruist and collectivist ideals when I was a kid, but as I grew up I started learning more and more about how people and the world actually works (as opposed to certain utopian theories) and started waking up to Individualism, reason, logic, and self-interest as the basis for how a society operates, as opposed to collectivism, emotion (particularly fear and envy) and subjective "fairness". Although, I still can't call myself an Objectivist.
The choice to eat or not eat dirt is a choice just as choosing to buy a Ferrari or a Rolls is a choice, the only thing that changes is what's being deliberated upon, i.e. chosen between. What you apparently still don't understand is that the act of choosing is not dependent on what's being decided between. And you most certainly can given away everything you own, work for money to buy new stuff, then give it all away again.
If you steal from others for the purpose of giving to charity while avoiding your own expense, it is not altruistic. If you've stolen the money, for whatever reason are unable to return it, and decide to donate it because you do not feel like it should be yours, you are being altruistic.
This is a common misunderstanding of Rand. She says right here in this clip there is nothing wrong with giving to another person if you value that person i.e. giving to a spouse, or in mutual exchange, were both parties are gaining in some way. If there is value to you in being charitable then do it. But don't force other to or hold that charity, i.e. sacrifice, is a virtue or duty. I believe that's what she saying. I could be wrong, I'm still a bit new to Rand's ideas.
They key to this is to understand the perception of what help, morality and sacrifice are. For example, many people mistake holding someone's hand as helping, whereas the "tough love" that teaches people to stand on their own to feet is surely true help.
If you force it on people, it is not altruistic because altruism is largely defined by motivations. The motivations behind altruism must be voluntary. If you donate 1000 bucks, it's charity. If someone robs you of 1000 bucks and then donates it, it is not altruism. It is theft. This is not hard to understand.
No they're not. It's about having a stable society. You know I read her books and although I think she is a talented writer, she's still full of shit. Her society would be a hell on earth. What exactly do you want the right to do? Not pay taxes and live outside of American society? Become Amish.
"How can you truly love others if you can not truly love yourself." Altruism does not negate loving yourself. But let's ignore that obvious hole in your argument. Why is loving yourself a requirement for loving others?
the problem is her definition of altruism. she says that it's altruism only if you don't like helping others, and that it is not if you like doing it. but the problem is that for a person watching it, he would define it as altruism because he can not know if the act of helping is from self interest. meaning, the definition of altruism is in reality impossible to define.furthermore the "want" of helping is hard to express and can change in the moment and in the future looking back.
It is now becoming an increasingly known fact among evolutionary biologists that kindness, and likely altruism, is dependent on both our happiness as a species and our actual survival. This is my personal intellectual case for morality. This is because morality is reciprocative.If you only cared about your self to the most extreme degree, you may not be able to find somebody to help you with things in life if you've rejected them before. Increasing the reciprocation on a global scale is top goal
Q: What is the place of compassion in your philosophical system? A: I regard compassion as proper only toward those who are innocent victims, but not toward those who are morally guilty. If one feels compassion for the victims of a concentration camp, one cannot feel it for the torturers. If one does feel compassion for the torturers, it is an act of moral treason toward the victims.
True altruism is giving because you want to give; because you want to bring good, not because you are being forced to. When forced to, it is beet known as theft.
People don't seem to actually listen to Rand. They find one or two key phrases lock on and ignore everything else. She didn't say that helping another person was bad. Your question is the VERY FIRST QUESTION Donahue asked. If you have the means, and YOU wish to do it, not someone else telling you to do it, then helping others is a beautiful thing. But when you don't have the means... when you give the homeless guy on the side of the street $20 even though it means your child will starve...
Ayn's work was approximated in the 1940s and 1950s by professional philosophers teaching at American universities. Prof Tara Smith of UTexas at Austin has put those ideas to the test of modern rigor in philosophical and ethical analysis. Rand's ideas pass the tests.
She is constantly misunderstood,because she says it straight out(then all who listens go into hate/defense mode)-and explain it in a harshish way afterward..,...Her first Language is russian,its just a lot of cases of "lost in translation",cause she means well-and look at what the U.S. is today...!One can not misunderstand this-what she should have done,is to explain what she means by it first,and,problem solved...Have a Nice day...
That's called simple sharing. mutual benefit. Rand didn't like feeling compelled to help others or share. She felt that sharing is only justified if you like them. Rand's viewpoints were far more extreme then you're describing. Her logic: "I'm in the desert with one loaf of bread, I have a long way to go, its only enough bread for me. Tough luck buddy, youre on your own. It would be immoral for me to share with you, because that could prove detrimental to me in the long run."
A bird acts on unconscious libido, while a human is in the unfortunate position of being conscious not only of his lusts but also of is surroundings. A bird is at the mercy of nature. Humans can bend nature to their will. Anyone who compares us to other animals is dealing in pure sophistry.
She's not against that too because that's not what she believes to be "real" sacrifice, because the parent'd be actually helping one of his own instead of sacrificing something really valuable to help someone unknown, like a neighbour. It'd be altruism if the parent gave up food for helping, let's say, someone who was just walking by the street and is hungry.
I loved Hitch so much. The guy was so smart and just from listening to him talk about her I feel half confident in saying that Hitch, who read books a day, never actually cracked open a rand book. He always talked about her with such cynicism, which was odd for him.. I'd be interested in knowing what his opinion was of her toward the end, it might have changed.
Doesn't that fall in line with Utilitarianism? If I'm understanding her correctly, she is more or less defining the Western variety of Capitalism from a far right perspective?
you should switch that around. Business isn't the one with a monopoly on force. Government controls business, business pays off government to be able to do things more freely.
Altruism, hmmmm? What's up with the notion of people not wanting to enjoy life? Saying they only exist to benefit others and not themselves as an individual... If everyone should avoid pleasure and only exist to benefit others.... How does everyone accomplish this task altogether exactly? How do 2 people, let alone billions of them, even help one another without depriving each other of their own selflessness? Even after the exercise of going through the due diligence to research all the ins and outs of pure altruism; I find the philosophical concept, as is, hypocritically corrupt and euphemistically cloaked, absolute pure evil.
Why does it have to be EITHER/OR?? & why can people NOT derive some pleasure from helping others as well as helping themselves?? U seem to THINK in MONO only!!
itz4kix Altruism is a lie. It is a guilt trip to con everyone into giving up their property and wealth to an elite few who know how best everyone should run their lives. It is a form of mind control.
***** So who is lying if one chooses [having weighed up the options] to be altruistic to some degree?? Surely U believe in being-free-to-think for oneself?? Or is it U & your kind that are the thought police!?
itz4kix If you're helping others and it is purely voluntary, no peer pressure, no government mandated redistribution of your wealth... there is absolutely nothing wrong with it per say... as long as you are not hurt or drained in any way that would cause hardship... As well, if you get some sort of superiority complex or point to yourself saying look how great and wonderful I am for being so giving to others and start using it against others to shame them. Give anonymously and then forget about it.
***** Altruism is ONLY a guilt trip if that's what U THINK!! Get over it!! Progressive taxation is the best way to mitigate against the sort of inequality [& I'm NOT an advocate of absolute financial equality] of everything from healthcare to access to education that results in societal fault lines resulting in violent crime & taken to its obvious conclusion; revolution.
One major point Ayn Rand missed out was, the entire altruistic theory was proposed only for the ruled(the people). The rulers were always selfish to the core and fulfilled even their craziness by use of state force. Ten commandments says to value Only Cod your creator more than you , and to love your neighbor AS you love yourself, self sacrifice, like Ayn Rand says is suicide, a crime against your creator, any one proposing self sacrifice (or suicide ) is defying the creator.
The circumstances are set by reality. Either you have the resources to help without hurting yourself, or you don't. And you either know the person, or you don't. And an outside force (government) forces you to do something or it doesn't. It's an equation basically, if it comes out positive it's good. If you want to help and you can help, but you don't know the person you're helping it's fine. It's when you don't want to help, but you could, and others force you to that it's wrong.
That would not be an altruistic action then. As she stated with the husband case, you are not sacrificing, because you are gaining value in the process. The pessimist argues that man (or woman) only gives to charity because it gives him (or her) a feeling of empowerment. This person has a better life because of me, therefore I feel good. Ayn Rand would argue (and has argued) that you are acting for the feeling you get, not to help others; therefore, it is not altruism.
If I understand this correctly no act is truly altruistic. A person who gives a homeless man money does it to make himself feel good. In other words, a true altruist would feel nothing. So what about holding the door open? When I see somebody behind me I hold the door open not because it makes me feel good but because they're behind me and need to get through the door.
It COULDN'T be clearer what I am an advocate of: Being a compromise with room for BOTH self-interest & kindness & kind acts towards others. [I.E. mixed economies].
What's wrong with helping someone that you don't know? We all live on one planet, one species. I'll admit that there is such thing as being so selfless that you damage yourself, but you can as well be quite selfless and be happy. What's wrong with feeling good about helping others?
Absolutely right. People ARE altruistic. Why? Because it altruism HELPS the group, and natural selection made people altruistic. It's not just being right or wrong. It just IS. People *are* egotistical in some measure, but also altruistic. Egoism is good for the Self, and promotes self-preservation. Altruism is good for the group, and promotes social unity strength and advancement.
Ya know, even Jesus said "If you love only those who love you, what good is that? Even scoundrels do that much. If you are friendly only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else?" Meaning, why is it a virtue to be good to those you care about and who cares a lot about you already? This is a point Ayn Rand tries to make.
If you haven't taken the TIME TO READ a single Ayn Rand book... Don't TAKE THE TIME to post a comment in opposition to one of her philosophies. Read and learn before you draw a conclusion. You might be surprised what you learn,
A simple typo, but you knew what I meant. An objective study of history has shown that mans methods for the production of commodities have changed in many many ways and a quick look around will show that they are still changing and with startling pace. The reality of history is therefore at variance with the ideas of Objectivity. Objectivism is at variance with reality. Therefore I reject objectivity. How does it inconvenience my convictions?
In the face of Statism, Communism and Fascism she definitely has a point. Americans were more individualistic when we were creating our national identity, building. In my understanding of Rand we've allowed ourselves to convolute our charitability and altruism to the point of meaningless ness. Hence our decline, or at least our loss of purpose
"In someone that acts so' is it the selflessness or the selfishness that comes first or could it be that said selfishness & selflessness co-exist..." To modify something Rand once said, before you can say, "I will sacrifice for you." You must first be able to say "I". So the "self" is at the center of acting for another (assuming it's by choice) but the person who is acting for another is getting more value in doing so than he/she is sacrificing, otherwise it would be irrational to do so.
If you're doing it for your own reputation then you expect to get something in return for helping someone and as such you aren't sacrificing anything, i.e. it is not altruism at all.
The interviewer at the end tried to catch her out as if to say that giving to a loved one is an altruist act. No, it's a selfish act. You love someone selfishly for their values, as Rand said a million times. The confusion lies in the terms of altruism and especially selfishness. The term selfish has deliberately been obfuscated by the powers that be. When you hear Rand use the term selfish, think individuality. You don't owe it to everyone to love them. You don't reward a murderer with love. You love those that deserve it. YOU see value in a person that corresponds with YOUR OWN. This is what she means by the word selfish. You don't go around dishing love out and rewarding, and therefore encouraging, bad people.
Funny how a lot of people misunderstand what she is saying, you string together your highly intellectual comments yet fail to actually listen to what she is saying...
For some reason she and the followers of her philosophy seem to think it is outright evil if it adversely affects the person giving in the slightest way, no matter how much good it does for the person you help, and also disregard (Or just don't have) any feeling of satisfaction that you get when you are kind and charitable.
You can sacrifice a selfish higher value, such as the need to sleep, for a selfish lower one, such as the desire to comfort a friend in the middle of the night, without being morally wrong. That is either a form of "selfish altruism", using your definition, or your definition is lacking. Besides, what I said was that giving because it feels good is selfish, and therefore is not "altruistic" in the sense referred to by the video... so... we're arguing semantics here. Lets not.
The salvation army puts a santa clause outside of stores, they ring a bell and if you have extra change you contribute... they never mention sacrifice and santa isn't even allowed to ask you to give. You're completely caught up on the definitions schoolteachers gave your parents to give to you for these words. I'll say again voluntary assistance is morally fine, forcing someone to help is wrong.
I doubt your quote takes into account the complexities of his opinion. I doubt he means that we do not have a right to life or choice. However, I do completely agree with his statement "We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries." Unless a man has grown in a total vacuum, spontaneously without parents to father him, he owes to society.
That is what she is saying, problem is altruists don't force people to do that, that is what collectivists do, she seems to mistake altruists for collectivists, true altruists don't give a damn if others don't help, they just help, collectivists attempt to force assimilation on all others, forcing them to help the thing they are helping (typically the group). If she just stuck to debunking collectivism, she would have been fine, but the second she attacks altruism, there is a problem.
An under reported aspect of Japan's lost decade - was the fact that the US and Britain reneged on their sweetheart trade deals. Most Brits and Americans don't realize that in the post-war period, Japan had almost free access to American and British markets whilst placing tariffs on imports. Similar deals were struck with S Korea and Taiwan. Which was due to the fight against communism - demonstrating the superiority of capitalism. Shame American and British workers paid the price.
"to help someone you don't know while those you do are forced to go without help because of it, that's when it becomes most evil." Maybe so. There's many cases where you can help someone and still take care of your immediate family or friends.
Accepting Rand's argument against altruism as valid, I don't think it really applies to anybody in the real world. Even when people help others whom they don't know, aren't they ultimately doing it for the sense of personal satisfaction they get? So it's not really self-sacrifice. If it's something you WANT to do, you would be sacrificing your own well-being by NOT doing it.
Oh sure. Volunteering at the local animal shelter or donating millions of dollars to a food relief organization for Africa saving millions of people you have never met must be a sign of tyranny.
What caused German hyperinflation was extortionate war reparations and the fact the French grabbed the Ruhr. Which always happens when countries are placed under sanctions - too much money chasing too few goods. A country like America or the EU, self-sufficient superpowers, would never suffer hyper inflation. E.g. as long as production keeps up, inflation won't get out of hand.
@MumblingMickey I seriously don't see the point in any of it, because the apologists basically end up saying that Objectivism is a life-changing philosophy, but that you don't have to change anything about your life to be consistent with it. Either that, or parents emancipate their children because they're "moochers." It's a philosophy that justifies all human behavior even as it vilifies human behavior.
Ayn Rand changed my life. once I learned about objectivism and that altruism, selfishness and self interest and what what they really are I was so much happier adn became better. I love her thoughts on philosophy. her mind is truly a gift
This is the most misunderstood philosopher I have seen. Many choose to attack her simply because she is a thought-provoking contrarian.
***** Certainly not the most misunderstood philosopher. That'd be Max Stirner or in paticular Friedrich Nietzsche. Americans should start reading them and not believe anything was original by Ayn Rand, Sigmund Freud or Jean-Paul Sartre.
Socrates ofAthens Elaborate.
She is misunderstood by people who think she is "great" or "original". Made up name, made up personality, 100% cigarette addict, adolescent's view of the world as black and white. Real cool to read her when I was a teen. Quickly outgrown and regretted when I became a working adult. Don't waste your time. Gary Cooper is good in The Fountainhead, but it is really a fantasy movie.
S Delano Excuse me, I would love to hear your statements on why Ayn Rand isn't a feasible source of good arguments for a mature person
Because she believes in capitalism, which is associated with Republican conservatives, which is "obviously" evil, even though Rand herself would probably not even consider herself a conservative.
you play bioshock once and then you feeling philosophy
Goddamn it, you're def not wrong. :)
andrew ryan brought me here.
i was about to comment the same thing
Rational selfishness is what she believed in...meaning,if you want to help a cause or situation,from your own free will then its fine. And she was right!....why should any one be forced to do something they actually don't want to do?...
liked it very much
I see altruism as immoral and altruists as evil because if one good man destroys his life with altruism then he cannot continue helping others. Helping people help themselves solves this problem. In Cancun there are opportunities for the poor in the tourist business, they are not fleeing the country, but in the rest of Mexico you see they begin to lack opportunity.
@@leerman22 I would love to know how doing a kind thing as opening a door for someone without the need of a reward for doing so is self harmful. I think this is the entire problem is how people are defining altruism, elephant's are naturally altruist's and we don't see them going extinct due to slitting their throat's in order for another to live if that is how you define altruism. Human's are naturally selfish because we are smaller animals which lived as prey for a time, bigger animals such as elephant's that live in a safer world are naturally altruist's. There has been more harm in the world because of human selfishness than there has ever been done in human altruism, as selfishness is where the evil of man comes from. However those that are still wired to our natural selfish surviving trait would see altruism as evil and immoral, that's why they are not altruist's and are selfish, however like it or not, altruism is the result of a more wiser species, because fear is a very primitive and immature emotion.
@@Starnerdz Opening a door for someone doesn't destroy your wealth, no self-harm doing something of simple decency.; no self-destruction. In fact it may be more profitable to your public image, not to mention ego.
@@leerman22 Sure, it can make someone feel good for doing so, but this is the problem is definition and how people define it. When we talk about existential reward's, it show's a completely different story and that is what people define as altruism. I will grant you that doing altruist act's causes a emotional reward for doing so, but that's not really existential as there is no personal benefit they have gained, or lost. Narcissist's do good to benefit their image, and so by your logic you assume everyone is a narcissist, and everybody lack's empathy since empathy is a altruistic emotion while fear is a selfish one.
She makes perfect sense to me
I don't agree with her views but these points need to be made, they do encourage a bit of thought. Nothing should be free of criticism
zupergozer I agree with her in the regard, that men are stronger if they are prepared to do for themselves, instead of feeding on the efforts of others, but I do not believe compassion is evil, or a weakness.
This is just speculation as I don’t want to put words in her mouth, but I think she may have got caught in either her eureka moment or lost in translation when describing altruism as an “evil”. I think she much more meant to call direct altruism a “polarizing force” for productivity of an individual. But she does later iterate that altruistic activities are often motivated by the self in the end. So performing an altruistic activity to make oneself feel better or isn’t necessarily taxing on the self, but performing an altruistic behavior at the expense of doing things that you know won’t be fulfilling for you would be an evil/negative force towards your conviction. Hopefully her interpretation was more on a personal motivation for determining her own morality that she thinks is best for her productivity rather than a belief in an objective moral structure oriented around self-preservation or self-fulfillment. If this was the case, I’d probably mostly agree if this is the case
She is still here. Her words - her thoughts - her WILL. Thank you Miss Rand
Altruism holds back human progress and innovation. If every human being prioritized becoming there best possible selves, the world would be a better place.
What Rand did not consider, and that i will insist you consider, is that, based upon the findings of psychologist who specialize in social-cognition and humanism, helping others is in fact in your own selfish personal interest. Not for reasons such as social status and social reward, but because higher order thinking mammals who can consider concepts of self worth and self-identity need to contribute to their species well being inorder to feel personally well. Help others to help yourself, and do as rand suggests as well, help yourself to help others. Truth is often found in the duality between collectivism and objectivism.
The crux is though that it's in your self-interest to help your in-group. To help your out-group, however, is counterproductive. You could try to define your in-group as the entire human race, and in some contexts, that would apply (say alien invasion or crazy people like PETA placing animal welfare above human welfare). However, generally speaking, it's natural to concern yourself with your own welfare first and foremost and that depends, if at all, only on the welfare of those close to you.To go against that is, imho, unnatural and undermines the very principles that made us what we are today. Our ancestors rose from primitive single-cell organisms to the incredibly complex beings that we are today on those precepts. All animals place their own interests and that of their family or group above those of anything else.
NewFormofSilence So...appeal to nature?
thelol77 Yup. Ayn Rand would probably disapprove. ;) That said, it's not a baseless "it's good because it's natural" deal. Improvement through competition between individuals, groups, businesses etc. has happened without fail. I think it's rational to accept it as the premier model for improvement of the human race, especially since attempts to deviate (à la communism) have always failed.
NewForm, considered that maintaining an efficienct united cooperative human race would practically be the most singularly beneficial thing that could happen to an individual. As in, using government to successfully create situations where your in group is the entire human race would be the result of the most substantial cultural and technological Renaissance the world has ever seen, and with it corresponding decreses in world strife would be inevitable*. In addition to what i said about self-concept. I urge you to consider not promoting isolationism, the only thing scarier than the human ingenuity when it is in full competition two human ingenuity working together. Real communism has never really been tried, nor is the world anywhere near ready for her, but things as simple as global postal systems cant start working at peak efficiency until isreal lets palestine lay rail (or drive trucks or whatever things relevent to postage that makes my example work) though their nation. Cooperation, assimilation of culture, and sharing of resources is a necessary component for a more perfect world. Nessecary, not just incredibly helpful. We cannot have rougue people and nations not complying to reasonable international standards, and i genuinely and whole heatedly believe, that that can be done without violating a single civil liberty or diminishing a single spark of individuality. Any rational man would chose his most rational best option, which is socialism.
And definitely not without fail
Andrew Ryan brought me here!
+Erich Richter Most just don't understand Ayn Rand's reasoning. One must read through all here stuff to understand it.
This is a good starter point since it quotes from her writings and some of Leonard Peikoff's writings.
aynrandlexicon.com/
Rand was right, it really is "much earlier than you think." Collectivism and leftism, far from representing "progress", is the same-old tribalism; altruism is the morality of existential cowards and slaves. Altruism does not allow men to regard themselves as sovereign, independent entities, but as a mere component of some kind of amorphous collective non-entity, "others". That's the Big Lie of altruism: everybody regarding himself as a beast to be sacrificed on the altar of others, and as a parasite whose moral value and meaning is derived from "others".
Environmentalism requires altruism. Environmentalists MUST be willing to sacrifice their own wealth for the sake of future generations which they will never meet. Without environmentalism the human species could easily go extinct.
urdisturbing
Environmentalism is a scam.
libertarianfreedom8 There are two basic reasons why people don't believe in environmentalism: they either don't believe in science or they don't believe in morality. Randriods believe in neither.
+urdisturbing Very true.
+urdisturbing Do you know the best means to combat Climate Change? It isn't government regulation, that will only very very slightly slow it down. The only means to combat climate change is technological innovation which regulation stagnates. Poverty is the natural state when born and need is not a claim on the productive. A man's mind is his means to survive, literally to be or to not to be. And stop generalizing people by calling them randroids. Faith and belief won't grow your food.
Why would you want human freedom, wealth etc.? Altruism. Social security was enacted because old people were literally freezing and starving to death in the street. What loss of freedom? South Korea went from one of the poorest countries in the world to one of the richest in such a short time because of a government regulated economy and government involvement in commerce. Are corporations evil because they do what they do? If they didn't, their competitors would. Ayn is a psychopath.
She is absolutely brilliant. Self care, self preservation, and self reliability and responsibility MUST come first or else you might as well give yourself to cannibals. I was initially shocked when I saw the title “Altruism is evil”, but after having listened to her reasoning, it makes perfect sense.
She doesn't identify a theoretically mapped-out doctrine that carries the name "altruism". Nor does she describe an actual behavioral phenomenon in which the self is never considered. She essentially made up a boogy man in her mind on the basis of some root signifier in the word without any regard how it is actually understood.
Read the Sermon on the Mount. German National Socialists certainly read it.
Ayn Rand points out how people believe they should be given and are not grateful
5:35 did they really need to show video of a blond girl when she started to talk about nazism?
It wasn't their intention to link the two.
I think the qualifying word for altruism is sacrifice. when one self sacrifice his being, life, limb, safety, or property for another who is not even blood related to him, he is committing altruism. But one who is just helping somebody which is not a sacrifice to the self of the one doing the help, there is no altruism.
This is contrary to the common understanding of the word. Rand in my opinion is wrong wrong wrong to take a word and apply an odd definition to it.
She always uses the original strict definition. Remember her ideas were formed early last century.
Today we use the word "altruism" with a more vague meaning of "kindness". So it is us who have applied an odd new definition to the word, but that is just the evolution of language. To understand her point you have to think a bit deeper to understand what she meant back then, not what someone would mean when using the same words today.
I like her view on life. Screw others, think about you and yours
felicia Covington I agree.. and think. ...if we all took care of ourselves we would be much more fit and in better position to help others. when we please.
@Shit that what everyone else is doing any way.
She understands that altruism is the sacrifice of a higher value for a lower one. Or put differently, it is the sacrifice of your rational self-interest for someone else's benefit.
0:36 "Alturism" = I dyslexia love. :D
I wasn't really talking politics but ok. Those things aren't altruistic. They're government programs. The government belongs to us. It exists to serve us. Is a hammer being altruistic to the carpenter? Those things help the overall health and security of our nation. Which one's and to what extent we support them I agree is up for debate but surely you wouldn't do away with social security would you?
to sacrifices your mother for the sake of our neighbour - is evil. Doesn't sound so insane to me.
No gods, no kings, only men.
I think the main lessen here is that caring and being beneficial to others is not inherently evil, but to do so to the point of damaging yourself, to whatever physical, emotional or spiritual extent, in the process is in itself evil. I believe she saw the concept of Altruism as the opposite extrema of complete selfishness. That is to say that neglecting or exploiting yourself in favor of helping others is, in her perception, just as evil as neglecting or exploiting others too benefit yourself.
I personally don't see self-sacrifice as inherently bad, but considering the type of toll that being a self-sacrificing individual can, and in most cases, will have on themselves, i can see people like Rand considering such a thing as evil.
TheChatterbox1991 Actually no.
Ayn Rand's argument against Altruism is far more well thought out than that and far more important than simply talking in extremes of selfishness vs. altruism, I'll try to break it down for you, since her criticism against altruism, is why she's so hated, and also why her philosophy is so important.
To understand Rand and her critique of Altruism, you have to go back to the Enlightenment. In Europe at the time: when the enlightenment was occurring, Christianity was under attack, and many people were rejecting religion. Since science was showing that man could understand nature primarily through reason, there was a revolution against the authority of church and supernatural powers of every kind.
This led to a moral crisis, because if Christianity is B.S., whether it's protestant or catholic, why should anyone abide by it or it's rules? Certain people started taking this to heart, and it lead to a ton of debauchery in Europe, where a lot of people took advantage of this moral relativism (kind of like in the new age movement in the 60's and 70's). Many of the top figures in religion and philosophy saw this, and believed in some way shape or form, the morality of Christianity had to be defended, even if Science contradicted the theology, and it was the French Revolution and all the craziness that was the Reign of Terror, that made this become a far greater emergency.
The philosopher, who provided the rationale, the path, and the way to dealing with this problem was Immanuel Kant. He basically convinced people that reason was limited, and that there were certain things that could only be understood by our emotions alone i.e. morality. After the horrors of the french revolution, which were blamed on the enlightenment, reason lost it's appeal, and there was a great surge in religion all through out the West including America. His philosophy, set the grounds not for just a resurgence of religion (that wasn't his ultimate goal), but the intellectual defense for emotionalism as a form of higher thought, where it was in Romanticism, Transcendentalism or even the modern day Evangelical Christians.
You see Christianity is Altruism, and nowhere is this made more so obvious than in the example of Jesus Christ. He is the greatest of all the great moral people, and he is great because he sacrificed himself for all sinners. He is also the one who told us that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. He is also the same one in the bible who praised a woman who was poor, but still insisted of giving half her wealth away as an offering, as being the prime example of an ideal Christian. Implicit in Christianity, and the love of Jesus is a love of altruism. This way of viewing morality, is incompatible with Capitalism - one has to eventually give and bow out to the other.
When Ayn Rand came to the U.S., she could see that Socialism was gaining prominence over American Culture, just as it had in the Soviet Union, and she saw how it was coming through, by the class of intellectuals, like many of the Conservatives of the times saw it too. The Conservatives, thought it was due to a conspiracy or some kind or a desire for a New World Order, Ayn Rand saw it differently: she saw the Socialists taking the ideas of Jesus far more seriously than the Christians did. After all, America is the richest country in the world, and over half of the 1% live in America (you are in the global 1% if you make over 30K a year), and she realized that the conservatives could uphold their love for capitalism and maintain their moral foundation of Christianity only by evading the contradiction, which to her meant there was very little hope for them. This is why Ayn Rand initially appealed to the left, but the leftist intellectuals rejected her, so she ended up pretty much by herself. The libertarians liked her, but had problems with her philosophy, because they were way more into moral relativism and didn't want to deal with her rejection of the supernatural and the primacy of philosophy over economics.
Ayn Rand understood that morality is the driving force of where men decide to go in life despite their flaws (as America, in the pursuit of the ideal of liberty for all, was able to show from it's inception); that behind every ideal is the motivation of self-improvement towards moral perfection, whether it is achieved or not. If the ideal was Jesus, and that was the measure of perfection, then socialism would eventually win out, regardless of how many times it failed in practice, since it always had the moral high ground: "Why not build heaven on Earth, if all the technology and wealth created by Capitalism, makes it possible?"
That is why Ayn Rand advocated Selfishness. Selfishness, being the working towards of one's moral perfection that has been built and worked towards to by reason. You could help others, but the desire to make yourself into the best person you could ever be is to be the measure of morality, not how much you do it in the name of other people. This is also why Ayn Rand relied heavily on Aristotle as the foundation of her philosophy: he was the first to attempt to establish a moral system based on reason; Ayn Rand's built her philosophy to make adjustments to it, and take out any reference to the supernatural, which she believed Aristotle received from Plato. Before arriving at Aristotle, and not understanding their could be a morality defended on the grounds of reason, she had embraced Nietzsche, who basically advocated for the Will to Power, as replacing the morality of Christianity. Once she discovered Aristotle, she rejected Nietzsche (Gail Wynand in the Fountainhead symbolizes him, he commits suicide in the end, by shooting himself in the head...so yeah), and was able to systematize her philosophy.
If you can understand this insight by Ayn Rand, you'll probably be able to understand everything else she says, regardless of what the critics say or those who simply memorized and spit out her ideas but don't really understand the context in which they were developed.
Jevioso Orishas Wow, very informative and well thought out comment rather than reactionary vitriol. I learned something. It's a refreshing change from the kind of stuff you usually see in UA-cam comments, y'know the ones that make you question your faith in humanity.. keep up the good work!!
TheChatterbox1991 well put, your final sentence makes it very clear for me, I think this is a good way to see the concept
+Jevioso Orishas Hello, I have a question. I've been getting into these kinds of things and it seems extremely interesting.
In fact, I first truly started to understand the term altruism....from an anime I watched (haha... I'm still young). Although it might seem a little childish, the anime (called Parasyte) talked about altruism and animosity and things like that, and it was extremely interesting to me.
By defining altruism as "selfishness in disguise", isn't it possible to have altruistic behavior even without realizing and not for your own benefit? Or does it not matter, because it might be an unconscious realization that it could benefit you in a selfish way. Like someone taking a risk and trying to fight a man with knife just to protect some random strangers. What if that someone did it on instinct, not even realizing his deed could make him a hero? Or is it all one decision, even person isn't aware of it?
Could altruism completely be applied to a mother and her child? And how often, a mother would take risk her whole life for her child, even though ( in a very cold-hearted thought) she could just make a new one? I think this is found in not only humans, but almost every animal. In the anime (called Parasyte; I actually recommend watching it), it even showed a parasite monster protecting it's child (which wasn't of the same species. It was a human baby).
And one more thing: Isn't altruistic behavior when you know that you will benefit from the deed, and know it will not hurt you much in any way considered extremely selfish? Like a man fighting a guy to protect a girl, when the man is 10x stronger and faster?
I, personally, have no problem with these actions. Us humans are a bit selfish in some ways, and maybe we do things that are extremely hard to comprehend. But that's why we're human. And I'm okay with that.
Hopefully you can read all of this. Thanks (and sorry for any typos).
Sammy Wilson The essence of altruism is self-sacrifice. You're doing it because you are sacrificing yourself, the results don't matter. The guy who fights the man 10X his strength doesn't care if he wins or not, he just cares that he's sacrificing his life under altruism. Like Jesus, he wants to die.
The essence of Rand's criticism of Altruism, is that it obscures a blatantly obvious part of what it means to survive and be human: producing more than we consume. If humans don't produce more than they consume, they die quickly...and if we're all dead, of what significance is altruism? Eventually, you run out of bodies to sacrifice.
In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand explores this pretty thoroughly. It's a book that explores what happens when productive people stop producing, and those who constantly seek to redistribute wealth and organize others in the name of the common good don't have any more fuel to run their plans.
The right way is to "Love others as well as love yourself." Not altruism: "Love others and sacrifice yourself in the process of loving others." Ayn Rand simply teaches that we should both VALUE ourselves and others; however, the primary value one should have is the value of his or her self. Think of it this way: How can you truly love others if you can not truly love yourself.
It is really strange to have something you view as an absolute truth be challenged like this. I have always thought of self sacrifice for the benefit of others as one of the greatest virtues a man or woman could achieve. We applaud when someone with little material currency gives away much of it to others, we cheer the names of those who have given their lives so that others may live, we even fantasize about doing it ourselves.
I still believe these things to be important, an almost subconscious part of mankind. but somehow through Rand's reasoning I have begun to question them a bit.
+horeballa you maybe on the threshold of an amazing, but counter-intuitive insight. Keep following your nose.
+fzqlcs Using your logic there is no objective reason any person should try to save your two year old child from a Burning Car is it?
+mrgetrealpeople There would be an objective reason for me, the child's mother or anyone who valued the child so highly they would risk their own lives to save the two year old. Others may have reasons as well, such as wanting credit for being the rescuer or avoiding discredit for having done nothing while witnessing an avoidable death. Beyond that, there are few objective reasons to put one's own life at risk to save a stranger. It is a question of value. Few people value a stranger's life above their own.
You don't understand Rand do you?
+horeballa the thing is that, in that instance, you're not being totally selfless, but partially selfless. To act selflessly is to hold no regard for your own welfare. Now, personally I don't think that's evil, I think that's stupid. Then again, I believe Rand has a different definition of evil because she has different values. I may hold some contempt for altruism as the secular remnant of religiosity, but I haven't totally adopted the Objectivist ethic because I haven't done enough research. The question I still have is: is it altruistic to be charitable under any circumstances, even if you gain happiness from it? Personally I like to help people close to me and I even gain some happiness from helping those that don't know me as well, but is that altruism? Is the definition of altruism dependent on what we gain happiness from?
If your mother became crippled and had to move about in a wheelchair, but there was no nurse to take care of her for one years time, would you sacrifice for one year and be that nurse for your mother until a real one comes? You see... your mother is a "value" to you. People can be a value to you. What would you do without them if you were in a wheelchair like your mother? So here is where certain sacrifice becomes a noble thing. Never forget that
Most dislikes here are because they misunderstood what she is saying, and do not realize that what they call 'altruism' is in most cases 'selfishness in disguise', as Dawkins put it in "The Selfish Gene"
I can however imagine a hypothetical situation in which a true altruist (who gets nor emotional pleasure, nor any "God points", nor any secondary gains for their action) would through acts of 'mass-altruism' produce a positive net effect in which people would be less inclined to practice true altruism, thereby helping humanity in some sense. So in this sense 'true altruism' is not necessarily bad.
6C1 Perhaps, but I do not believe that such a truly selfless being could exist. At least not a normal human being. which I think negates this argument. It reminds me of an argument I have often used against communism, which is that I do not believe true communism could exist, except for in a hive mind community. That said, I do not necessarily entirely agree with Ayn Rand either. I do not think it is a bad thing for the strong to pull up the weak. It is when those who you are pulling up, have no intention of giving anything to society in return, that there is an issue. When they refuse to do for them self, because they feel they are entitled to a free ride.
david boell I think you have made a very good point there, inequity in society causes greater harm the bigger it is, this is obvious when you consider few in power with immense wealth while the masses are in abject poverty. We all benefit when we are not so strongly stratified, when there is not such a gap between the haves and have-nots, and so with the strong and the weak, it is good to help those who cannot help themselves, to rehabilitate, to help them be strong again. And, with support and education, I'm sure that those who would otherwise refuse or feel entitled will, instead, be willing and able to give back and help rehabilitate the remaining weak
david boell hello there.
Yes, I very much agree with you. The way I see it is that Ayn used the word "altruism" instead of "self-sacrifice", and it's partially a play of words which causes disagreements, and confuses a commoner.
But I also believe she used "altruism" in her speeches to gain a greater response in public, and perhaps also in attempt to warn of the detremental commoner definition of "altruism = self sacrifice + act of benevolence"
(so from my viewpoint, we can either remove "self-sacrifice" from the equation, or remove "benevolence" from the equation, and she removed the latter, hence defining "altruism = self sacrifice")
So... having taken this confusion of definitions into consideration, I choose to avoid the word 'altruism' in non-philosophical conversations, and instead use the word 'benevolence' or 'welfare'.
But more importantly, the word 'selfishness' causes more confusion!
The way I see it is common people define selfishiness it as
"Selfishness = 0% Self sacrifice + 100% inconsideration",
IMHO, Ayn tried to remove the "100% inconsideration" from the equation,
and therefore she called it "Selfishiness = 0% Self sacrifice".
Instead, I use my personal definition as "Selfishness = Being Inconsiderate", such as when doing something at others' expense, and I'm not an advocate for this kind of selfshiness.
Instead, I do advocate (in most cases) and am willing to 'publicly' stand up for what I personally call "mindful selfishness", meaning that I take others into consideration, but am not necessarily willing to self-sacrifice or be a "true altruist" which Ayn desribes.
(therefore "Mindful selfishness = No True Altruism + Being Considerate")
By the way, from her responses in some vids I sensed that Ayn is perhaps overthinking altruism, as in "hmm If I do this, would I then be an altruist?" whereas a common person would be more spontaneous, which I find is more true to your self.. Like I'm not gonna overthink some things and strictly not do it coz it disagrees with my philosophy ; instead I'll follow my heart and intuition at that moment (but followin ur intuition isnt infallable, and I think she desperately tried to avoid the fallacies, but I also think the price she had to pay in life with that attitude might have been greater than if she hadn't been overthinking it).
Maybe that was her defense mode, because she felt in the past that people wanted her to be self sacrificial, then later she avoided it at all cost? Who knows, life is complex, we're all just want some loving affection and assurance not be hurt.
Side (half-)joke: writing this long text down wasnt an act of altruism or to alter the mind of others who reads, but instead a mindfully selfish act, which allows me to restructure my thoughts, share ideas, be challenged by the other, and grow. Very selifsh, jst like Ayn would approve of :)
> We all benefit when we are not so strongly stratified,
Oil firms need vastly more wealth than average people to provide gasoline to them. Even a socialist govt which owns oil firms would need that.
Yes I only have 500 words. It's not name calling. I'm not a psychologist but I've read about it a lot and I think she really is a psychopath. Psychopathy is characterized by a lack of empathy. You will find many psychopaths in positions of power, just like the characters in her book. The idea that the more productive humans on the planet will lead to some kind of utopia is laughable and I don't think she even thought so. As for exhibit A, what loss of freedom?
THIS VIDEO SAVED ME ON ONE OF MY FINALS. THANK YOU SO MUCH
+Zac How?? What course were you taking?
blind altruism is different than the responsible kind. her words are being used as reinforcement for selfishness as a moral choice. which can then be interpreted that taking advantage of people is not morally wrong. but i think her true message is that imposing altruism which demands sacrifice for the sake of an entity is wrong and can lead to great acts of suffering.
"Philosophy" of the cynicism...
I didn't say it was taboo, I said it was evading actually answering my question.
And you're right, it is quite common.
I asked several very specific questions.
1. That if paying taxes = helping poor people, like you said, then,have you ever payed more into taxes than required and/or deliberately not taken every deduction you could?
2. So on what basis does the state stake a claim on a man's values (i.e. his property, labor, etc).
3. Are you a greedy person? You meet your own definition for it.
Ayn Rand is wrong, because she doesn't realize that the greatest selfishness is selflessness.
and you are not you
That's a total contradiction. Selfishness requires the achievement of values. Selflessness demands the sacrifice of values. Check your premises.
>selfishness is selflessness.
In your imagination but not in the concrete, material universe as known by man's mind. Man is a living organism, facing the constant alternative of life and death. Man's actions either further or threaten his life. Selflessness is a rationalization of the desire to be self-destructive without being destroyed, to be consciousness without existence. This is mysticism.
What a pessimistic and irrational way of looking at the world :v
I find that most who dismiss Ayn Rand’s morality don’t really understand it. Her “selfishness” is long-term, principled self-interest. People are a combination of the physical and mental, and your self-interest includes psychological values. Self-interest is not to be reduced to only the physical, such as money. Other people can be of tremendous psychological value (i.e. friends, lovers, children.) Rand recognized that benevolence toward strangers is in one’s own interest, in a free country.
She is just a product of the environment she was raised.
+Jump Jump By your reasoning so are you.
+Jump Jump Great argument. You just rebutted everything she said. Good job!
+Jump Jump You mean the Soviet Union that she fled? The petty dictatorship that made her early years horrible? In the sense that she stood against it, then yes. Yes she is.
Oh so like literally everyone and everything else? How the fuck else do you get where you are?
Pitting selfishness vs altruism is based on the assumption that you cannot balance the two, and you have to go extreme all the way into one direction - this of course is not true - you can make others happy and make yourself happy at the same time ... ayn rand probably cant though
You are talking about altruism in the casual way the word is used today. Rand was talking about "the philosophy of" altruism, which uses its original meaning of holding others as higher value than yourself. Thats very different to simply making others happy.
Altruism IS a survival trait, you are overtaken by dogma... How do you think the cycle of birth, life death is replenished? Selfishness is also a survival trait. Neither can be fully extended they need to be balanced. It is hypocritical to discount your entire first 16 years of life during which you were a beneficiary of altruism. Even basic laws you rely on for survival are based on altruism, for example, why is robbery illegal, or mugging.. any person who is physically stronger than you can overpower you and take everything you have including your life... however you rely on societal altruistic rules to save your life... and the list goes on
Granting of individual rights IS altruism - why the hell should society grant you individual rights which you have not fought for, and if you fight you would lose to a stronger person.. you guys are not thinking holistically.. also you're benefitting from altruism while lashing out at that thing you rely on for survival
the human race is not built on individual selfishness, in fact individuals enter life and are nurtured using the altruistic urges - whe they leave this life they cease to exist and their worth is measured by what they left behing for others, whether useful items, wealth or even inventions and art etc from their creative minds - measuring a person's worth from what they personally gain is not their value to society, that's what they are able to TAKE from society.. you measure a person's worth by what they GIVE to society...
in fact, even the financial system is designed to reward you when you SHARE or GIVE a product or service to the customer which is beneficial to them...ie selfishness is used to serve altruism in a holistic sense - the net effect is humans all doing things for each other using financial hypnotism (money has no real intrinsic value, its value is derived from YOUR value added to the process)
That tailchasing exercise makes my point. Objectivity is not in conflict with change. Change is reality and objectivity takes that in to account. Objectivity cannot be at variance with reality, otherwise it is not Objectivity. Objectivity is reality. Things have a fixed nature even when the circumstances around them change.
I had a similar experience, even argued certain Altruist and collectivist ideals when I was a kid, but as I grew up I started learning more and more about how people and the world actually works (as opposed to certain utopian theories) and started waking up to Individualism, reason, logic, and self-interest as the basis for how a society operates, as opposed to collectivism, emotion (particularly fear and envy) and subjective "fairness".
Although, I still can't call myself an Objectivist.
The choice to eat or not eat dirt is a choice just as choosing to buy a Ferrari or a Rolls is a choice, the only thing that changes is what's being deliberated upon, i.e. chosen between.
What you apparently still don't understand is that the act of choosing is not dependent on what's being decided between.
And you most certainly can given away everything you own, work for money to buy new stuff, then give it all away again.
If you steal from others for the purpose of giving to charity while avoiding your own expense, it is not altruistic.
If you've stolen the money, for whatever reason are unable to return it, and decide to donate it because you do not feel like it should be yours, you are being altruistic.
This is a common misunderstanding of Rand. She says right here in this clip there is nothing wrong with giving to another person if you value that person i.e. giving to a spouse, or in mutual exchange, were both parties are gaining in some way.
If there is value to you in being charitable then do it. But don't force other to or hold that charity, i.e. sacrifice, is a virtue or duty. I believe that's what she saying. I could be wrong, I'm still a bit new to Rand's ideas.
They key to this is to understand the perception of what help, morality and sacrifice are. For example, many people mistake holding someone's hand as helping, whereas the "tough love" that teaches people to stand on their own to feet is surely true help.
If you force it on people, it is not altruistic because altruism is largely defined by motivations. The motivations behind altruism must be voluntary. If you donate 1000 bucks, it's charity. If someone robs you of 1000 bucks and then donates it, it is not altruism. It is theft.
This is not hard to understand.
No they're not. It's about having a stable society. You know I read her books and although I think she is a talented writer, she's still full of shit. Her society would be a hell on earth. What exactly do you want the right to do? Not pay taxes and live outside of American society? Become Amish.
"How can you truly love others if you can not truly love yourself."
Altruism does not negate loving yourself. But let's ignore that obvious hole in your argument. Why is loving yourself a requirement for loving others?
the problem is her definition of altruism. she says that it's altruism only if you don't like helping others, and that it is not if you like doing it. but the problem is that for a person watching it, he would define it as altruism because he can not know if the act of helping is from self interest. meaning, the definition of altruism is in reality impossible to define.furthermore the "want" of helping is hard to express and can change in the moment and in the future looking back.
"Objectivity is impossible in the individual"
Is that an objectively true statement?
It is now becoming an increasingly known fact among evolutionary biologists that kindness, and likely altruism, is dependent on both our happiness as a species and our actual survival. This is my personal intellectual case for morality. This is because morality is reciprocative.If you only cared about your self to the most extreme degree, you may not be able to find somebody to help you with things in life if you've rejected them before. Increasing the reciprocation on a global scale is top goal
Q: What is the place of compassion in your philosophical system?
A: I regard compassion as proper only toward those who are innocent victims, but not toward those who are morally guilty. If one feels compassion for the victims of a concentration camp, one cannot feel it for the torturers. If one does feel compassion for the torturers, it is an act of moral treason toward the victims.
Sacrificing yourself blindly for others is what created wars.. and she got hated for that. What a great thinker she was
A man chooses, a slave obeys.
True altruism is giving because you want to give; because you want to bring good, not because you are being forced to. When forced to, it is beet known as theft.
For someone who was a people pleaser, she helped me
As long as YOU are the one to sacrifice themselves, YOUR altruism is all good with me.
People don't seem to actually listen to Rand. They find one or two key phrases lock on and ignore everything else. She didn't say that helping another person was bad. Your question is the VERY FIRST QUESTION Donahue asked. If you have the means, and YOU wish to do it, not someone else telling you to do it, then helping others is a beautiful thing. But when you don't have the means... when you give the homeless guy on the side of the street $20 even though it means your child will starve...
Ayn's work was approximated in the 1940s and 1950s by professional philosophers teaching at American universities. Prof Tara Smith of UTexas at Austin has put those ideas to the test of modern rigor in philosophical and ethical analysis. Rand's ideas pass the tests.
She is constantly misunderstood,because she says it straight out(then all who listens go into hate/defense mode)-and explain it in a harshish way afterward..,...Her first Language is russian,its just a lot of cases of "lost in translation",cause she means well-and look at what the U.S. is today...!One can not misunderstand this-what she should have done,is to explain what she means by it first,and,problem solved...Have a Nice day...
That's called simple sharing. mutual benefit. Rand didn't like feeling compelled to help others or share. She felt that sharing is only justified if you like them. Rand's viewpoints were far more extreme then you're describing. Her logic: "I'm in the desert with one loaf of bread, I have a long way to go, its only enough bread for me. Tough luck buddy, youre on your own. It would be immoral for me to share with you, because that could prove detrimental to me in the long run."
A bird acts on unconscious libido, while a human is in the unfortunate position of being conscious not only of his lusts but also of is surroundings. A bird is at the mercy of nature. Humans can bend nature to their will. Anyone who compares us to other animals is dealing in pure sophistry.
She's not against that too because that's not what she believes to be "real" sacrifice, because the parent'd be actually helping one of his own instead of sacrificing something really valuable to help someone unknown, like a neighbour.
It'd be altruism if the parent gave up food for helping, let's say, someone who was just walking by the street and is hungry.
I loved Hitch so much. The guy was so smart and just from listening to him talk about her I feel half confident in saying that Hitch, who read books a day, never actually cracked open a rand book. He always talked about her with such cynicism, which was odd for him.. I'd be interested in knowing what his opinion was of her toward the end, it might have changed.
Doesn't that fall in line with Utilitarianism? If I'm understanding her correctly, she is more or less defining the Western variety of Capitalism from a far right perspective?
This has to be one of Steve Buscemi's best performances to date...and in drag, no less.
you should switch that around. Business isn't the one with a monopoly on force. Government controls business, business pays off government to be able to do things more freely.
Your criticism shattered me into pieces ... I feel so small ...
You're right, if Ayn Rand wants to speak against altruism she can't say it's evil. What she can do is say it's stupid.
Altruism, hmmmm?
What's up with the notion of people not wanting to enjoy life? Saying they only exist to benefit others and not themselves as an individual...
If everyone should avoid pleasure and only exist to benefit others.... How does everyone accomplish this task altogether exactly?
How do 2 people, let alone billions of them, even help one another without depriving each other of their own selflessness?
Even after the exercise of going through the due diligence to research all the ins and outs of pure altruism; I find the philosophical concept, as is, hypocritically corrupt and euphemistically cloaked, absolute pure evil.
Why does it have to be EITHER/OR??
& why can people NOT derive some pleasure from helping others as well as helping themselves??
U seem to THINK in MONO only!!
itz4kix
Altruism is a lie. It is a guilt trip to con everyone into giving up their property and wealth to an elite few who know how best everyone should run their lives. It is a form of mind control.
*****
So who is lying if one chooses [having weighed up the options] to be altruistic to some degree??
Surely U believe in being-free-to-think for oneself?? Or is it U & your kind that are the thought police!?
itz4kix
If you're helping others and it is purely voluntary, no peer pressure, no government mandated redistribution of your wealth... there is absolutely nothing wrong with it per say... as long as you are not hurt or drained in any way that would cause hardship... As well, if you get some sort of superiority complex or point to yourself saying look how great and wonderful I am for being so giving to others and start using it against others to shame them.
Give anonymously and then forget about it.
*****
Altruism is ONLY a guilt trip if that's what U THINK!! Get over it!!
Progressive taxation is the best way to mitigate against the sort of inequality [& I'm NOT an advocate of absolute financial equality] of everything from healthcare to access to education that results in societal fault lines resulting in violent crime & taken to its obvious conclusion; revolution.
One major point Ayn Rand missed out was, the entire altruistic theory was proposed only for the ruled(the people). The rulers were always selfish to the core and fulfilled even their craziness by use of state force.
Ten commandments says to value Only Cod your creator more than you , and to love your neighbor AS you love yourself, self sacrifice, like Ayn Rand says is suicide, a crime against your creator, any one proposing self sacrifice (or suicide ) is defying the creator.
The circumstances are set by reality. Either you have the resources to help without hurting yourself, or you don't. And you either know the person, or you don't. And an outside force (government) forces you to do something or it doesn't. It's an equation basically, if it comes out positive it's good. If you want to help and you can help, but you don't know the person you're helping it's fine. It's when you don't want to help, but you could, and others force you to that it's wrong.
That would not be an altruistic action then. As she stated with the husband case, you are not sacrificing, because you are gaining value in the process. The pessimist argues that man (or woman) only gives to charity because it gives him (or her) a feeling of empowerment. This person has a better life because of me, therefore I feel good. Ayn Rand would argue (and has argued) that you are acting for the feeling you get, not to help others; therefore, it is not altruism.
I don't believe that any form of altruism that involved the concious decision to sacrifice one for another would ever be moral in the least.
Bioshock has made me truly appreciate her work and not to take it too seriously as well! ;)
If I understand this correctly no act is truly altruistic. A person who gives a homeless man money does it to make himself feel good. In other words, a true altruist would feel nothing. So what about holding the door open? When I see somebody behind me I hold the door open not because it makes me feel good but because they're behind me and need to get through the door.
It COULDN'T be clearer what I am an advocate of:
Being a compromise with room for BOTH self-interest & kindness & kind acts towards others. [I.E. mixed economies].
Coercion on MWF, freedom on TTS and flip a coin for Sunday?
Its history. No govt runs on altruism. It allways run on, and to the benefit of, the power of the political class.
What's wrong with helping someone that you don't know? We all live on one planet, one species. I'll admit that there is such thing as being so selfless that you damage yourself, but you can as well be quite selfless and be happy. What's wrong with feeling good about helping others?
Absolutely right.
People ARE altruistic. Why? Because it altruism HELPS the group, and natural selection made people altruistic. It's not just being right or wrong. It just IS. People *are* egotistical in some measure, but also altruistic.
Egoism is good for the Self, and promotes self-preservation. Altruism is good for the group, and promotes social unity strength and advancement.
Ya know, even Jesus said "If you love only those who love you, what good is that? Even scoundrels do that much. If you are friendly only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else?"
Meaning, why is it a virtue to be good to those you care about and who cares a lot about you already? This is a point Ayn Rand tries to make.
If you haven't taken the TIME TO READ a single Ayn Rand book... Don't TAKE THE TIME to post a comment in opposition to one of her philosophies. Read and learn before you draw a conclusion. You might be surprised what you learn,
A simple typo, but you knew what I meant. An objective study of history has shown that mans methods for the production of commodities have changed in many many ways and a quick look around will show that they are still changing and with startling pace. The reality of history is therefore at variance with the ideas of Objectivity. Objectivism is at variance with reality. Therefore I reject objectivity.
How does it inconvenience my convictions?
In the face of Statism, Communism and Fascism she definitely has a point. Americans were more individualistic when we were creating our national identity, building. In my understanding of Rand we've allowed ourselves to convolute our charitability and altruism to the point of meaningless ness. Hence our decline, or at least our loss of purpose
"In someone that acts so' is it the selflessness or the selfishness that comes first or could it be that said selfishness & selflessness co-exist..."
To modify something Rand once said, before you can say, "I will sacrifice for you." You must first be able to say "I". So the "self" is at the center of acting for another (assuming it's by choice) but the person who is acting for another is getting more value in doing so than he/she is sacrificing, otherwise it would be irrational to do so.
If you're doing it for your own reputation then you expect to get something in return for helping someone and as such you aren't sacrificing anything, i.e. it is not altruism at all.
The interviewer at the end tried to catch her out as if to say that giving to a loved one is an altruist act. No, it's a selfish act. You love someone selfishly for their values, as Rand said a million times. The confusion lies in the terms of altruism and especially selfishness. The term selfish has deliberately been obfuscated by the powers that be. When you hear Rand use the term selfish, think individuality. You don't owe it to everyone to love them. You don't reward a murderer with love. You love those that deserve it. YOU see value in a person that corresponds with YOUR OWN. This is what she means by the word selfish. You don't go around dishing love out and rewarding, and therefore encouraging, bad people.
Funny how a lot of people misunderstand what she is saying, you string together your highly intellectual comments yet fail to actually listen to what she is saying...
I think she read Nietzsche, liked it and ripped it off with a Capitalism twist.
Mencken explained Nietzche in 1907, and she read his stuff.
For some reason she and the followers of her philosophy seem to think it is outright evil if it adversely affects the person giving in the slightest way, no matter how much good it does for the person you help, and also disregard (Or just don't have) any feeling of satisfaction that you get when you are kind and charitable.
You can sacrifice a selfish higher value, such as the need to sleep, for a selfish lower one, such as the desire to comfort a friend in the middle of the night, without being morally wrong. That is either a form of "selfish altruism", using your definition, or your definition is lacking.
Besides, what I said was that giving because it feels good is selfish, and therefore is not "altruistic" in the sense referred to by the video... so... we're arguing semantics here. Lets not.
The salvation army puts a santa clause outside of stores, they ring a bell and if you have extra change you contribute... they never mention sacrifice and santa isn't even allowed to ask you to give.
You're completely caught up on the definitions schoolteachers gave your parents to give to you for these words. I'll say again voluntary assistance is morally fine, forcing someone to help is wrong.
I doubt your quote takes into account the complexities of his opinion. I doubt he means that we do not have a right to life or choice.
However, I do completely agree with his statement "We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries." Unless a man has grown in a total vacuum, spontaneously without parents to father him, he owes to society.
That is what she is saying, problem is altruists don't force people to do that, that is what collectivists do, she seems to mistake altruists for collectivists, true altruists don't give a damn if others don't help, they just help, collectivists attempt to force assimilation on all others, forcing them to help the thing they are helping (typically the group).
If she just stuck to debunking collectivism, she would have been fine, but the second she attacks altruism, there is a problem.
An under reported aspect of Japan's lost decade - was the fact that the US and Britain reneged on their sweetheart trade deals. Most Brits and Americans don't realize that in the post-war period, Japan had almost free access to American and British markets whilst placing tariffs on imports. Similar deals were struck with S Korea and Taiwan. Which was due to the fight against communism - demonstrating the superiority of capitalism. Shame American and British workers paid the price.
"to help someone you don't know while those you do are forced to go without help because of it, that's when it becomes most evil." Maybe so. There's many cases where you can help someone and still take care of your immediate family or friends.
Accepting Rand's argument against altruism as valid, I don't think it really applies to anybody in the real world. Even when people help others whom they don't know, aren't they ultimately doing it for the sense of personal satisfaction they get? So it's not really self-sacrifice. If it's something you WANT to do, you would be sacrificing your own well-being by NOT doing it.
Oh sure. Volunteering at the local animal shelter or donating millions of dollars to a food relief organization for Africa saving millions of people you have never met must be a sign of tyranny.
What caused German hyperinflation was extortionate war reparations and the fact the French grabbed the Ruhr. Which always happens when countries are placed under sanctions - too much money chasing too few goods. A country like America or the EU, self-sufficient superpowers, would never suffer hyper inflation. E.g. as long as production keeps up, inflation won't get out of hand.
"I'm not sure if she really understands what altruism is." Please tell us what altruism is in your view.
Communists and nationalsocialists cannot grasp what is meant by aggression or coercion either. In their view, when they do it, it isn't.
@MumblingMickey I seriously don't see the point in any of it, because the apologists basically end up saying that Objectivism is a life-changing philosophy, but that you don't have to change anything about your life to be consistent with it. Either that, or parents emancipate their children because they're "moochers." It's a philosophy that justifies all human behavior even as it vilifies human behavior.