A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!		NoodleFood : RSS Feed | via E-mail | Recent Comments | Archives NoodleCast : M4A via iTunes (MP3) | via Feed Reader | via E-mail Diana Hsieh : Rationally Selfish | PhiloFiles | Explore Atlas Shrugged OList Mailing Lists | FIRM | FRO | Secular Government

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 The Demanding Altruist By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM I was pretty floored by this letter in a recent Miss Manners column: Dear Miss Manners: Several years ago, I volunteered at an elementary school and became friendly with a mother and son who both taught there. My health has since deteriorated to the point where I am in a wheelchair. I left my volunteer job and the mother and son moved on. In the eight years since we worked together, the mother has sent me jokes and prayers through e-mail, but seldom a personal message. I have not heard from the son in at least four years. Nothing at all until I received his wedding invitation. I sent my regrets, and a note saying I would send a gift when I was out of the hospital. That day, I was cleared for surgery, and I spent three days in a hospital and four weeks in a rehab facility. While I was unable to get my e-mail, the mother of the groom sent me four e-mails reminding me to send her son "something to honor his special day." I then received a group e-mail with a few wedding pictures, so everyone she sent it to was able to read her message that I could finally get her son a gift, and how was surgery? I could also see that she had abased another recipient. I finally wrote her that I'd had enough. They claim to be devout Christians, yet they are hounding me for a gift. I explained that being in a wheelchair, it is difficult to get out, and I was sorry I didn't go shopping. Then her son took over. He ignored my physical limitations and went on and on about how he gave me two months and I should have had plenty of time to buy him something. I have not heard from the man in four years, and then I receive an invitation to his wedding. Do I owe him a gift? Miss Manners, as expected, responded quite reasonably, writing the following: As a symbol of your affectionate relationship? The next step in such a campaign is to threaten to break your knees. When this happens, Miss Manners recommends involving the police. In the meantime, she suggests blocking or deleting their e-mail. That's right, but it doesn't speak to the kind of vicious moral psychology underlying the actions of this young man and his mother. I'm not the slightest bit surprised that these people are "devout Christians." In fact, even apart from that claim, I would have bet $100 that they were serious advocates of altruism. They are not hypocrites, either, as most people would suppose. They practice what they preach -- even in this instance. How so? The altruist denies the value of his own existence. He regards the welfare of others as of greater moral significance than his own: he regards himself as morally obliged to sacrifice his concerns, his values, and even his life for the sake of others. (That's the definition of altruism: it's other-ism.) He does not hold that view due to some particular imperfection or degradation unique to himself. Instead, he denigrates the self as such: he regards every person as obliged to do the same. (That's ultimately incoherent, but I'll leave that aside for now.) Consequently, the serious altruist will develop the most disgusting kind of contempt for other people. He values them as little as he values himself -- meaning: not at all. So if another person pursues his own values rather than sacrificing himself as demanded, that person must be condemned as immoral. Morality requires every person to forgo his own values for the sake of others. And so you have the strange phenomena of committed altruists demanding sacrifices from other people to satisfy their most petty whims -- and condemning them as selfish for failing to do. That's not hypocrisy: it's the twisted logic of altruism. In contrast, the rational egoist knows the value of his own life -- and his own responsibility for achieving his happiness. He knows that every other person can and ought to take the same perspective on his own life. He knows that he only profits from interacting with others to the extent that they do so. He wants other people to act as rational egoists in pursuit of their own personal values. Consequently, he treats other people with respect for doing so -- never as his personal serfs. It is the egoist, not the altruist, who values other people. Labels: Ethics Share |    E-mail Diana Hsieh     PermaLink ()    Comments (New Page)   Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader   via E-mail Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3)   via Feed Reader   via E-mail

Comments
	Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 1:52:37 mst Comment ID: #1 Name: å...‰ç"µå¼€å...³ E-mail: xwx(at)hycgq.com URL: http://www.hycgq.com/ Every Living Person Has Problems
	Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 5:46:28 mst Comment ID: #2 Name: Kyle Haight E-mail: khaight(at)alumni.ucsd.edu URL: http://www.leftist.org/haightspeech I don't think the above was a serious comment, but it did spark a thought. The grain of truth in the above is that every living entity has *needs* which must be satisfied if it is to continue existing. If those needs are not being met then the entity has a problem. This is the root of morality. But to view the fact of needs as a problem is to view life per se as a problem.
	Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 7:03:03 mst Comment ID: #3 Name: Amy E-mail: mossoffa(at)gmail.com URL: http://www.amymossoff.com Well said, Diana.
	Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 10:09:39 mst Comment ID: #4 Name: Kevin Delaney E-mail: ctprods-at-yahoo-dotcom URL: http://www.KevinDelaney.net Diana, thank you so much for such a clear, cogent and concise statement on the psychology of altruism vs. egoism.
	Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 10:17:28 mst Comment ID: #5 Name: DP So the issue here is that altruists do not merely seek to sacrifice themselves to others; they also actively morally condemn those who do not. And they do so, perversely, even in cases where that would require demanding the sacrifice of others to one's self--the behavior of a monster. Am I understanding this correctly?
	Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 13:11:16 mst Comment ID: #6 Name: Craig R Diana, Would you say that they phenomenon you described is why altruism never remains voluntary or optional? Many conservatives will argue that the New Testament preaches self sacrifice to god but they say this does not mean that Christian charity and self-sacrifice should be the basis of socialism or the welfare-state; ie they are saying that self-sacrifice is only noble on the personal level not on the national. But this defense always seemed weak to me. If you preach altruism as an ethical ideal, how could it not come to dominate your politics? This seems to tie in with what you're saying; that if you believe in altruism you wont only sacrifice your own life and welfare, but you will hate anyone who refuses to do the same.
	Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 14:23:55 mst Comment ID: #7 Name: Kevin Delaney E-mail: ctprods-at-yahoodotcom URL: http://www.KevinDelaney.net To the altruist, morality is duty; a series of commands to be accepted and obeyed, not understood. Altruists are "other-ists" -- a role they often deeply resent. Altruism claims to concern itself with the lives and welfare of other people. In a certain sense, this is true. What an altruist cannot do is *care* very much about others -- or anything else, for that matter. When a person accepts the validity of self-sacrifice, the foundation of his valuing mechanism is cut from under him. One of my all-time favorite AR nonfiction passages comes from "Art and Moral Treason," collected in The Romantic Manifesto (p. 145 paperback): "Apart from its many other evils, conventional morality is not concerned with the formation of a child's character. It does not teach or show him what kind of man he ought to be and why; it is concerned only with imposing a set of rules upon him -- concrete, arbitrary, contradictory and, more often than not, incomprehensible rules, which are mainly prohibitions and duties. "A child whose only notion of morality (i.e., of values) consists of such matters as: 'Wash your ears!' -- 'Don't be rude to Aunt Rosalie!' -- 'Do your homework!' -- 'Help papa to mow the lawn (or mama to wash the dishes)!' -- faces the alternative of: either a passively amoral resignation, leading to a future of hopeless cynicism, or a blind rebellion. "Observe that the more intelligent and independent a child, the more unruly he is in regard to such commandments. But, in either case, the child grows up with nothing but resentment and fear or contempt for the concept of morality which, to him, is only 'a phantom scarecrow made of duty, of boredom, of punishment, of pain . . . a scarecrow standing in a barren field, waving a stick to chase away [his] pleasures.' (Atlas Shrugged)"
	Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 16:13:53 mst Comment ID: #8 Name: Lucy Thanks for the great post, Diana.
	Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 17:14:00 mst Comment ID: #9 Name: Austringer "I'm not the slightest bit surprised that these people are "devout Christians."" Well, I am surprised, and I would also say that their behavior indicates that they are not "devout Christians" at all, but rather grasping hypocrites. Why are you "not the slightest bit surprised"?
	Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 21:51:49 mst Comment ID: #10 Name: William H Stoddard E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile In my early teens, before I saw The Virtue of Selfishness on a library shelf, I read Bernard Shaw's Man and Superman, including the appendix, The Revolutionist's Handbook and Pocket Companion. Now, Shaw was a Fabian socialist. But nonetheless, his "maxims for revolutions" included some principles that I still consider sound advice: You had better take care to get what you like, or you shall have to like what you get. Self-sacrifice enables us to sacrifice others without blushing. The latter seems to apply in this case. One of the risks in dealing with unselfish people is that they are likely to feel that because they have made sacrifices in the service of some cause, you should make the same sacrifices . . . without inquiring as to whether you might have reasons not to support that cause, or not to contribute to it (even if you approve of its goals), or as to how much it would cost you to support it. They're likely to simply assume that if they choose to work for some goal that everyone else is obliged to join them. That is, there's a natural temptation for them to assume the right to dispose of other people's money, effort, and passion according to their own priorities. Or, at least, my own experiences have included such encounters. Fortunately, I don't often have to deal with such people. But I've learned that the best policy toward them is to be a ruthless son of a bitch and proud of it. Trying to appease them just encourages them.
	Wednesday, July 15, 2009 at 12:22:33 mst Comment ID: #11 Name: C Andrew E-mail: ca4papen(at)mindspring.com William, The second line was used by Lerner and Loewe in "My Fair Lady." I don't recall the exact sequence but it is when Higgins and Doolittle are having their confrontation at his mother's house. "If you don't like what you've got, then you'd better get what you like!" He then follows it with some comment about a man with "Big boots to kick you with and big lips to kiss you with..." I don't recall if the line was used in the original "Pygmailion." Along the lines of ruthless sum'bitchery... Heinlien pointed out that there are some people who are so obnoxious that "You should continue to insult them until they apologize."
	Wednesday, July 15, 2009 at 12:23:16 mst Comment ID: #12 Name: C Andrew E-mail: ca4papen(at)mindspring.com Sorry, that was the First line. Apparently having difficulties with my ordinals today.
	Thursday, July 16, 2009 at 12:52:15 mst Comment ID: #13 Name: Roderick Fitts E-mail: rodfitts(at)gmail.com Thanks, Diana, for some more evidence of altruism. It's awesome that you also brought up the incoherency of altruism's implications. Some of us Objectivists learned about it from Dr. Onkar Ghate at last year's "Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism."
	Monday, August 17, 2009 at 16:27:20 mst Comment ID: #14 Name: BrotherJohn E-mail: brother.john55(at)yahoo.com Greetings, It seems to me that you seem to critize Christianity because you find (so called) adherents that fit you version of altruism -yet I find nothing altruistic in their behavior at all - they seem to me to be pursuing self interest or should I say selfishness. If a person embraces a faith in Christ and matures in it - they will truly view as all life as sacred. If I am inspired to do something sacrificial, I don't expect the same from you... And I don't devalue you because you don't believe as I do. But I do find it a little disturbing that it the idea of helping someone else is irrational when you don't have a compelling self interest in doing so. I don't see the lack of concern for, say, the life Kitty Genovese as flowing from a devaluation of life due to altruism but rather out of fear and a conscious decision that my life is of more value than hers, so I will not risk it. Or I think of Corrie ten Boom how her family save many during the Holocaust. Or the soldier who jumps on the grenade and saves his comrades. I guess I would prefer that we would look out not only for ourselves but for each other. I think the world is smaller and darker otherwise... Peace, John
	Monday, August 17, 2009 at 17:08:03 mst Comment ID: #15 Name: Craig R "If a person embraces a faith in Christ and matures in it - they will truly view as all life as sacred." Just like the Inquisition right? "If I am inspired to do something sacrificial, I don't expect the same from you..." This is a common argument from conservatives. Altruism should be a personal duty but not a societal one. Politics doesn't work that way. What a society considers ethical it will enforce politically. Sacrifice once glorified will be mandated in practice. Just look at our ever growing welfare state. "But I do find it a little disturbing that it the idea of helping someone else is irrational when you don't have a compelling self interest in doing so." This sounds like the typical Kantian argument that for an action to be moral the actor must derive no benefit from it. To me it is not disturbing but healthy that a person should only help people out of self-interested motives. But the use of the word "compelling" confuses (deliberately?) the issue here. The Objectivist position, as I understand it, is that there is a natural benevolence among peaceful people and a good will is built in to societal relationships (to use an expression) especially in a free society. That's why holding the door open, allowing an elderly person to take your seat on the bus, etc. are all non-sacrificial things. Rational people *value* the existence of (peaceful) others. Brother John is perpetuating the ubiquitous view that self-interest equals predation and the only two moral options are sacrificing yourself for others or sacrificing others to yourself; i.e. being a martyr or a conqueror. Rand provided a third alternative. (Aristotle might have also but I'm not sure.) There is alot more that can be said on this though. Hopefully others here will reply.
Post Your Comment
Name or Handle: E-mail: URL:   Remember Me   Comment:   No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links. Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome. The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board. Do not post random questions or comments, except on the designated "open threads" posted on Wednesdays and Sundays. To weed out spammers: 6 plus 2 equals 1033402702001603181