Re: Is Objectivism a Religion?
Chez, it is no surprise to me that deepdowntruth understands Ayn Rand objectivism far better than I do. If I was smart I'd leave this debate to those better educated in objectivism. DDT may be a better person to ask on the specifics of objectivist ethics.
[ QUOTE ]
I assume you mean that the other way round but its an unfair definition of alturism that makes it irrational. It could just be putting the survival of someone else before your own survival which, if you're rational, must mean you value their survival more than your own.
[/ QUOTE ] DDT covered this quite well.
[ QUOTE ]
However, I don't think it needs to be as extreme as survival, it could just be giving up something of direct benefit to yourself because you value even more the well-being of someone else. Giving money to a charity could be alturistic.
[/ QUOTE ] Giving money to a charity is a choice, AR doesn't believe it has ethical implications. To say that giving money to charity is ethical, is to say that one must give money to charity, in so much as the purpose of ethics is determine correct actions. To exchnage something of lesser value(extra money) for something of greater value(emergency assistance, righting injustices, pleasure in helping fellow man) is ethical. But to say that giveing money to charity is ehical, implies a duty.
[ QUOTE ]
You can call it all selfish self-interest if you like but it misses an important distinction. Doing something because you value the well-being of others is not the same sort of selfish self-interest as doing something because you value a new car.
[/ QUOTE ] Perhaps I am missing that important distinction.
From AR The virtrue of selfishness
"Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests."
"There are two moral questions which altruism lumps to*gether into one “package-deal”: (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substi*tutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance.
Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes."
But I only agree in part with what AR states. AR leaves out the sociological reasons for "altruism" or if she does indeed discuss them I haven't read them yet. To give to someone creates a debt. This debt is something that people repay in there own way. It is a mutually beneficial proposition. The intial gift usually means less to the giver, than the repayment that the giver will recieve. As well as the repayment means less to the reciever than the gift does. People who are "altruistic" wish to help others, but at the same time do so only to stipulate the terms of repayment. For instance, bills gates' donation to malaria research has a stipulation that his efforts will reduce overpopulation, amongst other possible repayment senarios. When I donated money to help Katrina victims is was so that lawlessness would not ensue. For I wish not to be reminded of just how close we are to choas. The repayment is always part of any alturistic act. Which is why I reject the ethics of altruism. I care about others, in so much as what they can repay to me. If someone was drowning I would save him, provided that he or someone else would save me too. But if after I saved him he would kill me or do me harm, well I'd let him drown. To take a value or wealth creating idea (giving to people), and turnig it into a value or wealth limiting idea(giving to people who would do you harm, or destroy your values), is a problem I see with the ethics of altruism. When we understand the reasons for our moral feelings, do we see how altruism arose. It is my opinion that altrusim sets out to detroy the mutual benefit arangement that was sparked from the interaction of man with man.
The other side of the spectrum is a far worse detriment to this debt based arrangement. Where as people give something of little value and then take something of much greater value. Sales people, con artists are well versed in this unwriten agreement.
|