[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Something wierd here. By giving money to charity, I mean exchanging something of lessor value (money) for something of greater value (righting injustice).

[/ QUOTE ] Why is that wierd?

[ QUOTE ]
Class 1: Actions that I value because I value myself only
Class 2: Actions that I value because I value myself and are of value to me (at least in part) because I value other people.

[/ QUOTE ] We where having this conversation before and I understand the distinction. But i just feel that there are no ethical class 2 actions that aren't allready included in ethical class 1.

[ QUOTE ]
It then makes sense to talk of how great the selfless component of an act is and to characterise people whose values lead them to more class 2 actions as less selfish than those who are led to class 1 actions.

[/ QUOTE ] I want to say something to this. When you reply to me requote this.

[ QUOTE ]
but that's a statement about your values. Its not saying that others don't have alturistic values. If I could save someone from drowning (at a small but real risk to myself) then I would. That's it I would fullstop. Its a pure class 2 action in my book, I save the person from drowing purely because I value my own value of valuing others.

[/ QUOTE ] This is what AR would says in "The virtue of selfishness"

The psychological results of altruism may be observed in the fact that a great many people approach the subject of ethics by asking such questions as: “Should one risk one’s life to help a man who is: a) drowning, b) trapped in a fire, c) stepping in front of a speeding truck, d) hanging by his fingernails over an abyss?”
Consider the implications of that approach. If a man ac*cepts the ethics of altruism, he suffers the following conse*quences (in proportion to the degree of his acceptance):
1. Lack of self-esteem—since his first concern in the realm of values is not how to live his life, but how to sacri*fice it.
2. Lack of respect for others—since he regards mankind as a herd of doomed beggars crying for someone’s help.
3. A nightmare view of existence—since he believes that men are trapped in a “malevolent universe” where disasters are the constant and primary concern of their lives.
4. And, in fact, a lethargic indifference to ethics, a hope*lessly cynical amorality—since his questions involve situa*tions which he is not likely ever to encounter, which bear no relation to the actual problems of his own life and thus leave him to live without any moral principles whatever.
By elevating the issue of helping others into the central and primary issue of ethics, altruism has destroyed the con*cept of any authentic benevolence or good will among men.


and

Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him. In the above example, his wife’s survival is of greater value to the husband than anything else that his money could buy, it is of greatest importance to his own happiness and, therefore, his action is not a sacrifice.
But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him—as the ethics of altruism would re*quire. That would be a sacrifice. Here the difference be*tween Objectivism and altruism can be seen most clearly: if sacrifice is the moral principle of action, then that husband should sacrifice his wife for the sake of ten other women. What distinguishes the wife from the ten others? Nothing but her value to the husband who has to make the choice—nothing but the fact that his happiness requires her survival.
The Objectivist ethics would tell him: your highest moral purpose is the achievement of your own happiness, your money is yours, use it to save your wife, that is your moral right and your rational, moral choice.
Consider the soul of the altruistic moralist who would be prepared to tell that husband the opposite. (And then ask yourself whether altruism is motivated by benevolence.)

and

To illustrate this on the altruists’ favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one’s life no higher than that of any random stranger. (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for one’s sake, remembering that one’s life cannot be as valu*able to him as his own

She does stop there like you do. I do not. She states that what one should grant to a stranger is "respect and good will which one should grant to a human being in the name of the potential value he represents—until and unless he forfeits it." Fair enough, I just name the sociological reasons why one should do it. I believe both she and you ignore them.