At the risk of sounding un-libertarian, I’m siding with the monk.Posted on 04/27/2012 6:38:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
I’m in Monaco for the 10th forum of the Convention of Independent Financial Advisors, a Swiss-based NGO that focuses on promoting an ethical and productive environment for private investment. I moderated a couple of panels on interesting topics, including the European fiscal crisis.
But I want to focus on the comments of another speaker, Monsieur Matthieu
Ricard, a French-born Buddhist monk. As you can see from his Wikipedia entry, he’s a very impressive individual. In addition to his other accomplishments, he serves as the French translator for the Dalai Lama.
During one of the dinners, we got into a fascinating conversation about the Buddhist concept of altruism (or at least one strain of that tradition) and Ayn Rand’s concept of selfishness, both as general ideas and as they relate to happiness.
At the risk of sounding un-libertarian, I’m siding with the monk.
Even though I’m a big fan of Ayn Rand and periodically give away copies of Atlas Shrugged to unwary young people, I’ve always been puzzled by the Randian hostility to altruism.
Yes, coercive altruism is wrong. Indeed, it’s not even altruism, particularly if you think (like Michael Gerson or Barack Obama) it’s noble or selfless to forcibly give away other people’s money.
But Rand seemed to think (and some Randians definitely think) that voluntary acts of charity and compassion are somehow wrong. In some sense, these folks take an ultra-homo economicus view that people are relentless utility maximizers based on self interest.
If this is a correct interpretation of Randianism (perhaps I should say Objectivism?), then I think it is inadequate. Yes, people want money, and almost everybody would like more money, but I’m guessing that it is non-monetary things that make people happiest.
I don’t want to sound too warm and fuzzy and ruin my image, but aren’t children, friends, family, and love the things that make the world go ’round for most of us? Yes, we also value achievement, but even that can be unrelated to pecuniary considerations.
These are amateur ramblings on my part, and I’ve probably done a poor job of describing the views of Randians and Monsieur Ricard. Moreover, I’m sure that very intelligent people have examined this issue in a much more sophisticated fashion.
For a fiscal policy wonk like me, though, this conference and this encounter forced me to give some thought to how you can be a big fan of Ayn Rand while also feeling good about holding open doors for little old ladies.
Ayn Rand ping. I’m not sure the author of this article understands Rand.
Big hitter, the Lama.
There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into one “package-deal”: (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance.“Introduction,” The Virtue of SelfishnessAltruism 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.
They never do. "Kindness" and "forcible wealth redistribution by government" both seem to be defined as "altruism".
You caught him out.
Rand knew that thoughtless "charity" makes the recipient weak and suppresses initiative.
The Bible tells me to love my brother as myself. I think that goes along with what you wrote. I’m not supposed to hate myself and love my brother. I’m supposed to treat my brother as I would treat myself, so yeah, it’s OK to enjoy the good things in life, giving thanks to the Lord for them. I don’t have to starve myself and be miserable doing without so that I can give everything away to those in need. In fact, being a good caretaker of my body and worldly possessions puts me in a position where I can help my brother.
Big hitter, bad tipper
But at least on your death bed, you’ll receive total consciousness.
The writer mischarachterizes Rand’s views on charity. She didn’t object to charity at all, she merely considered it of minor importance as long as it was not altruistic. In that regard, characterizing simple charity as altruistic is wrong. I wonder if the author even understands the word as used by Rand.
A bigger hitter than Laz? I think probably not.
This author is making an error and misrepresenting Objectivism by equating kindness, good will towards others as altruism. Altruism is self sacrifice or living for the sake of others. To always put others before yourself and to give up something of greater value for something of lesser. For example if your wife who you love dearly gets cancer and a neighbor gets cancer then the proper thing for an altruist to do is to sacrifice his wife and spend all his time and money to save the neighbor.
If you help someone it should not be a sacrifice but a payment that the person has earned by the values and virtues that they represent such as a single mother working three jobs to get by and raise her child. An objectivist would feel compelled to help that mother and it would be selfish. That is the selfishness Ayn Rand was talking about.
Look at the heroes in Atlas Shrugged and ask yourself if all they cared about was profit. Hank Reardon for example risks his life and is prepared to give it to save Francisco D’anconia because he loves him. But it would not be a sacrifice because Francisco was the embodiment of all of his values. He would have given up his life and all the money he had ever made to save him and it would have been profoundly selfish. Values, not money is the root of objectivism.
In the end of the book all of the heroes put their lives on the line to save John Galt because he is a supreme value to them. Had they given their lives for the sake of James Taggert that would have been altruism. If all they were interested in was money they would have made deals with the government and gotten special favors like James Taggert but instead they gave up everything in their strike.
I don’t care if people don’t agree with Ayn Rand’s philosophy but I do care that it is so often misrepresented.
Altruism is not good according to objectivism. It is evil. “A love above and apart from one’s self interest is not only evil it is impossible” and that is what objectivism holds. And to hold that love apart from ones self interest is exactly what altruism demands.
Spot on. When I exercise my free will by donating to my church, Cub Scouts, or a needy person, Rand would have no problem with that. In my view, I'm receiving "value for value", because there was no coercion involved.
When my liberal friends remind me that Rand was an atheist, I reply "so what? Atlas Shrugged is a great novel, one that I enjoy reading."
Agreed. What Rand had an issue with is FORCED “altruism”.
If it is FORCED (By government, societal mores, etc) then it isn’t “altruism”.
It is forced consfiscation and redistribution of wealth.
And I know the author of this self-confessed amateur rambling did address forced altruism, he still believes in society being able to pressure people into being altruistic.
Where I think Rand saw issues with (and looked down on) altruism had to do with a society that denigrated the wealthy for not giving their money away.
And that is a very real dynamic. Just ask the “99 percenters”.
And let us not forget, what “Atlas Shrugged” is really about is an extreme reaction to a society and government that believes it can take from one person to give to another (which is where we are now)
The book, in my opinion isn’t about altruism, it is about the reaction to forced confiscation of wealth through cultural/society coercion or outright government action.
It is looting in both cases, IMO.
No, she was against altruism, period, forced or not. Whether it’s forced or not, altruism holds that man exists for the sake of others, which was what she despised about it.
No, she was against altruism, period, forced or not. Whether it’s forced or not, altruism holds that man exists for the sake of others, which was what she despised about it.
Altruism is magnificent in theory, but is practically impossible in the real world. This is even understood in Buddhism in the concept of karma, but in the western sense, it could be looked at as a physical truth.
Call it “the capitalism of the universe”, in which if something is given, then something must be returned in some form or another, even if it is just gratitude or recognition of the gift. Credits and debts only end when they are concluded with a zero balance. But such credits and debts create movement in things, so have to be.
I read a good description, a thought problem, of how difficult it is to achieve altruism. It began with the arrival in a small rural town of a wealthy man, who wanted to bestow some of his money on the citizenry. But who to give it to?
At first, he decided to give money to the poor. But the poor had no experience with how to deal with a lot of money, so they quickly wasted it, leaving themselves just as poor as they had been, but also hungover, sick, their families unhappy and angry, and generally miserable.
So he then tried giving money to the wealthy. And while they accepted it, for them it was just marginally important, so they just invested it and forgot about it. It achieved little or nothing.
Then he tried giving it to the town’s middle class people. Small businessmen, mostly. But while they spent some and saved some, they kept doing what they had been doing, and their lives were also pretty much unchanged.
What did change, and in the whole town, was that soon everyone tried to become the wealthy man’s friend, in hopes of getting more money; and became somewhat resentful when he showed no sign of wanting to give more. So they annoyed him a lot, pestered him, tried to bribe or threaten him, and at one point somebody even built a small temple to him hoping to pray themselves some more money.
Eventually he decided to leave town, not appreciating their return on his efforts at altruism. But that was not enough, for they followed him for some distance, telling other towns that he was giving away money. Only with great effort did he finally escape their clutches, so he resolved to not do *that* again.
About the only lasting change was the guy with the temple, who still prays that he comes back someday to give him money. His prayers are not heard, but gives him some solace.
So in the final analysis, the rules of altruism are pretty stiff. That to be a real gift, it must be given without expectation of reward of any kind, even gratitude or recognition of the giver. It cannot be directed to someone with hope that they will do something with it, even that they will keep it and not just throw it away or waste it.
So an anonymous giver and an anonymous receiver.
An altruist must even sacrifice the satisfaction of giving, for that is a reward to oneself for being a “good, altruistic” person.
This is why it is far better to not even try to be altruistic, but instead make a generally fair bargain, an exchange, with no strings attached. This is the “capitalism of the universe” I mentioned. It is easier, simpler, more likely to achieve the desired result, and creates credit and a debt which are then resolved, so things return to balance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.