Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!houti!trc
From: trc@houti.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.philosophy
Subject: TC's altruism
Message-ID: <353@houti.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Jul-83 17:14:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: houti.353
Posted: Wed Jul 20 17:14:16 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jul-83 03:17:56 EDT
Lines: 82


Several people have asked me why my definition of altruism seems to be 
different from the commonly accepted one.  How many of you that accept
the equation of "altruism == benevolence" have considered *your* reasons
for accepting that equation?  It was suggested that perhaps there is some
commonly used word that better describes the concept that I call altruism.
There is not - in common usage, the term altruism been watered down from 
its full meaning, but altruism is still *practiced* in the full sense, 
(though inconsistently, since that is the only way it can be practiced
by humans).

The full, real meaning of altruism is explained in the following quote from 
Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness":
---------------
"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.

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 - so long as that
beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes."
---------------
Lest anyone doubt that the above is the primary system of morality in 
practice, (as well as being given lip service) consider most of the things
government concerns itself with these days - welfare, foreign aid, regulation
of business (for the benefit of consumers), etc.  All are justified on the
basis that it is moral to tax people for these things, because they serve 
the needs of others.  Consider what most Christian churches preach - that 
one is naturally a "sinner" (IE selfish), and one can only achieve salvation 
by a undeserved *gift* from God, and that that God declares that we are only 
good when we do good for others.  Consider what every graduating student 
hears in the commencement address - that he or she can have no higher 
aspiration than to go out into the world and serves others - that that is 
the moral purpose for life.  Consider who our society praises, and who it 
condemns - it praises those that help the weak and poor, and condemns those
that seek to improve their own condition in life above that of other people.

So what is wrong, beyond its poor foundation, with such a moral system?
Again, I quote Ayn Rand, from "The Virtue of Selfishness":
----------------
"Observe what this beneficiary criterion of morality does to a man's life.
The first thing he learns is that morality is his enemy: he has nothing
to gain from it, he can only lose; self-inflicted loss, self-inflicted pain
and the gray, debilitating pall of an incomprehensible duty is all that he
can expect.  He may hope that others might occasionally sacrifice themselves
for his benefit, as he grudgingly sacrifices himself for theirs, but he knows
that the relationship will bring mutual resentment, not pleasure - and that
morally, their pursuit of values will be like an exchange of unwanted,
unchosen Christmas presents, which neither is morally permitted to buy for
himself.  Apart from such times as he may manage to perform some act of
sacrifice, he possesses no moral significance: morality takes no cognizance
of him and has nothing to say to him for guidance in the crucial issues of
his life; it is only his own person, private, "selfish" life and, as such, it
is regarded either as evil or, at best, *amoral*."
-----------------

That is what altruism is all about.  Ask yourself "WHY should 'benefiting
others' be a sufficient condition for an action to be moral?".  I know
that it seems "obvious" to most people - it certainly did to me.  But I 
found that when I tried to make it explicit, I could find NO BASIS IN REALITY 
for it.  I had been taught the precepts of altruism all my life, and had 
accepted them so completely that they seemed natural.  In fact, the only 
way that such a moral system can be justified is by an appeal to mysticism - 
to some supernatural power that has the power and right to require that 
it be correct.  

For those of you who believe that such an entity exists (God, Allah, whatever), 
consider - what kind of a god would make an inconsistent universe, in which 
it is un-natural for people to be good (by the altruistic standard)?  
Benevolent or malevolent?  Wouldnt the standard of altruism require that the
god make the universe as rewarding a place to be moral as possible, if morality 
is good for people?  And the same goes for people - why make it natural for 
them to desire to help themselves, rather than at least indifferent to 
whether they helped themselves or others (which would make "free will choice" 
on the matter of "sinning" more realistic.)?


	Tom Craver
	houti!trc