Skip to main content

A closer look at Altruism. A conversation with an Objectivist.

Note: When I first wrote this Post, I was less familiar with Objectivist "Philosophy." I have now come to learn that the Philosophy has many issues. More can be found here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objectivism  
and Here: http://www.owl232.net/papers/rand5.htm
Needless to say I reject Objectivism entirely.

Is Altruism Bad?

Yesterday, I had a long and interesting conversation with a Philosopher and Ayn Rand proponent named Elliot Temple. You can find the discussion here.

So here are my thoughts on that discussion.

First thing I want to say was that I was impressed at Temple's patience and endurance regarding the discussion. Most people I've had these type of conversations with get tired after an hour maybe two. We went at it for EIGHT hours. Though, it wasn't an instant back and forth as it was done via a type of message board. I don't think it bears any consequence on the veracity of either party, but finding someone that could keep up with me on a prolonged discussion without it getting off the rails was a pleasurable experience. 

My main goal with this discussion was to try to understand why objectivists think that Altruism is bad.
We worked with this particular definition of Altruism -meaning sacrificing yourself for others, putting others before yourself. I had been initially put off by the idea of a philosophy that promotes "selfishness," at least that's how I first saw it. 

The conversation took a few detours but we finally honed in on the idea of "sacrifice." 
Elliot made some very compelling arguments against the idea of sacrifice and I have to admit I think the arguments are solid. The main thing to consider is how an objectivist sees a sacrifice is not how one generally thinks about sacrifice. I brought up the example of donating my time or money to an organization that is looking to improve scientific research. To an Objectivist, this is not a sacrifice because I am pursuing something I value; So it is more of a trade than a sacrifice. 

But does that make Altruism bad? To an Objectivist, I would guess it really does depend on the idea of sacrifice. Could certain forms of Altruism be considered not a sacrifice? Temple answered, "Maybe, but then Rand would say they should be called by a different word since it's a different concept. And she'd be skeptical – there's a reason people are choosing to call it "altruism", which my dictionary says is "the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others"

I am not sure if there is a word to describe the type of Altruism I am thinking of that is not "sacrificial" in the way Objectivists define the term. Perhaps one can make it up and call it "Objective Altruism." I don't know if we will continue the discussion any longer but I'd like to explore this idea a bit further if so. 

I am still unsure how I feel about every idea presented by Temple. It is certainly a different way of thinking; and in some areas, it seems socially impractical. However, these are important topics that require serious thought and dismissing ideas without ever engaging with them is just foolish. I might give Rand a closer look after all!

 It is going to be a while though as I'll be focusing mostly on Deutsch and Popper for the time being in addition to the work I'll be doing for the IDW project #2 which is likely going to be Free Will, but this was a very enjoyable detour. This is in addition to work and classes so Rand might have to wait quite a while. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Free Will

The Illusion of Free Will  Free will is an illusion. I will try to explain why I believe this is the case using a scientific and a philosophical argument. I want to first clarify what I mean by "Free Will." I think that free will can be defined quite simply as the ability to have acted differently. In other words, if you could go back in time at any point in your life you have the ability to have made a different choice. This is demonstrably false.
Scientific Case against Free Will One of the strongest cases against free will have been studies done by neuroscience to study our decision making process. A study done in 2008 showed that researchers could tell what decision a participant would take up to 10 seconds before they became aware of their decision. This and other studies have put into question the idea that we are the authors of our own actions. It seems to me at this point one fact is indisputable, some moments before we are aware of what we'll do next, our brain…

How I came to be a non-believer.

The Sun is average.
When I was a six year old my father bought me a magazine about Astronomy. I don't recall why he did it, probably to keep me busy while we went grocery shopping. I learned for the first time a few things about the Universe. The one fact that I learned that blew my mind was that the Sun was a star, just like any other, an average star. Armed with this knowledge I went to my catholic school ready to impress my friends and teachers. This was a mistake. Turns out the teacher was not thrilled when I brought up the fact. I don't know if she really thought the Sun was not a star or if she did and was pretending not to, but she quoted the bible to me and told me to be quiet. Also, to add injury to insult, a kid walked up to me at the end of class and punched me in the belly for "making up lies." (I don't feel bad as I got him back the next day pretty good)
 I tell that story because I learned something that day. Authority figures could be wrong. The B…

What I like about the Moral Landscape and some Critical Rationalism

Taken mostly from my CMV thread
This is what I believe to be correct about the Moral Landscape by Sam Harris: Moral Truths Exist

The Divide between facts and values is illusory in at least 2 ways:

Whatever can be known about maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures must at some point translate into facts about brains and their interaction with the world at large
The very idea of "objective" knowledge has values build into it, as every effort we make to discuss facts depends upon principles that we must first value (e.g., logical consistency, reliance on evidence, parsimony, etc.)
Ideas I am still considering (thanks to Brett Hall): Ontological truths exist independent of conscious creatures, thus, ontological truths cannot be dependent on the neurology of conscious creatures.
The criterion by which institutions should be judged is by how good they are at resolving disputes between people without violence or without coercion.
I learned these correction from Brett …