My friend thinks Ayn Rand is a genius. How do I save them?

One more thing. Objectivsts have never been part of the conservative movement and never will be. "To conserve" means to keep the same for the sole purpose of preserving tradition. Objectivism utterly rejects anything so arbitrary. We don't want to do things the old way for the sake of preserving tradition, nor are we retarded enough to seek "change" for the sake of being "progressive." Instead, we want to do things the right way, regardless of reference to time frame, for the sake of living well and enjoying life in a free and decent society.

The concept of altruism predates both Kant and Hegel so it dosen't have to be held as universal. In fact, it can be found in the virtue driven ethics of the Romans and Greeks... which predate Christianity. You know. That religion that influenced Kant? And Hegel too. Maybe you define it in the absolutist sense, but the majority of people out there don't think of it that way. It certainly isn't practiced as such either.

A good parent may derive pleasure from watching a child grow and flourish but love isn't guaranteed in return. In fact, parents rarely tend to think "what will I get out of this?" before proceeding with the decision to have a kid. The benefits of raising a child are risky and hard to get. Case in point: it takes years for a person to learn to wipe after using the bathroom. Nuf' said.

How can you justify the decision to have a child without a willingness to disregard personal benefit? What else would make someone do this? Love. The unadulterated satisfaction of caring for someone else - specifically your child. Self interest just doesn't factor into it.

P.S. Read up on your history a little more. I'd say post-war reparations, the Great Depression, unchecked Nationalism, antisemitism, a divided Wiemar Republic, and unsuspecting Chancellor Hindenburg all played an equal - if not greater - role in bringing about the rise of Nazism.

Nothing in the Critique of Pure Reason says "KILL ALL THE JEWS!!!!"

You are committing the classical error of confusing altruism with benevolence. When you do something for the benefit of someone you love, you are acting selfishly, because that person's welfare/happiness is important to you, and you benefit psychologically and emotionally from helping them. That's benevolence, not altruism. Altruism means sacrificing yourself for the benefit of someone you don't love. When I'm forced to pay taxes to fund social welfare programs for the benefit of people I've never met and don't care about, that's the result of altruism. Love never factors into altruism. See the difference?

By the way, altruism has existed for as long as human beings have existed. It was the German philosophers who revived, defined, and integrated the concept into complete philosophical frameworks. The altrusism advocated by Kant and Hegel created the intellectual environment necessary to support the ascendence of nationalism and Nazism. Kant dig not grasp the political implications of his ethics, but events played out the way they did because of his ideas.

"This state of mind, which subordinates the interest of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human clture... the basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call--to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness--idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for th ecommunity, for his fellow men."

-Adolf Hitler

You seem to have a lot of spare time.

Hitler was a facist...

Hugh Akston is an obvious reverse Strawman. He's suggesting that followers of Ayn Rand believe in something based on a strawman argument... a poorly constructed one at that. He's misrepresenting Rand followers as misrepresenting the concept of Altruism.

Hugh Akston wrote:

You are committing the classical error of confusing altruism with benevolence. When you do something for the benefit of someone you love, you are acting selfishly, because that person's welfare/happiness is important to you, and you benefit psychologically and emotionally from helping them. That's benevolence, not altruism. Altruism means sacrificing yourself for the benefit of someone you don't love. When I'm forced to pay taxes to fund social welfare programs for the benefit of people I've never met and don't care about, that's the result of altruism. Love never factors into altruism. See the difference?

By your own explanation/definition it is impossible to act unselfishly. Even if you help someone you don't love, you may believe it is the right thing to do, and that may make you feel good about YOURSELF. As you stated, one can "benefit psychologically and emotionally from helping them...", and this includes helping ANYone, not just someone you love.

You said that paying taxes to help people you've never met is true altruism, because you are helping someone you don't know. So what is jumping into a lake to help a drowning child that you don't know??? That kid might be a total punk, but many people do it despite risk to themselves. By your definition, isn't that altruism? Yes, it is. And you and Rand think that is a BAD thing??? Wow. So you and Rand are the types that just stand back when someone is getting beaten because, you know, you don't know the victim, and why would you want to help someone you don't know.

Now of course there is a difference between your tax example and my example, and it is that of the decision. However, you could easily refuse to pay your taxes and face the consequences, or move somewhere else with those taxes. You are a free being, correct? But you choose to pay those taxes.

Altruism: " : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species." Jumping into a lake to save a drowning child would qualify I think. Are you ready to denounce such an action?

If you jump into a lake (or onto the train tracks) to save someone, you are being heroic. People will admire you, and that is a benefit. No one admires an individual for paying taxes.

Hugh Akston clearly knows his stuff.

Templar21 wrote:

Right wing takeovers off the top of my head? Hitler, Francisco Franco, Pinochet,Jorge Videla,Getulio Vargas, Emilio Garrastazu Medici,Francisco Morales Bermudez, Idi Amin Dad,Saparmurat Atayevich Niyazov. I could go on but i think you get the picture (although perhaps the phrazing of my origonal reply was lacking in prudence as most dictatorships, once overthrown, are often replaced with a left wing group that is just as bad). As for who rallies behind Rand, i'm generalizing but often when someone mentions the slightest hint of governmnet regulation being a good thing it is followed with an uproar with rand's book being cited as an example of how wrong govermnent is. As always, please forgive grammer/spelling errors, english is not my first language.

From my understanding of history only Franco is unquestionably right-wing. Saparmurat, for example, was a communist leader. The South Americans you mentioned were more like Saddam Hussein than Franco and Mussolini.

Franco, for his part, was probably Spain's best option during the Spanish Civil War. Can you imagine what might have happened if the Soviet supported Republicans had won? A communist government in a (comparatively) rich Western European country would have been a nightmare for Liberal Democracies everywhere.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Fascism is a form of Socialism .

That's nonsense. Just because governments that embraced fascist or socialist concepts were, in practice, similar in many ways, doesn't make "fascism a form of socialism."

... Socialism, the ultimate bogeyman of republicans.

Read the definition of Fascism again. Socialism is overt control of the economy. Fascism is control of the economy through threats. There's really no difference. Socialism is like the police telling you to do something, while Fascism is like the Mafia "suggesting" you do something. Either way, you better do it. Fascism is Socialism with a touch of subtlety.

And quit trying to imply I'm a Republican. You know damn well I'm not.

Hugh Akston wrote:You are committing the classical error of confusing altruism with benevolence. When you do something for the benefit of someone you love, you are acting selfishly, because that person's welfare/happiness is important to you, and you benefit psychologically and emotionally from helping them. That's benevolence, not altruism. Altruism means sacrificing yourself for the benefit of someone you don't love. When I'm forced to pay taxes to fund social welfare programs for the benefit of people I've never met and don't care about, that's the result of altruism. Love never factors into altruism. See the difference?

Once again, you are making a strawman argument. Here's why (according to Webster's Dictionary).

Benevolance. n. 1 : disposition to do good

2 a : an act of kindness b : a generous gift

3 : a compulsory levy by certain English kings with no other authority than the claim of prerogative

Altruism. 1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others 2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

Clearly, the leading authority on the meanings and common usage of words in the English language dosen't differentiate between them in the same way that you do. Nowhere in the definition of benevolance does it mention self-interest.

Hugh's definition of altruism is merely his own. It's not one recognized by more than 0.000001 percent of the population. It's virtually an invention. It's in no way valid.

Having been in too many political chat rooms and also on here, I know that no argument about what's Left and what's Right and where various "isms" fit in is even worth having.

One OSTENSIBLE professed difference was that Socialsm was supposed to be state control that would somehow equally benefit all. Fascism made no such pretense of equality, paper much declaring "we know what's best for you." Yeah, those are real generalizations, but...what isn't. Don't bother complaining.

The thing about people like Ayn Rand and her acolytes is that nothing they say has any practical application in society. Of course, they don't even really very much LIKE the concept of society, or care for it in reality, so they're not terribly concerned.

Objectivism differentiates between the rules of conduct in emergency situations and the rules of conduct under normal conditions. One should not sacrifice himself, i.e. forfeit his life, to save a complete stranger, but it is generally good to aid someone in an emergeny if the act not carry a great risk to oneself. Jumping into the water to save a drowing person is a bad example because there is a great risk that the drowning person will pull the rescuer down with him, which is why water safety classes generally teach people not to do that. If the drowing person was a small child and I was a strong adult swimmer, and I felt confident in my ability to save the child, then I would jump in. I also would also consider the act selfish because I would be terribly sorry to see a kid drown, and would be considered a hero for saving him. By the way, Objectivism doesn't say that it is WRONG to help strangers, only that it is not a DUTY to SACRIFICE oneself for others. I have helped pull strangers' cars out of ditches in the snow and felt good about it, but I don't want to spend 20 years of my work life working for free to help society.

Altrusim is a term coined by the philosopher Auguste Comte to denote a specific philosophical concept. If you choose to breach that definition, that is your intellectual sin, not mine. Furthermore, even if you bypass the terminology altogether, the argument is still the same. One does not have a moral duty to serve others regardless of whether you call it altruism, social justice, socialism, or anything else.

Mr. Price wrote:

Once again, you are making a strawman argument. Here's why (according to Webster's Dictionary).

Benevolance. n. 1 : disposition to do good

2 a : an act of kindness b : a generous gift

3 : a compulsory levy by certain English kings with no other authority than the claim of prerogative

Altruism. 1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others 2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

Clearly, the leading authority on the meanings and common usage of words in the English language dosen't differentiate between them in the same way that you do. Nowhere in the definition of benevolance does it mention self-interest.

First, your focus on alternative definitions of altruism is a distraction from the real argument. What matters is the concept itself, not which term you apply to it. I am aware that most people use the term loosely to describe any act of goodwill toward another person and consider it intellectually sloppy.

Second, the proper definitions of terms are not established by the publishers of dictionaries, which often disagree with one another and pubish errors when dealing with words from technical disciplines which the publishers do not understand.

Third, the defintions you posted fully make the critical distinction between the selfish goodwill of benevolence and the SELF-SACRIFICE of altruism. You are not even paying attention to what you read and I am beginning to think that it is a mistake to even try to communicate with you.

Does the idea of "serving others" bother you so much? Why would it?

Has Not Read The Whole Thead wrote:

Does the idea of "serving others" bother you so much? Why would it?

Yes, it does, because I refuse to accept the presumed right of others to vote my rights out of existence and my property into their possession. A better question would be, why do you think it's OK to force me into your service?

Hugh Akston wrote:First, your focus on alternative definitions of altruism is a distraction from the real argument. What matters is the concept itself, not which term you apply to it. I am aware that most people use the term loosely to describe any act of goodwill toward another person and consider it intellectually sloppy.

Second, the proper definitions of terms are not established by the publishers of dictionaries, which often disagree with one another and pubish errors when dealing with words from technical disciplines which the publishers do not understand.

Third, the defintions you posted fully make the critical distinction between the selfish goodwill of benevolence and the SELF-SACRIFICE of altruism. You are not even paying attention to what you read and I am beginning to think that it is a mistake to even try to communicate with you.

I'd agree that a focus on definitions would be a distraction if it weren't for the fact that your arguments deliberately set up a straw man. Ultimately, the concept of altruism does not have to be held as a universal maxim (ala Kant) for it to be ethical in some instances. You are mistaking me for arguing that people should be altruistic in all instances. I'm not. Not even Christianity, Rand's religion of the lowly, weak, and inept holds this to be true. Conversely, I don't believe that it's realistic to think people should be self-interested in all instances either. Nor do I think this reduces to some form of context specific ethics... but that's another issue.

When I used a definition based on popular usage I chose it because it reflects the ultimate jist 3,500 years conceptual development. There is no mention of universalism in what I provided. This is key. It's no accident that most people don't treat it that way too, and I'd argue that it's not intellectually sloppy for just that reason.

Last, I noticed that you bother to attack the definitions I provided then come back and argue that they "fully make the critical distinction between the selfish goodwill of benevolence and the self-sacrifice of altruism." You can't have your cake and eat it too. Pick one or another, because I certainly am paying attention. There's no mention of self-interest in the definition of benevolence and there's nothing inherent in each that says "goodwill" has to be. Like you said, let's focus on the general concept in a palatable form.

If you think it's a mistake to bother talking then that's your prerogative.