I could be wrong, but I always interpreted Rand's definition of 'altruism' to mean, absolutely, having what others value as the primary motivating value in an action, with the key word being primary. Implying that there might be secondary or tertiary motivating values that were not related to others. And so, for example, it is entirely possible to regard 'Sister Teresa,' the poster woman for altruism, as actually acting selfishly(in Rand's definition of selfish) if her motivation was primarily based on the pleasure that her actions gave her within the context of her belief system. It is an entirely unrelated discussion as to whether Sister Teresa had the 'right' context for her belief system, but in freedom, that is a discussion that is hers to have and decide for herself, otherwise it comes across as yet another War of The One True Religion. If she adhered to her belief system, and held those beliefs, and in the context of that belief system her actions gave her pleasure, and that pleasure motivated her actions, then, IMO, Rand would regard her actions not as altruism, but as selfish pursuit of pleasure. I thought she was pretty clear on that; that to her, the real evil, was the suggestion that anyone should ever practice actual altruism; the subjugation of ones values and pleasure in pursuit of those values to those of others. A mother sacrificing her life for her child is not acting altruistically; she could only be acting altruistically if she indeed valued her life more than her child's life. And if that were the case...she would not sacrifice her life for her child. And so, true 'altruism' isn't even humanly possible, and the horror is, those whose advocate its practice as a virtue, as a kind of impossible rack for mankind to torture itself on. That isn't a claim that it is right or wrong for a mother to sacrifice her life for her child. That is an acknowledgement, as a peer, that it is totally understandable calculus: given a choice between dying to save one's child(if it was a choice)and imagining the agony of a life spent knowing you had that chance and didn't take it, I find it totally reasonable that some others would sometimes make one choice vs the other, and -either way-, the decision is based on what is valued most by that individual. Even the Mother who sacrifices her life is, in that moment, acting in her self-interests consistent with what -she- values, and it is not up to me as Emperor of What Others Should Value to tell her otherwise. I might choose differently, others might choose differently, but we are not the haughty Emperors of What Others Should Value. We are certainly free to hold opinions on those values, and base our interactions with others on the values others hold, but in the end, those values are theirs to hold. An example is, the belief in a Magic Unicorn that will give us all presents some day if we live for others and sacrifice every worldy pleasure to others, live and toil and sweat only for others our entire life. It might be a whacky belief, but look even at that context; in the end, those holding that belief are primarily motivated by an imagined benefit that they believe(or have been convinced/hornswaggled into believing, in order to hand over their lives to others). They are still, within the context of their belief system, acting selfishly, in what they believe is in their best interests. As concepts, I tend to agree with Merlin's overlapping Venn diagrams. There is a thousands of years old principle in civilization, a principle that transcends many religions. A common principle found in only at most very slightly varying forms: The Golden Rule. Treat others as you would wish to be treated. There is no imbalance in that principle. It is an entirely peer based symmetric principle, a benefit to both ourselves and to others at the same time without sacrifice of any kind. I don't regard foregoing the benefit of bashing another over the head as a sacrifice of anything of value, even, the value of the Gold coin in their pockets that would be mine if I were to act so. That would be a purely reptilian value system -- can I eat it? can it eat me? -- and Man is more than his reptilian brain stem. That principle belongs in the overlap of Merlin's Venn Diagrams. It is neutral ground. It also belongs in the multi-dimensional diagram proposed by Steve. It is elevated ground. The evidence of that principle being 'elevated ground', as a principle, is its long lived success and its continued reappearance in disparate religions and philosophies over thousands of years. It borders on being a universal truth, based simnply on its ubiquitous nature. It shows up everywhere. And at its foundation, it is symettrically selfish, in Rand's definition of selfish, and yet it is not primarily egoism and neither is it primarily altruism. It includes a consideration of both selfish gain and at the same time, that same gain to others not oneself. It is win-win, like fair trade in commerce, which is why it persists and surfaces again and again. regards, Fred (Edited by Fred Bartlett on 8/21, 6:09am)
|