It is obvious why the morality of altruism is a tribal phenomenon. Prehistorical men were physically unable to survive without clinging to a tribe for leadership and protection against other tribes. The cause of altruism’s perpetuation into civilized eras is not physical, but psycho-epistemological: the men of self-arrested, perceptual mentality are unable to survive without tribal leadership and “protection” against reality. The doctrine of self-sacrifice does not offend them: they have no sense of self or of personal value-they do not know what it is that they are asked to sacrifice—they have no firsthand inkling of such things as intellectual integrity, love of truth, personally chosen values, or a passionate dedication to an idea. When they hear injunctions against “selfishness,” they believe that what they must renounce is the brute, mindless whim-worship of a tribal lone wolf.
While there is an element of truth in this analysis, it over-simplifies to the point of distortion. In the first place, Rand’s notion of “altruism” is itself problematic. Rand defines altruism as the view that “man has no right to exist for his own sake.” Yet we would be hard pressed to find many defenders of altruism willing to accept such a view without serious reservations. This means that Rand undercuts her case right from the start. Philosophers and ethicists define altruism in many ways, but few would go so far as to claim that human beings have no right to ever exist for their own sake. As the Oxford Companion to Philosophy puts it: “Nor … does the the possibility of altruism mean that it is a constant moral necessity: an altruist can allow that in most circumstances I can act far more effectively on my own behalf than can any other person.”
Rand’s main error here is to assume that altruism is a theory that can be logically applied. But this is not the case at all. Individuals whose desire to help the “poor and downtrodden” causes them to support harmful social policies are not motivated by some distinct ethical theory which they logically apply to social conditions. Their support for harmful social legislation is driven almost entirely by emotions, many of a strongly narcissistic cast. Nor are these emotions themselves a product of prior ideas or “premises,” as Rand would have us believe.
Rand comes much closer to the truth when she links altruism with tribalism. Altruistic sentiments probably have their origin in man’s tribal past (for the obvious evolutionary reasons). But Rand’s disgust with tribalism causes her to caricature it to the point of serious distortion. Contrary to what Rand claims, men of pre-historic times were not the mindless, fearful, self-sacrificing altruists she portrays them as being.
A more plausible theory of the psychology of humanitarianism was provided by Pareto in his Mind and Society. Pareto regards humanitarianism as a product of multiple sentiments. “In individuals sentiments are always more or less complex, sometimes very much so,” he warns. Humanitarianism may derive from several residues acting in concert. One such residue is that of “self-pity extended to others.” Pareto’s analysis goes as follows:
If people are unhappy and are inclined to lay the blame for their woes on the environment in which they live, on “society,” they are apt to view all who suffer with a benevolent eye. That is not logical reasoning; it is a sequence of sensations. If we try to state them in rational form we deprive them of the very thing that gave them force and efficacy—their indefiniteness. Bearing that in mind, one may, roughly, state the reasoning corresponding to such sensations as follows: “I am unhappy, and ‘society’ is to blame. So-and-so is unhappy, and so ‘society’ must also be to blame. We are comrades in misfortune, and for my comrade I have the indulgence that I should have for myself: he has my pity.”
Something more or less of the kind figures in the humanitarianism of our time. People in poor economic circumstances are convinced that “society” is to blame. By analogy, the crimes of thieves and murderers are also felt chargeable to “society.” So thieves and murderers come to look like comrades in misfortune worthy of benevolence and pity. “Intellectuals” are convinced that they are not playing a sufficiently important role in the social hierarchy; they envy people of wealth, army officers, prelates, in short all others of higher social rankings. They imagine that criminals and the poor are also victims of the same classes. They feel that in respect they are like them, and therefore feel benevolence and pity for them. [§1138-1139]
There are, to be sure, other residues, other sentiments, other psychological complexes that can lead to humanitarianism. Not only that, different motives may operate in different people. What is crucial to understand is that humanitarianism (or Rand’s “altruism”) is not the product of a reasoned-out theory. Refuting the theory of “altruism” (or the “theory” of humanitarianism) will have little, if any effect, on those who subscribe to these doctrines, for the simple reason, that strong emotions, many of them containing an innate component, are the primary causes of these pernicious psychological complexes.
Humanitarianism is worthless from the logico-experimental point of view [wrote Pareto], whether because it has no slightest intrinsic soundness of a scientific character, whether especially because even if, on an assumption devoid of any probability, it had some points of soundness, that fact would not help as regards spurring human beings to the requisite activities.... A similar judgment may be passed upon the work of our “intellectuals” as leading to few results that are beneficial and to many that are very bad; because, from the standpoint of sentiments, [intellectuals] shut their eyes to realities as the latter stand reflected in many sentiments that they condemn from failure to grasp their role in society; and because, from the standpoint of logico-experimental science, they reason not on facts but on derivations, and from the latter draw, by a logic inopportunely thorough-going, inferences altogether at war with facts.
This is precisely what Rand and her disciples are guilty of: they reason, not on facts, but on derivations (and distorted derivations, at that). The consequences is that, while there may be a grain of truth in Rand’s melodramatic denunciations of “altruism,” it is so vitiated with distortion and error that her analysis is much less valuable than otherwise would be the case. As Pareto concludes:
Some people now vainly imagine … that they can effectively check the progress of [the non-scientific, non-rational doctrine] they are fighting by refuting its derivations. Others find those theories so absurd that they disdain giving a thought to them…. But usually [these critics] are to be found adopting other derivations that are in no way better than the ones they reject [as Rand and her disciples do, in adopting the derivations of Objectivism]. It occurs to few, one might say none, to ignore derivations altogether and apply themselves exclusively to facts and the relations that obtain between them. [§1859]
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think there is still some good reasons to think that Altruism is incompatible with individual rights, its only because altruistic philosophies can be used to justify things that are violations of individual rights.
If I believe that I have a duty to do what ever has the most benefits for mankind, and every one else ought to always to the same, with no exception, I could use said belief to justify communism, or free market capitalism. Either way I'll run into a contradiction.
In practice communism never works, it only works in theory. In practice it has created only tyranny and mass suffering. How does that benefit mankind? One could ironically even formulate an argument for free market capitalism, based on they idea that its good for the workers. Communists, Marx included claimed that he was for the workers, and one of the arguments communists used to justify their collectivist ideology is that it would benefit the workers. Even through one could argue based on empirical evidence that common workers don't benefit at all in the way Marx said they would.
Although free market capitalism works, and profit has motivated the creation of wonder drugs that cure all sorts of terrible diseases, many business men sell tobacco which makes people sick, and has no benefit to the smoker other than the fact they enjoy it. But does the tobacco industry really benefit mankind as a whole? People who smoke are more likely to get lung cancer and emphysema, and they will have to spend money to stay alive that might have been spent on helping the poor or some other noble cause. One might argue that it would be more of a benefit to mankind as a whole, if the Tobacco company CEO gave most of his money to charity that would help the poor or sick and injury. But what if the tobacco CEO decides to spend very little of his earnings on any charity at all, and instead stashes most of his profits, under a mattress?
Damien, you say that communism only works in theory and never works in practice. sorry but communism/socialism has never been tried, none of the countries that alleged they were communist ever were. I hate to break this one to you but these regimes that hid behind the label, communist or socialist, well they like, lied. They told a lot of lies and that was the big one. If you read Marx or Engels they are clear on this. Wrokers cannot make the state work for them. socialism/communism is the complete abscene of the state, to my mind that never happened in USSR, Cuba or is happening in China or N. Korea. Oh and Marx was big on having no leaders and even Lenin himself said what they will building in Russia was not socialism/communism. The devil really is in the details.
ReplyDeleteSo to be clear: -
If it quacks like a duck...
If there is a state...
If there is commodity production...
Then its not socialism/communism.
Just thought I'd clear that one up for you. It's pretty clear if you go to the source and please dont listen to the liars like Kim Sun, Castro et all.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteyou wrote,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damien, you say that communism only works in theory and never works in practice. sorry but communism/socialism has never been tried, none of the countries that alleged they were communist ever were. I hate to break this one to you but these regimes that hid behind the label, communist or socialist, well they like, lied. They told a lot of lies and that was the big one. If you read Marx or Engels they are clear on this. Wrokers cannot make the state work for them. socialism/communism is the complete abscene of the state, to my mind that never happened in USSR, Cuba or is happening in China or N. Korea. Oh and Marx was big on having no leaders and even Lenin himself said what they will building in Russia was not socialism/communism. The devil really is in the details.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but it has been tried. These regimes were and in same cases still are communist. You are just denying that fact, because it hasn't turned out the way it was supposed to according to communist ideology. Karl Marx believed in something called the Dictatorship of the proletariat, which was supposed to be a stage, in between a stateless egalitarian utopia, and a failing capitalist one. Now maybe you are not technically a communists. The soviet Union had collectivized agriculture, were farmers were forced onto communal farms agianst their will, because they wouldn't do so voluntarily, and it lead to mass starvation. It was done, not by private enterprise, but by the state. It was not a free market capitalist society. So what if it didn't live up to your Utopian vision of a communist society.
Maybe you are something called a libertarian socialist, who is a person who thinks its possible to skip the dictatorship phase and head straight for that egalitarian stateless utopia. Well I have news for you, that has been tried as well on a smaller scale and has failed as well.
Let me ask you this, if someone asked another person to cut his lawn for him and agree to pay him the same amount of money regardless of how well he did, or weather he did the job at all, and agreed to do so indefinitely, what makes you think that guy would do a good job cutting his lawn? Do you not see how the person who wanted someone else to cut his lawn, but agreed to pay the other person regardless of anything else, might be take advantage of? His worker might figure, why do the work, if I will be payed the same regardless.
You wrote,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So to be clear: -
If it quacks like a duck...
If there is a state...
If there is commodity production...
Then its not socialism/communism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, and has a beak and feathers, most likely it is a duck. Contrary to what you might want to believe those states like Cuba walk like a duck and quack like a duck, etc etc, but its a communist slash socialist duck and not a capitalist duck.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteyou wrote,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just thought I'd clear that one up for you. It's pretty clear if you go to the source and please dont listen to the liars like Kim Sun, Castro et all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They may be lairs but they are still socialists/communists. They are what you get when the government tries to create a socialist state. What type of economic system/social system is a nation like Cuba or North Korea, if not communist or socialist? are they free market capitalist societies? They are clearly not. They may not be pure socialist, or pure communist 100% of the time, but so what. The socialist slash communist cause is futile.
Also you probably won't accept what I'm going to say next either, but fascism is a type of socialism as well. Nazi Germany was a socialist country as well. Again, it may not have been pure socialism, but it was socialism.
"sorry but communism/socialism has never been tried"
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that's an altogether fair statement. The Bolsheviks under Lenin really tried what they thought was communism. They nationalized all private businesses, they tried to replace Czarist state officials with proletarians, they sought very hard to make what they thought was socialism work. But it was a great disaster, just as Weber and Mises said it would be. So while there may be a grain of truth in saying that communism has never been tried, the reason for this is because such a system is impossible. If one tries to implement an impossible system, the result must inevitably be something other than the impossible system.
"If you read Marx or Engels they are clear on this."
Well that's just the problem: Marx and Engels really aren't that clear on it. Marx in particular focused most of his attention on describing what he imagined to be the flaws of capitalism, along with capitalism's inevitable demise. He had little to say concerning what socialism/communism would look like beyond a few vague hints (such as the notion that after the interim period of the "dictatorship of the proletariat," the state would miracuously wither away). Marx tended to deride any detailed plan of a future socialist system as "utopian" and unscientific.
I don't know too much about the Kibbutz movement, but it seems to be a type of communism, which has largely died out.
ReplyDeleteI applaud your effort of criticizing and raising questions on objectivism, it is this exercise that contributes to correct Rand and other objectivists' errors/omissions and strengthen its base. However, after I a few visits I have to say that I am a bit disappointed. Most of the points raised and criticisms are made are out-of-context and based on wrong premises. Any serious criticism of ideas requires analytical rigor and clear identification of premises, definitions, and concepts and logical thought. Like the majority of critics of objectivism or Ayn Rand, it appears that you have a problem with Ayn Rand and not with ideas and reason, which is what she stood for.
ReplyDeleteAny serious criticism of ideas requires analytical rigor and clear identification of premises, definitions, and concepts and logical thought.
ReplyDeleteHmmm... why do I expect Dan to respond to this in short order? :)
and has no benefit to the smoker other than the fact they enjoy it. But does the tobacco industry really benefit mankind as a whole?
ReplyDeleteI think the question isn't whether the industry benefits mankind as a whole, but who decides whether it does. Should a few elites get to impose their choice on the public? Or should the public itself decide by buying or not buying cigarettes? Seemingly, the public has decided by buying enough cigarettes to generate billions in profit - even though almost 3/4 the price of a pack is taxes.
(For the record, I am not a smoker.)
Plus, as you said, smokers enjoy smoking. Why is that arbitrarily deemed to be not "really" a benefit? The CEO should be free to do whatever he lawfully wants with his profit.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I find it spiritually depleting (I don't necessarily mean that in a religious or mystical sense) to have spend a lot of time dealing with stupid, incompetent and usually poor people, even among my relatives. (We can't all have fathers or grandfathers like Warren Buffett.) Conservative talk shows in the U.S. leave a lot to desire, but at least once in a while they celebrate successful, or at least highly competent, individuals, like professional athletes, CEO's, best selling novelists and entrepreneurs; while "progressive" media like Thom Hartmann's talk show obsess over life's losers and failures. Hearing about, or even associating with, successful people leave me feeling better about life, even if I can't attain their level myself.
ReplyDeleteAnon:
ReplyDelete>Like the majority of critics of objectivism or Ayn Rand, it appears that you have a problem with Ayn Rand and not with ideas and reason, which is what she stood for.
Hi Anon,
Like the majority of the critics of the ARCHNblog, who like to remain anonymous, you seek to portray our criticisms as incorrect yet you never actually say what specific issues we've supposedly got wrong. Further, as with many of our other anonymous critics, you claim to have read much of the site yet at the same time suggest that our problem is with Ayn Rand personally, rather her ideas and her reasoning. I have to wonder how our anonymous critics can come to this conclusion, given the vast concentration of this site's content on empirical, logical, historical, economic, and political crtitiques of Objectivism (see for example, the post above this very thread), and comparatively scanty attention paid to her personal life or foibles. We can only conclude that this is a defensive, form-letter criticism, rather like accusations of alleged lack of "context", that is handed out no matter what the issue or who the recipient.
Anon:
>Any serious criticism of ideas requires analytical rigor and clear identification of premises, definitions, and concepts and logical thought.
Empirical and logical rigour is precisely what we are bringing to bear on Objectivism, and precisely what most Objectivists seek to evade with word-games and scholastic fiddle-faddle straight out of the Middle Ages. If they really were serious about criticism of Rand's ideas, silly fundamental errors (such as her belief that definitions could be logically true or false) would be highlighted in ARI literature, for example. But no: instead Objectivists hide behind what amounts to their own language, and what they increasingly claim to be their own logic.
Hence they are anything but "serious".
"Most of the points raised and criticisms are ... out-of-context and based on wrong premises."
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, without any specific examples, I have no idea what "out-of-context" refers to. That, along with old standby of "distortion," seems to be the stock Objectivist answer to criticisms. But in making these complaints, the Objectivist is merely hiding behind vague words. To say something is "out-of-context" or "based on the wrong premises" is no different from merely saying "I don't agree with this criticism." But unless one explains why one doesn't agree, and provides fact-based reasons for it, such expressions of disagreement are cognitively worthless.
"Any serious criticism of ideas requires analytical rigor and clear identification of premises, definitions, and concepts and logical thought."
While analytical rigor is useful, a "clear identification of premises, defintion and concepts" seems to be based on a false ideal knowledge of that we have criticized in his previous posts on this blog. Any statement presupposes, by implication, a multitude of premises; and it would be extremely tedious, and utterly unnecessary, to identify each and every one of those premises. And the attempt to identify every (or even any) concept one used would be an impossible undertaking. For how could one concept be identified without the use of other concepts, which in turn would have to be identified? When writing a post, I assume that my readers can understand English words; and if they don't, there really isn't anything I can do for them. Nor do I believe my so-called "premises" are of any great need of being clearly elucidated, since they are, at bottom, merely those of every acting individual, namely: that we are living in a material world existing in time and space; and that the best way of testing a theory is subjecting it to empirical criticism, that is to say, testing it against the facts. Objectivists and admirers of Rand rely far too much on what they imagine to be analytical or logical rigor. But it is quite possible for something to be logical and yet have no application to anything important in the real world. What is more logical than chess? Yet what does the logic of chess apply to beyond chess? Logic applies only to discourse; but discourse is not reality, but, at most, merely a description of reality. If Rand had really been animated by a strong passion for truth and an understanding how to reach truth, she would have placed more stress on empirical criticism and on the factual accuracy of her assertions (particularly her controversial assertions). But had she done so, her philosophy, in many important respects, would be quite different from what it is.
From what I can tell, most of the discussion on this site concerning Rand the person has to with people like Peikoff or Valliant who whitewash Rand's bad side.
ReplyDeleteRight Greg, so when Lenin states that what he is doing in Russia "..is not building socialism", erm...he was just lying and really was building socialism! Socialism cannot come about unless the majority understand and want it. now the Bolshevik party prior to the October revolution numbered 300 000, which is I agree is a fair old number, but the population on Russia at that time was 180 million, mostly peasants. Now, 300 000 out of 180 million is not a majority!
ReplyDeleteAs for Nationalisation, that is not socialism, sheesh I dont know if the Post Office is state run in the US but, if it is, are you seriously saying that would amount to 'socialism' and an Marc does not say it is inevitable that capitalism will collapse, far from it, he is clear on this to it will not collapse as long as the majority support it.
As for the person who talks about paying somebody to cut the lawn, erm...as Marx said in a world of free access there would be no money, if there is commodity production that is not socialism, it is a world of free access.
Of course Marx and Engels cannot say what socialism would look like, I mean how did they know when it would arrive? They state it would be left to the future generation to decide what it looks like. Sheesh, would have been like somebody saying 30 years, when we have socialism every home will have a Commodore 64!
As for Cuba, well there is state there and a pretty ruthless one to. So that would fall foul of What Marx wrote about not being able to make the state work in the interests of the working class, there are leaders, which again is a big no-no and there is commodity production, which again means it is a state capitalist country and not a soclialist one.
Sheesh are there still people around that think that nationalisation equals socialism?
Oh and I'm not a libertarion anything, they are a curious breed of people who think that you can have capitalism without the effects of capitalism, you know the wars, homelessness, starvation, unemployment and misery. How they will achieve this is anybodies guess.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteyou wrote,
----------------------------------------------------------------
Right Greg, so when Lenin states that what he is doing in Russia "..is not building socialism", erm...he was just lying and really was building socialism! Socialism cannot come about unless the majority understand and want it. now the Bolshevik party prior to the October revolution numbered 300 000, which is I agree is a fair old number, but the population on Russia at that time was 180 million, mostly peasants. Now, 300 000 out of 180 million is not a majority!
----------------------------------------------------------------
And why has a majority never voluntarily chosen socialism as you put? Seriously, if socialism is so wonder.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote,
---------------------------------------------------------
As for Nationalisation, that is not socialism, sheesh I dont know if the Post Office is state run in the US but, if it is, are you seriously saying that would amount to 'socialism' and an Marc does not say it is inevitable that capitalism will collapse, far from it, he is clear on this to it will not collapse as long as the majority support it.
---------------------------------------------------------
Nationalization is not socialism? So a country where all the means of production are controlled by the state is not socialist? Also Marx did write about what he thought would be the inevitable collapse capitalism, which like most of his predictions never happened. Why is it that even countries that claim to be socialist, in your opinion, have large numbers of people fleeing from them, and not only are they fleeing from them, when they leave, they often head for predominantly free Market Capitalist societies like the United States? Don't tell me its because those regimes are not socialist, or that those people fleeing nations like Cuba or North Korea, don't understand socialism. Also why is it that every leader who promises socialism, isn't really a socialist in your opinion?
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course Marx and Engels cannot say what socialism would look like, I mean how did they know when it would arrive? They state it would be left to the future generation to decide what it looks like. Sheesh, would have been like somebody saying 30 years, when we have socialism every home will have a Commodore 64!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet you can tell us what socialism would look like? You can tell us that all those regimes that claim to be socialist really are not at all, despite the fact that according to you, even the godfather of modern socialism could not?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteyou wrote,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As for Cuba, well there is state there and a pretty ruthless one to. So that would fall foul of What Marx wrote about not being able to make the state work in the interests of the working class, there are leaders, which again is a big no-no and there is commodity production, which again means it is a state capitalist country and not a soclialist one.
Sheesh are there still people around that think that nationalisation equals socialism?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Off course Cuba runs afoul of what Marx's dream, because socialism does not work.
What do you think the term free market means? Also if nationalization is a part of capitalism and not a part of socialism, why do libertarians, who opposes socialism and support capitalism, oppose nationalization.
Objectivism, which this blog criticizes, is a libertarian philosophy, and objectivists, including Rand are and were some of the biggest opponents of nationalization imaginable. Just read articles over at the Ayn Rand Institute or Capitalism Magazine.
Also, non objectivist libertarian organizations that oppose socialism, also oppose nationalization.
Also its not socialist because there's a commodity being produced? What is that supposed to mean. Would people in your socialist vision all be hunter gathers, so that they wouldn't have to produce anything themselves in order to survive?
There is no such thing as State Capitalism. Who on Earth proudly wears the label of State Capitalist?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote,
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oh and I'm not a libertarion anything, they are a curious breed of people who think that you can have capitalism without the effects of capitalism, you know the wars, homelessness, starvation, unemployment and misery. How they will achieve this is anybodies guess.
-------------------------------------------------------------
And what empirical evidence can you present to show that capitalism causes those things? I've asked people who think like you, that very same question, and non could answer it. Based on all the information I have, there is far more starvation, unemployment and misery, in non capitalist societies, than in societies like the United states or Canada or Western Europe. Also why aren't huge numbers of people in America starving to death? Even people who are labeled poor here, are not by the standards of many other nations. Often people living in here Ghettos own TVs and automobiles. How would that be possible, if we America was experiencing a massive famine?
By the way, its a bad habit of mine as well, but you really need to try to fix all of your spelling errors before you publish a comment.