Is Altruism Evil?
I find nothing more compelling to discuss first than the moral value structure of Altruism that underlies the political doctrine of collectivism. One must only listen to a post-modernist espousing how capitalism has failed society to find that the answer to income inequality is the transition from self-interest to self-sacrifice. Picture Christ on the cross dying for the sins of the world or Atlas carrying that beautiful blue globe upon his back. Before we can begin to pursue a discussion on the role of Altruism we must define the parameters in which we can determine the correctness or incorrectness of a moral value. To begin the dialogue there must be a clear understanding of the terminology and definitive understanding of Altruism and where the reasoning behind it originated. Once we gain a better understanding of the history behind the ethic we will then conduct an analysis of Altruism and its role in the great democide of the 20th century. Finally we will use our acquired knowledge to evaluate Altruism as an ethic and what it means for the individual. What I hope we conclude together is that Altruism is evil because it means the death for the individual and that that premise makes him expendable.
In pursuing a discussion in ethics we often encounter a major philosophical question, is there an objective criterion of good and evil that is not defined through subjective perception that we can measure? What I do not want to occur is a passing of judgment on one moral structure through the lens of another. There needs to be some control that leads us to an overarching truth of what is good and what is evil. For this monumental task I will refer to the reasoning of Ayn Rand in her collection of essays on selfishness. In particular in the first essay, “The Objectivist Ethics” Rand states “By what means does [man] first become aware of the issue of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in its simplest form? By means of the physical sensations of pleasure or pain.Just as sensations are the first step of the development of a human consciousness in the realm of cognition, so they are its first step in the realm of evaluation (pg.18).” Rynd reasons from this premise that that we can gain an objective understanding of good and evil by first reasoning that the pain-pleasure mechanism innate in all conscious beings offers an insight to our first real standard to value right from wrong, our lives. The pain sensation is a primordial driver that informs the being they are in danger and heading in that path could mean their very existence, conversely pleasure is a signal that that being is pursuing the right course of action. From the U.S. Library of Medicine, “Brain systems (of pleasure and displeasure) naturally evolved as objective mechanisms to produce behaviour...” (Berridge and Kringelbach) The only evolutionary advantage on an objective level for adaptive behaviours are actions that seek to prolong life and not cut it short, thus life is measurable. “The translation of objective liking reaction into subjective pleasure feeling probably requires recruitment of additional brain mechanisms specialized for cognitive appraisal and conscious experience” (Berridge and Kringelbach). Relying on the innate mechanisms that drive behaviour does not serve to set the standard of pursuit, focusing on what brings an individual pleasure creates a possibility for the conflict of competing interests. Instead the presence of the pleasure-displeasure mechanism is a result of our interaction with the world and how we can best overcome its chaos demonstrating that even though the argument can be made that it is our perceptions that create reality like the eternal forms of Plato or the worldview of the Buddhists that first and foremost is our relationship with objective reality whatever that may or may not be. The standard in which we value ultimate good and ultimate evil is the continuance/prolongation or extermination of life respectively.
Now that we have a standard of ultimate truth it would be prudent to clarify the terminology. What is Altruism? According to the Oxford Dictionary Altruism is showing a disinterested and selfless concern for the well being of others (oxforddictionaries.com). As an Ethic it can be found to be defined as the doctrine that the general welfare of society is the proper goal of an individual’s actions (Collins). The first mention of Altruism as a moral was from Auguste Comte who called for a religion of “The Great Being, Humanity,” and defined Altruism as “Vivre Pour Autrui,” living for others (Campbell). The focus of this essay and the direction of the question concerns Comte’s definition. Collectivism according to the oxford dictionary, the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it. Of the same source an Ethic can be defined as moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity. Subjectivism is found to be the doctrine that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or objective truth and Objectivism, the belief that certain things, especially moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them.
. It would seem simple to reason that as we evolved our methods of survival we began to see the utility in cooperation. In this new found cohabitation it would seem logical that those individuals that worked in service to the community were duly respected. Jordan Peterson a renowned public intellectual and former Psychology director at Toronto University explains the transition from actuality to abstraction of the moral value structures that underlie the fabric of religion and morality through the development of the mythos and so will I (Jordan B. Peterson: Biblical Series I: The idea of God). The hero leaves the safety of the village to defeat a threatening dragon and returns with treasure to give for the betterment of his people. The myth demonstrates an individual risking his life to conquer in the name of the tribe. After having an individual act this out the community begins to encourage others that exemplify similar qualities ensuring that the admired quality will remain through the generations. The consciousness of the community then will be able to abstract the quality from the individual and begin to follow the morality apart from the vessel. Altruism as an ethic and action becomes personified into a God, something to worship and structure one’s life around. More importantly is the moral judgement society begins to place on ethical reality. It is here when the community begins to evaluate what aids in the progress of the society and what is damaging and begin to define what actors we believe to be good and bad. Altruism now becomes more than just a way to act but a lense in which we differentiate between what is good and what is evil. Service to the collective is good, working against the collective is evil. Collectivism according to the oxford dictionary, the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it. Now that we have a clear understanding of the standard we will employ to identify if Altruism is ultimately good or evil and a clear understanding of the terminology to be criticized we may now begin to conduct an analysis of the subject in question and then I will present clear and coherent examples of Altruistic collectivism in history so that we might gain a perspective on what Altruism has allowed to pass as ideologically valuable.
Vivre Pour Autrui, Living for others. The key word in this is for. The oxford dictionary has multiple definitions and the ones that best fit are in support of and to the benefit of. Seems trivial but the difference in their meaning is profound. In support of suggests aid and general assistance while to the benefit of suggests a service. Pour according to the french-english translation, for somebody, length of time, a purpose, a place, to a place. It seems like Comte would suggest service, more so a purpose, a justification for life. This is not just a matter of interpretation or opinion but a matter of objective and truthful analysis of the clear and established terms. Altruism as a moral ethic applies a structure in which people are organized and the implication of a subjective value system creating a dissimilar differentiation of right and wrong. Living for oneself is not the highest moral value though Altruism as an ethic does not discount the individual. The individual is the target but not the beneficiary, in fact in certain terms the individual is living for the beneficiary. This is where the first issue arises, the creation of a value hierarchy dependent on the individuals’ participation in the service to the collective. “History calls those men the greatest who have ennobled themselves by working for the common good; experience acclaims as happiest the man who has made the greatest number of people happy.” (Karl Marx, Reflections of a Young Man 1835) Among this hierarchy are the defectors, those who stand in opposition to the collective notwithstanding those who live neither for or against the collective; the lack of cooperation values this collective of individuals as enemies of the ideology and less valuable. What is the value of an individual who works in opposition to the collective?. The best illustration from this comes from Ayn Rand in her essay “The Ethics of Emergencies”, she presents the situation of a man looking over his sick wife on the verge of her deathbed. Next door is a house of ten women who are also sick and the altruists’ morals would say that the man is less valuable because he is pursuing the self interest that he would rather direct his efforts to his own wife (The Virtue of Selfishness, pg. 51). By the very definition the man in the example is acting in opposition to the collective by acting in his self-interest. This is the very essence of Altruism, the self sacrifice. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the sacrifice of his “only begotten son” for the sins of others for the sake of others. Jesus and/or God depending on the religion is the ultimate altruist, the gold standard bearer. It is quite fitting that the great sacrificial lamb also posited “The meek shall inherit the earth.” Meek, 1. enduring injury with patience and without resentment, 3. not violent or strong (Merriam-webster), quiet and unwilling to disagree or fight, quiet, gentle, and not willing to argue or express your opinions in a forceful way; the original Hebrew text has the word Anav for meek which could be translated as lowly, poor, afflicted.
Altruism is an argument for the collective and in order for the individual to lose their identity they must become victims of oppression and hate and thus their individuality is sacrificed for the identity and when an individual commits the sin of dissent they are regarded as the perpetrators of oppression and hate. A hierarchy of value would deem these interlocutors as less valuable and such worthy of demonization and in this atmosphere an individual cannot survive, there can only be multiple regurgitations of a victimized group identity, one that is angry and forever in opposition to phantom forces constantly tipping the scale against them. The other extreme of Altruism is a state or a reflection of ideology and an adoption identity not of their victimhood but of their superiority and constantly competing against outside forces through conspiracy and sabotage by those of unconquerable inferiority. Examples of both of these extremes are evident in history and may be counterintuitively Altruistic based on the notoriety that surrounds them. Karl Marx claimed “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (The Communist Manifesto). In his manifesto Marx wrote extensively on the proletariat, the working class and the constant oppression from the capitalist ruling class, the bourgeoisie. Marx posited that the ruling class took advantage of the individual because they were easy to control but as a group the working class were uncontrollable and could defeat the power of the capitalists by withholding their labor. In Marx’s sense altruism was a means to unite the victims against their oppressors for the sake of the group and not for the sake of the individual. “Our mutual value is for us the value of our mutual objects. Hence for us man himself is mutually of no value” (Comment on James Mill 1844). Marx outright rejects any value of the individual. Conversely Nazi Germany had a sort of Altruism for the state, the superiority of the Aryan Race and the loyalty to Mother Germany. Adherence to the state identity was not a matter of recommendation but an insistence. An excerpt from Political Prisoners: Nazi Persecution of Political Prisoners from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:
The Nazis persecuted non-Jewish German opponents, both real and perceived. Whether they were political (Communists, Social Democrats, Democrats), spiritual (Jehovah’s Witnesses), or “social” (Homosexuals) opponents - Nazi racial theory held that they were valuable members of the race. These non-Jewish German opponents needed to understand their racial value and then follow their restored “natural instinct” to do the right thing: accept and internalize the Nazi vision of the world.
In order to enforce the state ideal the Nazis killed and enforced conformity through fear and destruction. The result of their mistake resulted in the great tragedy of the 20th Century, the second world war and the Jewish holocaust. Given these tragic results it is a surprise that John F. Kennedy would later famously offer “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
Vivre Pour Autrui, Living for others. From the direct analysis of the definition of Altruism we can find that the moral value structure that if offers presupposes the dissolution of the individual. During the creation of the collective any individual that stands outside the beneficiary is either a sole sacrifice or a dissenter that must be silenced as we saw with the writings of Karl Marx and the actions of Nazi Germany from the 20th Century. According to the value structure there could be valuable and authentic reasons for the death of an individual. Any system that by the very structure of it make morally acceptable the extermination of a being is not a worthwhile system when set against ultimate good and evil. By this standard Altruism is inherently evil because of its treatment of the individual and that person's self interest. To conclude I leave you with Ayn Rand, “Self Sacrifice i the precept that men need to serve others in order to justify his existence.” She also says in response to the problem that “man is entitled to his own happiness and that he must achieve it himself but he cannot demand that others give up their life to make him happy.”
Citations
Berridge, Kent C., and Morten L. Kringelbach. “Neuroscience of Affect: Brain
Mechanisms of Pleasure and Displeasure.” Current opinion in neurobiology 23.3 (2013): 294-303. PMC. Web. 23 July 2018.
Campbell, Robert L., “Altruism in Auguste Comte and Ayn Rand” The Journal of Ayn
Rand Studies Vol. 7, No.2 (Spring 2006) pg.357-369
18, July 2018
Kraut, Richard, “Altruism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018
Edition) Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/altruism/>.
LibertyPen “Ayn Rand - The Morality of Altruism” LibertyPen.com YOUTUBE October 26, 2009
Marx, Karl. “Comments on James Mill” Gesamtausgabe, Erste Abteilung, Band 3, Berlin, 1932
21, July 2018
Marx, Karl and Engels, The Communist Manifesto Marx/Engels Selected Works, Vol. One,
Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969, pp.98-137;
Marx, Karl., “Reflections of a Young Man on the Choice of a Profession” MECW Vol.1 Archiv
für die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung, 1925 Translated by Sally
Accessed on 21, July 2018
Oxford Dictionaries, “Altruism”, “Collectivism”, “Ethic”, “For”, “Meek”, “Objectivism”,
“Subjectivism” Oxford Dictionaries https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ Accessed from
18, July 2018 through 22, July 2018
Peterson, Jordan B., “Biblical Series I: The Idea of God” Jordan B Peterson YOUTUBE
published May 20, 2017 accessed 19, July 2018 https://youtu.be/f-wWBGo6a2w
Rand, Ayn, and Nathaniel Branden The Virtue of Selfishness, Penguin Books New York, New
York USA 1964 “The Objectivist Ethics” pg. 18, “The Ethics of Emergencies” pg. 51
Sober, Elliot and Wilson, David Sloan, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of
Unselfish Behaviour, Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts; London England 2003
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “Political Prisoners: Nazi Persecution of
Political Opponents” Holocaust Encyclopedia
7/20/2018 through 7/22/2018.
