From libertarian Michael A. LaFerrara:
Ayn Rand observed:
The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible.
Why impossible? Think of the psychology that altruism leads to in practice. If my first duty is to live for others, then not only am I putting the one life I’ll ever have “on the back burner”; by logical extension I must conclude that it is other people’s first duty to live for me. Put more directly, each of us has no moral responsibility to support ourselves materially or spiritually, because that is other people’s responsibility. On the contrary, each of us has a moral right to other people’s time, effort, and property, because it is their responsibility to support us. In other words, altruism turns us all into predators, where any person with an unfulfilled need, unsatisfied want, or penchant for bad behavior can rightfully demand that other people fix his life. In practice, then, every person represents a threat to everyone else. What measure of kindness, good will, or respect is possible in a world where each of us is surrounded by moochers and predators? What measure of kindness, good will, or respect is possible under a moral code that encourages, as an ideal, that each of us to become a moocher or a predator?
I agree with Rand’s take on the dictionary definition of altruism. I disagree that the only alternative is to be a libertarian with no obligations at all.
Yeah, yeah. And love is for losers and charity is for chumps.
What’s all the fuss about? Is there a growing threat of altruism breaking out? I’ve never met an altruist. There’s no vast conspiracy, organization, or political party of altruists. Altruism is a concept, not an institution of evil undermining our society and civilization. That would be Trumpism.
When one embraces greed and selfishness as virtue he needs an imaginary abstract polar opposite as the horrible consequence of abandoning their sanctified selfishness. This is why they can’t see selflessness and generosity as relative virtues. It’s just more justification for”you’re on your own” vs. “we’re all in it together”.
It’s that cultish “black or white” absolutism. Greed and selfishness and generosity and selflessness represent a wide spectrum of degrees, not an either/or of the human condition.
Well said.
We see that pattern everywhere, don’t we? Conservatives are “self-reliant,” so liberals want the government to control everything. Conservatives are “Christian,” so liberals want to destroy Christianity. Conservatives are “charitable,” so liberals are stingy except when it comes to others’ money.
But it’s liberals who are the disrespectful, divisive elitists…