A philosophical war is being waged for America’s future, with the core values and foundational principles that will guide this country at stake. This war is not merely between differences of opinion, but, as Ayn Rand would have said, “it is the difference between life and death.” This cultural conflict is between the philosophies of altruism and egoism.
In order to gain an understanding of each philosophy’s fundamental nature and what they truly mean and entail, it is pivotal that we explore these concepts in the context of value.
Altruism
Altruism is commonly defined as “the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others,”1 and thus not the self. Most people confuse altruism to mean merely helping others, however, this is not the case. Explained more precisely, “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.”2 Graphically represented, altruism looks like this:
In this graphical representation, Person 1 is the altruist, with Person 2 being the beneficiary of a value. The fundamental root of altruism demands that the self must give up a value for either a lesser value or for no value in return. This is what it means to be selfless. Person 1 sacrifices a value while Person 2 gains a value. In essence, Person 2 gains value at the expense of Person 1. Altruism by it's nature results in a lose-win scenario, also referred to as a zero-sum game. Numerically, you can think of altruism as (-1 + 1) = 0. As this representation shows, value is destroyed/sacrificed to the benefit of another. What is interesting is that currently in the USA, altruism is not only the dominant of the two philosophies being pushed by academia, but it is considered to be the moral philosophy compared to egoism. Make no mistake about it, there can be no morality in the destruction of value.
When it comes to politics, the politico-economic system that holds altruism as it's fundamental philosophy is communism. Under communism, value is destroyed/sacrificed, usually under the guise of the “public good,” and to the dictators benefit. As Ayn Rand once noted, “Every dictatorship is based on altruism,” be it sacrifice to the state, as with Hitler’s Nazi Germany, or sacrifice to the collective public, as with Stalin’s Soviet Russia.
Examples of notable figures who preach/preached altruism include Immanuel Kant, Joseph Stalin, Barack Obama (Spread the Wealth!), & John McCain (Country First!)
Egoism
Egoism is commonly defined as "the theory that the pursuit of one's own welfare is the highest good."3 The more concrete Objectivist view of egoism is that "human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."4 Egoism is best represented graphically as:
In this graphical representation, Person 1 is the egoist, expecting value in return for the value he is trading away. In effect, both Person 1 and Person 2 are the beneficiaries of value. The fundamental root of egoism demands that the egoist deal with others in a way that results in his/her own long-term survival/prosperity/happiness. This is only possible socially so long as both parties benefit through a mutually beneficial relationship. Egoism results in a win-win scenario, also known as a positive-sum game. Numerically, this can be demonstrated as (1 + 1) = 2. Value is created through egoism, not destroyed as with altruism. It is the profit-seeking egoist, pursuing his own self-interest, who creates enterprise, which in turn creates value to be traded and exchanged. For example, let's say that Person 1 is a business, say Starbucks, and Person 2 is a customer. Starbucks is in business selfishly to make money. Starbucks wants money more than it wants it's products. In essence, it values money more than it's products. The customer wants a coffee more than it wants his/her money, thus valuing the product of Starbucks more than his/her money. Through the exchange of a lesser value for a greater value, both parties end up gaining a benefit, gaining something of more value to them, and thus both parties end up better off than they were previously. It is through the creation of mutually beneficial relationships that people maximize their survival, prosperity, and happiness in the long-term.
Now, it is quite natural to use a business analogy to describe egoism because it just so happens that the politico-economic system that is synonymous with and holds egoism at its core is capitalism. History shows us quite well that wealth is created under capitalism, thus resulting in a higher standard of living and quality of life for all citizens, regardless of social class. The selfish man, with his happiness and self-interest as his primary goal ends up benefiting those around him.
Examples of notable egoists include Ayn Rand & John Allison.
Society's Misunderstanding of Egoism
The most tragic aspect of American culture as a whole is that we fail to fully understand the true nature of egoism and cast it aside as a corrosive element of one’s character. There was a time in our nation’s history when egoism was the predominant virtue. Man was free to live his life for his own sake, and it was considered noble. But today, we have become shortsighted and downright incompetent (and perhaps frightened) of naming the true nature of our and our fellow man’s actions. Today, the definition of selfishness has been twisted to simply mean short-term gain at someone else’s expense. However, this is not egoism, but the first stage of a "pragmatic" form of nihilism, the philosophy that leads to “total and absolute destructiveness, especially toward the world at large and including oneself.”5 The first stage of nihilism can be graphically represented as:
As shown by this depiction, Person 1 is considered the “selfish” individual gaining value at the expense of Person 2. I say this is the first stage of nihilism because society’s view of egoism is deceptive, as it focuses solely on short-term results and leaves out the long-term effects. The root and culmination of this philosophy is not selfishness, but self-destruction. Although the self is gaining value at first, that is not the end result. A common example of this false idea of egoism is the “businessman who commits fraud out of selfishness.” Think about it. Is the businessman who commits fraud really being selfish? Does hurting his customers contribute to his long-term prosperity and happiness? As stated above, true selfishness is all about maximizing one’s own long-term survival/prosperity/happiness. Businessmen who commit fraud against their customers, or anyone for that matter who seeks to gain value at another’s expense, is not acting in their own self-interest because they undermine and put in jeopardy their own livelihoods. As stated perfectly by Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged, “If ever the pleasure of one has to be bought by the pain of the other, there better be no trade at all. A trade by which one gains and the other loses is a fraud."
People simply choose not to interact with people who cause them harm. Customers are certainly not going to want to deal with a businessman who defrauds them of value. In due time, when word spreads throughout the community (and now thanks to the Internet, the world) of the businessman’s misdeeds, he eventually must either close his doors due to a lack of customers or (relative to the extent of the fraud) move from a life of luxury to the confines of a jail cell. This is where Stage 2, the end result of nihilistic behavior, comes into play. Stage 2 of nihilism is best graphically represented as:
As you can see, value has been annihilated due to the self-destructive behavior of Person 1. Nihilism results in lose-lose scenarios, or what’s known as a negative-sum game. Numerically, nihilism can be represented as (-1 + -1) = -2. Our society fails to realize is that this notion of selfishness is actually self-destruction. When one seeks value at the expense of another, he is sowing the seeds of his own destruction.
Examples of notable nihilists include Bernie Madoff & Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY).
Final Word
The good news is that in reality, it is not really egoism that is being harshly criticized and declared immoral by our society, but nihilism. The bad news is that nihilism is being mistaken for egoism. This has to change if we are to be the free society we once were. It should be no surprise that as altruism has entrenched itself within American culture, our freedoms have lessened. Just this passed week, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced legislation entitled “Shared Sacrifice.”6 This bill, if passed, will further violate the property rights of certain members of our society by forcing them to pay for the mistakes of others. If we are to get back on track to being a rights-respecting Republic once again, we must denounce this cancer of the mind. Altruism must not win this war. Every individual’s life belongs to him or her, and each person has a right to pursue his or her own happiness. Altruism says you do not have that right, that you are obligated to serve others. It’s time we deal with this cancer with the chemo it deserves. Declare that your life is yours. Whenever you hear selfishness being ridiculed, defend it. It may be your own life you save.
*For a more in-depth explanation of these philosophies, check out Craig Biddle's amazing talk: Altruism vs. America: Ayn Rand Solves the Problem
__________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes
The first thing to notice is that the two views being considered, what The Capitalist Warrior calls “Altruism” and “Egoism”, are not the only available options. It's not the case that you must be an Altruist or an Egoist. Commendably, TCW defines these terms explicitly for us, making this clear. He uses “Altruism” to refer to the view, held by few, if any, that “the right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others.” When TCW makes this 'more precise', he really meantions a different view, held by even fewer, if any, which lauds self-sacrifice above all else. (I would need help to decipher the claims about the right to exist for one's own sake, which puzzlingly seems to mean the right to choose one's self as one's sole final end, and, even more cryptic, justification for one's existence. Luckily, these components do not appear to feature in any more of the discussion.) The first definition obviously does not entail the second, and it becomes clear that the discussion focuses on the latter.
ReplyDeleteIt is natural to think that the graph titled “Altruism” represents a claim that (taking Person 1 to be a moral agent and Person 2 to be any other person with moral status) every moral agent ought to value others and disvalue herself equally. (This is a much stronger claim than either sense of “Altruism” mentioned above.) The explicit description of the graph contrasts with this characterization, however. According to this description, for which this graph is only a misleading representation, the intended meaning is not about agents and how they are to be valued, it is rather about valued or valuable items and how they are to be distributed (and so far remaining neutral regarding whether this is by the agents themselves, either one or both, or by others, or by the state). But in using the term “sacrifice”, TCW makes clear that distribution is to be done by Person 1, giving an item of value to Person 2 without remuneration. Thusly taken, the graph directly depicts not a claim but a scenario (as it is implausible to interpret the intended meaning as the claim that this scenario ought always to take place, when it can, as it is neutral about differentiating features of Person 1 and Person 2, and so would result in both agents distributing their goods in the same way, ending with as much of value as they had at the start).
Since it's clear that the graph does not stably depict a normative claim, it is difficult to address the claim made by TCW that the graph represents a view that, “currently in the USA”... “is not only the dominant of the two philosophies being pushed by academia, but”... “is considered to be the moral philosophy compared to egoism.” The only view in the interpretive ballpark seems to be the claim, which I mentioned above, that the scenario (an agent giving up an item of value to another agent) ought always to occur, when it can; as I also mentioned, this view is unstable and, obviously, as such, without proponents. Even more puzzling is the comment that “there can be no morality in the destruction of value”, since the scenario features a redistribution scenario, and certainly not the destruction of any item of value. Communism is a political and economic view, so cannot be considered 'Altruist' in any of these senses, since we have all along been discussing redistributive norms for individual agents. Of course, it's also absurd to attribute any view remotely like this to Kant, Stalin, President Obama, or McCain. Kant says absolutely nothing that I know of about distributive norms (though it is possible that he had some view or other at some time about them), and his positive moral view really is not concerned with first-order views of this kind. The evidence is just not there with the others. Again, we have the two explicit senses and the unstable view gestured at by the graph in mind.
ReplyDeleteHow to move forward: It would be best if TCW would choose a sense from the explicit two and, if the graph is, as it seems, intended to represent more than just distributive scenario, what that is ought to be very explicitly spelled out. The most important thing is to be sure that this is a view that is actually coherent and held by some. (I have a suspicion that you're getting at this view: It is sometimes the case that an agent ought to incur a cost for the sake of another. This just isn't what you mention, though of course, this is probably actually the negation of what you mean by “Egoism”)
The two explicit (and, again, not equivalent) definitions of “Egoism” are: (1) “the theory that the pursuit of one's own welfare is the highest good”, and (2) “human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.” To make (1) directly discuss the same subject matter as my proposed definition of “Altruism”, it would be “the theory that one ought act for the sake of themselves only”. The first sentence of (2) is an empirical claim, I think, about how best to achieve what's best for humanity, which is very strikingly odd paired with definition (1). The rest of (2) is weird because it concerns highly atypical (and perhaps nonexistent) moral agents- those who do not make or accept sacrifices, and so cannot be read as a moral claim. The most sensible part says “that the rational interests of men do not clash”, though this is plainly false if it concerns all actual agents (and very strange if it concerns those atypical agents). (Of course, I avoid interpreting (2) as the view of Kant's that our obligations towards others are grounded in facts about ourselves and our own rationality). So I'll just stick with (1) in my comment.
ReplyDeleteThe graph titled “Egoism” seems to depict a scenario in which two persons gain an item of value (using the model of the first graph). However, TCW explicitly says that he intends it to depict a trade, so really the value-dimension (the vertical axis) ought to be zero for both agents. His Starbucks purchase example, a trade, is supposed to be a case for which it is argued that, though it appears that there is an even exchange, valued items are somehow created in the transaction. Though it is true that both parties desire the other person's original item more than their own, if we're measuring both sides of the trade together, it cannot be done both from the perspective of one party and the perspective of the other and then simply summed (since we'd be considering two distinct, seemingly incommensurable things: what's valued by or valuable for the one party and what's valued by or valuable for the other). If we're to sum the results for both parties, we can only consider what's valuable or what's valued, in which case the sum is, of course, zero. An illustration on my part would be helpful, I admit, but the point is straightforward and should be clear enough.
Even if it were true that this graph or this case showed that more valuable or valued items result from selfishly-motivated transactions, this would not support the egoist claim. It would, however, have supported the odd bit of definition (2) concerning the good of humanity, which Egoism rules out pursuing as a final end. (Of course, it would also have supported the claim that it is good for me to engage in this kind of transaction, but that is also unrelated to the egoist claim, which is that what's good for me is, for me, the only good.)
The rest of the post features some confusions that, for the sake of time, I will only mention. First, no element of the graph appears to have anything to do with time, so discussing the depicted scenario as a short-term gain scenario is hard to address. The second, of which future readers must be aware, is taking the ordinary use of the term “selfish” to mean the same thing as “acting in ways which are not in one's own interest”. This is problematic both because “selfishness” in the ordinary sense- the one much more relevant to the topic at hand- is about not considering the well-being of others to give you reasons, and because it shirks the fact that acting in ways that one believes are in his own interest is far removed from acting in ways that will in fact be in his own interest. Manipulating these confusions is crucial to TCW's seeming to show that society 'misunderstands' Egoism. In the ordinary sense, an act is “selfish” if it was not motivated by considerations for others. Taking selfishness to be extremely close to Egoism- the view that we ought to act in our own interests only- is obviously correct.
ReplyDeleteDetermining what “Nihilism” is supposed to mean here is beyond my interpretive capacities in light of the confusions just mentioned. Taking it to mean acting in one's short-term gain but one's long-term harm would make it completely orthogonal to the discussion of egoism. No one means by “selfishness” acting in one's short-term gain but one's long-term harm. As I said, it is not about the results of the action, it is about the considerations that motivate its performance.
TCW wants to be addressing cases in which it seems to us like an agent ought to act in consideration for others, showing that really we agree on the right action and it would also be performed for selfish reasons. Really, though, he only addresses easy cases, harvested with the red herring of the short-term/long-term distinction. All these cases and this discussion really do is show that sometimes, though it appears that an action is in one's interest, it is really not. Pity that no one disagrees with that claim and that it does not support Egoism. TCW needs to address some disputed cases. Don't waste the reader's time patting your back for discovering cases in which consideration of one's own interest alone would result in the action that is best for you and good for another. You're the one who claims that those are the only reasons, and the opponents you have in mind are worried that consideration of those reasons alone would sometimes lead to the performance of actions that harm others (something that is obviously true, and something which you have not argued against).
TCW, I have to say that at first I didn't think much of this blog, not to mention your views, but after some thought on how people view themselves in regards to how they treat others, and reading your lastest post, I have more understanding for your views. Keep up the good work and I look forward to hearing more from you soon.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lemmanation, you do realize that this blog is an opinion of how TCW views the world based on the ideaologies he feels plagues our world, and offers an opinion of how to change it for the better of human kind? It's not like he's campaigning to Congress or demanding public revolution to change overnight how people think of themselves and others, so maybe you should take it down a notch. And we don't need to read many comments to know you disagree. One is sufficient thank you, so keep that in mind when commenting in the future.
Anon 8:22:
ReplyDeleteMaybe you disagree with something I said. I can't tell from your comment. The claim that something I mentioned was merely the "opinion" of TCW is beyond inane. Maybe you think I took them to be dreams? Yes, TCW was discussing his views-- it is those views that I addressed. Nor did I accuse TCW of demanding a public revolution. If I recall, my point was rather that nothing convincing is said (or depicted) in favor of any of the desired empirical or ethical claims.
It's very odd for a mere *reader* of a blog to post regarding a (hitherto nonexistent) comments policy, or to instruct regarding future comments (especially while referring to- I'm not sure whom- as 'we'). Comment length is limited to approximately the space taken up by each of my previous posts, so I (regrettably) had to break it up. Had you read them, you'd have been quite sure that I did much more than state that I disagreed with TCW or his post. In fact, I'm not even sure I did state that.
If you are going to challenge me please do so by not hiding behind a pseudonym. In my first blog post, I identified who I am. Please do the same.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, since I could not gather much of much you said due to the confusing nature of your writing, the only points I was able to understand will be addressed as follows:
1. I never said those two philosophies were the only available options. In fact I even discussed a third; nihilism. But I did say these two philosophies are at odds with each other and these alone will inevitably decide the future foundational principles and culture of the country. With that said, I wish you would have identified other options that you claim to exist. That would have helped me understand your argument better.
2. I don’t see how the two definitions are at odds with each other. The first one serves as the mainstream definition, the other, the more complete/concrete Objectivist view. That was quite evident if you looked at the footnotes.
3. The graphs don’t necessarily depict a trade of tangible items/value. If you clicked on “values” you would have a better understanding of what was meant by value. You then would have then been able to understand how egoism results in value creation (man seeking self-interest through creating enterprise, in my example, Starbucks, where tangible value was then able to be traded. Perhaps I should have been more explicit in that point I felt was obvious, but I have since edited this post to make my view more clear for those without knowledge in economics). Also, by saying trade is a zero-sum game shows a lack of understanding of game-theory, often used to explain economic situations, and which analyzes situations in a social context, that is, between participants, not just one individual. Zero-sum entails that someone gains at another’s expense (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/z/zero-sumgame.asp). With trade, both parties end up with something of value, resulting in a positive-sum. The reason I show both parties gaining value with egoism, with the assumption both started at zero, was to show how each party was able to satisfy a desire of greater value that was unsatisfied by the value they initially started out with, and thus ending up in a better position than both were at previously. Trade is the engine of capitalism that leads to wealth creation. What you purport is empirically false that trade is zero-sum. If it were true, capitalism would not be the wealth creation engine that it is.
4. I’m not sure how the fact that any view, be it held by either a minority or a majority has anything to do with the truthfulness or rightness/wrongness of the view in question. Leave that collectivist mantra out of the debate. It has no merit.
5. Lastly, let me make this perfectly clear, as you have mentioned this on a prior occasion and I feel it’s quite noteworthy; Objectivism makes no such claim that all men always act rationally. Objectivism does however claim that man is CAPABLE of rationality (which we know to be empirically true), and as such, he must be left free to figure it out for himself, to suffer the consequences of bad/irrational actions, and to reap the benefits of the right ones.
No hiding here-- you know who I am. Complex thought takes effort, and I invite you to re-read my earlier comments. You shouldn't expect to understand and absorb everything on a first pass.
ReplyDeleteSince virtually all of my points go unanswered, I'll merely reply to your points.
1. I don't know what argument you're talking about. I didn't give one. But it's worth my stressing here that arguing against one view by arguing for another or arguing for one view by arguing against another will only work if they are, in fact, the only available options.
2. I don't know how it might be that one's definition being "mainstream" and the other's being "more concrete" is supposed to make it the case that they are consistent with one another. But I also didn't claim that they're "at odds". But they certainly don't say remotely the same thing.
3. You're simply wrong about the "creation of value". It's hard to interpret your saying that I don't understand game theory as anything but resisting the discussion in favor of citing dubious 'expert opinion', which would be odd if you have an "understanding of game theory", whose alleged lack in me you find responsible for some confusion. You did not reply to my simple point: To add the two quantities, they have to be quantities *of the same thing*! If that same thing is what's valuable, the result is zero. If that same thing is what's valued, the result is zero, since the individuals' valuations are symmetric (hence the trade) relative to their starting points.
4. "Collectivist mantra"? What on earth does that mean? Do you know what a mantra is? And is something aptly called "collectivist" to you if it merely has something to do with more than a single agent? As has been pointed out numerous times, pointing out that a view you critique has no adherents offers a clue that you've erected a strawman.
5. What is this supposed to reply to?
My more central point stands: that none of your graphs, *even if they are apt*, give evidence for egoism.
I was speaking publicly. Why hide yourself from the public behind a pseudonym, you know, in the interest of full disclosure? That's all I meant.
ReplyDeleteSince 1 and 2 don't really deal with the crux of the post, I'm not going to expand on them further.
Game theory in an economic sense is based on observation, not opinion. I'm not sure what "dubious expert" you are referring to. The link I posted simply provided an explanation of zero-sum. With that said, I'm confused as to how you arrive at zero-sum with two positive quantities. The value is derived in the fact that both parties end up better off than they were before the trade took place. It is what it is. I can't really say more to this.
The graphs are meant to simply illustrate the two philosophies visually.