#altrusim

Neural Link Between Altruism and Empathy Toward Strangers

Study is the first to show a clear link between real-world altruism and empathy for the pain of strangers.

So, I’m beginning to look into objectivism.  On the surface, it has a few good things to say and can be helpful to overcome some issues.  I came across an article about how a gay man avoided the struggles of most gay men. He attributes this partly to the way he was raised, but exposure to objectivism helped cement it. This is a bit ironic considering Ayn Rand viewed homosexuality as “disgusting.” He was able to look beyond her opinion to separate it from her philosophy, where others were unable to.

Personally, I don’t like Ayn Rand, she was an egotistical piece of shit at the center of a cult of personality that heralded her as the smartest person in the world. As long as you agreed with her on everything, you were fine. Ayn Rand could not stand anyone disagreeing with her.

Ayn Rand was also not really a philosophy, despite being regarded as a philosopher by her followers, just not anyone else.  She could philosophize.  So can I.  I’m not a philosopher.  Reading other things about her, she doesn’t defend against possible objections (note that she doesn’t like people disagreeing with her, so why bother?), she’s not consistent, it’s more a hodgepodge of her opinions, and her conclusions don’t follow her premises.

I’ll tackle two things in this:

Altruism

From The Objective Standard

And not only is the altruist’s morality the same in kind; the consequences of accepting it are the same in kind, too. To the extent that a person acts selflessly, he thereby thwarts his life and happiness. He might not die because of it, but he certainly will not live fully; he will not make the most of his life; he will not achieve the kind of happiness that is possible to him.

Reading up on what various people write about it, altruism is sacrificing the self, but they present altruism kind of in an infinite regressive way (altruism all the way down), essentially a strawman, calling it a logical fallacy.  When you misrepresent something, it’s very easy to destroy. Which is what every pundit I’ve come across does.

There are varying degrees of altruism from helping a pregnant woman change a tire (which I did) to literally jumping onto a grenade (something I read about).  According to objectivism, altruism is self-sacrificing and goes against the morality of egotism.  Me sacrificing 10 minutes of sitting in front of the TV to help a pregnant woman, greatly reduces her suffering, yet doesn’t diminish the fullness of my life.  The man who jumped on a grenade saved the lives of 21 Navy Seals when a grenade was dropped.  He was going to die.  Period!  He saved 21 people, and a massive amount of suffering for their families.

Altruism does not call for you to make yourself a doormat.  That’s where objectivism is completely and totally wrong.  There might be people who think they must be that way (I’ve seen this in religion), but it’s certainly not doctrine or even presented that way.  There are people who let others walk all over them, this is closer to a mental disorder than a requirement.

Selfishness

According to morality of egotism, you must be selfish and your prime motive is your pleasure.  (I’m paraphrasing, not trying to strawman objectivism.)  Rand uses the term rational egoism.  I suppose because selfishness sounds bad.  I’m also guessing she’s riding Freud’s coattails on the whole psychoanalysis of the ego.  Rational egoism is putting yourself first and allowing others to practice the same.  There’s also no force involved.  The problem is altruism is necessary to some extent in society.  We all have to get along and we all need to be individuals. At times those come into conflict.  When your rational egoism takes precedence and it conflicts with the rational egoism of another, what do you do?  Altruism, or a least a derivative form of it, comes into play, but that means sacrificing self, which you’re not supposed to do.  

I’m not sure how rational egoism resolves this.  Maybe if objectivists consulted Dr. Suess, they might learn something.

It’s not all bad, the essence of living for yourself is very good, and something we can all learn to do.  But we live in a society and we have to get along.  Compromise is necessary.

And anyone (not just me) who stops to help a pregnant woman change a tire is certainly a better person than some objectivist who can’t sacrifice 10 minutes to help a fellow human being.

“I may appear to be strong on the outside, however behind close doors I have a very fragile heart. I put on this facade to face this cruel world, but once I’m in my safe haven, I take my mask off. I, like many others get easily hurt and offended, just that I decide to internalise all these feelings as I think there’s too much sadness in this world, and my duty is not to add more to it but to bring more smiles. I find tranquil in helping others. I find joy in putting others as my priority before myself. People like me, we are the ‘o’ to the blood group, we give and never expect anything back. But I think those who accept our help is taking the phrase “never expect anything back” for granted, we could use some acknowledgement and some ‘thank you’ to get through our day instead of treating us as an annoyance or being too nosy. Our ultimate goal, is just to see you happier than before. So until someone says ‘thank you’, we are running on our own fuel, which might one day just run out. Believe me, you wouldn't want to live in a world where no one looks out for you, where everyone is for themselves. That’ll be such a nasty world to live in.”

So from now on, every time someone helps you or advises you or just do any good for you, say a simple ‘thank you’ to fill their tank up.