A comparison of Objectivism v Altruism

[SteveH 0]

Feel free to move this. I am posting it here because I treat the actions that led to this as recreational.

Every so often I visit forums where people have a differing point of view. Occasionally, I am compelled to enter the fray and post my own thoughts on a topic. I enjoy it for the fact that I get many opposing views thrown at me which I then attempt to refute. Eventually, I come to a point where I try to summarize my counter arguments. It is great exercise when it comes out well. Today, I produced something I felt came out well. Rather than toss pearls before swine, I decided to share with this audience.

The original post with all comments can be found here, if you are interested.

http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/05/1...truth/#comments

Here is my summary:

"Fundamentally, we come from two different points of view.

Your view is that man is inadequate for living on his own. His survival requires the aid of others. We are all flawed, to say it another way, and these flaws ultimately lead to the individual suffering a hardship of one kind or another. A variation of the same theme is to say that there are evil and powerful people out there in society that are just itching to stick it to the less fortunate or weak.

You would prefer to eliminate these hardships or focus on limiting them to the greatest extent possible. That is your morality, in a nutshell.

This view leads to a focus on the suffering of others. Your personal worth is based on how much suffering you have eliminated. A society’s worth is based on how well it takes care of the weak and disadvantaged.

I make this claim because nearly every argument against my statements has involved hardship. “You don’t know what it’s like to be poor.” “Here is an article on how much the poor have to pay for a loaf of bread.” “I know someone who had difficulty getting a loan.” Your focus is on hardship and how to manage it. I do not deny these things happen. I simply don’t make them the primary focus of my existence.

From your worldview, you extrapolate that we all need to help each other. Either we prop each other up to compensate for the weaknesses in others. Or if you believe in the nasty worldview, we need to ban together to protect each other from the bad folks that exist in society. What better way than to get a large organization, like the government, to mandate what should and should not be allowed. Your rationalization is that if we all agree (or a majority of us agree) it must be the correct thing to do. This is the definition of a pure democracy and it was explicitly rejected by the Founding Fathers in the Federalist Papers.

My worldview is that man, the individual, is heroic. No matter what their station in life, an individual can make a good life for himself. This is not to say that everyone can be as successful as Bill Gates. They can not because not everyone has that kind of drive or ability. But I do demand that each person view their existence on this earth as a progression upward. Sure there will be set-backs, but that is not the focus. The focus is on ever greater personal achievement. I do not fault or lecture those who tried and failed. I do fault those who do not try. The particular circumstances one finds themselves in when I meet them does not tell me whether or not they have tried (i.e. I don’t look down my nose at a bum on the street and assume it is his fault).

Practicing my worldview does not require super-human intelligence or extraordinary ability. Some may practice it and rise to the position of shop foreman. Others may apply it and become company president. Both are admirable to me, if the person is applying himself to achieve a greater and greater level of competence and ability. Your worldview chokes this ambition by adding greater and greater responsibility for others to those who manage to excel.

What you may have missed in Atlas Shrugged is Ayn Rand’s description of different characters. She writes with great admiration about a guy making a good sandwich, about a brakeman on the train or some other ‘lower’ position. The picture she paints of the business executives in the book is less flattering. What she is differentiating is the attitude that each brings to their work. Regardless of the job, a self-confident and competent worker is depicted with admiration. A weasel is depicted as a weasel, whether the person is a train conductor, politician or company executive.

My worldview, leads me to focus on progress. It leads me to seek value for value. This can only occur in a free society.

Your worldview, leads you to focus on hardship. It leads you to make sacrifices to others weaknesses (or demand that society make sacrifices to a group’s weaknesses). This can only occur with a strong central government.

In my worldview, you are free to hold your beliefs and act on them independently.

In your worldview, I may be able to hold my beliefs. But if I act on them and succeed, I will be required by law to justify my success with ever greater contributions to the ‘public good’. And even this does not protect me from your wrath. I will still be branded as selfish and uncaring. My practices will be researched to find even the slightest hint of racism or discrimination. And once found, my life will be delivered to the court of public opinion. I will be at the mercy of the ‘public good’ with no recourse once the judgment is handed down. You say I exaggerate. Ask the guys at AIG if I am exaggerating.

In the end, the United States of America was founded on my beliefs. The Constitution was written to provide freedom to the individual. It was written to protect the individual’s right to property (all of his property, not just the amount the government was willing to let him keep). It was written with the full recognition that not everyone would be able to achieve great riches. But it wanted to give a person the freedom to succeed or fail. Further, the Founding Fathers recognized that the greatest threat to individual freedom was from the government. The government has a monopoly on the legal use of force and as such should be limited to very narrow set of actions.

Your worldview has twisted these concepts to unleash the current mish-mash of freedom and control. Each control you have advocated has restricted freedoms and led to ‘unintended consequences’. When those consequences become self-evident, you have always cried for more controls. “Surely it is the free part of this equation that has caused the problem”, you reason.

This has been going on for over a century. I believe the US is at a point where it can choose to reverse this trend or accelerate its progression. If the US decides to accelerate, my life and freedom are in jeopardy. Sure it may seem minor to you if my taxes go up or my child is forced to do service in return for her Pell Grant education. I do not. This is my life and you have no claim on it."

[Arnold 0]

You have done an exercise that more should attempt. My father, in my youth, told me to "write it down" when he tired of arguing with me, and I still have my 'Thought Book' to show after these many years. Since those thoughts were written before I had heard of Objectivism, they are revealing.

You have done well to express yourself, and I hesitate to say this, but it will do more for you than for those you try to convince.

[SteveH 0]

Arnold,

That is exactly why I do this! I do it for me. Thanks for reminding me.

There are times when I get wrapped up in an argument. I get frustrated that the other person can not see what I am trying to say. But then I step back. This is not for me to convince them of anything. It is for me to understand how to write and express my beliefs.

Now I must admit, I do enjoy sharing it with people on this forum and getting feedback. But that is not the primary.