Hitler was an altruist

[Vespasiano 0]

I don't think you can simply omit the fact that according to altruism others become the standard of value. And if they aren't, what you have isn't altruism. The problem I think is with equivocating on "selflessness" and "altruism". Are these really the same thing? Isn't it possible to sacrifice oneself, but not to others? It's altruistic to sacrifice a career you're passionate about to follow a parent's footsteps in another, but is it altruistic to skip school and vandalize a neighbor's property? Can you show that the latter was a sacrifice to others?

As you say . . . others are the standard of value to the altruist. I would submit that others are the standard of value not only for the self-sacrificial lamb, but for the predator as well (irrespective of his degree of power-lusting viciousness) . Consequently, I view the essence of altruism to be sacrifice generally whether of oneself to/for others or others to/for oneself. Seen in this light, your hookie-playing student vandal is a reflection of BOTH the self-sacrificial and predatory sides of the altruist coin, as are tyrants and dictators such as Hitler, Mao, Stalin and every other collectivist, totatilitarian, statist who's-he-what's-he one could name.

[Henrik Unné 0]

As a general comment to the opening poster, writing opinion pieces for the general public that function by deriving a controversial conclusion from an even more controversial abstract principle will have almost no effectiveness. The general public will simply disagree with the premise that is your abstract principle of "altruism" as Objectivism rigorously treats it, and then disagree with your deductions from the faulty premise as they see it.

This is too abstract and intellectual for them as they would see it.

Instead try the opposite approach: give inductive arguments based on simple concrete observations that any common sense man on the street would agree with, and show how it leads to some principle or important conclusion.

Thanks for the advice. I do often present inductive arguments based on simple, concrete observations. But it "feels good" to outrage my enemies some of the time also.

Also, I am not seeking primarily to convert those who are "furthest" from Objectivism, but rather I am trying to reach the few who are open to logic and reason.

[bborg 0]

As you say . . . others are the standard of value to the altruist. I would submit that others are the standard of value not only for the self-sacrificial lamb, but for the predator as well (irrespective of his degree of power-lusting viciousness) . Consequently, I view the essence of altruism to be sacrifice generally whether of oneself to/for others or others to/for oneself. Seen in this light, your hookie-playing student vandal is a reflection of BOTH the self-sacrificial and predatory sides of the altruist coin, as are tyrants and dictators such as Hitler, Mao, Stalin and every other collectivist, totatilitarian, statist who's-he-what's-he one could name.

This is the master/slave dichotomy, and certainly where you have willing slaves you also have eager masters. Hence dictators preaching altruism, because they intend to be the ones collecting on the sacrifices. And all parties in such a scenario are self-sacrificers (see my comments on Hitler). But how to then conclude that altruism means sacrifice either to or of others? I'm missing a step here. I don't see that it follows. Altruism was the morality defined within the context of this bad metaphysics of man as a beast or cannibal, who must either slit his neighbor's throat or his own. So that his choice is either to serve others (altruism) or be "selfish" and sacrifice others to himself. Ayn Rand identified that both of these roles are examples of selflessness, that the distinction is a false dichotomy presented by advocates of altruism, a scam they've been running to gain followers. But I don't recall that she ever included sacrifice of others in her definition of altruism. Here's couple things she did say:

What is the moral code of altruism? 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.

and

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.

(bold added)

Thoughts?

[Henrik Unné 0]

It is true that there was no actual beneficiary, but there never is one with altruists. Even the idealistic socialist who supports a nanny state because he genuinely feels like "helping" people isn't actually helping them; his policies do more harm than good to their intended beneficiaries.

Yeah but I think for many of these policymakers the benefit to others was never a goal. They just knew the rhetoric was an expedient path to power.

Now, it is true that the idealistic socialist may have an honestly intended beneficiary while Hitler had none. But the existence of an honestly intended, other-than-self beneficiary is not the criterion by which to call someone an altruist. A husband may honestly intend her wife to benefit from a gift he buys her, but that doesn't make him an altruist.

What matters is what one considers the ethically proper beneficiary. Egoism says that the primary beneficiary always ought to be oneself; whether or not others benefit makes no difference. The opposite of egoism is Kant's ethics, which says that one ought not act for one's benefit; whether or not others benefit makes no difference. This means, of course, that Kant's ethics includes the possibility of nihilism, where one destroys for the sake of destruction and no one benefits at all.

No, what Kant said was if you sacrifice for others, the ends don't matter because you've followed the right form. So if you intend to help others and you end up destroying them, you're not to blame according to Kant's morality. But that is different than saying it is OK to intend to destroy them, or to destroy "for the sake of destruction". Kantian ethics is about acting for the sake of others. And altruism means literally "otherism", so I don't think you can simply omit the fact that according to altruism others become the standard of value. And if they aren't, what you have isn't altruism. The problem I think is with equivocating on "selflessness" and "altruism". Are these really the same thing? Isn't it possible to sacrifice oneself, but not to others? It's altruistic to sacrifice a career you're passionate about to follow a parent's footsteps in another, but is it altruistic to skip school and vandalize a neighbor's property? Can you show that the latter was a sacrifice to others?

"Selflessness" is not the same as "altruism". The point that I was making in my essay is that *selflessness* (or nihilism) is more *logically consistent* than altruism. If it is "better to give than to receive" then is it not better that *everybody* gives (sacrifices) and *nobody* receives (benefits). Is not universal self-immolation more consistent with the idea that sacrifice is a virtue, than altruism? Since when altruism is practiced, some people (you) sacrifice and some people (others) benefit *instead* of sacrificing? If sacrifice is the virtue, then why should some people, anybody, benefit, instead of sacrificing?

[Henrik Unné 0]

As you say . . . others are the standard of value to the altruist. I would submit that others are the standard of value not only for the self-sacrificial lamb, but for the predator as well (irrespective of his degree of power-lusting viciousness) . Consequently, I view the essence of altruism to be sacrifice generally whether of oneself to/for others or others to/for oneself. Seen in this light, your hookie-playing student vandal is a reflection of BOTH the self-sacrificial and predatory sides of the altruist coin, as are tyrants and dictators such as Hitler, Mao, Stalin and every other collectivist, totatilitarian, statist who's-he-what's-he one could name.

This is the master/slave dichotomy, and certainly where you have willing slaves you also have eager masters. Hence dictators preaching altruism, because they intend to be the ones collecting on the sacrifices. And all parties in such a scenario are self-sacrificers (see my comments on Hitler). But how to then conclude that altruism means sacrifice either to or of others? I'm missing a step here. I don't see that it follows. Altruism was the morality defined within the context of this bad metaphysics of man as a beast or cannibal, who must either slit his neighbor's throat or his own. So that his choice is either to serve others (altruism) or be "selfish" and sacrifice others to himself. Ayn Rand identified that both of these roles are examples of selflessness, that the distinction is a false dichotomy presented by advocates of altruism, a scam they've been running to gain followers. But I don't recall that she ever included sacrifice of others in her definition of altruism. Here's couple things she did say:

What is the moral code of altruism? 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.

and

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.

(bold added)

Thoughts?

Well, if it is moral for *you* (Hitler) to sacrifice yourself, then would not morality demand that everybody else sacrifice themselves as well? And if those others do not sacrifice themselves volountarily, because they are so damned selfish, then does not morality demand that *you* force them to be moral, and compel them to sacrifice themselves? Because they *should* sacrifice themselves, according to the morality of altruism.

[Henrik Unné 0]

Yeah but I think for many of these policymakers the benefit to others was never a goal. They just knew the rhetoric was an expedient path to power.

I believe that Hitler´s motivation was to put the morality of altruism into practice, by *forcing* "all those selfish bastards to be moral, i.e. to sacrifice themselves". Hitler´s powerlust *consisted* of his desire to force others to be moral (according to the irrational view of what is moral, that altruism consists of). The morality of altruism made Hitler into a power-luster, together with his own choices.

[Ed from OC 0]

The essence of altruism is the devaluing of the self. What matters is not whether anyone benefits, but whether something of value is sacrificed. In that sense, nihilism -- destruction for its own sake -- is altruistic. And Hitler did a whole hell of a lot of sacrificing.

Some look at Hitler and see that he rose to power and ordered the slaughter of millions for his own ends, so he must be selfish. By that standard, Keating, Toohey, James Taggart, et. al. were also selfish: they sacrificed others for their own ends. But what of those ends? They did not benefit personally. Keating gained wealth, fame, and power, at the price of his soul; what society gave him, it took away; when he fought Toohey (to get the commission for Roark) he lost everything. Toohey had no power over Roark; his power over Keating was useless once Keating was out of favor (though he lasted as a lapdog); once Wynand fired him, he had to start over. James Taggart took credit for his sister's achievements; ran his company through political favors; and in the end, was trying to torture and kill the only man capable of saving him and the rest of the country.

In each of these three fictional cases, the apparent beneficiary is actually in the weaker position. He is a secondhander who gets everything from others, who is incapable of living except as a parasite: his income, his public persona, his sense of who he is, his own sense of value (his pseudo-self-esteem), his own thoughts are not originated from within his own mind and actions. These are actual self-less people who continue to exist only by the grace of their betters.

Was Hitler selfish or selfless? He would be nowhere without the ability to sacrifice the lives of others to his own goals. He rose to power by scapegoating an entire ethnic group. He loudly endorsed mysticism, racism, nationalism, socialism, and collectivism -- hardly creeds commensurate with rational self-interest.

One thing Ayn Rand pointed out was that sacrifice of others to self is just the other side of the coin of sacrificing the self to others. The point is the sacrifice, regardless of which way the benefit of the sacrifice runs. It doesn't matter if it is voluntary or forced; it is the sacrifice that counts.

Rational men interact by voluntary trade, where no sacrifice is asked for or required. A rational man looks for how to benefit, and persuades others to trade when it suits him.

If there is sacrifice involved, it is altruistic. It is the doctrine of altruism that Ayn Rand called a creed of sacrifice.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Yeah but I think for many of these policymakers the benefit to others was never a goal. They just knew the rhetoric was an expedient path to power.

Absolutely. The idealists were always a minority among socialists, and now more so than ever.

The opposite of egoism is Kant's ethics, which says that one ought not act for one's benefit; whether or not others benefit makes no difference. This means, of course, that Kant's ethics includes the possibility of nihilism, where one destroys for the sake of destruction and no one benefits at all.

No, what Kant said was if you sacrifice for others, the ends don't matter because you've followed the right form. So if you intend to help others and you end up destroying them, you're not to blame according to Kant's morality. But that is different than saying it is OK to intend to destroy them, or to destroy "for the sake of destruction". Kantian ethics is about acting for the sake of others.

Well, there might be an interpretation of his ethics that says so. All of Kant's writings are phrased in unintelligible language, of course, so you cannot directly speak of Kant's ethics, but merely interpretations of Kant's ethics. In my reading, Kant was all about suppressing self-interest, and didn't devote much attention to what other beneficiaries, if any, should replace it. In his age and culture, Christianity was the only alternative to selfishness, so he probably thought he was furthering the Christian ethics by arguing against egoism.

Anyway, if you say that Kant was an altruist, and agree with the premise that Hitler was a product of Kantian ethics, then that makes the proof of the thesis even more direct: Hitler was a Kantian, and Kantians are altruists, therefore Hitler was an altruist.

And altruism means literally "otherism", so I don't think you can simply omit the fact that according to altruism others become the standard of value.

Oh, but did you read this part:

Now, one might argue that altruism, "properly understood," is not quite the same as Kant's ethics, since it always requires a group of other people to be the beneficiary. So an altruist could say that he is not primarily anti-self, but rather pro-others. But the identity of this purported beneficiary varies depending on who the actor is: if we are talking about what John ought to do, the proper beneficiary is people who are not John; if we want to know what Sue ought to do, the proper beneficiary for her action is people other than Sue; if we ask what Tim should do, the altruist will say he should act for the sake of people other than Tim; etc., etc.--there is always one thing in common in the answer: the actor himself is not among the beneficiaries. And that is precisely what is meant by "anti-self."

?

[Vespasiano 0]

As you say . . . others are the standard of value to the altruist. I would submit that others are the standard of value not only for the self-sacrificial lamb, but for the predator as well (irrespective of his degree of power-lusting viciousness) . Consequently, I view the essence of altruism to be sacrifice generally whether of oneself to/for others or others to/for oneself. Seen in this light, your hookie-playing student vandal is a reflection of BOTH the self-sacrificial and predatory sides of the altruist coin, as are tyrants and dictators such as Hitler, Mao, Stalin and every other collectivist, totatilitarian, statist who's-he-what's-he one could name.

This is the master/slave dichotomy, and certainly where you have willing slaves you also have eager masters. Hence dictators preaching altruism, because they intend to be the ones collecting on the sacrifices. And all parties in such a scenario are self-sacrificers (see my comments on Hitler). But how to then conclude that altruism means sacrifice either to or of others? I'm missing a step here. I don't see that it follows. Altruism was the morality defined within the context of this bad metaphysics of man as a beast or cannibal, who must either slit his neighbor's throat or his own. So that his choice is either to serve others (altruism) or be "selfish" and sacrifice others to himself. Ayn Rand identified that both of these roles are examples of selflessness, that the distinction is a false dichotomy presented by advocates of altruism, a scam they've been running to gain followers. But I don't recall that she ever included sacrifice of others in her definition of altruism. Here's couple things she did say:

What is the moral code of altruism? 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.

and

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.

(bold added)

Thoughts?

When Anita Dunn stood before that high school commencement class and held up, as models of moral virtue to be emulated, Mother Theresa on the one hand and Chairman Mao on the other, she was being absolutely consistent in her altruist morality. What I found interesting was that mostly all of those who rightly condemned Dunn for championing the greatest mass-murderer in human history, had little to say about Mother Theresa and considered her pairing with Mao to represent a contradiction.

I don't think there are too many people in the world who would try to hold up predation as a virtue. But many if not most of those who rightly condemn predatory behavior subscribe to its sibling, self-sacrifice, not only as a moral virtue but as an antidote to the predator. For the most part, I think these are good people or people who are trying to be "good" (to do the right things). What they do not recognize is that the primary focus in both predation and self-sacrifice -- others -- is the same, and that self-sacrifice makes the predatory possible by giving the predator a ready and willing audience of others as victims (Miss Rand's sanction of the victims). What they do not understand is that their own self-sacrificial morality disarms them in any conflict with an aggressor and hands that aggressor a most useful weapon against them.

This is altruism's legacy, and this -- even more so than to its rather obvious predatory aspect -- was one of the central foci of Miss Rand's work.

I also recognize that the realization that one's own morality has made evil possible can be a world-shattering event for those who come to it and is a major reason (if not THE major one) for much of the resistance to Miss Rand's challenging ideas.

[B. Royce 0]

As you say . . . others are the standard of value to the altruist. I would submit that others are the standard of value not only for the self-sacrificial lamb, but for the predator as well (irrespective of his degree of power-lusting viciousness) . Consequently, I view the essence of altruism to be sacrifice generally whether of oneself to/for others or others to/for oneself. Seen in this light, your hookie-playing student vandal is a reflection of BOTH the self-sacrificial and predatory sides of the altruist coin, as are tyrants and dictators such as Hitler, Mao, Stalin and every other collectivist, totatilitarian, statist who's-he-what's-he one could name.

This is the master/slave dichotomy, and certainly where you have willing slaves you also have eager masters. Hence dictators preaching altruism, because they intend to be the ones collecting on the sacrifices. And all parties in such a scenario are self-sacrificers (see my comments on Hitler). But how to then conclude that altruism means sacrifice either to or of others? I'm missing a step here. I don't see that it follows. Altruism was the morality defined within the context of this bad metaphysics of man as a beast or cannibal, who must either slit his neighbor's throat or his own. So that his choice is either to serve others (altruism) or be "selfish" and sacrifice others to himself. Ayn Rand identified that both of these roles are examples of selflessness, that the distinction is a false dichotomy presented by advocates of altruism, a scam they've been running to gain followers. But I don't recall that she ever included sacrifice of others in her definition of altruism. Here's couple things she did say:

What is the moral code of altruism? 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.

and

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.

(bold added)

Thoughts?

When Anita Dunn stood before that high school commencement class and held up, as models of moral virtue to be emulated, Mother Theresa on the one hand and Chairman Mao on the other, she was being absolutely consistent in her altruist morality. What I found interesting was that mostly all of those who rightly condemned Dunn for championing the greatest mass-murderer in human history, had little to say about Mother Theresa and considered her pairing with Mao to represent a contradiction.

I don't think there are too many people in the world who would try to hold up predation as a virtue. But many if not most of those who rightly condemn predatory behavior subscribe to its sibling, self-sacrifice, not only as a moral virtue but as an antidote to the predator. For the most part, I think these are good people or people who are trying to be "good" (to do the right things). What they do not recognize is that the primary focus in both predation and self-sacrifice -- others -- is the same, and that self-sacrifice makes the predatory possible by giving the predator a ready and willing audience of others as victims (Miss Rand's sanction of the victims). What they do not understand is that their own self-sacrificial morality disarms them in any conflict with an aggressor and hands that aggressor a most useful weapon against them.

This is altruism's legacy, and this -- even more so than to its rather obvious predatory aspect -- was one of the central foci of Miss Rand's work.

I also recognize that the realization that one's own morality has made evil possible can be a world-shattering event for those who come to it and is a major reason (if not THE major one) for much of the resistance to Miss Rand's challenging ideas.

Perhaps one could say that Hitler's goal was to make Germany the greatest selfless nation---for his soldiers, to obey orders, with no thought of personal pride or gain; for "good" Germans, to provide for the German army, for the sake of the race---the means being the hatred and destruction of all other races?

As regarding one's own irrational morality, remember that men have a need to feel right. Any opposing morality will thus be felt as attempting to dislodge that feeling of rightness. The more deeply that morality is held the stronger the resistance toward accepting a rational morality. In general, people who only give lip-service to altruism can more easily reject it in favor of egoism.

[Bill Bucko 0]

... I believe that Hitler´s motivation was to put the morality of altruism into practice, by *forcing* "all those selfish bastards to be moral, i.e. to sacrifice themselves". ...

Sounds EXACTLY like a certain vicious power-luster who's moved away from his Weather Underground terrorist friends in Chicago, to take up residence in the White House.

[Henrik Unné 0]

... I believe that Hitler´s motivation was to put the morality of altruism into practice, by *forcing* "all those selfish bastards to be moral, i.e. to sacrifice themselves". ...

Sounds EXACTLY like a certain vicious power-luster who's moved away from his Weather Underground terrorist friends in Chicago, to take up residence in the White House.

About a week ago, I wrote a debate article with the title "Obama is a New Kenndedy". I did not mean that as a compliment. You can guess what the message of my article was (remember that Ayn Rand wrote an essay on Kennedy´s politics with the title "The Fascist New Frontier"). My essay pointed out the many ominous parallels between Barack Obama and John F. Kennedy. Maybe I will have time to translate it into English, and post it here during the next week.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

My essay pointed out the many ominous parallels between Barack Obama and John F. Kennedy.

There are significant differences, too. Kennedy cut taxes and was staunchly anti-communist.

[KurtColville 0]

A pure Altruist doesn't see individuals, he or she just sees groups--blocks of masses of people--and considers it within their authority to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the greatest number of those groups receive (however it is defined at that moment) 'enough to survive'.

If callously destroying one small group would raise the level of 'prosperity' of all the other groups, however marginal it may be, it is certainly moral from their point of view.

Remember, these damn Leftists view the world--and I mean the whole wide world--as one big, continuous never-ending 'lifeboat disaster' emergency situation, and their conceit, arrogance and ignorance is justification enough to decide who goes overboard, who gets eaten, and who remains to live on the lifeboat.

Agreed. I also think a lot of altruists proceed from emotion-driven good intentions, rather than malice, with the same rationalization that harm to some is necessary for the good of the whole; it's the "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette" attitude. They have to make excuses for sacrificing the productive by saying "they can afford it" or "they're exploit the rest", or they just blank out the fact that some are sacrificed.

A terrifying conclusion I came to recently was that before Obama was in office people would occasionally say bad, scared things about the economy, but overall life was still good and the economy was always eventually growing; but now it is as if we live in a 'culture of disaster', a world where economic disasters are always happening, and if they are not there is surely one around the corner about to happen.

This makes you want to scream "but before Obama we didn't live in this world of disasters! it was a happy world where the economy would always survive!" But this is not how the Leftist sees it; to them the economy--in one sector or another--has always and will always be in a state of disaster, and it is the government's duty to regulate it and preserve as much as they can through sacrificing the wealthy. And as the economy spirals down a sinkhole of endless economic sacrifice and destruction, with their blinders on they'll think it was always this way, and not a damn one will have known what was lost and what they destroyed; the economy is simply the way it always was.

True enough. All the exposes in the world of government corruption and failure don't deter people from increasingly viewing government as the answer and freedom as the problem.

[Henrik Unné 0]

My essay pointed out the many ominous parallels between Barack Obama and John F. Kennedy.

There are significant differences, too. Kennedy cut taxes and was staunchly anti-communist.

But, I think, Obama´s and Kennedy´s fundamental philosophic premises are/were the same - altruism, collectivism, egalitarianism, statism. And I think that both Kennedy and Obama were power lusters.

A non-fundamental difference between Kennedy and Obama, is that Kennedy cheated on his wife, he betrayed her egregiously. There is as far as I know, no evidence that Obama is disloyal to his wife.

[KurtColville 0]

My essay pointed out the many ominous parallels between Barack Obama and John F. Kennedy.

There are significant differences, too. Kennedy cut taxes and was staunchly anti-communist.

But, I think, Obama´s and Kennedy´s fundamental philosophic premises are/were the same - altruism, collectivism, egalitarianism, statism. And I think that both Kennedy and Obama were power lusters.

A non-fundamental difference between Kennedy and Obama, is that Kennedy cheated on his wife, he betrayed her egregiously. There is as far as I know, no evidence that Obama is disloyal to his wife.

When you have people who are unintegrated and unprincipled, like Kennedy and Obama, the little bit of good that they do still counts. Even if they don't get credit for knowing why it's good, it matters for those living under their authority that they did the right thing, if even for the wrong reason.