I’m in Monaco for the 10th forum of the Convention of Independent Financial Advisors, a Swiss-based NGO that focuses on promoting an ethical and productive environment for private investment. I moderated a couple of panels on interesting topics, including the European fiscal crisis.
But I want to focus on the comments of another speaker, Monsieur Matthieu Ricard, a French-born Buddhist monk. As you can see from his Wikipedia entry, he’s a very impressive individual. In addition to his other accomplishments, he serves as the French translator for the Dalai Lama.
During one of the dinners, we got into a fascinating conversation about the Buddhist concept of altruism (or at least one strain of that tradition) and Ayn Rand’s concept of selfishness, both as general ideas and as they relate to happiness.
At the risk of sounding un-libertarian, I’m siding with the monk.
Even though I’m a big fan of Ayn Rand and periodically give away copies of Atlas Shrugged to unwary young people, I’ve always been puzzled by the Randian hostility to altruism.
Yes, coercive altruism is wrong. Indeed, it’s not even altruism, particularly if you think (like Michael Gerson or Barack Obama) it’s noble or selfless to forcibly give away other people’s money.
But Rand seemed to think (and some Randians definitely think) that voluntary acts of charity and compassion are somehow wrong. In some sense, these folks take an ultra-homo economicus view that people are relentless utility maximizers based on self interest.
If this is a correct interpretation of Randianism (perhaps I should say Objectivism?), then I think it is inadequate. Yes, people want money, and almost everybody would like more money, but I’m guessing that it is non-monetary things that make people happiest.
I don’t want to sound too warm and fuzzy and ruin my image, but aren’t children, friends, family, and love the things that make the world go ’round for most of us? Yes, we also value achievement, but even that can be unrelated to pecuniary considerations.
These are amateur ramblings on my part, and I’ve probably done a poor job of describing the views of Randians and Monsieur Ricard. Moreover, I’m sure that very intelligent people have examined this issue in a much more sophisticated fashion.
For a fiscal policy wonk like me, though, this conference and this encounter forced me to give some thought to how you can be a big fan of Ayn Rand while also feeling good about holding open doors for little old ladies.
[…] are many strains of libertarianism, everything from Randians to liberaltarians, from minarchists to […]
“But Rand seemed to think (and some Randians definitely think) that voluntary acts of charity and compassion are somehow wrong.”
Then those “some Randians” are wrong. She explicitly says otherwise, most notably in “The Virtue of Selfishness.” One of the issues that you may find with people misunderstanding Rand’s work is that they interpret her fiction however they please instead of reading her non-fiction and seeing what she explicitly advocated for.
I was going to go through the points she mentioned in “The Virtue of Selfishness,” but I found myself starting to rewrite the book here. It’s not a long read and it’ll explain everything to you. Altruism has within it a lot of presumptions and conditions which she has a problem with. Compassion and charity are things which she greatly believes in — on the condition of personal consent, which is not always respected by altruism.
Dan Mitchell, you should have followed your doubts, above. You didn’t pinpoint Ayn Rand’s position on altruism accurately.
There are 7 billion people on this planet. Except for a tiny majority of “saints,” we all spend almost all of our time, energy, thought, caring/concern, and planning on ourselves and those we have chosen to be responsible for – ourselves and close-in loved-ones.
If we are prosperous and grounded, we doubtless generate surplus time and energy. In my experience, these people help others outside their circle.
Besides Ayn Rand’s ferocious condemnation (as you cited) of compulsory altruism, she was completely on board with simple choices to help others, if the other is deserving. However, she warned against abuse of ‘helping’ — self-damage or spiraling into a state of dependency and obsession. There is a phrase for this: the nexus of reality is external to the self. There is also a clinical phrase: codependency. And a meme: passive-aggressive controlling behavior.
[…] Ouch. While I’m a fan of Atlas Shrugged and think Rand was a net plus for the cause of liberty, I’m not a Randian and these quotes are a good example of why her philosophy of objectivism leaves something to be desired. […]
[…] question is a red herring, based on Ayn Rand’s hostility to selflessness. As I noted above, very few libertarians are hard-core Randians. We have no objection to people […]
My 2 cents… (not a buddhist yet…)
Ayn Rand values = Why (Purpose-Happiness) + What (Reason-tool of knowledge) + How (Self esteem-mind is competent)
Gautam Buddha values = Why (Pradnyan-Higher Knowledge) + What (Sila-Wholehearted commitment to what is wholesome) + How (Samadhi-Excercise, memory & concentration)
Both suggest “life is worth living”
(http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/reason.html)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism)
[…] The Selfishness Debate: Ayn Rand vs the Dalai Lama […]
If you have any interest is the act, then it has no moral component. Only by acting against your own interests can an act be to be truly moral (paraphrasing Immanuel Kant).
That is genuine altruism: al·tru·ism (²l“tr›-¹z”…m) n. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness. [French altruisme, probably from Italian altrui, someone else, from Latin alter, other.]
Moreover, to base one’s choices on “warm, fuzzy feelings” is to base one’s decisions on emotionalism, which is the basis for faith both in a supernatural universe and, in secular versions, in an omniscient State.
Ayn Rand stressed the importance of loyalty to one’s rational values (integrity), such values including one’s top value (lifetime romantic partner); one’s (genuinely loved, genuinely rationally deserving) family members; one’s (ditto) friends and even one’s (ditto) acquaintances. Her view on strangers was to be (initially) benevolent, i.e., mannerly, polite, etc.–in other words, civilized. All of which she identified as being rationally selfish.
self·ish (sµl“f¹sh) adj. 1. Concerned chiefly or only with oneself.
One’s “Self” being one’s mind, one’s ego. Concern being that one practiced those virtues necessary for the mind to properly function: rationality (including: integrity, honesty, independence & justice); productivity; and pride. Practicing these virtues would achieve for one the values of reason, purpose and self-esteem.
Is it, therefore, rational to declare your love for your spouse and then to cheat, lie and abuse her? Is it productive to steal, murder, rape? Can one be proud of oneself while taking what one has not earned, while fawning over and flattering people you despise, while mistreating perfect strangers–while laughing at the suffering of others?
Can one claim to be rational while refusing to help–at no sacrifice to oneself–a drowning man, a starving child, a little old lady trying to open a door?
Altruism is *not* about benevolence or affection or even charity to the deserving. All of these have a selfish basis. Altruism is about pure self-sacrifice–about “[u]nselfish concern for the welfare of others…” Absolutely unselfish, if you need emphasis. No benevolence. No affection. No reason at all for one’s act–reason being a _selfish_ component.
Altruism is, bluntly, Self suicide. It is about the negation of the self for the benefit of others. It’s about the sacrifice (giving up a higher value for a lesser one or, best yet, for no value at all) of one’s mind–of one’s integrity, honesty, honor, independence and justice for the sake of others.
Altruism justifies, then, any crime, any heinous act, any law, any tyranny, any Gulag, any concentration camp and form of coercion *if* it is for the sake of others.
Do you think I go to extremes?
“It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole … that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual….”
“This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture…. The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call-to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness-idealism. By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.”
“These statements were made in our century by the leader of a major Western nation. His countrymen regarded his view point as uncontroversial. His political program implemented it faithfully. -The Moral Philosophy of Nazism, Adolf Hitler, 1936 Bucheburg, Germany (_The Ominous Parallels_ by Dr. Leonard Peikoff).
How does that differ–in its altruist principles–from this?:
“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
If JFK was anything, he was succinct.
But Hitler (& FDR, JFK, LBJ, etc.) is not the source of altruism, of the sacrifice-yourself-for-the-sake-of-others creed. The source is Christianity–and *its* source is Plato:
Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or will follow the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and ego.”
“The best ordered state will be one in which the largest number of persons … most nearly resembles a single person. The first and highest form of the State … is a condition in which the private and the individual is altogether banished from life …” (Plato’s _Republic_ & _Laws_ c. 370 BCE)
This is altruism.
So would you, you who claim to “like” and “admire” Ayn Rand, PLEASE read her books (_For the New Intellectual_; The Virtue of Selfishness_; _Philosophy: Who Needs It_; etc.).
And PLEASE re-read her novel, _Atlas Shrugged, the theme of which is: “the role of the mind in Man’s existence”—and as its corollary: “the demonstration of a new moral philosophy, the morality of rational egoism.” The productive go on strike in the novel *not* because they are tired of the looters and moochers; they do so to destroy the *creed* that *justifies* looting and mooching: the creed that demands you sacrifice your virtues and your values for the sake of others; the creed that requires *no* personal value in any moral act; the creed that preaches self-destruction as virtue.
The creed of altruism.
The assumption that rand disapproved on voluntary charity is a common thing I’ve heard come from anti objectivists and comes from a lost in translation ,due to the fact she uses selfishness as the word to sum up her philosophy which immediately sparks confusion or even an uneasiness because of how they interpret selfish to mean by it’s popular negative definition and will always be a hurdle,though a much welcomed one ,for objectivists to tackle when debating with people who hold altruism as the moral ideal.
“all of these superfluous debates that would never have occurred if someone thought to simply read the actual material that they are arguing about.”
checkmate
“But Rand seemed to think (and some Randians definitely think) that voluntary acts of charity and compassion are somehow wrong.”
You should know better than to conflate an ideology with whatever random group that claims to follow it. If you want to know what Objectivism is about, refer to her actual writing. Objectivism is not defined by what “some Randians think” any more than Christianity is defined by what some (alleged) followers of Jesus think (such as Jim Jones). Look to the source material.
I quote Ayn Rand:
“My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.”
Here’s another:
“Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”
Honestly, I’m amazed at all of these superfluous debates that would never have occurred if someone thought to simply read the actual material that they are arguing about.
Hey do you have any evidence that Ayn Rand said that helping old ladies, or that getting cats off trees, or smiling at children, was evil — despite her being constantly challenged on the issue of kindness to strangers? No?
[sarcasm on] Well I suppose that if she never said anything of the sort … therefore it is proven that she believed exactly that.
Another damning quote — “There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.” — well this proves that she held that all kind people were moral monsters, doesn’t it? [sarcasm off]
I think that you hit the nail on the head with this: “these folks take an ultra-homo economicus view that people are relentless utility maximizers based on self interest.”
Atlas Shrugged in particular is an amazing book, one that everyone should read – but she seems to beat you over the head: capitalism is good. Entreprenuership is better. We get it Ayn. Who is John Galt?
I like your wholistic view which moves beyond her 1 dimensional approach. Perhaps we can reach a point where we seek not only to provide a valuable business to society, but one which all provides the maximum good to all involved. Social entreprenuership.
Businesses like Kiva, for instance, fulfill these objectives. I recently started a charity with a childhood freind, but we are looking not just to ‘ask people for money’ but provide something of great value in return, and then give the profits to those in need.
Rand seems particularly obsessed with the ability for those at the head of a business to charge what they want. I would agree, to a point. Where should the line be drawn between phamaceutical companies extracting maximum profits for thier stockholders vs. providing cures for sick children.
These are not easy questions to answer, not even for a man at the forfront of libertianism, and the french translater for the Dalai Lama. I applaud for effor for translating them quite well into a blog post.
Thanks for your insight.
Cheers,
Edmund John
Ayn Rand was an atheist and her worldview was influenced by her view that there is no afterlife and there is no revelation to humankind from God. As a Christian I hold to the view that God gives us evidence that verifies many parts of the historical record of the Bible. Therefore, I have chosen to obey those passages in the Bible that command the believers to give to my church and to charities. Ron Paul is a libertarian and a Christian too I must note.
Ayn Rand missed the boat as Dan Mitchell and many others in the comment section have pointed out concerning altruism being evil. Milton Friedman is one of my biggest heroes and he was an agnostic. Even so he referenced God in his Free to Choose episode on equality. He did not allow his economic views to become destorted like Rand did. Rand also looked silly by using the word ‘evil’ over and over but I will not get into that since would take another couple of paragraghs.
Good job Dan as always. Keep up the good work.
[…] The Selfishness Debate: Ayn Rand vs the Dalai Lama […]
Ayn Rand didn’t say we shouldn’t open doors for little old ladies or, more general, give your time/effort/money to others. All she said is that your priority should first be you and your family (or whatever your personal values imply you should take care of) then when you have those bases covered, help others if you choose. And, like you said, giving should not be forced on people because one man can not decide what another man needs for himself to feel like his life and values are taken care of. To relate this to money, and for example, one man might beleive he needs $10,000 in savings for him and his family to be safe, while another man beleives he needs $1,000,000. Neither person is wrong. And both people will typically and naturally start sharing their time/effort/money once they achieved their goal.
That is what I understood Rand saying after reading all of her books and Virtue of Selfishness 5 times. (Btw, I give out Virtue Of Selfishness, like you give out Atlas Shrugged. I wish there was an event similar to trick or treating, but for adults because I would hand out Virtue of Selfishness.)
I’m not an Ayn Rand fan, but my interpretation (perhaps forced) was that she opposed charitable acts to those who refused to help themselves. A second issue is that charity often creates a dependent culture while destroying the very thing that would make in independent. For example, flooding a market with left over donated clothing may destroy the domestic market from the skilled labor of tailors down to the sheep herders.
From what I understand, Ayn Rand had no problem with benevolence. It boils down to a matter of definitions. From Merrimam-Webster online:
benevolence:
1: disposition to do good
2a : an act of kindness
2b : a generous gift
altruism:
1: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2: behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species.
I think Rand, in trying to make a point about how charity can be a crutch, was overly hostile-SOUNDING. And her vehemence about it certainly gave her critics plenty to shoot at.
However, in her collection of essays, “Philosophy, Who Needs It?” she discusses altruism in detail, and says that giving to someone because you feel that you are getting something out of it is a good thing. It can be an investment, or simply something you do for your own pleasure.
But, even as a big fan, collector of her work, and a subscriber to most of her ideas, I do think she comes down too hard on the idea of charity.
Hi Dan. I’m long time reader as well as a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. I have to say that I think you’re mischaracterizing Rand’s view in several respects.
The first is the issue of what she regards as in one’s self-interest. Rand’s view is that people do pursue their self-interest, but that they should. They should rationally identify what actually promotes their life and happiness and then seek that out relentlessly.
What do a person’s interests consist of? Money, certainly, but a whole lot else besides. You note that you’ve read Atlas. Well, Rand discusses this at length in the novel: the way in which the primary motive of the heroes is *spiritual*: the joy of living rational, productive lives, and dealing with other rational people.
The second issue regards altruism. Rand stresses that it’s a mistake to equate altruism with being kind or helping others. It’s actual meaning, both philosophically and in practice is *self-sacrifice*. It is possible to help others for selfish reasons, even to give to charity for selfish reasons (as I explain here: http://capitalism.aynrand.org/with-charity-toward-some/).
FYI, I discuss these points at length in my forthcoming book (with Yaron Brook), *Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand’s Ideas Can End Big Government.*
Rand believed in Rational Self-Interest. So helping out family, neighbors, friends, etc makes the world a better and safer place. Heck, when you are down on your luck maybe one of the people you helped with help you. Thus, you are helping yourself by being forward thinking.
I think she was against state funded altruism and not individual altruism like Mother Theresa.
I think using the word self-interest is better way to understand why working for our pecuniary benefits and achievements is not going contradictory to caring for others and even self-professed altruism. If I am interested in taking care of my family or even those I do not know, that can be actually counted as my self-interest. But I cannot be made to do that through someone else or through government. That will amount to coercion. I think this Bastiat quote says the same thing:
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” ― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
As for Rand, I think her concept of altruism was a reaction to her life in communist Russia. She did not distinguish between state-sponsored altruism and self-interested altruism. In her novels, altruism either stems from state-sponsored collectivism or from the need for collective approval. She never probably noted a fresh independent side of altruism all her life, may be because of her encounters with a collectivist state and culture in her early life.
You do not understand Rand’s views on altruism. Rand was not opposed to one giving to a charity if it is a value to you. What she said was that it is not a virtue to give to charity. And to give to a charity that is not a value to you is an immoral act.
Voluntary giving is the type that trully blesses both the giver and the one receiving. Forced giving by government mandate, wears on peoples minds and hearts, and eventually the producers that are taken from resent the needy. That is the world we live in now.
You open the door for little old ladies, or do other things we would call altruistic because you benefit from it – i.e. you feel good doing it. If you didn’t get a satisfaction (inner one) you wouldn’t do it.
Reblogged this on Thoughts by Jamie.
“argue about what their hero really meant” – no need, just youtube it. the interview with Mike Wallace, for example.
Dan, I agree with you. I notice you carefully hedge your bets on the question of whether or not Rand actually believed that private acts of altruism are wrong. Good call. I have known Rand-obsessives to take both sides in this debate. I have read a fair bit of Rand – much of which was written as fiction, and you cannot necessarily assume that Rand agreed with everything that Howard Roark said. I prefer to think that Rand thought true altruism was impossible rather than wrong. In some ways, that is correct. As you mention, you get a warm fuzzy feeling from helping others, so you are not actually helping others in a way that is harmful to your own interests. You are purchasing that warm feeling. I do the same, and as a childless man, I get tremendous pleasure from sponsoring a girl in India. It does not diminish the benefits that she derives from this – she gets to stay in school, which might otherwise be impossible for her – that I acknowledge my own interest in helping her.
By the way, have you noticed that some Rand-obsessives – like Marxists and the highly religious – argue about what their hero really meant? Surely it is more healthy simply to acknowledge, as you do, that if Rand mean X then you disagree with her? But just try getting a Marxist to say that he disagrees with Marx.
nice strawman you got there, very nicely beaten!
Well, isn’t Rand’s view of altruism a bit more complex than this? In Atlas Shruged, didn’t Dagny’s plane crash, and didn’t people come to her rescue (of their own free will of course)? I don’t think Rand was opposed to helping friends and family. I think it was more wanting to avoid the types of families like Readen’s who were unappreciative leeches. I do think that Rand advocated that merit should factor into charity, in that people should deserve the help.