Is Altruism Really So Bad ?

[mustang]

Altruism will not make you happy. And trying to continuously reset basic human nature, leaping to build collective altruism has been murderous.

[BalugaWhale]

The great anxiety and guilt that people feel has its roots in altruism. When one holds morality as giving away rather than creating values, you are always one step away from being called a hypocrite. In the Effective Altruism camp, they recommend you select a job that makes more money than makes you happy or fulfilled. That way, you'll have more wealth to give away. Under Altruism, you can never pay your unearned debt in full.

[toxogandhi]

I know this guy who likes Objectivism but he can't understand the meaning of altruism. He thinks it's something like stopping to buy a homeless person a meal. It isn't. I've done that. Why? I was bored and by myself. I bought myself some company (This guy was all there, stable, I saw no harm, and we ate in the place.) and he even gave me a bracelet one of his buddies found that was almost new in thanks, so that he wanted to give me something back, even if I didn't know he would, I appreciated that a homeless guy shared my values more than some coworkers I've had. His problem was just that he was an elderly and divorced veteran (and he was a real veteran. I had friends who were active duty and he knows the insider info.) I wanted to ask him questions, if he was comfortable answering them, kind of like a small interpersonal interview. I didn't do it for him. I did it because it made me feel good, I could tell he was stable, and he was asking if someone would just buy him a meal. He was not asking for cash. I knew I was not being manipulated. I knew exactly what I was buying. Guy didn't smell or anything. I figured he'd be more interesting company than most people with some interesting stories. I also have a soft spot for the elderly for reasons both personal and rational.

I was mostly raised by my grandmother, who was a real estate giant of the area, so I also grew up understanding the rich. In fact, she raised me with good business and financial sense. That's probably a lot of what informed my worldview. Hell, she had this big book on one of her shelves, the one in the bedroom, called Atlas Shrugged. She said I will be reading it when I'm older. Sadly, she died just before I made it to high school.

Logically, two things are of value here in the elderly: Knowledge and scarcity, the history witnessed first hand and the life lessons people have learned, as well as anything else I can learn from them, and ephemerality of that individual. I think we undervalue our elderly by a lot, and I generally hate nursing homes for this reason.

[AlexanderReiswich]

Irrational selflessness is bad. Irrational selfishness is bad, as well. Rational selfishness is good. Rational selflessness is good, too.

This 70+ year old Objectivist discussion about "Altruism bad, Egoism good" could have been avoided entirely if Objectivists never attempted to force their own definitions upon the already established ones.

The vast majority of people will agree with you if you explain that rational, long-term self-interest is healthy, whereas irrational, misguided selflessness is dangerous and destructive. The problem is that the default definition for Egoism in people's minds is a negative one (=disregard for the well-being of others). Therefore it is necessary to be clear and always point out that Objectivism promotes *rational* Egoism. Most people understand this differentiation immediately.

When it comes to Altruism, most people define it as "caring for the well-being of others", so their default definition is a positive one. If you want people to understand and respect your position, start by recognizing that no one thinks of Altruism as "valuing other peoples life more than your own". Call this "irrational Altruism" or "extreme Altruism" etc. to contrast it with the common definition.

There is zero sense in trying to reclaim the established definitions. It's a huge waste of time and only marginalizes Objectivism by making its proponents appear unnecessarily finicky and cranky.

I think Objectivism is generally great substance-wise, but particularly when it comes to Altruism it feels like Objectivists are more interested in arguing than actually clarifying their ideas.