What's the libertarian view of Altruism? In Objectivism, Ayn Rand stated that you're supposed to reject altruism because it's considered "self-sacrificing".
Altruism is just another goal, the Objectivist rejection of altruism is a bit of metaphysical egoism. You can be altruistic or selfish, just so long as it's anything that's peaceful, anything that's voluntary. On the economic side of things, there may be criticisms for outright handouts and such, but simply because it's usually inefficient to just give stuff away to idle people. Along the lines of "give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime".
Altruism isn't necessarily self-sacrificing. If people didn't derive some self-oriented benefit from altruistic behavior, they wouldn't engage in it. Therefore altruistic behavior is just another kind of selfish behavior.
However, I think Rand was talking more about when, for example, person A calls person B "selfish" because A wants B to do what A wants and not what B wants. In reality, A is being just as selfish as B.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Libertarians have no view of altruism as libertarians. Libertarianism is just a theory that states what are the legitimate uses of force; that it is wrong to invade someone else's property. It is a theory of punishment if you will. How you decide to use your property (whether to give it to someone else or not) is outside of libertarianism.
Yeah, I agree, there isn't "real" altruism, the way Ayn Rand contemplated it. People are always nice to each other for selfish reasons, and I do not use that term pejoratively. You aren't really donating that money for no egoistic or "selfish" reason at all - at the very least, you're doing it so you can feel better about yourself, or perhaps so that your peers will respect you more. If it didn't make you feel less guilty/more virtuous, or have some subjective benefit to you, you wouldn't do it. People are good if they expect reciprocation, and they are bad if they do not expect it.
I think that's why she was so dead-against anyone claiming or advocating 'altruism', instead of admitting how they are really benefitting from a transaction. Politicians and civil servants, for example, get by on the cheap lie that their choice of career is a form of altruistic "public service", instead of the "greedy" self-interested conduct of those who conduct their affairs in a voluntary fashion. The latter recognise that all voluntary transactions must be mutually beneficial.
I really have to disagree with you here. Anyone who has been in love, or has a child will tell you that they will do absolutely anything to protect their loved-one from harm. This is purely instinctive and is not the result of someone doing a kind of cost-benefit analysis. I think a more likely explanation would be along the lines of Richard Dawkin's Selfish Gene theory.
I don't mean to imply that you have to sit there with a calculator and a balance sheet. It can seem purely 'instinctive', but that doesn't detract from the fact that it's self-interest any more than acting in terms of a fight-flight response is acting in terms of one's self-interest as an organism, or eating when one is very hungry.
Being "in love" is being in a state of chemical hyper-arousal. It feels very, very good to feel accepted and adored by those one loves. It would be catastrophic for something to happen to one's loved ones. One would be so depressed that they might commit suicide.
This clearly can't be "real" altruism you're talking about, if someone knows they will suffer greatly if they don't perform in terms of being a good lover.
James:Yeah, I agree, there isn't "real" altruism, the way Ayn Rand contemplated it. People are always nice to each other for selfish reasons, and I do not use that term pejoratively. You aren't really donating that money for no egoistic or "selfish" reason at all - at the very least, you're doing it so you can feel better about yourself, or perhaps so that your peers will respect you more. If it didn't make you feel less guilty/more virtuous, or have some subjective benefit to you, you wouldn't do it. People are good if they expect reciprocation, and they are bad if they do not expect it.
Exactly, although I think most people also have a conscience. :P
James:I think that's why she was so dead-against anyone claiming or advocating 'altruism', instead of admitting how they are really benefitting from a transaction. Politicians and civil servants, for example, get by on the cheap lie that their choice of career is a form of altruistic "public service", instead of the "greedy" self-interested conduct of those who conduct their affairs in a voluntary fashion. The latter recognise that all voluntary transactions must be mutually beneficial.
So essentially the whole "anti-altruism" message is really just about being honest. Unfortunately, Rand only addressed that obliquely - mainly she seemed to be hung up over the notion of "self-sacrifice".
I understand Ayn's point about altruism and receiving subjective benefits whatever they may be whenever one takes action of any kind- but I think the theme you're touching on isn't universal. Its certainly possible to love without expectations- love can just be a person's nature rather than something that they feel like they have to gain or lose.
I don't know why leftists think of egoism as always being about, "ME ME ME." It has more to do with an analysis of human behavior and determining that, as the Austrians recognize, we act to "alleviate uneasiness." We assess our circumstances, which end is more preferable, and then determine the best route to achieve said ends. So taking a bullet for a comrade is done because the person taking the bullet values his friends' life more than his at that given moment. Under the definition of psychological egoism, there is nothing saything that this isn't a kind or thoughtful or noteworthy act.
At least in my understanding of Rand, there is no prohibition against caring for others.
Eric080:I don't know why leftists think of egoism as always being about, "ME ME ME."
Because, when you get down to it, they want to substitute their own egoism for others'. It's really that simple.
Autolykos: Altruism isn't necessarily self-sacrificing. If people didn't derive some self-oriented benefit from altruistic behavior, they wouldn't engage in it. Therefore altruistic behavior is just another kind of selfish behavior. However, I think Rand was talking more about when, for example, person A calls person B "selfish" because A wants B to do what A wants and not what B wants. In reality, A is being just as selfish as B.
What do you call "altruism", then?
Autolykos: What do you call "altruism", then?
That definition of "altruism" is literally impossible - which was my point.