Heroic responses from George Reisman to some of his readers. From an Objectivist perspective, but very worthwhile for those who are looking to refine their rhetoric and argumentation.
Also, check the comments for more from Dr. Reisman.
This was discussed in the comments to the article, but I really don't understand the desire to use this Randian idea of altruism: "Altruism is a philosophy of misery, suffering, poverty, and the hatred of man for man" (from Reisman)
I understand he's talking about coercion, but why insist on using this term when virtually no one else uses the word in this way? It unnecessarily marginalizes the whole argument. Why not just talk about coercion?
Reisman is an objectivist. His definition of altruism is consistent with objectivism. If he was an anarchist (he is a minarchist) then he may have used coercion.
Rooster:I understand he's talking about coercion, but why insist on using this term when virtually no one else uses the word in this way? It unnecessarily marginalizes the whole argument. Why not just talk about coercion?
A valid point. And if he is against altruism then why is he for the state which is complusory alturism even at its most basic form.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
note that Reisman uses the definition the questioner used.
the questioner said that people have altruistic obligations
and as Reisman says, such presumed obligations lead individuals to see others as drains on their wealth, security and independence.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: note that Reisman uses the definition the questioner used. the questioner said that people have altruistic obligations and as Reisman says, such presumed obligations lead individuals to see others as drains on their wealth, security and independence.
Well rights are obligations. I think it would be better to state that altruism is not obligatory. However, why does selfishness need to be [obligatory]?
its not morally obligatory, its 'praxeologically' obligatory to coin a phrase.
Action is purposive conduct. It is not simply behavior, but behavior begot by judgments of value, aiming at a definite end and guided by ideas concerning the suitability or unsuitability of definite means. . . . It is conscious behavior. It is choosing. It is volition; it is a display of the will.
when people think of altruism they often look superficially at the outside, person A is foregoing material things in favour of person B, how charitable and altruistic... yet, it is certainly an act of selfish egoism on the part of A. All his valuing and choosing is done by his own lights. He is the subjective valuer that chose to give the aid
Question: To whom did the action of giving aid seem superior to all other possible actions that were foregone? him. (or her !)
nirgrahamUK: its not morally obligatory, its 'praxeologically' obligatory to coin a phrase. Action is purposive conduct. It is not simply behavior, but behavior begot by judgments of value, aiming at a definite end and guided by ideas concerning the suitability or unsuitability of definite means. . . . It is conscious behavior. It is choosing. It is volition; it is a display of the will.
Selfishness is praxeologically obligatory?
nirgrahamUK:To whom did the action of giving aid seem superior to all other possible actions that were foregone? him.
Who is 'him'? The giver? or the person who was given the good?
the giver.
try acting (in the Misesian sense of the word) such that you are not replacing a worse state of affairs with a betterIf you manage to pull this off then selfishness if not praxeologically obligatory.
The challenge is to act without demonstrating ('revealing') a preference. (whose preference? yours)
nirgrahamUK: the giver. try acting (in the Misesian sense of the word) such that you are not replacing a worse state of affairs with a betterIf you manage to pull this off then selfishness if not praxeologically obligatory. The challenge is to act without demonstrating ('revealing') a preference. (whose preference? yours)
Hmm, I see your point.
its all good. A handy word you can use to differentiate between superficially altruistic and selfish acts, might be, benselfish (contrasted with just plain selfish). This is because benselfish incorporates the idea that the superficial observer sees the mirage of altruism, even though under the hood what is happening is explained by selfishness.
Benselfishness is benevolent selfishness. (from Daniel Dennett)
Well I was thinking due to the reverse inequality of wants that happen during an exchange meant that the giver valued the psychological benefit of giving more then they valued what they were giving away and the receiver valued the item more then giving the giver the psychological benefit of helping someone. But what if the receiver doesn't want to give the benefit of helping someone to the giver? Can the giver still receive it? Or what if the receiver takes the item only to give to another?
Laughing Man:. But what if the receiver doesn't want to give the benefit of helping someone to the giver?
Laughing Man: Or what if the receiver takes the item only to give to another?
nirgrahamUK:i dont have a problem with this? do you? does Reisman? where are we going with this ?
Of course not but would it then imply that what is taken is not taken out of selfishness but alturism?
I dont see that at all. people do everything selfishly, even though often they are being directly benevolent by giving aid, rather than indirectly benevolent by participating in the division of labour. so it depends on what you want altruism to mean. if you want it to not include any selfishness you will be sunk. thats why benselfishness is a great word. or you could just keep in mind that altruism is a superficial label.