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".
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 would distinguish between the feelings or emotions associated with love and the actions that may be informed by such feelings.
Only actions can be described as altruistic or not.
Any and every social theory assumes "altruism" - these are useless words and thoughts. We all know humans in general act without a "war against all nature" and interact with one another as part of our biological make up.
Liberterianism/ Capitalism is a social position, a social theory, and a social science - it is not a manifesto on how to live isolated while destroying as many people as possible, that makes no sense.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
vive la insurrection:Liberterianism/ Capitalism is a social position, a social theory, and a social science - it is not a manifesto on how to live isolated while destroying as many people as possible, that makes no sense.
Please point out where others in this thread (and elsewhere) have said otherwise.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
please point out where it can be shown I replied to anything but the OP, or implied anyone here said anything at all relvant to my response - or that I even read any other response
Why post in a thread without reading all preceding posts within it?
really your doing this?
There was an OP, a question asked, and I answered it - there is no why, there is only what I have done.
Now my turn to ask a crap load of questions to you - that neither you nor I will care about:
what's your fav color?
do you like ice cream cones?
if a train was named Roger would it make good soup?
what is the Norse god that Friday is named after?
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight
Hm....I actually consider an act of altriusm to be something that someone do for another because they truly believe that he/she is truly needs it - without expecting something in return. I suppose you can consider "feeling better about yourself" a return, but I don't think that has to be the case. Some people will do things for others because they believe it's the right thing to do.
The point Autolykos is making is that every action one takes, whatever the purpose of the action is- is for the benefit of the individual that undertook this action.
I mean you could say that if you can't stand to see someone suffer and give them $100- you gave them $100 because you couldn't stand to see it.
But, I think talking about psychic benefits such as "feeling better about yourself" confuses because that all depends on the individual as to what kind of pleasure it gives them, if any at all. The only thing we can say is that the action an individual undertook was his preference at that time if we're going to talk generally.
Perhaps the concept of altruism can be considered to share another's pain as if it were your own- which is why an altruistic person would seek to end it. No need to throw away such a nice word!
Do you enjoy doing things that you honestly and earnestly believe are wrong? Doesn't it hurt when you do that?
Why do you think great evil always needs apologists? I'm not saying you don't get sociopaths with no conscience - they are distressingly common - but the vast majority of institutionalised evil, such as the state, must come to fruition through the labours of people who have deceived themselves to believe that what they are doing is, in fact, good.
Do you think it's likely that someone will behave consistently ethically if they don't have a conscience? Do you think they will regard ethics as meaningful or helpful? Do you think they will regard their actions, or those of others, as being either good or bad?
But what is the conscience? Isn't it that part of the personality that inflicts internal punishment if its mandates are not heeded, or if it is ignored? Does it not cause suffering when it is disregarded? Does God not punish the wicked, however you look at it?
Without guilt, there is no likelihood of consistent ethical behaviour. With guilt, 'altruism' becomes a performative contradiction in terms.
I think it was Molyneux who called humans 'ethical animals'. One doesn't really choose to be good. One is good by nature. However, one has tremendous capacity for self-deception... One is not honest by nature.
vive la insurrection:really your doing this?
That's right.
vive la insurrection:There was an OP, a question asked, and I answered it - there is no why, there is only what I have done.
My question was rather rhetorical. I consider it good internet-forum decorum to read an entire thread before posting in it. But in fairness, I don't own or manage this forum.
vive la insurrection:Now my turn to ask a crap load of questions to you - that neither you nor I will care about:
Sorry, but why ask me a "crap load" of questions when I've only asked you one?
vive la insurrection:what's your fav color?
Blue.
vive la insurrection:do you like ice cream cones?
Yes. I like waffle cones the most.
vive la insurrection:if a train was named Roger would it make good soup?
Mu.
vive la insurrection:what is the Norse god that Friday is named after?
Freya.
vive la insurrection:Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight
I'm Batman.
If people only act for selfish reasons then there should be no difference between Mother Theresa and Jeffrey Dahmer? Mother Theresa felt better lessening the suffering of others while Jeffrey Dahmer felt better causing others to suffer. Both were acting in order to feel better.
How about the effect of selfish actions on others If someone gave me money, should I feel less pleased because he/she gave me the money for selfish reasons? And should I feel less pain if someone beat me up and then told me it wasn't personal, he just likes to beat people up?
However you decide to feel is your business. No one can tell you how you're supposed to feel. But do actions that are preferred over other actions necessarily mean that they make you "feel better"? One can certainly detach emotions from action. I can receive money or give money and feel neither happiness nor sadness, I can love without expecting anything in return, I can act against my principles and feel no "mental suffering" whatsoever, go into depression, or feel elated. I can decide to feel pleasure, hatred, or nothingness from receiving money or receiving violence. Its completely up to you.
Trying to figure out what feelings are underlying actions as a way to explain them seems pointless- one can't know what feeling the actor who's undertaking any action is having without them telling you(and even then how can it possibly be verified?).
All we can say about someone who takes a certain action is that they preferred to take that action over something else. Whether it brought them misery, joy, or absolutely nothing and just a deeply ingrained habit can't really be verified, only trusted in good faith when they tell you that's why they undertook the action.
Mises and Rothbard both say man acts to relieve a feeling of uneasiness ie to feel better.
"The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of the acting man" HA p18
'Where man does not see any casual relation, he cannot act." HA p22
Hmm so a physical sensation of pleasure(feeling better) happens each time someone takes action?
On the other point, Jeffrey dahmer and Mother Teresa certainly have differences- one was selfish with other voluntary selfish actors- the other wasn't.
If people only act for selfish reasons then there should be no difference between Mother Theresa and Jeffrey Dahmer? Mother Theresa felt better lessening the suffering of others while Jeffrey Dahmer felt better causing others to suffer. Both were acting in order to feel better. Consider the purpose of ethics, and the place of economy. Economics concerns mutually beneficial transactions. Yes, both Mother Theresa and Jeffrey Dahmer were acting egoistically, but one was acting in terms of mutually beneficial transactions and one was not, hence their actions are ethically distinguishable. One's selfishness was good and one's selfishness was bad. (Relatively speaking. Not everyone has the same respect for Mother Theresa, but let's not go down that rabbit hole...) If someone gave me money, should I feel less pleased because he/she gave me the money for selfish reasons? And should I feel less pain if someone beat me up and then told me it wasn't personal, he just likes to beat people up? No, we can't tell each other or ourselves how we should feel, because the emotions and psychology and cultura; programming and whatever else that informs action is not action. In either situation, you are simply feeling things as a result of what someone else did to you, so there shouldn't logically be a normative aspect to what you can possibly feel. Nevertheless, whatever it was that you did as a result of your feelings, even if it was complete inaction, you must have thought that it was the right thing to do at the time, under the circumstances as they were imperfectly known to you... If you have a conscience, you must think it was the right thing to do, or else you must regret what you did. Regret is defined as a form of suffering. Obviously an ethical argument doesn't work against someone who doesn't have a conscience. That does not concern me, personally. The state rules by consent. Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro | Post Points: 5
If someone gave me money, should I feel less pleased because he/she gave me the money for selfish reasons? And should I feel less pain if someone beat me up and then told me it wasn't personal, he just likes to beat people up?