H 84°, L 63° | Tomorrow: 
H 81°, L 63°Picture this: a world where your neighbor loves you more than himself, the random person on the street will give you his or her breakfast if you hadn’t time to get your own, and you have but to need and others will satisfy you. Picture this world of altruism, where everyone is finally equal thanks to sacrifice. Are you disgusted yet?
Altruism means exploiting capable individuals in order to benefit the sycophants of society. The more able a person, the more they must give to society without equal repayment. An altruist’s set of moral choices consists solely of self-sacrifice. Everyone produces to the best of his or her ability for no personal gain, no personal benefit. Their theory of no benefit must then even exclude the giver having a contented feeling of having done something “good,” because that would be an unshared, selfish reward. For honest altruism, the giver must actually not enjoy giving, but willfully and actively continue their pinnacle level of production. An ideal altruistic state would then, by definition, be the unhappiest place on Earth.
Some insect populations exhibit biological altruism, but the meaning changes when applied to biology. Biologists clarify that the sacrifice directly furthers genetic reproduction. A bee may sting you and die to save the hive, but only the queen of the hive reproduces anyway. The drone simply does its best to increase the number of genetically similar entities, its siblings, since it will have no opportunity to breed its own offspring. Were it not to die to save the hive, a very similar genotype will not eventually continue on to a new hive with a new queen.
Humans expect a different sort of altruism from each other, though. They expect the most successful members of society to immolate themselves on the knife of need brandished by those incapable — or worse, unwilling — to succeed of their own merit. Communism desired an altruistic society, where your ration equaled your basic need regardless of your efforts. The theoretical surplus created by the most capable creators would be spent on maintaining the same level of relative prosperity for the incapable drainers. This could have sustained itself in a sad, repressive way, but then everyone realized that the harder they worked, the sooner they died, and their families were no better off for it. The system promised them food whether they produced or not — someone else would provide it for them through their efforts. Consequently, Russia fell to pieces. China’s communism has held together through a fearfully violent regime maintaining a culture that supports anonymous martyrdom and provides little choice for a second option. But even China is becoming more capitalized.
You see, the problem with crossing the insect drone’s ideal of sacrifice to humans is that people are unique and each has a shot at breeding (notice that the queen of the hive doesn’t sacrifice herself for the colony). Humans innately have basic rights to equal and fair treatment. However, equal and fair means giving someone not less than they have earned, not giving whatever they claim a right to.
Helping out another person does not make someone evil. A person demanding what they never earned does. There is a cliff between making your community a better place for you to live — such as through education programs, recycling, and carpooling — and plummeting over that cliff into sacrificing yourself so others need not exert effort. Human nature will never allow a truly altruistic society, and I believe never should seek to destroy individuality by attempting it. Every reach for altruism only invites exploitation — someone will always want more at your expense for less of their own expense.
In the June 1966 edition of “The Objectivist,” Ayn Rand rightly says, “It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others — a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal … “
Matthew Clausen ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in English.
IP hash: f23dd264
What are you talking about?!!??!
IP hash: 7f45c6eb
You Libertarians are funny. Wrong, but funny.
“Altruism means exploiting capable individuals in order to benefit the sycophants of society.” Forced Altruism is, by definition, not Altruism. Altruism means serving your fellow man, not expecting to gain anything back. It’s a choice on the part of the individual, not a coerced command.
Take the most powerful example of altruistic service: Christ. He washed his disciples’ feet, for ‘he came not to serve, but to be served’. The reason why the disciples were suprised was that it wasn’t the perceived job of the Christ to do this. A servant washing feet would have caused no commotion. Jesus doing it did because it was a gift. If we’re forced to serve others, it is no longer a gift. It is no longer altruism.
“Their theory of no benefit must then even exclude the giver having a contented feeling of having done something "good," because that would be an unshared, selfish reward.” The giver should feel that what they have done is right. Pride, on the other hand, IS to be avoided. Again, this destroys the idea of service.
“They expect the most successful members of society to immolate themselves on the knife of need brandished by those incapable — or worse, unwilling — to succeed of their own merit.” This terrifies me. How is a rich man a more successful member of society? A person can win the lottery and contribute nothing to society. I’ve heard of a man who made $75,000 in a year playing Golden Tee in bars. Do you make more than $75,000? If you don’t, do you admit that this man is more successful? Ever heard the phrase, “a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”?
Also, why must you again mischaracterize the poor as a separate class? People are not poor because they are lazy. People are not poor because they ‘refuse to succeed on their own merit’. People are poor because people are poor. Stuff happens. Perhaps we should purge this lower class of ‘undesirables’? Eugenecists anyone? It’s the same logic.
“Consequently, Russia fell to pieces.” I’m no economist, but I don’t buy this. The Soviet Union fell apart for a variety of reasons- most of them being economic, not social as you claim.
“Humans innately have basic rights to equal and fair treatment. However, equal and fair means giving someone not less than they have earned, not giving whatever they claim a right to.” I’ll take a wild leap and claim that a little more separates man and bees than the fact that all of us can breed. But equal treament does not mean equality of conditions. Not everyone in the US should make $33,000 a year, rich and poor alike. But there must be equality of opportunity. There must be equality under the law. Again, you seem to equate money with social power. It’s just money.
“There is a cliff between making your community a better place for you to live — such as through education programs, recycling, and carpooling — and plummeting over that cliff into sacrificing yourself so others need not exert effort.” Why are you so afraid of sacrifice? You might find that your life is more fulfilling when you live it for others rather than for yourself.
Also, there’s a funny thing that happens with the applied form of welfare: it works. Poverty levels have decreased in part because of welfare. It creates a better, healthier society for ALL members, not just the mutant underclasses living below in the sewers.
“In the June 1966 edition of "The Objectivist," Ayn Rand rightly says, "It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others — a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal … "
That’s what makes it so much more beautiful when a gift is FREELY given. We cherish our freedom here- as a libertarian, surely you agree. Again, we have been set free so that we can serve others. Don’t squander that freedom! Don’t be free to do nothing! Get out there and do some good work!
IP hash: 7f45c6eb
*Christ came not to be served, but to serve. Whoops. Bit of a misstatement.
IP hash: df4cd19e
The Soviet economy fell apart because people saw that they earned the same amount whether they worked hard or not. So while the immediate reason the Soviet Union fell apart was that their economy was in shambles, their economy was in shambles because they provided no incentive to work hard.
IP hash: 7f45c6eb
“The Soviet economy fell apart because people saw that they earned the same amount whether they worked hard or not. So while the immediate reason the Soviet Union fell apart was that their economy was in shambles, their economy was in shambles because they provided no incentive to work hard.”
That’s not what I meant. The Soviet economy fell apart because as an economic model, it can develop problems. There’s no real good way to set prices or production. Bureaucrats can sometimes just make wrong choices based on human error or politics or whatever. These are organizational, economic problems that occur solely due to the protocol and nature of soviet Communism. They are not social problems where people don’t work hard.
Claiming that it’s the common man’s selfishness that caused the Soviet economy to fail is sort of like saying America’s economy works because Americans work hard. While we do work hard, so does Mexico. So does Japan. Why is it, then, that we have a healthier economy? We have a pretty good emphasis here on increasing productivity, a healthy dose of regulation, a decent minimum wage, and a good atmosphere for investment.
IP hash: f321552d
What whacko fantasy land did Matthew Clausen come from?
IP hash: 7f45c6eb
The UW English Department?
IP hash: f370f95d
The Soviet economy never aimed to produce the greatest amount of goods and services with the least amount of inputs. Controlling the workers was more important than motivating them. The principal purpose of the Soviet economy was to concentrate political power in the hands of the Communist Party. The political system, not the economy, collapsed.
Marx’s inspiration for “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” (communism) came from Saint Simon who, in turn, drew upon the Bible: Acts 4 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
Stalin had a different take (socialism): “From each according to his abilities, to each according tohis work.” He wasn’t a believer in capitalism, though.
IP hash: 97570a95
To the Anon who said “It’s just money.”: Please see my article (there’s a link above) titled “Getting the Green”.
I did overgeneralize on the collapse of the Soviet Union. We all will admit that there’s much more to be said about that than will fit into a newpaper column. The facts that humans demand differentiation from their surrounding culture and that they require benefit for effort can not change except in the rather distant future—they are evolved traits. Benefit for effort is every biological creature’s drive.
Finally, if using mythology to counter my argument, please do so as the anon directly above did: in a historical and a philosophical context. Using it as a direct counter-example holds no merit.
IP hash: 7f45c6eb
Mythology? Jesus of Nazareth exits as a great historical and teaching figure. Even if you don’t buy into his religious teachings, surely you must agree that his example is one that should be followed. You don’t have to believe the miracles or the resurrection to see that his model of service to others was a powerful one.
As for your other article on how money is important, don’t you see the difference in spending money on beer, and spending money on helping the poor?
It IS just money. That’s not to say we should spend it all down at the Gap, but it won’t make you a better person. It won’t make you smarter. It won’t buy you happiness.
I don’t care too much for money- money can’t buy me love.
IP hash: 058be92b
the second “anonymous” just smushed your whole article and, consequently, your belief system. no response?