Friend: “Self-sacrifice is an acceptable ethic for people who don’t have the courage and creativity to find win-win solutions…” [This was the start of the rant.]
Friend: “Self-sacrifice is beloved by people who are blinded by the self-sacrificing hero and never make the next observation of how people tirelessly campaigning to portray themselves as heroes seem to be the ones so visibly sacrificing themselves in ways that always get noticed and always promote their careers, especially if it involves “elections” or “donations”…”
Me: [amidst some other comments] “All of you be quiet, C*** is channeling Ayn Rand here.”
And my friend most certainly was in railing against the ethic that demands self-sacrifice as a moral imperative. The discussion had slipped to altruism and another friend (a guy I know very well, consider a closer friend, and with whom I have had lengthy philosophical discussions) said this-
Ill-Considered: Rand was emotionally stunted as an adolescent. Altruism is essential to civilization. But state sponsored charity is neither charity nor altruistic.
At this point I want to editorialize, but it would probably be better just to post what I said. Having read Ayn Rand and having a grounding in Christian theology help in understanding this more fully.
Me: I don’t know about Rand’s childhood – I’m not her shrink nor qualified to make – or refute – such a statement. Maybe fleeing the Bolsheviks did damage to her; I’m not sure. But I’ve seen this criticism of her because of (a) her own odd marital relationship, and (b) her utter disdain for Christianity (and the exact point of Cash’s post). Both seem to me to be little more than ad hominem. Her emotional maturity or immaturity doesn’t tell us anything about the validity of her points. Schizophrenics can say things that are unassailably true – we can’t invalidate any particular claim by saying simply “they’re schizo.” It’s a non-sequitur.
Me: To the merits – I’m not sure about your claim that civilization requires altruism. I’d have to think about it more. But I can well imagine societies that do not have altruism as a sine qua non of the society’s existence. Maybe the more fundamental question is whether or not altruism is inherent to human beings. Is it necessarily a part of our DNA? I don’t know. And, FWIW, I don’t think Rand was against altruism – if you read her essays, she specifically addresses this. Her point was that she was against (a) making people feel guilty for pursuing their own ends and not being altruistic, and (b) making altruism the moral imperative for being and judging someone “good.” I think she’s right on.
Me: Need I feel morally guilty if I (a) harm no one in pursuing my own ends, yet (b) help no one in doing so? Probably in Christian theology, but Rand disavowed this as a societal bedrock. To Cash’s point – should the “rich” feel guilty simply because they are rich – assuming they haven’t done anything overtly morally blameworthy in obtaining their wealth? Do we say that lottery winners are instantly transformed from being morally pure (because they were previously broke) to “bad” because they now have money (completely unearned)?
[Now, my friend’s rejoinder is about the best illustration I can offer of why some comprehensive philosophy is necessary. I love his honesty, but note how typical this response probably is.]
Me: I know you don’t think that, Jake, so I’m curious about the “altruism is essential” comment.
Ill-Considered: Dang it Dale. Now you have gone off and done it. I’m going to have to 1. catch up on all the reading for this post then 2. form some coherent thoughts and 3 write them down.
This is very vexing. All I wanted to do was throw grenades.
I’m not picking on him, because I think his candor is refreshing. Most people would simply have continued (a) to talk out their ass, and (b) expose said ass with incomprehensible, incoherent ramblings trying to back up what they had originally said. He at least acknowledged that’s what he was doing.
So, this is, in a much more pragmatic sense, an illustration of why having some idea of what you believe – and why – and what the implications are of that, is a more useful way of proceeding through the world. It illustrates perfectly the point I quoted from Rand in the first piece – if you don’t give some thought to it, what you wind up with is half-formed thoughts and contradictions, a mish-mash of opinions that are connected only in their geography in your brain, but not by any kind of unified understanding of (a) how the world works, (b) your own place in it, and (c) how you believe one ought to walk through it and live “upright” – regardless of your religious or political beliefs.
Next time, some specifics on getting to this…