Objectivists don’t recognize any “social trait of poverty.” I can’t imagine an Objectivist refusing to help someone out for that reason (there may, however, be other reasons).
Even the Libertarians who want virtually no government recognize the need to prosecute murders and other violent crimes. If you meet a Libertarian who says that there should be no police, kindly ask him what the difference between that and anarchy is.
Yes, I am aware that there are crazies who suggest privatizing the police. I don’t think that’s a mainstream Libertarian belief.
Here’s what Ayn Rand said about altruism. I can’t view it right now for a few reasons, but it should settle the issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viGkAZR-x8s
Bad analogy. It’s like looking at two guys, one who eats 5,000 cal/day and one who eats 0 cal/day and saying that the guy who eats 0 cal/day is closer to following the recommended amount of cal/day. It’s not a linear function.
If you don’t have the bare bones of a civil society, you’re not even in the running. Perhaps it was my mistake to introduce the term “anarchy” in to this discussion, because, except at very low population densities, you never really have anarchy-- you have “thugocracy”.
Altruism is “selfless concern for the welfare of others”. That’s not the same thing as charity. Re-read the conditions **panache **put on charity, and that is not altruism.
Most people hold that the role of government should be limited to protecting fundamental rights. The difference between folks’ views is usually a disagreement over what those fundamental rights are.
I can’t believe we’re 26 posts in, and no mention of Robert Nozick! While I’m not going to contribute to the OP that much as to what countries. Afterall, I am in the Mid-West, and I am fairly geographically disinclined. But I do have some sources that may or may not help clear up the issue at hand:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism-contemporary/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/coercion/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/
http://www.lp.org/ <— Libertarian Party website
All I can say is that the objectivists I’ve seen hate the concept of helping others.
I watched the video, and she’s not just talking about government-required or subsidized giving (although she does touch on that). She considers it immoral for anyone not to act in their own self-interest. Further, from her discussion on love, I take away that she feels that giving should be based on the recipient’s “virtue” (“virtue,” I assume, being defined by the donor).
So, from that, I take away that she would be okay with something like a patron supporting an artist, since that support is based on the artist’s virtue. But she would consider undifferentiated charitable giving to be immoral, which would include things like soup kitchens or free clinics. Even if they were completely supported by private donations, she would find it immoral to donate to such a place, because a donor would not be acting in his self-interest in making such a donation.
I’ll just address an obvious rejoinder to the above: what if the donor gets good-feelings inside his tummy from donating to the homeless shelter? Wouldn’t that be acting in his self-interest? Well, my take-away from the video is that she thinks that those tummy feelings are an artificial construction created by an incorrect morality, rather than the morality she is preaching. That, combined with her comments about churches and religion, make me think that should would also consider things like voluntary tithing to be immoral.
ETA: I don’t see any indication that she would outlaw undifferentiated charitable giving, merely that she finds it immoral.
And her rejoiner would be: What you are referring to is total subjectivism, not objectivism. Your good feelings are based on irrational values, rather than something that is objectively good. Wouldn’t a murderer “feel good” about destroying his victim? Wouldn’t a rapist “feel good” on a sexual high? Wouldn’t a politician “feel good” by accepting graft?
So don’t confuse “feeling good” with your self-interest. When a rational person engages in charity, it’s based on objective values, not on his own feelings. Giving a deserving kid a scholarshop; helping out a starving artist who creates beautiful sculpture; donating to the victims of an earthquake, who don’t deserve to suffer . . . provided you are doing so out of benevolence, not out of duty.
I didn’t. This is exactly what I stated. She doesn’t view “feeling good” as a self-interest, so it’s not a justification for charitable giving.
This part I’m with you on, but this next part:
That’s not the way I read her video discussion. She would consider charitable giving out of “benevolence” to be immoral.
Not at all. An objectivist would say, “There’s a human being like me, he’s suffering unjustly and I can empathize with him. I can afford to help him get back on his feet and become independent.”
An altruist would say, "There’s someone suffering, and I don’t care what kind of person he is or whether I can afford to help him. The mere fact of his suffering mandates that I help him, even if his situation never improves. It’s my duty, even if I hate doing it.
Well, if you are getting this from other works of Rand, please cite, because this is completely counter to the viewpoint she presents in the video. There is no self-interest at play in the statement you have quoted above, and you seem to just be restating “feel-good tummy feelings” in another way.
"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.
(from her *Playboy *interview, March 1964.)
And there are several instances in her novels of people helping others out . . . out of non-sacrificial benevolence and shared values.
Well, that definitely supports your position. But it contradicts her video. She seems not to have thought this issue through well, I guess.
Weak central government, weak local government, rule of force, no market regulation, no public services? You’re looking at Somalia.
[sarcasm]
Right. Ayn Rand didn’t think very much about the issue of altruism.
[/sarcasm]
You can be sarcastic all you want. She’s the one making conflicting statements.:rolleyes:
Now it’s my turn: Cite?
I have reviewed the video. There is no contradiction. She is presenting the same philosophy that she wrote about for decades.
Ok, let’s backtrack from the sniping, since my original questioning was an attempt to find out what she thought.
Here’s what I see you saying:
-
Morality is rooted in objective self-interest.
-
It is okay to donate to charity.
Now, you specifically mentioned earthquake relief, so let’s take that example. I don’t know anybody in Chile, I’ve never been to Chile, I have no business interests in Chile. There is no benefit to me for donating to Chile. If I donate money to Chilean earthquake relief, then I have not acted in my objective self-interest. All I get are good-tummy feelings, but if those aren’t relevant, then I have acted against my self-interest, since that money is no longer available to benefit me.
So, that’s where I see the contradiction. You seem to be saying that morality is rooted in self-interest, but at the same time, it’s okay to act against your self-interest (as in, it’s okay to act immorally). Please explain this apparent discrepancy (this is also the contradiction I’m seeing between the video and her Playboy interview).