Altruism or Benevolence?
This is an area badly in need of clarification. So, with a little help from some perceptive minds, let's explore: There is a great confusion in the minds of most people concerning the nature of altruism or that it derives from the principle of benevolence, good will and kindness toward others.Advocates of altruism take great pains to encourage this belief--to establish a "package deal" so as to conceal from their victim the actual meaning of altruist morality .
The view that altruism and benevolence are the same is a great error. Altruism holds that man must makethe others above self. Such a view is worse than mistaken; it is a perversion entailed in the technique called "the big lie."It represents the exact opposite of the truth;altruism and benevolence are not only different, they are mutually inimical. man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the moral justification of his existence, that self-sacrifice is his foremost duty.A philosophy that tells man that he is no more than a sacrificial animal . This is not an expression of benevolence or good will.
Let us do a thought experiment, a device which served Einstein so well.:Ask yourself what your reaction would be if the person you loved were to tell you:"Don't imagine that I want to marry you out of any selfish expectation of pleasure.Don't imagine that I see anything to admire in you,or that I find your company interesting, or that I enjoy our relationship any manner whatever.In fact, I find you boring and thoughrolly unappealing.But, I wouldn't be so selfish as to seek anything personally from our marriage.Don't imagine that your thoughts or feelings are of any actual interest to me or that I do any of the things I do for you because I care for your happiness -- don't think that there's anything in it for me whether you're happy or not. I'm not an egoist, after all I'm marrying you out of pity,out of charity, as a duty I'm marrying you out of compassion for your flaws, not admiration for your virtues because I know that you need me. I'm doing it as an act of sef sacrifice"
The view that altruism and benevolence are the same is a great error. Altruism holds that man must makethe others above self. Such a view is worse than mistaken; it is a perversion entailed in the technique called "the big lie."It represents the exact opposite of the truth;altruism and benevolence are not only different, they are mutually inimical. man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the moral justification of his existence, that self-sacrifice is his foremost duty.A philosophy that tells man that he is no more than a sacrificial animal . This is not an expression of benevolence or good will.
Let us do a thought experiment, a device which served Einstein so well.:Ask yourself what your reaction would be if the person you loved were to tell you:"Don't imagine that I want to marry you out of any selfish expectation of pleasure.Don't imagine that I see anything to admire in you,or that I find your company interesting, or that I enjoy our relationship any manner whatever.In fact, I find you boring and thoughrolly unappealing.But, I wouldn't be so selfish as to seek anything personally from our marriage.Don't imagine that your thoughts or feelings are of any actual interest to me or that I do any of the things I do for you because I care for your happiness -- don't think that there's anything in it for me whether you're happy or not. I'm not an egoist, after all I'm marrying you out of pity,out of charity, as a duty I'm marrying you out of compassion for your flaws, not admiration for your virtues because I know that you need me. I'm doing it as an act of sef sacrifice"
cause he is so amusing, etc., that is selfish,too. (Of
course, if you're the parent, the kid is sort of your instrument for living on, but if you are not, if it is just your sister, or someone else's baby, that selfishness applies, too). As to the "macho-ness"
of boys, don't I know it. The way they were so aggressive in the hallways, kicking me in the butt, or other such stuff, I couldn't stand the punks, either.--And to this day, I have no great liking for adolescent punks, and no disposition to put up with any of that macho s***.
ish devotion. (I think I had been reading too much of Erich Fromm's stuff). But I could not imagine myself
falling in love and loving someone with a totally un-
selfish devotion; even free of mercenary taint, there would still be the fact that I loved the person because I got some sort of pleasure in his existence, it was still self, self, self, and I believed myself incapable of love. And I thought that my parents must never have loved me, or I would have somehow "caught" it from them. And one night in the Waynesboro library, I saw books on a swap shelf (donate one and take one away and keep it), and I saw The Virtue of Self-
ishness by Ayn Rand (and with a few articles by
Nathaniel Branden). I was intrigued by the title,
expecting cynical stuff. I leafed through it a little
bit, and traded for it, and took it away. And, even-
tually, Ayn Rand's philosophy straightened me out. (I have also had some remorse for the way
I had unjustly blamed my parents--although they
didn't repudiate altruism, either).
Since most people are religious, they are used to bringing emotion to the table rather than thinking. Many people believe that they can fake reality, because, they believe that they can get away with it long enough to live out their lives and to hell with morality. What do they need morality for?
I’d be curious to see if any critical thinking is done in the Q/A session.
You cannot use violence to make people free so a rebellion is useless. If people do not choose it they cannot be forced, that is the antithesis of objectivism. Socialism will only work with the use of violence for even those who believe in it would not choose it if others around them were not living it. They would see the obvious difference and live objectively even if they believed in collectivism. They might still try to convert others but if they could not demand it (enforce) there would be very few who would actually try to live it. For those who made that choice that would be okay for them.
What is the alternative? Before the advent of the computerized society I had a plan I think would have worked much like Galt's Gulch. Now with the entire world being monitored except a few tribes deep in the jungle or on isolated islands in the Indian Ocean the only choice is to try to live unobserved which will become increasingly difficult as RFID chips become implanted in everything we might own (including ourselves) and tracked you won't be able to trade or sell something to another without it being tracked, monitored, approved, licensed and taxed, or forbidden. If you think of an alternative let me know.
The county jail, several stories high, was right next to the one-floor newspaper I worked for. One day an "outlaw woman" with a kid was seen pointing up at a jail window and heard saying, "Look, there's daddy at that window. See? He's a jailbird. Wave. Say "Hi, Daddy. Hi, Jailbird."
Load more comments...