Inkshadow, re: Mother Theresa
I admire Mother Theresa for her:
* dedication and perseverance
* single-mindedness and focus
* ability to tolerate hardship in pursuit of her cause
* passionate belief in her cause
Personal anecdote: For some reason, I get called upon to 'counsel' kids in their late teens and early twenties. In most cases, it is their parents who send them to me with the suggestion "Talk to Unca VoR, he'll set you straight!"
It is amazing how many times Mother Theresa's name is raised by earnest, thoughtful, intelligent youngsters who have decided to quit school and:
* become missionaries in Africa
* volunteer for the Peace Corps
* fight for environmental causes
* chain themselves to the White House fence
Most of these kids are bubbling with altruistic fervor that begins with years of religious values (not all bad) which set them up for a few years of indoctrination by 'selfless' teachers with a Leftist slant (almost all bad).
Therefore, I bait the hook by asking whether 'tis nobler to donate $5000 a month or $50 a month. The answer is usually the former - but, "I don't care about money". Did I mention that these kids are usually from affluent homes?
My next point is whether they could help (insert favorite cause here) more by chaining themselves to a fence, or staying in school, becoming a (engineer, lawyer, doctor ..) and enhancing their value from $7/hr to $250/hr? The answer remains (albeit weaker, this time) "But I don't care about money".
Using THEIR definition, I ask "how could you be so 'selfish' as to look for the instant gratification of marching with attractive people in the streets - when you could do so much more AFTER you get an education? If you were educated, you could (a) donate more or (b) work tirelessly and passionately as an EDUCATED crusader for justice - instead of being part of the rabble."
OK, so my success rate isn't very high! But they sometimes send me an email when they are (a) getting married or (b) graduating from college.
Back on the topic of Mother Theresa: my problem is with a world-view that reveres her and despises Bill Gates (except for the few millions he gives away).
Quoting (selfishly) from "Somethin' dirty goin' on?" at
http://voice.townhall.com/g/078b6d85-013f-400f-ac48-c959548cd019"This is a philosophical dichotomy that causes us to 'feel' our way towards huge mistakes - with the noblest intentions at heart and the counterfeit currency of altruism. As a result, we 'feel' that Public Education is the only way that we can ensure a quality education. Or, we just hate the idea that doctors, nurses, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies make a profit while providing life-saving services and products. So, we 'feel' our way towards Universal Health Care.
The result: we pretend to be altruistic, and fake our way through life. Since our affluence comes from actions taken in our self-interest, we feel guilty for our success.
We claim altruism as a Value - but secretly value our affluence - setting ourselves up for guilt over our well-deserved high standard of living. So, the Joy of attaining our real value (earned through hard work and careful risk-taking) has to be hidden.
Perversely, we honor philanthropy over well-earned wealth. We seem to forget that the process of earning wealth is actually more difficult than the process of giving some of it away. The process of earning wealth also directly or indirectly contributes much more to 'society' than a wealthy person's philanthropy. So, why is Bill Gates reviled for earning billions (while revolutionizing the business world), but lauded for giving away a few millions?
What is it in human nature that sets us up for these contradictions? Why are we so susceptible to the mostly manufactured aura of selflessness? If we could answer that, we would have a good understanding of the instinctive dislike that many people have of the profit motive. "
Tuesday, July, 17, 2007 1:26 PM
F1etch
writes:
My two cents worth
I haven’t gotten involved in the fray because I have been too busy defending other points and I wasn’t about to just drop in on a discussion by two intellects that I respect without giving the matter due consideration. But I’ve been on the sidelines long enough.
It seems to me that it all comes down to what constitutes “altruism”, whether or not it is exercised as a function of self interest, whether or not it is exercised at a level removed (impacting third parties), what criterion defines altruistic “success”, and whether or not the morality of altruistic behavior can be assessed on utilitarian grounds.
We’re all in agreement that self-interest is the most powerful force available to achieve economic and societal goals. Individuals needn’t be coerced in order to act in their own interests and three people like us prize liberty for its own sake. On the other hand, altruism, defined generally as a “selfless concern for the welfare of others” is typically lauded as a societal virtue. It is apparent that these concepts are in conflict.
Actually, I contend that altruism in this context DOES NOT EXIST – hence the conflict. It is my contention that ALL human behavior is in accordance with self interest even if that behavior involves sacrificing one’s own life (as that “cost” is deemed to be less valuable to the individual than the results of the act itself). Whether the trigger is described as morality or conscience or loyalty or friendship, the response to these motivations is still a function of the self-interest imperative.
So then we must examine “altruism” as it is referenced in PRACTICE and since we are not discussing (as a repeatable societal act) such things as diving on a live grenade, we are primarily discussing the charitable impulse. This needn’t be too constraining as it can cover everything from getting your significant other a drink (either because you care or because you wish to avoid the aggravation if you do not makes no difference) to donations of time and large sums of money to traditional charitable pursuits.
In this context, I cannot accept the premise that altruism is immoral, per se. Rather, as with any other function of self interest, the determination of morality rests upon whether or not the rights and privileges of others are infringed upon. And one cannot voluntarily become the “victim”; it is the imposition upon others that creates victims. Thus, the engineer who donates large amounts of time to Habitat for Humanity is acting in an entirely moral manner and the individual who responds to the demands of conscience by forcing others to give (or advocating that a third party require it) no matter how small the amount in question. It is this latter example that is “the leftist credo”.
Religion (and I use the term in the broad sense to include non-theistic and agnostic belief systems) serves self interest by giving something (self realization, justification, community, etc.) to the adherents to the faith and often provides an outlet for exercising the charitable impulse. Religions, of course, can act in an immoral manner as well (alas blind zealotry deludes some into believing otherwise) but they certainly needn’t do so. And, in the absence of coercion, asking the deer (parishioners) to walk only induces them to do so, even at times of great peril, if they perceive the benefit (heaven, perhaps, or, at minimum, serving the belief in that particular heaven) to outweigh the cost (getting there a whole lot sooner).
Thus the problem is never seeking the internal satisfaction or completeness or wellbeing of pursuing the impulse (even if others deem the act to be irrational), but the attempt to inflict one’s beliefs on others and the disconnect from reality that at once assumes that, because the act is perceived to be selfless, that it is either inherently good or effective and any failure can be attributed to the selfishness of others. To be fair, the assessment is essentially correct. The failure of such leftist initiatives inevitably stems from the inability of those advocating such policies to correctly assess the behavior of self interested individuals in any particular circumstance.
If, as I contend, altruism in practice is nothing more than the normal seeking of a certain emotional or intellectual reward, then it may be considered as if it were very similar to a form of entertainment. What you choose to do with your own resources to engage in activities that you find entertaining is your own affair. You are not, however, entitled to demand the resources of others to enjoy such pursuits; nor – as is relevant to the missionary example – are you justified in foregoing your responsibilities as citizens/parents/members of society in order to do so.
That just leaves the utilitarian argument. Is it more effective to contribute to society through productivity, or through sacrifice and charity? And is that a question of morality? Here the area gets a lot greyer. Obviously, since I have made the argument in the past that public charity is immoral (and private charity is not) on such grounds, I believe that it can, but only under very specific circumstances.
Heeding the charitable impulse is like firing a gun. The act itself is neither moral nor immoral in and of itself – what matters is the intent and the outcome. Let’s concede that, in general, the intent of charitable giving is not going to create a moral hazard. What matters then is the outcome and, more importantly, its predictability.
If I fire a gun and stop a crazed killer, that’s moral. If I fire a gun at a crazed killer and, due to circumstances I could not have predicted, a ricochet harms an innocent, the act was not immoral even though an innocent was harmed (accidents are not examples of immorality). If, however, I fire a gun into a crowd of innocents, it is inherently immoral because I know (or certainly should) that such an act would harm innocents.
If, on the other hand, I give to a reputable charity known for getting care to the truly needy, I have engaged in a moral act. If it turns out that an employee of the charity takes the money and skips to Costa Rica, I have not committed an immoral act unless I should have known that such a result would ensue. If, however, I insist on pushing government charity, in the face of the overwhelming evidence that such charity does far more societal harm than good, the act is immoral because there simply is no excuse for not knowing that public charity doesn’t work as advertised. I might be willing to concede that an individual who voluntarily siphons resources from productive means to spend on altruistic endeavors MAY meet this criterion, but it is not so clear cut.
The utilitarian argument about whether or not going to work for the Peace Corps or first improving oneself so that I might better contribute to society strikes me as solely a practical matter as it is likely that neither option is detrimental to society so much a one alternative is demonstrably better.
In the final analysis, I guess I agree with both of you. I would say that altruism as it is commonly defined does not exist. On the other hand I see the liberal tendency to embrace feelings over realities as a distinct failure distinguishable from the altruistic impulse (as a function of self interest) and thus side with inkshadow that altruism, in a practical sense, is not immoral, per se.