Comment [Unknown A1]: The argument in
this essay is exceptionally clear and the
reasoning is very good.
Altruism and Objectivism in Society
Comment [Unknown A2]: The way the
sections are set up in this paper is
uncommon for a philosophical essay.
While not bad if done well—as in this
essay—it is generally not recommended.
Introduction
This essay will strive to prove one thing:
The perseverance toward altruism on
the part of individuals creates a working human society better than perseverance
toward objectivism.
It should be noted here that this essay will not discuss which
Comment [Unknown A3]: A very clear
thesis.
philosophy is more beneficial to an individual human person, but rather society as a
Comment [Unknown A4]: The use of the
passive voice in this section is somewhat
unwieldy.
whole. In order to verify this proposal, several predications must be proven.
Comment [Unknown A5]: The author
clearly limits her thesis.
be demonstrated that “no man is an island” (Donne).
(1) it will
(2) it will be shown that humans
Comment [Unknown A6]: This outline
helps the reader follow the argument.
expect certain things from other humans. (3) Next, it will be shown that these
expectations must be met for a working human society. (4), it will be established that
these expectations cannot be met while acting under the philosophical notion known as
objectivism or rational self-interest. (5), it will be shown that these expectations can
be met through altruism.
In order to prove this thesis and these deductions, working
definitions must first be given for “altruism”, “objectivism”, and “working human
society”.
Comment [Unknown A7]: A clear
transition to the next section.
Definitions
The definitions given here are not supposed to be the exact dictionary
definitions, but rather definitions specific to this argument synthesized from the
sources used. First, altruism will be used to mean “the practice of acting for the
Comment [Unknown A8]: Clear definitions
help make the argument clearer.
welfare of others, often at the expense of one’s own self-interest.” This is based on,
in practical terms, Auguste Comte’s definition:
“[The] social point of view. . . cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such
notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every
kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our
birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we
can return any service. . . This [to live for others], the definitive formula of
human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of
benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve]
Humanity, whose we are entirely.” (Comte 1974)
Objectivism, for the purpose of this essay, will be used to mean: “the practice of
acting in one’s own self interest exclusively”. This is loosely based on Ayn Rand’s
definition of “rational self-interest”:
“The Objectivist Ethics hold that the human good does not require human
sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone…The
principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human
relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material.”
(Rand 1964)
Working human society will be used to mean “a society which continues to exist”.
Comment [Unknown A9]: The author
defends the definition using philosophical
sources.
Argument
1)
“No man is an island.” –John Donne, Meditation XVII
This predication can be proven fairly simply: no one would be alive without at least
two outside parties: biological parents. Additionally, after this initial contribution of
life more people are needed in order to survive and thrive: to feed, clothe, nurture,
etc. Even as adults, we depend on others to not deliberately harm us in order to
survive.
In the current modern society, many people depend on others in a network of
people to eat, work, and generally live. The human race is not comprised of six billion
autonomous beings, but rather a large network of interdependent people.
2)
Humans expect things from other humans.
Since no one is completely independent, we can infer that one must depend on
others for things—especially in a beneficial human society. As we depend on others for
things (our mothers to mother us), we expect things from others. As an example,
human beings expect mothers to take care of their children. Does anyone hear a news
story of someone finding an abandoned baby and think anything about the mother who
abandoned her child but “That’s terrible!”? This is because we expect mothers to
care for their children; as humans, we expect things from other humans. C.S. Lewis
explains it this way:
Comment [Unknown A10]: The author
explains how the quotations fit into the
argument.
“Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and
sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can
learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They
say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?"-"That's my
seat, I was there first"-"Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm"- "Why
should you shove in first?"-"Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of
mine"-"Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated
people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups. Now what
interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely
saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is
appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to
know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard."
Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go
against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends
there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the
seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given
the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his
promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of
Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to
call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might,
of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the
word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And
there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of
agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in
saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement
about the rules of football.” (Lewis 2001)
Some of these expectations are small (i.e. when an elderly woman gets on the bus and
there are no seats available, we expect someone to give up their seat), and some are
larger (i.e. we expect when someone wants something we possess, they will not kill us
to acquire it). It is important to note here that it is not to be supposed that these
expectations are always met, but that when they are not met, there are consequences.
Comment [Unknown A11]: Block
quotations support key points in the
argument.
3)
These expectations must be met for a working human society to exist.
In order for a society to continue to exist (a working human society), these
expectations must be met a majority of the time. In order to illustrate this, we will
look at the consequences when the expectations are consistently not met.
In proving
that when the expectations are not met, human society breaks down, we will see that
these expectations must be met for society to continue. Obviously, we cannot look at
each expectation individually, (nor can we name every expectation, as evidenced in
section two), so we will choose a common expectation among humans and explore the
consequences to society if it is consistently not met. This expectation we will explore
is: humans expect other humans not to kill them. Every day, when you wake up, you
expect not to be killed. Now, in a society that is in chaos or war torn, this may be
less clear—when violence is pervasive, it may not be as surprising when someone gets
killed, but no one says, “Well, that’s fair,” simply because they live in this violent
environment. In short, just because the chances of getting killed are greater, it does
not mean that humans accept random death. So, let us look at what happens when
this principle of not killing fellow humans is consistently ignored. When one person is
killed, society is outraged. (We are not discussing here vengeful or retaliatory killings,
but rather random killings—killings for which the motive is non-existent or negligible).
On a larger scale, when we magnify this idea, (as done in The Republic, “Then in the
larger the quantity of justice is likely to be larger and more easily discernible. I
propose therefore that we enquire into the nature of justice and injustice, first as they
appear in the State, and secondly in the individual, proceeding from the greater to the
lesser and comparing them…”) (Kraut 1997), we can see more clearly the affect it has
on society. So, we must look at large scale killings without provocation or rational
motivation. The most accessible example of this is The Holocaust. Essentially,
millions of people were killed as the result of systematic brainwashing of an entire
society based on the whims of one man. What affect did this have on the society?
Toward the end and after World War II, the society of Germany broke down and spent
many years rebuilding. Obviously, there were other factors, but it must be seen that
one of the main factors that led to the downfall of German society was the killing of
millions of people and the consequences of those killings (paying reparations, war). If
we continue to look at The Third Reich, there are other expectations that were not
met that also contributed to the downfall. Hitler invaded other countries—he sought
to take things that were not his. This was a broken expectation; we expect others not
to take what is ours.
The society fostered by the Nazi party ceased to exist.
When
expectations were not met, there was no working human society. Using this is
example, it is clear that when one or more of the expectations humans have for other
humans is consistently not met, society begins to break down.
4)
These expectations cannot be met if the majority of humans are acting under the
principle of objectivism or “rational self interest” (Rand 1964)
Now that it has been established that these expectations must be met on a
consistent basis for society to continue, we must look at objectivism and altruism to
see if the expectations could be met under either system. First, objectivism: can
human expectations be met if the majority of people act selfishly? Some of the
expectations themselves require one to act unselfishly, so the answer must be “no”.
Let’s return to the example of mothers used in section two. Mothering is definitely
expected of women who have children. Mothers are expected to love their children,
nurture them, and protect them. Many of these acts are unselfish; getting up to feed
the baby at three A.M., giving up a career to stay at home, or driving teenagers all
over town before they turn sixteen. Mothering is expected and mothering is not
always in one’s own “rational self interest”. It would be in the mother’s best interest
to get a full night’s sleep, for example. Once again, we will take a cue from The
Republic and look at this on a larger scale to see the answer more clearly.
We will
look at the Enron scandal of 2001. In essence, the higher ups continually acted in
their own best interests: laundering money, misrepresenting cash flow, selling off
shares when they knew the company was near its end (insider trading). These actions
led to the bankruptcy of the company as well as the loss of $11 billion dollars in
shareholder money. (Fox 2003) The expectations of the shareholders were not met. If
the company had been a larger society and these expectations had not been met, the
society would cease to function.
5)
These expectations can be met if the majority of humans act under the principle of
altruism.
Now that we have seen that the expectations all humans have cannot be met if the
majority of humans consistently acted under the philosophy of objectivism, we must
explore if the expectations can be met if the majority of people acted under altruism.
If the greater part of people acted for the welfare of others, even to the point of self-
denial, would the expectations of society be met? Obviously, we cannot list every
expectation and conclude whether or not it can be met. In order to prove this
hypothesis, we will look at how expectations have been met throughout history. A
prime example of altruism in practice is the life of a soldier. People expect to be
protected and not invaded and soldiers act in the best interests of others to ensure
the safety of the masses. Another human expectation is that for help when a tragedy
strikes. Never when a hurricane or earthquake or other disaster hits does one see no
one lifting a finger to help. Look at the support for Haiti, New Orleans, and Indonesia
in recent years.
It is not in one’s own best interest to sacrifice money or time for
others, but millions of people do just that, consistently. As a result, society continues
to thrive.
Comment [Unknown A12]: Addressing
objections to your thesis makes the essay
more interesting, and shows the
importance of the point you are arguing
for.
Objections
Most of the arguments for objectivism are that it is most beneficial to the
individual.
As we are discussing what propels society here, we can ignore these. The
main argument that objectivism or rational self-interest is beneficial to society is that
if a person is denying himself or herself something, he or she is devaluing himself or
herself and will not contribute to the best of his or her ability to society. In Atlas
Shrugged, Ayn Rand explains this through John Galt, "For centuries, the battle of
morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and
those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors - between those who preached
that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached
that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came
to say that your life belongs to you and the good is to live it." (Rand 1957) As an
example: if Monet had spent his time doing charity work or playing with his kids, the
world would miss out on his masterpieces of impressionism. However, there are many
people who made immeasurable contributions to society that were not motivated by
selfish reasons. Take Jonas Salk, the researcher who discovered the polio vaccine. It
was not strictly for himself that he worked tirelessly to discover that vaccine, but for
the welfare of others. Salk is known to be a tireless worker, working sixteen hours a
day, seven days a week for years. (Kluger 2004) Salk could have spent this time with
his children or his wife, acting in his own self-interest. Salk was working for the good
of society.
Conclusion
Using these five steps, it becomes clear that altruism is not only the most
efficient, but the only way to create a beneficial human society. No society is perfect,
or exists in a vacuum, so it is important to note that not everyone will act altruistically
100% of the time, so the most beneficial human society will never exist. However,
given that the objections can be brought into disrepute by conceding that constant
altruism by everyone is not probable.