After all, I envision my role in the ideological battle as one of munitions-maker. This post is intended to be one piece of ammo for you guys to integrate into your own arsenal. I fully expect that you will adapt it to your purposes and standards, and offer critiques to improve it.

As for Objectivists going “too far” to reassure people about charity, I will say that I’ve seen a fair bit of the opposite — Objectivists who reflexively dismiss all charity in reaction to its strong association with altruism.

The funny thing about it, is that I would speculate that in some respects, charity might actually become more vibrant and effective in an Objectivist culture, once the stigma of altruistic moral “duty” is finally cleared away.

But that’s a whole other discussion.

So, by all means I hear you.

But… still. It does rub me the wrong way because I really do hear Objectivists frequently go too far out of their way to reassure people on the subject of charity (or, worse, are rationalizing a previously-held valuing of it rather than fully evaluating whether it really is something they ought to do). To even be ambiguous on the subject could inadvertently nurture this error. (you never know who’s reading it)

Note that your article is just as effective if it simply stops before the last sentence.

But if you have to put in some kind of endorsement, I think it’s important that it be a *qualified* one. (if I didn’t, I wouldn’t mention it – I’m not trying to pick nits or get on your case, here) Such as, “you’ve taken the first step” or “good for you, inasmuch as you’re acting from values and not altruistic duty,” and then have a * with some very small print at the bottom which reads (whether those values are actually reasonable is another matter, but beyond the scope of this discussion). Or something like that.

And, again, we all agree on the correctness and importance of your primary point.

What I meant by “good for her” was that to the extent that she is acting on values, she is far closer to an Objectivist than an altruist.

The question that Inspector and madmax are raising — about whether I have left myself open to the idea that we *ought* to buy breakfast for a homeless person — is correct. Yes, I did leave that opening. I did so for two reasons.

One is scope; that comment was already getting a bit long, and I wanted to drive home the point that unlike charity, which is about “helping others”, altruism is all about duty.

Second and more important, is that the question of what values should we be pursuing is the next stage in the evolution of egoist morality. In other words, this “opening” is only open to someone who grants the pursuit-of-values premise, and wants to base altruism on that (incompatible) premise.

What do you suppose would happen to someone who tries to make a values-based case for altruism? In light of what happened when people tried to argue for capitalism from the duty-based moral premise, I am not worried. Let them try it.

Remember that values are that which one acts to gain and/or keep. That’s a key pillar of ethical egoism right there. Someone who is arguing that we *should* buy breakfast for the homeless, must somehow make the case that it is of value to us, to do so. They have to sell us on it, as a morally better option than whatever alternatives we are facing at that point.

They must answer that dread question which Ayn Rand told us was the ultimate weapon againt altruism and duty — the question “Why?”

This has been tried, of course — but what few such examples I have seen are quite weak, and are vulnerable to attack from more consistent altruists. I cite as evidence the commenter Laura, who argues for charity as an obligation, but who nonetheless constrains it within parameters of individual choice that originate not in Christianity at all, but in secular individualism — in a manner directly incompatible with the all-encompassing cult of sacrifice which is altruism operating in a deontological moral context.

That is because many standard definitions have replaced proper ones. If a concept isn’t even present in language, it can’t be expressed. It might be felt by young minds with a hint of idealism still present in them, but it is not taught or learned.

Most regard altruism as the technical act of giving something from yourself to another. Between buying something for yourself and offering a gift to someone whom you value, they see a difference that doesn’t exist, and which has been dispelled in Objectivism.

Rational egoism is not a commonly known or accepted concept. Instead, only the dichotomy of hedonism versus selflessness is recognized. Thus the rational act of giving to those worthy of (some sum of your choosing) your wealth is confused with “charity from duty” and true charity is accused of being altruistic.

Christianity is something some individuals cling to more than it clings to them. It makes increasingly less sense the more they embrace the resulting happiness of individualism, but it is their sole source of explicit morality.

Although Rand wasn’t entirely clear on this, she didn’t support most of what we would consider charities, such as helping victims of drought and famine. She gave money to charities with more specific purposes, such as the Hollywood Studio Club where she stayed shortly after moving to California.

Personally, I do consider charity a virtue and one of the reasons we have a welfare state is the perception that people will not voluntarily help others.

This.

While your main thrust is absolutely true, there is definitely going to be some confusion on this point, especially the “good for you” part. Is it good for her, really? I know you know this, but Objectivism is not psychological egoism, where anything that makes one feel good is selfish. That she personally felt good giving to a homeless man does not mean this was a rational act.

Yes, the fact that it was personally satisfying does make it egoistic as opposed to altruistic (which is your main point) but not necessarily *rationally* egoistic. And that’s a pretty big “but” for reasons we both know.

So “What you did was not altruism. So say the acolytes of altruism.” is definitely true but I have many reservations about the next line.

Also, there is a common argument altruists use (usually leftists) and that is:

“The poor will die in the streets without a welfare state, would you let that happen? Yes, than you are an evil, greedy, heartless Randian, yada, yada, yada.”

When you get past all the philosophical arguments, the ultimate answer to that question must be:

“**YES**, a person who does not support himself and can not find someone who will support him will die, and maybe they will die in the streets.”