Our battle is not simply one between competing political ideologies and policy decisions. Instead, our fight extends far beyond political implications into the very heart of this nation's true issue: a failure in philosophical doctrine.
While our opponents rest with the philosophy of forced altruism, the idea that says people should be required to sacrifice themselves to benefit their fellow man, we rest on the side of individualism. We support the idea that the state can't require support of anyone but oneself -- one's own needs, convictions, and personal efficiency without obligation to anyone with whom he doesn't voluntarily associate.
However, our philosophy does not apply solely to individuals, but also corporations, businesses seeking to make a profit for themselves and not their competitors.
This provocative article displays the struggle one of these corporations -- Apple Computer, Inc. -- to do what is personally best for it rather than succumbing to the will and desires of those who only seek to exploit it.
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments
Connect with YAL
to the YAL channel on 
Upcoming Events
-
Info This seminar offers an introduction to the thoughts and thinkers of the...
-
Info The contrast between liberty and power in the history of the...
-
Info The summer’s final Freedom University boasts lectures on the hottest...
-
Info This is an all day, family-friendly convention for freedom-minded folks in...
-
Info Taking RSVP now for a June 30th - July 1st convention.We need to secure...
The article is a bit strident, but interesting.
Something ironic about the altruism discussion is that in the USA libertarians are most closely aligned politically with cultural and religious conservatives. And yet a basic philosophical premise for many of those conservatives is the necessity of altruism.
It would be difficult to remain true to any version of Christianity and reject altruism. A constant theme in the Bible is one where God demands altruism from his people, on a national and individual level, and destroys them when they fail to supply that altruism.
Conservatives regularly proclaim that the USA is a Christian nation built on Christian traditions and morality. If your battle is ultimately against altruism and for Rand's selfish virtue, I think you have a long battle in front of you.
I tagged this post "Objectivism" for precisely the reasons you've mentioned -- I'd say it's more accurately a depiction of that philosophy than libertarianism in general.
Personally (as a Christian and a libertarian), I'm all for altruism provided it isn't forced.
You're right, to some extent - the author is an Objectivist, but Objectivism and Libertarian philosophies are not incommensurable.
You see, I am a Christian myself and I do give to charity, participate in volunteer work, and do other things that benefit others but not in an altruistic manner. The word "altruism" comes from the Latin work "alteri," meaning to/for another. If I do it because it makes me happy to do so, it is not altruistic because I get pleasure from it - as I should: "God loves a cheerful giver." 2 Cor. 9:7
The only issue arises is if someone says they should still do those things even if it makes them unhappy. Libertarianism rejects social physical force while Objectivism also rejects moral force of guilt. Beyond that, I believe the two philosophies are incredibly similar.
Both sides, Objectivists and Libertarians, are allies working towards the same ends politically even if the philosophical reasons are different.
Altruism requires you to not take pleasure in doing good to others? I think you are confusing mere duty with altruism.
To say that "God loves a cheerful giver" is not the same as saying "God only wants me to give if I'm cheerful about it," or "God is OK with me not giving if I'm a grumpy giver." It would take a lot of effort to read the Bible that way.
The OT shows God legally requiring charitable property redistribution, taxation, moral obedience, and religious observance, all on threat of force both from himself and political leaders. The NT shows Jesus explicitly requiring even more than obedience.
There are many flavors of Christianity, but I think the more common variety here in the USA assumes altruism in general to be good.
Thanks for linking, Brian.
As for the author's persuasion (I can authoritatively speak on this), I consider myself to be purely Capitalist, neither truly Objectivist nor libertarian. I admit that I am an avid student of Objectivism, leader of my campus' Objectivist Club where we read and discuss Rand's philosophy and its applications, and have enough respect for Objectivism that I believe that one must either be 100% Objectivist or one shouldn't claim to be one.
And as for the subject of altruism, whether one is Christian (I am), Jewish, Muslim, or Atheist is not a determining factor. I believe that the nature of altruism is grossly misunderstood and that, as a term, it is severely misappropriated. Altruism, in the true philosophical sense of the term as it was conceived, does not simply mean good will, generosity, kindness, or affection. Altruism, or, at its root meaning, "other-ism" attempts to define the virtue of an action by the beneficiary-- that is, it suggests that ANY action, so long as one does it for someone else's benefit, is moral. This is not something set forth in any form of Christianity with which I am familiar. It is as fallacious and immoral as suggesting that ANY action, so long as it is done for your own benefit, is moral. Such a belief, as suggested by pre-Rand egoists like Nietzsche, is equally atrocious. Both beliefs commit the error of determining the virtue of an action or belief based upon the intended recipient.
Furthermore, in the Kantian tradition of altruism (that which remains most dominant in modern philosophy and implicitly so in our world today), it is insisted that an act of giving is not virtuous unless one gives until one is injured by giving, that honesty is not a virtue unless one receives some ill fortune by having told the truth, etc. So, in answer to your question,
the answer is most certainly "Yes." That may not be the most common current use of the term, but by clarifying our terms we can better distinguish between ideas.
I wasn't aware that such altruism existed, was a social vice, or could be forced upon you. To argue that an impossible behavior is immoral seems a little silly.
When you point a gun at my head, I do not act for your benefit.
It's certainly possible, my friend. For example, let's just say you're in class and the professor allows a student from a charity organization to speak and take up a collection. The collection is going around and most people (let's assume this is some very Progressive university) give to the cause, but it's not one you believe in. You pass the collection jar past you at first, but because of the sneers and comments you were giving, you succumb and decide to donate against your best wishes. You're still being forced to do something that you do not want to do, but in a moral rather than a physical way. It happens more frequently than you think. Others simply enforce it on themselves, thinking that it is their obligation regardless of the personal costs to themselves.
Earlier, though, you said I confused "duty" and "altruism." First and foremost, my duty is to myself, as is yours to yourself. True, you can argue that our country was founded on Christian principles insofar as you mean that free will is a Christian ideal, but whether or not someone adhered to principles of the Christian canon was and is a personal choice that is neither to be enforced by the government nor to be reached through moral coercion.
Everything you choose to do, you do because you desire it.
Succumbing to peer pressure is no different. In that situation you act to gain the approval of others, something you desire at the moment above other concerns. Don't blame that on the scapegoat of an impossible altruism.
I have duties beyond myself, duties that I have chosen. Extending one's concern to encompass others is both self-satisfying and self-endangering.