THE CASE AGAINST ALTRUISM

What is altruism?

Serving others without seeking anything in it for yourself including good feelings. Without seeking means you are open to getting something so real altruism implies that you refuse anything back. An altruism that declares that it is good to work only for the other person (meaning anything else is bad) and leave yourself out of it demands that you consciously leave yourself out.

What is egoism?

The only alternative to altruism. It is helping others so that you will at least feel good and fulfilled. Egotism is hurting others in the name of self.

What about belief that altruism is good and anything else is evil?

The view defines good as giving up what you want and even your very self for another or others. Evil demands the sacrifice of others for you. Altruism demands it of yourself.

Is it saying that being hurt and degraded is fine as long as it is chosen?

Yes. This amounts to an absurdity. It is saying harm is not bad or evil but only doing what you don't choose to do is evil. Altruism like all forms of evil is internally incoherent.

What fear has altruism of non-altruism which it says is evil?

The fear is that as evil is easy it will soon get very powerful and even conceal itself as good.

Does altruism ultimately care about making people happy or happier?

Not necessarily. It says though all are worthy of happiness. Being worthy of happiness does not mean I should receive it or will receive it. There might be a reason why I shouldn’t receive it.

Can the wish for happiness prevent me being altruistic?

Altruism says yes. Anybody who does good when they are happy finds it easiest. They do good less because it is good but more because they feel like doing it. Altruism says you are more genuine and value good more if you renounce happiness for the good of others.

Does altruism admit that happiness comes not when you aim for it but when you do good it comes by itself?

Yes. It warns that we must not use this fact as a roundabout way of getting happiness. Egoism says we should.

What altruism imply then about the side effect of happiness?

That it is an evil and should not be wanted or chosen. It would be a sin to let happiness manifest in your heart when you take it from others or try to. That would hardly be selflessness.

What if I cannot avoid at times having to be happy in order to serve others?

When I can’t suffer in serving others and serve them I should wish I could. Altruism is about motives so altruism requires that you have the habit of altruism.

Does altruism tell me my happiness does not matter?

It does for it tells me not to think of it or work for it. It is wrong to deeply care about what does not matter. If my happiness does not matter then I do not matter and if I do not matter then others do not matter and only practicing the principle of altruism matters. If I am to believe that I do not matter but other people do matter then this is ridiculous and is masochistic and I would have other people believing the same thing about themselves while I say they matter!

Why is altruism so popular?

The only reason altruism is popular and looks good is because it is not practiced properly. Its misuse is what so frequently makes it look good enough to gain social acceptance. People pretend to be altruistic to get praise for being loving and compassionate to others.

Is it as good as it looks?

I am sure I exist. I by default am less certain that others do or have feelings and needs the way I do or as much as me. To be an altruist is to pretend otherwise and lie to myself. The answer is no.

If my altruism is based on disrespect or hate for myself what then?

I cannot I love others when I give them myself as helper when I think I am hateful or shouldn’t be respected. It would not be love to spread altruism by teaching or example if it demands that or usually leads to that.

Can one say that violating yourself is good and it is loving yourself to do that yourself for it means you can be for others not you?

The altruists self-renunciation is good because it is good which isn’t obvious and is the very thing that needs to be proven. It's using an assumption as a weapon to get people to devalue and hurt themselves.

So there is no evidence for the validity of altruism?

Most who espouse altruism admit that there is no evidence for its validity (page 58, Runaway World). It rests entirely on prejudice or religious authority so it is basically people patronising others. It is not so altruistic after all when it is like that for there is nothing praiseworthy in what is not justified. They are asking for trouble.

Does it make sense to say, "If I can be altruistic instead of egoistic and its just a matter of changing my intention then if I am as good being one or the other then I should be altruistic"?

This turns altruism into a lifestyle not a morality. It contradicts how altruism says non-altruism is unjustifiably dangerous. When the good can be had without altruism, altruism is no use.

Any other objections?
You can be good and still be totally selfish and be better than any altruist. It is like saying that instead of milk it is more rational and justifiable to use artificial milk. It cannot be good to do good and make it less good by denying yourself for the sake of denying yourself.

Don’t you have to be an altruist to deserve to be called caring?

We mean that a person likes helping when we call them caring. Altruism is not caring. And even if it were, we would not be evil for rejecting it for there is nothing else we can do about it. It is a bad philosophy devoid of credibility.

Is it not correct that if you have nobody to be altruistic towards, you can indulge yourself in any enjoyment you wish?


Happiness when it is caused by your being self-indulgent makes you reluctant to hurt yourself for others so it is a sin or wrong - if altruism is correct. You are harbouring a bad attitude. It would be like hating a person which is not justified even when it cannot do any harm. To indulge yourself would be to refuse to love. You would have to do penance instead or practice training yourself for greater altruistic heroism if the chance to be altruistic will come again.


What if I do a good act to gain enjoyment from performing it and think I have plenty of time in the future to be altruistic?

Then altruism condemns me. It says it was not a loving act and therefore wrong so when happiness is forbidden then it is always forbidden.





If altruism is the true philosophy, should I do what somebody who wants me to carry him for miles for a loaf asks?


As long as he does it to discipline me and make me altruistically love for I can’t encourage him to be lazy. Nobody can say that I should refrain from doing this if my suffering will not be worth the result for it is worth the result to be trained to make such a great sacrifice. Equally difficult sacrifices are allowed for stamina in sports. It is worth the result morally but not worth the result regarding pleasure and pleasure is a sin.

What do you think of the idea that altruism requires us to suffer to a certain extent and not too much?

Not much. Altruists claim that altruism is love. The idea is arguing that we need love but not too much of it for it would not be love to cause too much suffering. If love is treating a person correctly and honouring them there can't be too much of it. Altruism logically puts a stigma on happiness and says it is love to urge people to suffer for others without doing anything for themselves. Clearly then the more suffering the better in this view.

If altruism is right then is self-esteem allowed?

Self-esteem is enjoying the fact that you are good or liking yourself. Altruism has to forbid it. You have to look after yourself for the sake of helping others but you are not to enjoy this care for it is a necessary evil. It is rewarding yourself.

Can you show how altruism is love of rules such as love and compassion not people?

The altruist should step over the dying body in the street for a greater good – the offering of others the opportunity to practice agonising love but only if it will mean that two or more will have to help instead of him for the more altruists the better.

Does altruistic love really satisfy other people?


It is cold or not motivated by warm feeling. The feeling might be there but it is not the reason for the "love". This is clinical and unsatisfactory and will result in us becoming and making other people dysfunctional. And when altruism requires that we help others to make them altruistic and does not care for their happiness which is only served as a means to the end of making them altruistic what joy can it bring? None.


Is it a mistake to surmise that altruists should not be turned to our way of thinking for they won’t drift into the full-blown depravity of their doctrine?
But they are depraved as it is when they advocate their philosophy and hurt people who despise it.

Why can’t we believe that altruism is okay as long as the altruist values himself and his needs too?


A man taking the risk of reprisal to report a crime is praised by altruists. An altruistic woman is commended for refusing to have sex with a man whose happiness would be increased considerably for a long time if she did have sex. How inconsistent. The doctrine of altruism, with typical inconsistency, argues that there are certain actions that degrade the person and are wrong. It is mistaken to say that it is dignified to report the crime and not dignified to have the sex if it is safe and harmless. All altruistic actions degrade. This modified brand of altruism is degrading for it is illogical and inconsistent. It still says the woman’s happiness is not important if she wants to have the illicit sex. You have to be either a full altruist or not an altruist at all.

What about how everybody hates somebody for what they have done?

It makes us feel we have to hate somebody. Inwardly we hold that the feelings of revulsion are not our fault. Altruism cares about intentions and not results. So this would suggest the more you hate somebody the better for at least you can be altruistic and sacrificial towards them. Original sin implies that revulsion is going to be always with us so we should avail of it to make ourselves more altruistic.

What does egoism say?

The hate is against the peace of mind that an egoist aims for.

Does self-love stop you loving another and distract you from it?

No. It means you think of yourself as a gift you give to others to further their happiness. When one does not think and is not taught the principles of true healthy rational egoism the feelings that result in warped egoism that harms others are not our fault.

What is so great about egoism?


Doing your best would have to be egoism or helping others to help and please yourself. This egoism is the best for you can prove it as we have seen and it does not condemn happiness but sanctions it.

What if neither altruism or egoism really advocate proper love for others?
It is claimed that if altruism is not love and helping others out of self-interest is not love then there is no love. Love demands doing the best you can even if it cannot be perfect. Egoism is the best you can do so to do your best for others is love.You could wish you could love and do what is nearest to it and that would be love for it is doing your best that counts. Altruism is anti-love.


CONCLUSION
Altruism does not exist but is a delusion at best and a pretence at worst. It's not harmless.

Egoism is everything we ever wanted in a philosophy for life. Altruism wants to turn goodness into a chore. How much better it is to love yourself and appreciate yourself and see yourself and your deeds as a gift you give to others instead of neurotically looking for ways to deny yourself happiness in helping others.