Risk is confused with selflessness and risk becomes an argument for altruism
THE PILL
Everything in life is a risk whether it is selfish or unselfish.
What if a permanent happiness pill existed. Will I take it or not? Taking it
means there will be no more risking. Not taking the pill means saying yes to
risk. I will be accused of being self-centred for taking it. Altruists say I
should throw it away and go and serve others who need me.
If I can’t be happy unless my family is looked after financially then is taking
the permanent happiness pill an option? Just imagine you are offered the pill in
such circumstances. Imagine that you know you will never get into trouble by
taking it. And that you will spend your money on yourself and enjoy it no longer
thinking how your family needs it. What then? If I want my family for my
happiness then I will take the pill. It is more reliable!
If I take the pill I take it for a reason and because of my interests.
If I don’t take it I also take it for a reason and because of my interests.
Objectors will say that the reason I take it is out of self-interest and the
reason I don’t take it is out of altruism.
Let us examine this.
If I satisfy my desire to take it I am selfish. If I satisfy my desire not to
take it then I am altruistic.
In either case I satisfied a desire. The desire to have tea instead of coffee or
coffee instead of tea is just a desire. A desire to see others happy and a
desire to be happy yourself is a desire for self-fulfilment. A desire is a
demand by your heart to be satisfied. Keep the focus on the word satisfied. The
consistent altruist will have to pretend there is no satisfaction at all in
acting altruistically.
The objection makes the inexcusable mistake of thinking that the results of an
action determine if it was selfish or altruistic.
An act doesn’t become selfish just because of what it led to. An act doesn’t
become altruistic just because others were bettered by it.
The same motive, to satisfy my desire to act, caused both actions. Only the
results were different. And the results have no relevance to judging the action
to be altruistic or selfish.
Then they will answer that the desire was different in each case. The desire
that I responded to if I took the pill was selfish. The one I responded to if I
didn’t was unselfish or altruistic. One desire was for something for myself and
the other desire was for something for others.
Again to look at a blue car and to look at a green one is different but does not
mean you have different eyes. Your desire is to be what you are - a
desire-haver. You get something for yourself just by desiring. Desire is just
desire.
Desire has two sides, what I want and what I want NOT TO HAPPEN. Each desire is
really two desires.
Consider the motivation for your egoistic refusal. I refuse the pill because the
thought of my loved ones being deprived makes me unhappy. I refuse it because I
don’t want it. I refuse it because I value them. This valuing is egoistic
because if they were totally hateful I wouldn’t. I am not valuing them because
they are my relations but because they are good relations. I value them because
it gives me pleasure and happiness to be associated with them. The reason I want
them to be financially secure and help them is because they help me make myself
happy. I need them to make me happy. Even the biggest egoist or egotist in the
world agrees that you need people to be happy and money and wealth and sex and
fun mean nothing by themselves. You don’t want money because it is money. You
want it because of how you feel about it. It is what it does to your ego that
you want. I reject the pill because I am an egoist and because it makes me
happier to treat who I value well.
Altruism risks denial of how I seek something even self-approval in
"sacrificing" for others. This risks me not being clear on what I want and what
dangers I want to avoid. It risks me by telling me not to take the pill.
IT IS NOT THE PERSON OR THING
As Friedrich Neitzsche observed in Beyond Good and Evil the desires mean
something to us, not what is desired. All the money in the world wouldn’t please
you if you didn’t have the desire for it. We can be wrong about exactly what we
want and need. So risk is inevitable. It is harder to avoid risk if you think of
others not yourself.
RISK TAKING
Smoking is addictive. Anything that is addictive makes you imagine that it is
going to make you happy. Risk is a way of telling ourselves we are bigger than
what we have and not its prisoner. A risk is merely avoiding a bigger risk - the
one of turning into a prisoner of circumstances. That is why we end up with
addictions - we think they keep us free.
People engage in dangerous sports for a thrill. It is not the kind of thing you
will get into unless you will get a great buzz during it and after it. This
makes the perception of danger less strong. They feel confident that they will
evade any danger so that the danger will not be an issue. Dangerous sports are
egotism in the sense that they are engaged in for glory and the thrill. Engaging
in dangerous sports is selfish because it risks breaking the hearts of those who
love you. If that is an example of altruism, it is not a good one! If it's not
altruism, it is egoism and so even dying for saving the life of a child isn’t
necessarily altruistic to any degree.
Risks and mistakes are often a pair. People making mistakes only means that they
went after what they thought was their best interest. It does not mean that they
are not interested in what they see to be their best interest. Egoism is about
satisfying the desire to act and this takes over and can make the egoist do and
pursue actions that seem to be terribly bad for her or him.
ALTRUISM RISKS BEING WRONG IN PRINCIPLE
What is psychological egoism? Egoism/selfishness is when you are good to people
but mainly or only because in some way you benefit from it. Some call the idea
that your main motive is always selfish predominate egoism. We will ignore that
though it is regarded as more likely to be true than the suggestion that we are
all about self.
If we don't want psychological egoism or predominate egoism to be true that may
mean we are in fact being selfish when we say we reject them. If they are true
then we are being selfish.
A person who helps others just so that he can feel good is definitely an egoist
for it is the feeling not the people that matter to him. And the danger is that
if he is sure he can feel great by abusing people he will if he can get away
with it. Altruism is not immune to this problem for it is often an egoist who
does not see their own egoism and who identifies as altruist. The rage you get
from an altruist when you doubt them proves they have gut instincts that they
are not as selfless as they appear.
THE HYPOCRISY OF THE RISK DOCTRINE
Altruism calls for risk but in ways it will not tell you.
Altruism risks encouraging others to hurt themselves.
If I drink myself to death but have plenty of charm the altruist will say I am a
great person for the only person I hurt was myself. It is as if others matter
more than me and it is better to hurt myself than anybody else. The altruist
will praise me for injuring myself instead of injuring another. People are not
as upset about me hurting myself as they are about me hurting others. How could
the altruist’s praise be worth talking about when the altruist thinks of me in
myself as worthless and just there to please others? Is the altruist not being
egotistic never mind egoistic?
Imagine there was a paedophile who kidnapped a child and molested her. He then
killed her. He killed her not for his sake but for his family because he knew
they couldn’t cope if he went to jail. And the shame would kill his mother. He
saw his crime of murder as a necessary evil. Altruists class him as an egotist
even when they consider his motive for killing her. If he is an egotist so is
everybody else. He risked somebody for himself.
A man beats up the little girl next door. Her parents come to him and say they
are not going to press charges for it would be hard on his elderly mother if
they did. Altruists say they are terrific altruists for doing so. But are they
not putting others before the protection of their child? It is the son who has
hurt the mother if charges are pressed. The parents risked doing the wrong thing
in the name of altruism.
The heart can deceive you. You can be convinced you have done something for an
altruistic or caring reason or other-centred reason and be wrong. A person who
does not believe in an afterlife but who serves others will be less likely to be
prone to such deception than a person who does the same but believes that it is
no big deal to mess up this life for there is a better one beyond the grave. Yet
Mother Teresa is regarded as the zenith of altruism. That is another tragic
example of risk.
ALTRUISM DENIES THAT ONE LIFE IS AS GOOD AS MANY
Here is an example of human hypocrisy.
A person is captured by dangerous psychopathic terrorists. Three people risk
their lives trying to rescue the person from certain death. The three will be
praised for doing this and encouraging each other to do it even if they are the
ones that wind up dead. They are praised for putting one life before three
lives.
Altruists will say that nobody has the right to weigh lives so if the train is
hurtling at five people you cannot pull a lever to get it to go at the side
track where one person is standing. Yet if three die for one they will show how
hypocritical they are and commend what the person has done. They would encourage
the person to do it if they could.
The assumption is that you are like a god having the right to judge and decide
whose lives and how many lives matter. Does the number of lives matter? If it
does not then you cannot say one life is worth taking to save five even if there
is no choice. Do you have the right to judge five lives as more valuable than
one life? Is that not comparing something totally valuable and thus denying it
really is totally valuable?
The three are called altruists. This altruism is certainly selfish. It proves
how altruism is just self-will in a new guise. If you intend to be selfish, it
might be irrational to be selfish that way. So are we to pretend it is altruism
just because it is irrational selfishness? If the three risked their lives to
get money they would be called selfish even though they are risking as well. So
the fact that they are risking for another person proves nothing.
Altruists are liars and they project their corruptions onto heroes. Altruism is
nonsense.
FEAR
Altruism pushes fear on those who believe in it. It is scary to believe you
should spend the rest of your life denying yourself to lift up your cross for
God or others or both. Fear is the root of all evil and stupidity is behind fear
so altruism sanctifies all three and calls them good. You know that it is fear
of your own unhappiness that motivates you whenever you do evil. If you want to
make a pact with the Devil become an altruist or a Christian! It is because
people forget themselves and switch to sensible self-interest now and again that
we have any happiness on this planet. If altruism is good then evil and despair
are good. So we cannot say that egoism is refuted by the risk element for you
are going to have the risk with altruism anyway. Fear breeds risk and more risk.
CONCLUSIONS
Risk is confused with altruism. But selfish risks happen all the time.
Altruistic philosophy is parasitic on how people admire those who take a risk
that benefits others. It pretends to regard life as precious but in the real
world that is not what it does at all.