Dickens vs Rand

[jwr4a]

Greetings. I've been lurking on here for quite a while, finally time I posted.

As I was driving home on Xmas eve, I caught part of the audio version of A Christmas Carol on the radio. Having just finished reading Atlas Shrugged a couple weeks ago gave me an interesting perspective on it. I realized that the viewpoint Dickens subscribes to is pretty much directly opposed to Rands.

Scrooge is actually a pretty good critical thinker/objectivist. Early on, he says "Why should I give my money so people can celebrate a holiday which I'm not celebrating myself?" (paraphrase). That's very much in line with Rand, in my mind. Also, when the ghost of Jacob Marley appears, Scrooge is very unwilling to believe and says something to effect of "... a man's mind is easily given to fits of fancy". A very skeptical outlook.

To the main point though, Scrooge is portrayed as being a miserable cur of a human being with no sense of accomplishment, no friends, and no joy - while people who use their hearts instead of their brains are the ones who are happy and who get things "right" in Dickens world. It's exactly the opposite of Rands view where the people who are the most satisfied with life are the ones who think and not just feel.

Perhaps I'll try and get a warning label put on A Christmas Carol:

"The viewpoints taught in this book are only a theory and not held by everyone. We encourage the student to keep an open mind. For more information read anything by Rand in your library."



-- j

 

[RandFan]

Good post. Being a Dickens and Rand fan I have often thought of the dichotamy between the two perspectives. I personally don't subscribe to any set philosophy so I think it appropriate to explore the myriad views of humans to find our own path in life. One of the tenants of Objectivism that I have never embraced is the rejection of altruism.

Thanks.

 

[slingblade]

Good post. Being a Dickens and Rand fan I have often thought of the dichotamy between the two perspectives. I personally don't subscribe to any set philosophy so I think it appropriate to explore the myriad views of humans to find our own path in life. One of the tenants of Objectivism that I have never embraced is the rejection of altruism.

This is an interesting concept, to me, this altruism. I have heard it said that no act can be truly altruistic, because no one can truly act from a complete abnegation of reward. At the very least, in other words, we do nice things for others because it makes us feel good to do so, in addition to any other reasons we may have.

Then I got out my Rand lexicon and looked up altruism. This is from page 5 of the volume I have:

"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. [. . .] The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer 'no.' Altruism says 'yes.' " (from Faith and Force: the Destroyers of the Modern World as quoted in The Ayn Rand Lexicon; Objectivism from A to Z.)

Now, unless I'm reading this all wrong (and there are more quotes from other Rand sources which say the same), I can get behind Rand's rejection of her definition of altruism.

So, RF, does your statement mean you feel humans are, in Rand's words, sacrificial animals? I'm not challenging you, but trying to understand what it is you can't embrace about rejecting altruism, from an Objectivist's viewpoint.

(edited for clarity)

 

[Dr Adequate]

Well if we equate altruism with human sacrifice then of course we're all against altruism. But is this not a straw man on Rand's part? Or does she mean something else by her vague cloudy terminology but the literal meaning of her words, and if so, what?

 

[Marc L]

Well if we equate altruism with human sacrifice then of course we're all against altruism. But is this not a straw man on Rand's part? Or does she mean something else by her vague cloudy terminology but the literal meaning of her words, and if so, what?

I think what she's referring to is the idea that people who have should feel obligated to give to those who don't have. For instance, I've been known to let people stay in my spare room from time to time if they've got no place else to go. From the popular definition-that's altruism.

Rand's definition seems to imply that if someone came up to me and said, "You should feel guilty that you have an extra room while others have no place to live, therefore you need to let other people stay there." In the one case, I'm letting people stay out of a desire to help. I've got room, they need a place to stay, there you go. On the other hand, I'm letting people stay because I feel guilty about having something they don't, and I'm attempting to assuage the guilt.

Marc

 

[Ladewig]

Also, when the ghost of Jacob Marley appears, Scrooge is very unwilling to believe and says something to effect of "... a man's mind is easily given to fits of fancy". A very skeptical outlook.

The original text is

Marley: “Why do you doubt your senses?”

Scrooge:“Because a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats. You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There’s more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!”

If only everyone who saw ghosts had this thought before yelling "evidence" and running to the internet to post stories.

 

[jwr4a]

My recollection (admittedly from only one of her books) is that Rand is against altruism just for the sake of giving. I gave the book back to its owner, so I can't quote, but in the (excruciatingly long) speech near the end, she specifies that altruism toward a friend or family member benefits the giver in some sense because it increases their happiness directly. Also, it is fine to give in order to give the less fortunate an _opportunity_. That seems to be an important qualification. Just giving someone a free meal - not ok; giving someone a free meal so that they can spend time getting a job or education - good thing.

-- j

 

[slingblade]

If I back up from where I quoted and begin at the beginning, I find this:

"What is altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue, and value."

First I have to accept that Rand's definition of the basic principle of altruism is correct. I don't know that it is; I only know that she says it is. Can I ever hope to know exactly what altruism is, or can I only hope to know what others think it is, and decide if I agree or not? (And does this not hold true with all forms of philosophy?)

Taking Rand's argument as it is presented, I tend to agree that I am not here for the sole purpose of giving to others. I exist, and any philosophical attachments to that existence are imposed, not inherent.

If I live a life of true self-sacrifice, I will not live long unless others are dedicated also to self-sacrifice for my sake. If I never think of myself, but only of others, how am I fed, clothed, housed? If I am not fed, clothed, and housed by others, and cannot think of myself and my own interests and provide for them, I will die from starvation and exposure. I am no good to my fellow man, in that case, nor is my fellow man of any use to me, since he is also starving and exposed.

One has to have, before one can give. One must think of one's own interests in order to acquire. At some point, I have to be self-serving, rather than self-sacrificing, just to acquire things I can then sacrifice for others.

So if I take Rand's words as presented, then I agree that my highest moral duty, virtue, and value does not lie in self-sacrifice. It is impossible to provide for others only, and not for myself; impossible never to consider that providing for myself is also my duty, my virtue, and my value.

As to guilt:
If I have an abundance, or at least more than enough, I would feel guilty about keeping it all to myself and not sharing with others who have less or nothing. So I am still being self-serving if I share what I have in order to assuage my own guilt.

If I feel no guilt, but simply want to help someone, then I am still being self-serving, because sharing makes me feel good, makes me feel kind and caring. I still benefit from it, even if only in a minor way.

I conclude that altruism in the sense of being truly self-sacrificing not only does not exist, but cannot exist.

As to whether I have an innate right to exist, I conclude I do not, no matter what I do or don't do, what reasons I hold or don't hold. I exist because I was born alive. I continue to exist as long as my basic needs are met and I do not die. My needs do not recognize my right to exist. Cows do not give milk, nor fields grain, in recognition of my right to exist. If I were not here to take the milk nor harvest the grain, it would make no difference to either the cows or the grain; they would continue to produce.

I can thus conclude that altruism does not provide me with the right to exist, because I have no such right, as a product of my existence.

Rand goes on to say, in another quote:
"It is your mind that they want you to surrender--all those who preach the creed of sacrifice, whatever their tags or motives, whether they demand it for the sake of your soul or of your body, whether they promise you another life in heaven or a full stomach on this earth. Those who start by saying: 'It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others'--end up by saying: 'It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others.'"

Altruism in the sense of pure self-sacrifice falls apart right there. How can others even have their own wishes for you to surrender to, if everyone's purpose and value is to sacrifice themselves for the sake of others? To have your own wishes is to consider yourself, therefore is self-ish.

At this point, I conclude that I agree with Rand, at least in this regard.

 

[Melendwyr]

Also, it is fine to give in order to give the less fortunate an _opportunity_. That seems to be an important qualification. Just giving someone a free meal - not ok; giving someone a free meal so that they can spend time getting a job or education - good thing.

Giving a man a fish, not good. Teaching a man to fish, good.

It's a fairly simple philosophy.

 

[Marc L]

As to guilt:
If I have an abundance, or at least more than enough, I would feel guilty about keeping it all to myself and not sharing with others who have less or nothing. So I am still being self-serving if I share what I have in order to assuage my own guilt.

If I feel no guilt, but simply want to help someone, then I am still being self-serving, because sharing makes me feel good, makes me feel kind and caring. I still benefit from it, even if only in a minor way.

I think, though, that there is a difference between "I'll feel guilty" and "You should feel guilty." That, IMO, is what Rand is getting at. As I mentioned above, if I let other people crash at my place because I have the room and I want to help others, then it's fine. Even if I feel guilty on my own, then it's still fine (though silly). It's when others come up to me and tell me I should feel guilty about having the extra room that it's a bad thing.

From what (admittedly little) I know about Objectivism they believe that humans have the inherit right to whatever they own. I have an extra room because I can afford it, because I earn such and such at my job. Because I've earned it, I have no reason to feel guilty, and it's wrong for others to try and make me so.

Marc

 

[Dr Adequate]

If I back up from where I quoted and begin at the beginning, I find this:

"What is altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue, and value."

First I have to accept that Rand's definition of the basic principle of altruism is correct.

This, too, seems to be a straw man on Rand's part. For if "man [had] no right to exist for his own sake", then there would be no point in altruism. But where will you find the "altruist" who believes that?

 

[BJQ87]

Giving a man a fish, not good. Teaching a man to fish, good.

It's a fairly simple philosophy.

I agree, but there's a lot of children and disabled people in need as well who wouldn't have much ability to fish...especially in the more industrialized societies.

 

[epepke]

Well if we equate altruism with human sacrifice then of course we're all against altruism. But is this not a straw man on Rand's part? Or does she mean something else by her vague cloudy terminology but the literal meaning of her words, and if so, what?

I am not a fand of Rand. I don't think they had many swingers' clubs with dungeons in the 1950s, but I think if they had, it would have done her a power of good and maybe taken the edge off of that alpha male fetish.

But I think she did have a point. There's this martyr thing. People who die doing something get this extra goodness attached to them. People still lionize JFK. People talked about Rosa Parks for what? Two weeks? And only after she died. There's this hero crap that holds dying for a cause as better than living for one.

And you'll also see doing good presented as some zero-sum game, especially by leftists. Such as that reducing consumption is good, even if it works out that the hit to the economy actually hurts poor people, but that doesn't matter, because self-denial is really good. And so we get myths like Mother Theresa, who spent most of her time keeping people from getting life-saving treatments and pain relief (because suffering brings you closer to Jesus), preventing people from washing clothes in machines that can get the water hot enough to control transmission of disease (because hand-washing teaches humility), and all that bulltreacle. A rather vicious and hateful borderline, whom no native Calcuttan would consider good, somehow becomes a heroine in the eyes of the booboisie.

Again, though, I'm not a Rand fan, and I go more with Nietzsche's analysis. (Rand grew to despise Nietzsche in her later years.) To wit: it is to your advantage cynically to convince other people to sacrifice themselves to improve your lot, and they're just dead chumps.

 

[RandFan]

This is an interesting concept, to me, this altruism. I have heard it said that no act can be truly altruistic, because no one can truly act from a complete abnegation of reward. At the very least, in other words, we do nice things for others because it makes us feel good to do so, in addition to any other reasons we may have.

Then I got out my Rand lexicon and looked up altruism. This is from page 5 of the volume I have:

"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. [. . .] The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer 'no.' Altruism says 'yes.' " (from Faith and Force: the Destroyers of the Modern World as quoted in The Ayn Rand Lexicon; Objectivism from A to Z.)

Now, unless I'm reading this all wrong (and there are more quotes from other Rand sources which say the same), I can get behind Rand's rejection of her definition of altruism.

So, RF, does your statement mean you feel humans are, in Rand's words, sacrificial animals? I'm not challenging you, but trying to understand what it is you can't embrace about rejecting altruism, from an Objectivist's viewpoint.

(edited for clarity)

Thanks Sling,

I certainly could be influenced by sources not directly attributable to Rand. I'm not an expert and it is possible I missunderstand her. I certainly don't see humans as sacrificial animals. I'm not personally an objectivist. I'm a fan of Rand because I think she contributed significantly to the dialog regarding the relationship of humans and society and the problems inherent in systems that fail to understand the importance of and reward enterpenuars and capitalists. She also did this at a time when women were not particularly known for their minds.

On an unrelated note: Sadly, academics, like politics is often a blood sport and those whose views don't conform with the critics are dismissed. Rand is often critisized for introducing her ideas through fiction novels. A critisism not reserved for George Orwell.

I think some of the critisisms valid. However she deserves to be known by more than what here critics think of her. The good news is that she has made her mark and she will be more than just a footnote in history.

 

[Beerina]

Rand's quote

Rand's full quote is as follows:

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: 'No.' Altruism says: 'Yes.'"

Put this way, it's quite reasonable. It's also taught me a lot about the intellectual honesty of her rivals, or lack thereof, who immediately launch into Dickensian tales of woe, and how cold-hearted she is, not actually addressing the issue.

 

[Beerina]

I think some of the critisisms valid. However she deserves to be known by more than what here critics think of her. The good news is that she has made her mark and she will be more than just a footnote in history.

She found Reagan promising even though ultimately he was a little big governmentish for her tastes -- but miles better than any competition.

The current, and very long-term Fed chairman, Greenspan, hung with the Ayn Rand crowd way back when, as their philosophies in economics (free markets, freedom freedom freedom) were very much in line, despite some technical differences. We are all huge beneficiaries of his policies.

Note: Reagan nominated Greenspan. Reagan's degree was in economics.



So does that sound like making your mark? I'd also like to point out that, according to these economic theories, the further you stray from things (i.e. the more the government gets involved in managing the economy, i.e. the less freedom of action there is for private individuals) the worse the economy gets. Don't believe it if you wish, but keep that in mind as you watch history unfold. Theories make predictions, and don't be afraid of the consequences if they are false...or true.

 

[slingblade]

I certainly could be influenced by sources not directly attributable to Rand. I'm not an expert and it is possible I missunderstand her. I certainly don't see humans as sacrificial animals. I'm not personally an objectivist. I'm a fan of Rand because I think she contributed significantly to the dialog regarding the relationship of humans and society and the problems inherent in systems that fail to understand the importance of and reward enterpenuars and capitalists. She also did this at a time when women were not particularly known for their minds.

I'll be the first to admit that my experience with Rand is limited. I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead back in high school, and we won't talk about how long ago that was. As I recall, my friends and I liked her more because the grown-ups around us thought she was evil and subversive, than because we understood and agreed with her writings. (Kids, sheesh.) Now I find she's taught at the high school in which I work; Anthem is required 9th grade reading.

I picked up the lexicon of her writings from a table of free books in my college's English department, and thought it would be a handy book to have. But every time I dip into it, I find things with which I agree. I'm not sure I'm exactly an objectivist, but I do relate to those writings I've read.

She gave thought to concepts I have barely considered, and when I look at what she wrote in the context of when she wrote it, I am amazed.

I think what she's saying about altruism and self-sacrifice is that man is not a sacrificial animal, but that certain social institutions (the religious, especially) would have us believe so, because we can be more easily manipulated under that belief system. After all, if it's never "about me," then it's harder for me to protest any system on my own behalf, yes?

On an unrelated note: Sadly, academics, like politics, is often a blood sport and those whose views don't conform with the critics are dismissed. Rand is often critisized for introducing her ideas through fiction novels. A critisism not reserved for George Orwell.

Heinlein suffered that same criticism, didn't he? I can't remember now who said it (Panshin?), but I dimly recall reading a quote once in which someone said Heinlein's science fiction was but a poor and thin veneer for his sociology, and without it, he'd never have sold the first book.

I think some of the critisisms valid. However she deserves to be known by more than what her critics think of her. The good news is that she has made her mark and she will be more than just a footnote in history.

I'm sure some of the criticisms are valid, or sound, and I'd frankly be very suspicious of anyone who didn't have critics.

I think what jwr4a has postulated is correct: Dickens and Rand do seem philosophically opposed, and I think it a good thing. Myself, I do believe that "mankind is my business," to borrow from Marley's Ghost, but I don't believe that one can or should be entirely, or even largely, self-sacrificing. As epepke said so well, where's the logic in dying for a cause, rather than living for it? And yet, that's what so many seem to value...

Yeah, okay, I have to go here: Suicide bombers come instantly to mind, and watch me stretch my neck out reeeeeeally far, but so does the rationale that American soldiers can't leave Iraq, or it will make the deaths of those who went before meaningless. I just don't think whatever meaning those deaths held can be changed by what the living do next.

<....yes, I remember how to "duck and cover." What? Oh.....>

 

[RandFan]

I think what jwr4a has postulated is correct: Dickens and Rand do seem philosophically opposed, and I think it a good thing. Myself, I do believe that "mankind is my business," to borrow from Marley's Ghost, but I don't believe that one can or should be entirely, or even largely, self-sacrificing. As epepke said so well, where's the logic in dying for a cause, rather than living for it? And yet, that's what so many seem to value...

I can't thank you enough slingblade for your contributions. I have rethought my position and I agree with you. I've saved your posts and I've put The Ayn Rand Lexicon on my book list.

Thank you.

 

[slingblade]

I think, though, that there is a difference between "I'll feel guilty" and "You should feel guilty." That, IMO, is what Rand is getting at. As I mentioned above, if I let other people crash at my place because I have the room and I want to help others, then it's fine. Even if I feel guilty on my own, then it's still fine (though silly). It's when others come up to me and tell me I should feel guilty about having the extra room that it's a bad thing.

I agree with you there, except for one thing: it is not the act of others telling you to feel guilty that is the bad thing; it is your choosing to accept and agree with that assessment and feel the guilt, that is the bad thing, in my opinion. Rand says, I think, that the bad thing is when you agree that it is your duty to be self-sacrificing, not just the fact that others try to make you be self-sacrificing.

From what (admittedly little) I know about Objectivism they believe that humans have the inherit right to whatever they own. I have an extra room because I can afford it, because I earn such and such at my job. Because I've earned it, I have no reason to feel guilty, and it's wrong for others to try and make me so.

If that's true, about the inherent right to have what you hold, then I disagree with Objectivism on one point: I don't think humans have inherent rights. I think rights are always created and imposed from without, not something a person is naturally born with.

As to feeling or not feeling guilty, I don't think one ought to feel guilty for having that for which one works, in some fashion, to earn. I have a bit of a problem, however, with those who have a lot, like the classic and worn-out example of Bill Gates. And there I have to admit a strong bias, because I'm really jealous of his fortune. I mean, the man's pocket change would change my life in a dramatic way. Yeah, I wish he felt guilty enough to share some of it with me.

But altruism would never have produced a Bill Gates, anyway, and I'm sitting here directly benefitting from his existence in simply being able to talk to you. So I'm glad he isn't a pure altruist. And he gives a lot to charity, so I'll shut up now.

 

[slingblade]

Thank you.

You honor me. Thank you.

(garsh, I feel all squishy now.)