Syria and Altruism

Share

On CNN.com, a story about the Syrian government crackdown on dissidents includes the following quote: “Why are they treating us like animals? We are humans.” Sadly, most governments regard their citizens as animals. The source of this view is not political, but rather, it is moral.

The dominant morality in the world today, and indeed throughout history, is altruism. Altruism holds that each individual has a moral duty to self-sacrificially serve others. Auguste Comte, who coined the term altruism, wrote, “All honest and sensible men, of whatever party, should agree, by a common consent, to eliminate the doctrine of rights…. Rights, then, in the case of man, are as absurd as they are immoral.”

If individuals do not have rights, if they should not have the freedom to act on their own judgment in the pursuit of their own happiness, then individuals will be treated as nothing more than sacrificial animals. According to altruism, your life does not belong to you. Others—whether the community, the king, or the government—may dispose of your life in the name of the “public interest,” the “common good,” or the “general welfare.”

While the Syrian government is practicing altruism consistently, it is hardly the only government imposing self-sacrifice on its citizens. For example, in the United States, the EPA forces us to sacrifice domestic drilling, the construction of dams, and development in general for the alleged benefit of caribou, snail darters, spotted owls, and swamps. “Entitlement” programs force productive individuals to sacrifice their property in order to provide food, housing, and health care for the non-productive. Zoning forces Americans to sacrifice affordable housing for the alleged purpose of preventing “incompatible” land uses.

No matter the issue, we are told that we must put aside our self-interest in deference to the “public interest.” No matter which political party is in control, we are told that some individuals must sacrifice for the alleged benefit of other individuals. Virtually everyone agrees that sacrifice is necessary, and the only issue open to debate is who will be the victims and who will be the beneficiaries.

As long as Americans accept self-sacrifice as a moral ideal, we will inch our way toward the orgy of sacrifice occurring in Syria. If we wish to avoid that fate, we must reject altruism. We must embrace the moral right of each individual to his own life, his own liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness.

Altruism vs. Egoism

Share

In a capitalist society, an individual can be altruistic if he so desires. If he wants to give his property to the poor and the needy, morally nobody has a right to stop him. His rights protect his freedom to act as he deems best for his life. But he cannot impose his choices on others. In a capitalist society, the altruist cannot force others to sacrifice their property. He cannot force others to act contrary to their own judgment. And the same is true of the egoist. In a capitalist society, neither the altruist nor the egoist can use force. Neither can impose his values or his morality on others. Each is free to act on his own choices, so long as he respects the mutual rights of others.

In a society dominated by altruism, an individual is forced to provide for the poor and the needy. In a society dominated by altruism, an individual is often prohibited from acting in his own self-interest. His property can be seized and his rights can be violated whenever it is deemed to be in the “public interest.” No matter his judgment or his values, an individual is compelled to live by the creed of altruism.

Altruism demands obedience at the point of a gun. Egoism recognizes the moral right of each individual to live by his own judgment.

Obama and Attila

Share

Obama recently made fun of those who question the validity of “green energy.” These skeptics, he joked, must have been members of the flat-earth society when Columbus set sail for the New World. Critics of his energy policies, the president implied, are irrational Luddites who oppose anything new.

As is often the case, the president failed to identify a fundamental difference between flat-earthers and “green energy” skeptics. The flat-earthers could not use government force to stop Columbus; Obama’s energy policies depend on government force.

Even if the vast majority of people believed that Columbus was doomed to sail off the edge of the earth, they couldn’t stop him. Columbus was free to act on his own judgment, and consequently, he proved the skeptics wrong. If Columbus had been wrong, the only people impacted would have been those who voluntarily associated with him.

Contrast that with Obama’s energy policy. Even if the vast majority of people think that he is wrong, Obama uses the coercive power of government to force us to support his polities. If he is wrong, which he is, everyone (except Obama’s cronies who received billions of our dollars) will suffer.

In a certain sense, Obama is right. One side of this debate is clinging to the past, but it isn’t the side that the president believes. Obama and his ilk believe that civilization can advance by using the methods of barbarians. He believes that brute force is a proper means for dealing with other individuals. In that regard, he is using the tactics of Attila.