HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!


Altruism as in sacrificing for others without thinking of yourself or doing it for yourself in any way

What is altruism?

Altruism is doing things for others without any thought for yourself or concern for any of your needs and is the doctrine that this alone is true love and morality. The altruist only looks after himself when it is strictly necessary. And then only to be of use to other people. The altruist who takes no flu treatment cannot help others. The altruist never does good because he enjoys it or sees benefit in it for himself for that is not altruism. Altruism does not say you cannot do good when you enjoy it but only if you are detached from the pleasure and would do the good without it and only if you are not motivated by the enjoyment. Without the conditions, it teaches that you did not intend it to be real good. The motive and the intent was bad even though the result brought good to others. Selfless love is not a feeling – it is a choice. You can love a person altruistically without liking them in the slightest. Altruism opposes selfishness or self-gratification. It says that other people matter more than you. The consistent altruist will donate his organs and die purposely so that five others can use his organs and live.

Is selfishness just doing things for yourself at the expense of the rights of other people?

No for you can be selfish in a way that harms nobody else and which benefits them which is the kind of selfishness many Humanists advocate. The only way to tell the difference between a selfish act and a non-selfish one is to look at the motive. But all our actions including our so-called altruistic ones have the same motive, to fulfil some need in the person committing the actions.

Altruism is selfish for it smears the selfish.

To set out to stop selfishness in others is futile for nobody knows if they really make any headway at all and only the person who acts and makes the decision can judge themselves to be selfish.

Those who condemn selfishness don’t care about the self anyway so one wonders how they can say that selfishness is wrong.
What is sacrifice?

It is giving up something and seeking no recompense for giving it up.
Do unselfishness and sacrifice go together?

Parting with money to have an alcoholic drink cannot be described as a true sacrifice. Parting with money you need to help somebody else who also needs it would be sacrifice. Sacrifice and unselfish don't necessarily go together. The person who eats all the sweets and doesn't share them is regarded as selfish. But he is sacrificing in the sense that refuses friendship with others and knows he needs it more than he needs sweets. It follows then that the sacrifice of the egoist and the altruist is the same.
Why does altruism say that love is sacrifice?

If others are put first that is a sacrifice. A sacrifice that does not hurt you is no sacrifice at all. A sacrifice you want to commit is no sacrifice at all.

It would not be altruistic love to help someone just so that you will feel better or because you enjoy it or because you feel you might as well do it. That is really preferring your pleasure to that person and that is immoral in altruism. So altruism asks you to deprive yourself for others.
Is love always sacrifice?

Always, if you believe you should be always other-centred. If you wish you could be altruistic and cannot be – say when you are behind bars and cannot get out to give your money to a woman begging in the street - then that is the nearest you can get to sacrifice so it is love. As far as motive is concerned, it is sacrifice for you are sacrificing your desire for yourself. Altruists say it would be evil to forcibly prevent yourself from doing loving actions so that you could love in your heart.
Can you do good while motivated by altruism and self-interest both at the one time?

No for you can drop the selfish motive. Adherence to evil makes the good you do to be hypocrisy for your good should be done in an attitude of repentance. Besides, while you can have an altruistic motive one instant and a selfish one the next you cannot have both at the same time so the idea of being motivated by both is incoherent. The motive you had the instant you decided what to do is the one that determined what you would choose.

I am surer I exist than that anybody else does so altruism implies that degradation of the self is good and it is love. So to mix it with any concern for myself would not be altruism on any level at all for they can’t be mixed and it would be evil and inconsistent to accept any happiness that altruism brings. An act either degrades me or it does not.

Is it true that altruism is supposed to think of making other people good first before helping them with food and clothing and companionship and other things?

Yes - good as in nurturing altruism in them. The altruist would give a hungry child bread in the hope of seeing the child give the bread away to another child. You are not supposed to help a person who becomes selfish because of your altruism. Though altruists do help such people it is only because of their belief that we cannot see what is happening in the heart of another and so have no right to judge. It is not because they doubt the principle that helping a person who becomes selfish through your altruistic deeds for them is wrong.
When you put altruistic love before yourself you have to put its propagation in others before anything else. The person who would rather work to you for nothing instead of trying to give you lessons in altruism and its spirituality is not an altruist but a fake. Anybody who teaches a hypocritical version of altruism is not a real altruist.

Can you accept a reward for your altruism?

No for that is like reversing it to take advantage of it. It is like saying I refuse to be altruistic any more now. I did the act not to get a reward and refusing to have a reward so now I am insulting that noble act. Rewards, if they should be granted, have to be forced on the altruist against their will if the altruists are to remain moral. Rewards are really a punishment when they are forced on you like that. To enjoy them would be to denigrate your dignity and freedom. It would be to say that you are no value as a person and the person or god who rewards you would be really doing evil disguised as good.  
Think of it this way. If love is right and everything else is wrong then you should keep the attitude of love inside you all the time even if there is nobody about. It is the same with altruism which is supposed to be love. If you take a reward you have to be grateful and enjoy the reward for it is not a reward otherwise. Thus to take a reward is to cease having an altruistic attitude. Rewards are wrong if altruism is right. The reward for the altruist is a non-reward – more opportunities to be altruistic. The true altruist thinks only of others not the reward or the honour of it. We are not saying the altruist should be churlish and ungrateful. We are saying the altruist can’t and won’t make time and energy to make rewards mean anything. A reward is not a reward if you refuse to let it mean anything. If you cannot respect X because Y needs your love then it does not mean that you are doing wrong to X. You cannot do what you cannot do.

We see the religions of rewards such as Christianity and Islam tormenting people with altruistic demands while those who make the demands seek rewards. It is unfair.

Everything we do we think is right. Even when we do evil it is because we have come to temporarily believe that we ought to do it. If doing good just because it is good is the law then it is immoral to seek to reward a person by praise for doing good for they do not want it and should not want it. Their attitude is that virtue is its own reward. They are satisfied just by doing good and consider that to be the only real reward. So the reward then is insulting the person. It is not a reward at all. It invites people to do what they see as wrong. All it is, is a display of hypocrisy.
Christianity wants God to have all the credit for human goodness but still it praises people because it is false. Jesus started that in his parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. You have to believe we are naturally selfish creatures to gain anything from giving or receiving rewards which means they are not really rewards for you need free will to get them but the truth is we don’t care.
What does altruism say about happiness?

It says that we should not work for happiness but if we are self-sacrificing we will be happy as a side effect. The happiness comes from nature and the way we are made and by itself. We didn’t evoke it or create it. We will be happy because there is goodness in us to give. We will not be happy that we are good for that is self-satisfaction for it would not be loving in altruist terms to enjoy the fact that you are good to others. It is like the difference in a person being glad to get a miraculous gift of brains and a person who is glad that he has become a brain-box by his own effort. The altruist who does altruistic good so that the side effect will come is working for happiness and is a hypocrite not an altruist. Altruism says that working directly for and indirectly for happiness is immoral. Happiness must be immoral or a necessary evil. With necessary evils, you endure them and tolerate them but you don’t want them and would like them to be unnecessary and vanish.

Does this imply that happiness is evil?

Altruism says that working directly for and indirectly for happiness is immoral. Happiness must be immoral or a necessary evil. With necessary evils, you endure them and tolerate them but you don’t want them and would like them to be unnecessary and vanish.

If happiness should not be sought even indirectly, then happiness must be evil. It is no answer to say that the altruist will be happier with altruism than if he works for his own happiness. In other words, we are being told that altruism does not condemn happiness but gives it like nothing else can. The true altruist will not enjoy it for love is sacrifice. Happiness is given to be sacrificed if altruism is true. Also, if you work for your own happiness you can manage to be very happy and be happier than an altruist who represses it would be.

If the altruist who has just gone out of his way to do some great deed dropped dead and there was no life after death altruism would still say that he did right to be an altruist even if he did not believe in an afterlife or in a reward and even if he knew he was about to die. This person did good for its own sake and it did him no good so it is clear that his good did not matter to him or to those who bless him for what he did either. Altruism is uncaring. When you have to be altruistic even if you know you are going to die tonight and deny yourself the most precious time you have left why shouldn’t you starve yourself into hospital in order to feed somebody else who does not need any help from you? Altruism requires that you have no thought for your own happiness.

The person who believes there is no life after death or who is not sure at all or not very sure if he does believe is still expected to do selfless things that bring him no benefit. His life is the most important thing he has and he could be dead in five minutes and he still has to do that. This shows that it is still wrong for him to be selfish and enjoy himself meaning it must be always wrong. When he is old and has not many days left he is still expected to do it so then how much more will he be expected to do it when he is young and healthy and has no fear of dying? How much more will you and I be expected to do it when we are young. Death implies that egoism is totally and always immoral once it is accepted that altruism is a good thing.

Is it true that altruism has the side effect of happiness?

Suppose it does. Then it only results in happiness if it is not practiced properly. The true altruist would work so hard that he would have no time to feel it. Happiness is meant to be a potential side effect and not an actual one. When believe in altruism and do a small thing for another person like giving away your last Rolo you are saying that you are not worth that Rolo but somebody else is. If you do not believe in altruism, its different. You are giving it away because you honour yourself as good.

Altruists sometimes claim that they feel happy because of their goodness. If you can be altruistic, then you can be altruistic and still end up with depression. You can do something great for somebody and feel nothing. If happiness comes it does not follow that the altruism is the cause.
What does altruism say about greedy selfish businessmen who just care about making more money?

That they cannot be really happy. But some of them are. The appeal of gaining more riches would soon lose its shine if the altruists were being truthful.

Why else does altruism forbid one to be happy?

We have seen that if altruism or selfless is good then we should not will or allow anything that is done for our own sake. To find yourself happy and to accept that happiness is the same as doing something to make yourself happy for it is an act of will or acceptance so it is forbidden.

Have you any other proof that altruism opposes happiness?

If my employer refuses to pay me for a month’s work I am forcing him to do wrong if I insist I should be paid. But if I tell him it is okay if he does not want to pay I am making him do right. If I am a real altruist, I will not make him do wrong. So it is my duty to let other people walk over me.

What if I have a child to support? Since virtue comes first and I would rather help my child than my employer it follows that I should neglect the child for it is better to hurt myself by hurting the child in this way than to cause immoral intent. I have taken the responsibility for this state of affairs from my boss and put it on myself. I could argue that if I developed myself right I would not be hurt so if I feel hurt it is my fault. I could say my child will not starve and needs to learn through hardship.

I cannot say I should sometimes put the welfare of others before my own. I have to do this all the time. If it is right to watch my maths when I am accounting I cannot turn around and say I can be right some of the time. I have to be right all the time.

If I should risk getting kneecapped to save a person terrorists are planning to beat up to a pulp the moral systems tell me I should even if I am sure I will be kneecapped sooner or later because of it.

When I was a Christian I used to be devastated and very hurt when I saw people sinning because I believed that sin results in eternal damnation. This was far more damaging than what a person familiar with violence in the home would have to put up with. If harming others is wrong then it is wrong to upset their feelings. If it is wrong to hit me then it is wrong to upset me by putting yourself in danger of Hell. But what if I am upset just as much by altruists? What if I find their altruism unnatural and offensive and want them to be egoists instead? Altruists claim they have to go on with their work no matter how much it upsets others. I find altruism very upsetting and soul-destroying and don’t like to see it practiced. Altruism just cares about rules not happiness. It also leaves you wide open to manipulation by people who say they will be very hurt if you do x, y or z.
Can an altruist really believe in the commandment, love your neighbour as yourself?

Altruism denies that love is making other people happy but says that love is making other people unselfish and having them doing things without them being motivated by the desire for happiness. If altruism were making other people happy then it would mean that you should enjoy helping others and do it because you enjoy it. You can’t say you do it partly because you enjoy it and partly because it is sacrifice for you will immediately see how bizarre that sounds. An enjoyable sacrifice is a contradiction. The more you enjoy the sacrifice the better on this altruist logic so how could it be a sacrifice anymore when you enjoy making it so much? A person who likes pain cannot sacrifice even though he or she appears to suffer for others. You are not so sure that you would make the sacrifice without the enjoyment so this “sacrifice” would really be a subtle manifestation of selfism. If altruism is enjoying sacrifice then it is a sin or an act of wrongdoing to make a sacrifice you do not enjoy at all. But then this wouldn't be altruism any more. Altruism says selflessness is in doing good regardless of how much you abhor doing it. This consideration shows that altruism is totally anti-happiness.

Altruists do not love themselves very much. The commandment tells us to love one another as much as we love ourselves. Altruism is therefore dangerous. All it cares about is motives and not consequences. It cares about people’s motives and not them.
Is it possible to love others as yourself?

All agree these days with the foundational premise of psychology and psychiatry that you can only love others in so far as you love yourself. You know how you make others unhappy if you are unhappy for unhappiness is contagious. This is not what love your neighbour as yourself infers or is about. If I love others to the amount I love myself, then it follows I love myself the most because it is x amount of love I am giving myself and the same amount is broken up among others. Each individual gets a piece. I don't love each individual as myself. So I am not equalising myself and my neighbour but contradicting the commandment.

Another break with the commandment is that I decide for myself what I think and feel love to be. So if I love another, it is my own creation I am doing it with. I am honouring myself more than them for it is my creation.

The commandment opposes our experience that the premise of psychology and psychiatry is true so it is an evil commandment and a trick that is meant to pull you down to the gutter as you gibber about love and think you are full of love. The commandment seeks to break your mental health under the authority of God. Without the commandment, God would seem less attractive so it is vital for atheists to pull down the commandment and make its shame visible before the world.

If you only love others as far as you love yourself then it is good to love yourself. To agree with this is to say that it is because you make yourself happy that you are able to make others happy so by making others happy you are just being happy yourself and it is not really about them but about you. So with this you are being selfish but in a nice way. In bad selfishness you still love yourself but others suffer for it. Altruism does not exist and anybody that says it does is saying what they know is not true.

How does forgiveness relate to altruism?

Forgiveness is a duty in altruism for doing good to others would mean nothing without it.

To do good to somebody you believe should be punished would be immoral and not altruism and it would be selfish of the person to accept. Forgiveness is saying that you will not want to punish what ought to be punished because you want a fresh start made. But this means you are trusting a person you cannot trust and so degrades you. If you should be degraded then happiness is a sin. If you deny free will or the power to be altruistic, you don’t believe in forgiveness for there is nothing to forgive but you will have all the benefits of forgiving and the good feelings and will not trust until you see the evidence. It is better not to believe in altruism at all. The one who says it is despite this, is degrading the self again.

To tell anybody it is their duty to forgive is worst form of emotional bullying. It is up to them. Jesus and his malignant religion said that anybody who doesn’t forgive will not be forgiven by God themselves and so will go to Hell to burn forever.

Anybody that does wrong does not deserve to be forgiven. They cannot deserve to be forgiven either for to forgive a person who has earned it is not forgiveness. Forgiveness is a free gift. But altruism, religion and absolutism say that it is a duty to forgive. This is incoherent. Perhaps it is a duty to yourself to forgive for you have faults and are better off forgiving? But that would not be real forgiveness for you have to forgive for the other person’s sake. It is refusing to love that person. Forgiveness says then that it is a sin to pay any attention to justice. If justice is wrong then people do not matter. Altruism just cares about altruism as law.

Superogation is the notion that there are good acts that are your duty and there are other ones that are not. For example, it is your duty to feed your child but it is not your duty to give a little of your money to feed a beggar's child on the street. The idea of forgiveness then not being a duty implies that the evil doctrine of supererogation is true so altruism implies the same if it accepts that kind of forgiveness. Supererogation denies that what is moral is what is best so it implies that there is no morality. It says you can do better than your duty and the better is not part of your duty. Altruism cannot accept supererogation for altruism insists on doing the best for others which eliminates the concept. In altruism, it is always your duty to be selfless and the more selfless you are the better. Altruism is incoherent for forgiveness cannot be both a duty and not a duty at the one time. Altruism is incoherent for it demands superogation to be true while implying that superogation is wrong!

The altruist forgives the person who raped and murdered his daughter. It is easier for him to forgive when it was not him that this happened to which makes it hard to see anything selfless in it. Forgiveness is the bedrock of altruism in the sense that it is better to do good to a person you have nothing against than one you do for then the good is more genuine and complete. But forgiveness is a mask for selfishness which is easily seen when the Christian Church calls for pardon for clerical child molesters.

Does altruism push fear on those who believe in it?

That is exactly what it does for 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 egoism now and again that we have any happiness on this planet. If altruism is good then evil and despair are good.

What is backdoor altruism?

Backdoor altruism is the philosophy that you must love or value your neighbour as yourself. I call it this because it is really altruism in a more sinister guise. It condemns altruism for it sees a system that tells you to let others walk all over you as evil for what you should be doing is thinking of yourself together with others. You treat yourself as you treat another. It is a compromise between altruism and egoism. The altruism it despises is smuggled back in the backdoor.
How is the doctrine of love neighbour as yourself manipulative?

It is no help in guiding you. Say you have to decide for example if you should give a kidney to save your brother. When it is not your duty to give the kidney, you are loving your neighbour as yourself if you don’t. When you do give you are still loving your neighbour. Jesus made a law of the rule. That is like making a law of the rule, “Morals are hard to figure out”. It's stupid.

The doctrine is empty sweetness to get you into the Christian rattrap and to get you slammed as evil if you refuse.
Is it really a compromise?

Not in practice and not a bit. For example, if I need my medicine and have only have enough for myself left and my neighbour needs it, it tells me only to give it to my neighbour if he needs it more. But if he and I have the same need I may use it myself or give it to him – it is up to me. But if my neighbour is a better person than I am or if his health is more important than mine for he has a family I should give him the medicine and do without. The Bible God commands that I must think of everybody else as better than me (Philippians 2:3, Matthew 15:21-28) and myself as the worst of sinners (Ephesians 3:8/1 Timothy 1:15). In other words, you must abandon your rights. You must wish you could endure the worst fate possible if it could save others (Romans 9:1-4).

If my family needs me more than his needs him and I need the medicine more than him, I am still hailed by the hypocrites as a hero if I give him the medicine.
Even if I think I am better, I am supposed to think that others are better than me to avoid judging others for I can only judge myself adequately. So I still have to part with the medicine. From this it follows that I should still let others walk all over me and sacrifice myself for them. When a girl plans to marry a man everybody around her says is no good for he does not have a fortune in the bank she will upset a lot of people if she goes ahead. Should she worry about what others think and cancel the wedding for their sakes? She cannot argue that she should go ahead on the grounds that they are wrong for what if they sincerely think they are right? She would be giving them bad example by doing what they consider immoral. Most of the ethical systems would say she should go ahead with the wedding. This is egoism. So instead of compromising backdoor altruism just switches from altruism to egoism and pretends that egoism is altruism. That is not a compromise or meeting half-way. It is just double-standards.

How does the love others as yourself teaching qualify to be called altruism too?

Because it does not work in practice which makes all its supporters to be hypocrites. Because I know I exist and I only believe that others exist so to put others on the same level as myself is to practice altruism or self-sacrifice or doing away with my dignity for myself. The teaching infers that altruism is the true philosophy though the teaching condemns it. This makes the teaching particularly vicious and devious. All the benefits it offers can be gained through egoism alone. Yet it condemns it which means that it teaches that egoism is evil and that it is evil to do anything for your own happiness. This automatically declares that altruism is the right philosophy.

Moreover, by renouncing egoism, it is saying that we should not be made as hedonistic creatures who only do good for pleasure which is saying that there is something vulgar and unclean about pleasure and it is desirable to avoid it.

Does the love neighbour as oneself theory say that we should enjoy helping others?

No – it forbids this enjoyment.

If you love your neighbour as yourself you must enjoy it. Why? Because you bring joy to your neighbour and you have to treat yourself as you treat your neighbour. This seems to say nothing more than what egoists say. It just comes close. If it says you must help the neighbour for the sake of helping him and not for the sake of his pleasure then it is altruism. If it says you must help your neighbour for your own happiness then this is egoism. If it says you must help your neighbour for your own happiness and for the sake of the neighbour’s then it is saying you should not help your neighbour if you don’t want to which is egotism. Also both caring for your own happiness and that of others cannot be both right. They are very different and one of them has to be best and therefore right and the other wrong so you cannot mix altruism and egoism. It is silly then to say that your feelings matter for if altruism is ever right it is always right. So the love neighbour as yourself theory implies that hardcore altruism is the law. Believers in the theory agree with altruism that doing good you hate doing but force yourself to do for a good reason is more loving and sacrificial than goodness you enjoy. They have no choice but to support altruism.

Most moral systems including the love your neighbour as yourself one say you deserve a bigger reward for helping somebody when it is against your instincts to do it – that is when you hate doing it but want to do the right thing. Obviously then though they sometimes pretend they are not they are claiming that doing good when you hate it is best which is putting your neighbour before yourself. They are hopelessly inconsistent.

If you want to help the person more because you will enjoy it than for the sake of helping him then that is putting your feelings before his welfare. So you have to want to help him more for his sake than the feelings for his problem is more important. The more important the help he needs, the less you should be motivated by the need for your satisfaction. The more important the need he has for help is, the less you should be motivated by the need for your personal satisfaction too. When the doctrine seeks to make us more miserable at our worst moments and make others a burden to us what else can it be but altruism? If altruism is ever right then it is always right. Suppose altruism is true. How then can it be wrong to keep the need for satisfaction down when the person needs a little help or when I need a little help?

When a little girl broke her finger and was in agony and the little sister tells their father, “Daddy, I wish it was my finger”, everybody in the love myself and others brigade commends this. But this is loving another more than yourself not as yourself and yet it is not love for if the sister really loves you she would be offended by you saying that.

The doctrine of loving your neighbour as yourself implies that if you are interacting with another person you must love him with half the love in you for that time keeping the other half for yourself. That is what loving your neighbour as yourself has to mean. But what do you do if you are interacting with several people? Do you keep half the love for yourself and give everybody an equal portion from the half that is left? That is loving yourself more than each individual neighbour so it breaks the rule. For example, you keep 50 per cent of the love for yourself and you divide the other 50 per cent among the people you meet. That means you don't think much of every individual! You have to give yourself the same portion or fraction of love as you give every other individual. So the more people you have to work with the less you have to love yourself and the less happy you have to be. If you work with ten people you have to divide your love among them and yourself equally so that each gets 1/11th of the love. If it is twenty people then each gets 1/20th of the love. You would have to change your feelings all the time depending on how many people you are dealing with so the philosophy implies hardcore altruism for it will only be a matter of time before this behaviour results in depression.

Those who say you should love your neighbour as yourself contradict themselves by commanding you to help ingrates who will give you nothing but abuse and who will slander and backstab you in return. That is really loving the other person and not yourself. It’s altruism.

Many of the love others as yourself theorists say the more you love somebody emotionally and in the will the better. But this strong love is a tremendous source of suffering and fear and pain. Love is pain for love is desire and Buddha was right to see desire as pain. Even when you are laughing it brings you the pain of knowing you cannot change reality and make yourself laugh happily forever. If love is pain, then the more love and pain the better. Thus love can only be altruism. To love yourself emotionally is to hurt yourself and if you should hurt yourself you should practice altruism with all its blood and tears. If you treat yourself right without feeling anything you avoid this.

Jesus claimed that he would give his life for us. It didn’t have to be so terrible for him for he could have done this without the extreme agony of the cross. He could have saved us by dying in his bed or by being decapitated. He claimed that he loved others more than himself. (By the way that would prove that he was not God – for God owes himself all his love being the infinitely perfect being. If Jesus loved others for the sake of God then he did not really love others more than himself.) He went against God and apostatised from the Jewish and Christian faith that said the neighbour was to be loved as yourself.

Now God does not need our love. He is God and so he must have all he needs for he is all-perfect and all-powerful. Yet religion says that God expects to be put first and get most if not all our love. If this is not hardcore altruism then what is? God implies that altruism as in degradation of the self for the pleasing of another, especially God, is the divine law. It tells us to be altruists where God is concerned. If we are to be like that with God then we are to be like that with other people too if possible. Religion says we are to behave altruistically towards others for God’s sake. It doesn’t mean this at all for it teaches that the love of God should be our sole motive for helping others. To love others for God’s benefit is not loving them at all though they may benefit.

If altruism is ever right it is always right. You can’t say you should help an ingrate and then say you should not give away your last bar of chocolate. When there is no rational proof that one is right and the other wrong it is because the two are both right. Altruism is a principle as is egoism and that means that it is something that should always be done when it is right.

What insight do we get from all this?

That the choice is between altruism and egoism. Egotism, being bad, isn't an option.