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!

 

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 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 by contrast demands the sacrifice of others for you.  The fear is that as evil is easy it will soon get very powerful and even conceal itself as good.


What is the justification for altruism?

Altruism claims to be real love.

 

Altruism claims that I am not here to be happy but I am here to deserve happiness or become worthy of it by doing good. In other words, its not unimportant if you never get the happiness. All that counts is deserving it. And altruism says that to love others for myself is not to love them at all so love is sacrifice. To love others instead of myself is to love lots of people instead of loving one. The more love the better. And also, if I am not selfless then I do not love others. If love is good and altruism really is love then altruism has to be the law for there is no love of others without it. Altruism says that loving others and not myself is loving myself in the sense that I am doing what should be done with myself. Altruism also says that if I don’t make helping others my chief aim then I will inevitably become cruel and uncaring.

Is this correct?

 

No. 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. The happiness will prevent me being altruistic. Why? 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.

 

And also I am more sure I exist than that others do, so if I am an altruist I hate or disrespect myself and how can 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 when it is so vicious. The only reason altruism is popular and looks good is because it is not practiced properly. Its its misuse that so frequently makes it look good enough to gain social acceptance.

 

One could say that hate is good and it is loving yourself to hate yourself using the definition of loving yourself that altruism uses. The altruists saying that self-renunciation is good begs the question. Is self-renunciation good? They say it is good because it is good which isn’t obvious and is the very thing that needs to be proven.

 

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, "Altruism is rational and justifiable when I could change my desire to enjoy helping others to the desire to serve them without taking any enjoyment. Then I will altruistically serve others for them without any fulfilment for me. I am doing as much good with one as the other so I should be altruistic"?

 

This view says it is rational to be altruistic for it does as much good as not being altruistic but doing good works. The answer to the question is a loud no.

 

When the good can be had without altruism, altruism is no use. We will soon see that 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. How could it be good to do good and make it less good by denying yourself for the sake of denying yourself?

But 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,

What will altruists do without rational evidence for even they admit that they cannot give a reason for why we should be altruistic?

 

They will say that God commands altruism and gave us free will to practice it and that is evidence enough. But even God has no right to order something so basic and give no proof for it. But still altruism will lead to the worrying and degrading idea that he has.

What happens if altruism is irrational or cannot be defended?

 

Then it is exposed as an evil selfish lie that slanders those who disapprove of it or don’t practice it. It is slander to accuse people of doing wrong with a measuring rod that has not been proved. Altruism would imply that reason is evil. If reason is evil and wrong then why care if somebody tortures us all to death?

Do you see that if I have to put myself first, because I cannot deny my own existence and can deny that of other people and if altruism is good, then I should put my own progress in altruism before anybody else’s?

 

Yes! If that is the case then the altruist has to indulge in reckless self-sacrifice.

 

Altruists will earn money to give it all away regardless of whether or not the recipient abuses it or uses them. They have to get others to do the same so they give money to beggars so that the beggars will break their hearts with it and give it away. They will hurt their families in order to go among the poor in foreign lands though it costs the family their lives. The altruist will look after himself only to prepare for undergoing worse suffering for others. Everybody will walk all over him. Even if this is unfair, it is still good for no morality says that we must be strictly fair but, on the contrary, must love our enemies. If I degrade and curse myself to love others as much as or worse, more, than myself then how can I say I love other people for I am like asking them to approve and degrade themselves by degrading me? If I put myself first as in healthy egoism, I come as close to loving others as I can get.

What about altruism and justice?

Some say that you should be altruistic only towards those who have done good for you first and then to others next. But that is not altruism for it is giving them a benefit for the good they have done and so they should not accept it. It is putting value on their function more than on their personhood. It values yourself more than them for you are rewarding and blessing them for being good to you.

What about feeling sorry for those who do not deserve it?

 

Altruism would agree with this provided you help the person not because of the feeling but because of selflessness. The feeling is allowed because it is not pleasant. This permitting the feeling proves that altruism encourages unreasonable sacrifices. It degrades the person who it is for because they do not deserve it and justice is better than love for love can’t exist if it despises justice. Egoism avoids these problems. Egoism requires compassion for all because compassion leads to the pleasure of doing good for them and makes the world a better place. It says the bad deserve help too for goodness melts hard hearts.

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!

 

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

 

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.
 
What about altruism and anger?

 

Altruists do allow anger funnily enough though anger makes you want the self-indulgence of hurting another person. Presumably, it is allowed because it is harmful to the angry person. Anger against a person for doing wrong loses sight of the fact that the person has harmed themselves in doing so. So anger blocks the compassion as an emotion that should exist. When compassion, as emotion, is made wrong in this it has to be always wrong.

Is it not true then that if altruism is not love and helping others out of self-interest is not love then there is no love?

Egoism is the best you can do so to do your best for others is love. Altruism is anti-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.

 

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.

 

Suppose egoism isn’t love and altruism is. Altruism is impossible and contradictory. It would not be wrong to wish you could love others as long as you wish for the impossibility that altruism could be good and harmless and rational.

 

It would be wrong to be an egoist and wish that altruism as we see it was true for that would be wishing for an evil thing.

 

We will see later that altruism does not exist but is a delusion at best and a pretence at worst.

Does altruism forbid doing good that makes others non-altruistic and selfish?

 

It does for it would not be love to corrupt another person. We are to do good to make others altruistic and for no other reason. The real altruist will not work to make you happy. It is impossible to imagine how altruistic love could be good when it endeavours to make you selfless instead of happy. That is really advocating suffering for its own sake. Altruism is really saying that the more wilful suffering there is the better. Though Altruism forbids making others selfish by your good works in principle, in practice it is different for you never know exactly how a person is inwardly reacting what you do for them. A philosophy that teaches even if only in principle that you shouldn’t be kind to people if it makes them non-altruistic is pure evil. It means the altruist would do nothing for the egoist or egotist if he or she could help it. It means we can’t think much of what the altruists do in practice. It is the same poison as Christianity spouts. This faith teaches that it is better to abandon a child to death in principle if the child living means it will sin and go to Hell forever.

 

Altruism has far more in common with egotism than egoism and is totally fake.

 

Everybody knows people they can judge. If people are using your altruism to choose to be selfish over, you are giving them love to be abused. It is not your fault that they choose to abuse it. But you took the risk so you are partly to blame.

 

The altruist will say that by behaving altruistically you are doing the only thing that can be done to make them change, reminding them of what they should do so that justifies the risk. Sometimes people will pretend to change and become less self-serving. You have to believe them for it is altruistic to forgive and believe.

 

Altruism is very depressing for it thrives on cynicism and encourages you to be altruistic no matter how much it is abused and that will destroy you and your self esteem.

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.

Is enjoying yourself or caring for your health a necessary evil?

 

Altruism implies that it is for it is only done to be able to be altruistic towards others. And when there isn’t time you should help others even to the degree that it will cause your own destruction. Evil in altruism is not suffering but refusing to be selfless. A philosophy that sees you as great if you refuse to enjoy your last moments on earth and serve others instead though it makes you very unhappy is clearly putting law before you. And by implication law is put before everybody else too for you are as much of a person as anybody else. A philosophy like that cannot see suffering as a real concern.

 

You are not supposed to enjoy necessary evil for it is still evil and repulsive so you are to regret and hate looking after your health. Altruism is about laws and not about doing the best for people but what is best for love so if you get sick and die over altruism and become incapable of helping others that is morally good according to it. Altruism is concerned with sacrifice and not with anybody’s real good. Altruism would deny that it advocates suffering for the sake of suffering but it advocates suffering for the sake of selflessness. But if selflessness is so great then it must be because suffering is good!

But many altruists believe that it wrong to judge others!

 

You can be cynical and still refuse to judge others in individual things. For example, an apparently malicious act might have been a mistake or weakness but that does not mean that the person is thought to be good for you are just saying you know he is bad to the core but you don’t know which or how many of his acts are bad. You are saying you cannot prove his act was intentionally bad.
 
Not judging, at all or too little or too mildly, is a dangerous thing to do. It abdicates moral responsibility and causes others to do what they wish without fear. Criminals fear more about what their community will think of them than about what punishment they will get.

Does altruism encourage trust?
 

Though altruism leads to cynicism, if it allowed trust then the following would be the result. Altruism works only for what is best, in its opinion, for others whether they are good or bad and especially if they are bad. When you have to treat them as if they have done nothing wrong then why not forgive them? It would be a sin not to for why be unforgiving when you can’t act it? Altruism bids us believe every liar who says they are sorry.

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.

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.
 
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. The feelings of revulsion are not our fault and if we can sacrifice the more we have of them the better for altruism cares about motives and not results. Original sin implies that revulsion is going to be always with us so we should avail of it to make ourselves more altruistic.

Could altruism lead to the person who abandons it going off the rails if it is able to keep a person on them?
 

Yes for it deadens feeling for people so if belief in it is abandoned which is common today the person will have no restraint and will be a danger to others.

 

You will end up murdering fifty people and go to jail and not care if you become a real altruist.

 

Some would say that there is good altruism and bad altruism and nothing else. The person who sacrifices money to help others is a good altruist. The person who sacrifices time and life to kill disease spreading prostitutes to save lives is a bad altruist or a person who is altruistic but who is just going the wrong way about it. If so, altruism is intrinsically uncontrollable. It is not altruism that stops a person from say stealing, it is the conditioned belief that stealing is wrong. If altruism is true, you will - if you are honest - see that it is impossible to prove that the murderer was doing wrong or was a bad person. At worst he would be a saint that meant well and got it wrong.

Can you think of another reason why altruism deadens feelings?

Altruism stresses peacemaking. The easygoing person who has few feelings is the person who has the biggest reputation for being a success at peacemaking. Altruism demands that we deaden all the feelings we can for that results in the greater good for feelings can be constrictive. However, unpleasant feelings are held to be for the greater good so you have to appear to be easygoing while the truth is that underneath the placid exterior you are hurting like mad and curse altruism though you won’t let yourself curse it wilfully. It is not altruistic to like privacy for it is better to forgo privacy to look out for others. Egoism denies this stance completely.

If selfless love is good then should we love as in help our enemies more than our friends?

 

To help your friends is selfishly helping them because they were good to you – it is saying, I am glad you helped me so I will help you - and selfishly insulting their sacrifice by giving them an advantage because of it.

 

The enemies need our attention and example to convert them to altruism. Altruism demands not that we do good to others but that we make others good by doing good to them so it is the worst people we should devote our attention to.

 

Also, it is more altruistic to help those you despise or who snarl in derision at you.

 

Egoism says that you cannot help everybody so if you are going to help anybody then help the best people first and the wicked only if there is nobody else to help. The egoist who goes out of their way to help the wicked while the good are left standing is really practicing egotism and condoning the wickedness of the wicked.

Would altruism rather see a person having a selfless motive being useful to others than a person without one but who has the motive of acquiring the fun of helping others for herself or himself?

Yes. It would rather you would be selfless even if you couldn’t act on it. For example, if you decided to give all your money away and couldn’t for it was tied up in litigation, it decrees that you must wish you could. Altruism would prefer that than having you doing the good thing without being motivated by selflessness. It would rather you did that than do good for the fun of it and for how it makes you feel. So it is how others feel that matter not you. Altruism does not care about people but about sacrifice. It evidently forbids selfishness across the board under all circumstances and says only others should be on your mind. Taking water when you want a coffee would be a duty if altruism is true for altruism requires lots of practice and needs to be ingrained into habit so sacrifice is needed 24/7,

If altruism would prefer to make people suffer so that they may love than to give them happiness then should we rob them of the chance to help others?

 

No. 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.

What does this tell you about the side effect of happiness?

 

That it is immoral if morality exists. 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.

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.

Does altruism like progress?

 

Certainly not. Altruism is evil because it says that being sacrificing is more important than pleasure and happiness and knowledge so you have to desire that evil and suffering and will always exist and indeed worsen for there can be no altruism without them. Altruism is about being on a meaningless treadmill.

What does altruism say about truth?

 

Altruism puts principles before persons. So altruism will put truth first for there can be no valid principles unless they are true so truth must come first all the time for altruism comes first. This means that not the slightest risk must be taken of anybody erring or being deceived. The wife has to be told if her husband has cheated on her even if he will never do it again. The egoists also believe that truth comes first but since the egoists put the truth that they know they exist first the ones that are not as provable can be left alone for the sake of a peaceful life. Altruism is worse when it is coupled with the doctrine of a truthful God who hates all error and lies for he will be the person that will have to come first.
  
Can the altruist be kind to a convinced egoist?

 

No. The altruist believes promoting altruism is the best good work of all so the knowledgeable egoist is unlikely to become altruistic where as the stumbling altruist who believes in altruism is in a different situation. It is better for the altruist to work with those who are open to the altruistic philosophy. The reason is that the goal of altruism is to propagate altruism.

 

The altruist will say that if it is good to help an old woman who wants no help across the road it is more good to convert others to altruism. The altruists will say it is their business if a person is not an altruist. They say altruistic good must be done to inspire others to be altruists. God makes altruism more obligatory than it would be so God is the enemy of egoists. If altruistic is man-made philosophy then it can be questioned but if it is divine in origin it is sacred and must never be doubted.

What effect has altruism on the idea that if anybody insults me it is not them that hurts me but my letting my feelings be hurt?

It suggests that it is our duty not to be offended and the more we are reviled the better to get us used to that treatment. It suggests that you are making the person hurting you feel they are doing it successfully which is hardly altruistic but cruel so you are hurting them and not them you. You are encouraging them. If anybody is depressed or sad it is their own fault and so they should get no sympathy. Even enemies will be put before them and will be admitted into the hospitals if they need it and they will be further down the list. Consistent egoists reject free will so we will not blame the person.

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 altruism and moral neutrality?

 

Moral neutrality is when something is as good as it is evil. It is not immoral or moral but neutral.

 

Altruism admits that I should put being altruistic before anybody else. I should put it before my future. If I am altruistic now, I am surer of being altruistic now than I am of anything to do with the future. I might not even be around in five minutes time . Altruistic action comes before everything else.
If altruism is that important then then I can do something evil and harmful to others as long as I am sure the interests of altruism will be served later. I can inject babies with AIDS and worry about how to make this a neutral thing later or if I am sure that others will gain the chance to be altruistic by it making it neutral from the viewpoint of altruism.

 

To avoid the evil what must altruism do? Either altruism has to commit the crime of abolishing the concept of neutrality or it has to allow people to live like extreme unbalanced egoists. If neutrality is adopted then if it is accepted that it is as good for me to eat my pie as it is to do without and give it to a mate then it follows that I am not to be condemned for eating it myself. From this, it would follow that the harder it is to help somebody the less obligation I have to help or I should do nothing. But altruism denies this. Altruism rejects neutrality. All the traditional religions of the world see things in terms of holiness or sin with no neutrality because they feed off judgmentalism though it is sometimes well hidden.

Can altruism be used to create a valid moral theory?

No. For example, if A commits murder A deserves to be murdered. If B murders A it would not be altruistic to punish B for even if it was wrong it was only slightly wrong when A deserved it. If you deny free will, which implies altruism, you are saved from this problem that forces Altruism to manifest logically as anarchy.

 

Altruism believes that the most important thing you can do for justice is to be fair to yourself by sacrificing yourself for if sacrificing is good then you should be sacrificing all the time. It is unjust to deprive yourself of sacrifice. That is how it is able to justify letting your enemies walk all over you. They may do so out of a bad motive but their motive is their problem and not yours and you can do nothing about it and it would be good of them to trample on you if they were doing it for disciplining you. You have the most hope of changing their motive by taking it as discipline for then they are getting nothing from their bad motive.

 

When you do wrong to a person there is a sense in which you ask for anything they do to you in return. You deserve it. You know that when you insult A that A could put you in hospital for the rest of your life. Altruism would incoherently say that any good A then does for you is over and beyond the call of duty. This is incoherent for we have all done wrong and so there would be no such thing as a duty to anybody.

 

Altruism implies that it is a duty to be altruistic which is ridiculous. The concept of deserving therefore makes it perfectly okay never to do anything for anybody. It and altruism are in conflict. So altruism is incoherent.  It is ridiculous to say that A is right to suffer for the greater good of others even if it is not his duty to. When it is not his duty they can do without it so he is inflicting unnecessary suffering on himself. Altruism implies that unnecessary suffering is good and therefore that extreme suffering that is not needed is good. It is wrong to say that X evil is allowed for it is not too bad and Y evil is banned for it is worse.

 

When you believe that doing the best is not always a duty you are forced to make an arbitrary list of what acts are duties and what are not. For example, saving your father’s life would be seen as a duty but doing the same for a stranger in the street might not be.

Are the altruists inconsistent about suicide?

They say that suicide is sinful for it is selfish. To say that deliberately and freely ending your own existence is selfish is totally absurd for you lose everything in death. They are the selfish ones for saying something so vicious and untrue. Egoists believe that suicide is an egoistic act but it is not deliberate and free for there is something seriously wrong mentally or emotionally. Suicides want to kill the pain not the themselves which appears to support this view.

CONCLUSION

Altruism is harmful and illusionary. 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.