Altruism and conservatives

Conservative Intellectual Confusion -- by Grant Jones

For centuries conservatives have denied the contradiction between altruism and capitalism. In 1960 Ayn Rand gave a lecture at Princeton University on this topic titled: Conservatism: An Obituary. This lecture has been reprinted in her collection of essays Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Rand explains why conservatives seem to keep winning the battles but are losing the war:

"Yet capitalism is what the "conservatives" dare not advocate or defend. They are paralyzed by the profound conflict between capitalism and the moral code which dominates our culture: the morality of altruism. Altruism holds 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. Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society. The conflict between capitalism and altruism has been under-cutting America from her start and, today, has reached its climax."

It’s this evasion by conservatives that gives rise to such euphemisms as "peoples’ capitalism" or "social capitalism" or "compassionate conservatism." A part of the problem is the result of conservative thinkers and economists confusing the meaning of, and the relationship between, genuine benevolence, self-interest and self-sacrifice.

Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations was first published in 1776. This famous quote from Smith bears out the false dichotomy that the Christian ethic of altruism creates between self-love and benevolence:

"But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favor…. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

Smith understood that the fundamental issue in ethics is self-love, i.e. egoism versus "humanity" i.e. altruism and that they are incompatible. By fundamental I mean the basic values and principles that guide an individual’s choices and actions. Altruism as a standard of conduct instructs people to have "regard for, and devotion to, the interests of others." [Webster’s dictionary, emphasis added.] The primary "virtue" of altruism is the sacrifice of one’s values to others. These others can be either individuals or the community at large.

Egoism is having primary concern for one’s own interests. These definitions leave open the question of what is in fact in a man’s interest. They also leave open the question of which ethical principle is most consistent with, and conductive to, genuine benevolence.

Benevolence is not a moral principle but an emotional disposition. It is not a primary that can be willed into existence. Benevolence, kindness or concern for the well being of others is an emotional attitude towards one’s fellow man. This attitude is the result of one’s sub-conscious values and the emotional atmosphere of society.

Benevolence is derivative of rational self-interest and the freedom to pursue it. When a man’s right to his life as an end in itself is upheld the effect (and cause) is respect for oneself and therefore others. This respect is translated into a general goodwill towards the human race and the desire to help others if it doesn’t require the sacrifice of one’s values or virtues.

Altruism doesn’t produce benevolence. If accepted it creates guilt. If one accepts, as a moral duty, that the primary virtue is the giving away of values then everyone with less values, either spiritual or material, is a threat to one’s well being. Every unfilled need of others is a moral reproach. Every hungry child on the planet is a source of unearned guilt.

With an altruistic code of conduct one never knows when to sacrifice and when to uphold self-preservation. The result is chronic guilt. This is why altruism causes resentment and hostility instead of benevolence.

This brings me to Max Borders article posted at TechCentralStation, titled "The Altruism Boom." In this article Borders laments the demise of mutual aid societies:

"So what happened to them? FDR's centralized welfare state (or Britain's Labour government). When people started having to pay more taxes for social services, they no longer felt the need to support such organizations. Government had crowded out the altruism industry."

If these organizations were doing such a great job why was it felt there was a need for altruism at gunpoint? The Great Depression being judged as too big a problem for private "self help" was one reason. However, Lyndon Johnson’s "Great Society" was launched during an unprecedented post-war boom.

Perhaps another reason was that private aid groups made the distinction between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor. In other words, they were interested in helping those that helped themselves. This distinction is not acceptable to the consistent altruist. It implies that a man’s life is his own responsibility.

Borders naively assumes that the ends of socialists and capitalists are the same and that they differ only about the means. At the beginning of his article Borders quotes from Matt Ridley’s The Origin of Virtue:

"Just as trade between countries is the best recipe for friendship between them, so exchange between enfranchised and empowered individuals is the best recipe for cooperation. We must encourage social and material exchange between equals for that is the raw material of trust, and trust is the foundation of virtue."

This is just sloppy sentiment. Virtue should be viewed as a verb and its foundation is the liberty to pursue one’s values as defined by one’s own reason i.e. rational self-interest.

Another interesting thing about this quote is his view of economic exchange. What is missing from his definition is that economic exchange is based on mutual self-interest. Both parties consider the transaction to be to their selfish benefit.

The most troubling part of this statement by Ridley is this: "We must encourage social and material exchange between equals." Would any socialist disagree with this? The problem they would argue is that their can be no equality between the Wall Mart board of directors and an eight-dollar-an-hour employee. Therefore, it’s up to the government to "level the playing field."

As a capitalist, I’m after liberty. Socialists want to create a "just" society, based on an equality of results. These are very different goals which cannot be reconciled.

The political expression of egoism is capitalism; altruism results in some form of collectivism. In his last paragraph, Borders states:

"The problem with government-based entitlements and politically-based altruism is that it crowds out whole industries of entrepreneurs who are likely to do a much, much better job of fulfilling people's needs, protecting the environment, and bringing about social good."

This is a collectivist defense of an individualist system. According to Borders the moral justification for capitalism and property rights is some indefinable "social good." The moral foundation of capitalism is Natural Law and Natural Rights, not their demonstrable social utility. In response to the more consistent altruist who argues that those who won’t sacrifice for the "social good" should be coerced into doing so, the conservative can only respond with stale utilitarianism.

The "conservative" and pro-capitalist economists’ abandonment of individual rights for the amoral cost-benefit analysis (by experts, of course) known as utilitarianism was a historic error. An error they must correct if they are ever to have a snowball’s chance of winning the intellectual battle against the socialists.

(Grant Jones lives in Hawaii and operates the weblog The Dougout when he is not busy babying his palms.)