Key ideas: From Ayn Rand Answers: The best of her Q&A, published in 2005. Ayn Rand on altruism: "It is an unspeakable evil."
A: First, I don’t believe in instincts, and never speak of them in my writings against altruism. Second, I am not an advocate of Adam Smith’s philosophy. I do not believe in invisible hands leading men to altruism through the pursuit of their private interests.
I reject altruism, public service, and the public good as the moral justification of free enterprise. Altruism is what’s destroying capitalism.
Adam Smith was a brilliant economist; I agree with many of his economic theories. But I disagree with his attempt to justify capitalism on altruistic grounds. My defense of capitalism is based on individual rights, as was the American Founding Fathers’, who were not altruists. They did not say man should exist for others; they said he should pursue his own happiness.
Finally, it is not in a man’s rational self-interest to cheat his customers. The abler the man, the better he is able to plan long range. An able industrialist knows he is not in business to make a quick killing and run; his aim is not to cheat his customers once and then disappear. He knows that it is in his own practical, rationally selfish, interest to do the best he can economically—to create the best product and sell it at the cheapest price possible.
A: The second part of this question gives us a clue to the questioner’s error. He is not talking about altruism. “Altruism” is a term originated by the philosopher Auguste Comte, and has been used ever since to mean exactly what Comte intended.
Comte invented the term altruism as an antonym for egoism, and it found its way at once into everyone’s mouth, although it is utterly devoid of meaning, since it points to nothing that ever existed in mankind.A philosophy of intelligent selfishness, intelligent egoism, intelligent hedonism
“Altruism” comes from the Latin alter, meaning “other.” It means placing the interests of others above your own—existing for the sake of others. Altruism holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only moral justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest virtue.
But the questioner confuses altruism with kindness, courtesy, and generosity. Under his definition, giving someone a Christmas present is an act of altruism. But that’s foolish. This kind of package deal enables altruists to get away with the evil they are perpetrating.
The essence of altruism is self-sacrifice. If you do something for another that involves harm to yourself, that is altruism. But voluntarily giving something to another who hasn’t earned it is not.
According to altruism, we should live for others, and should base society on this principle. The fully consistent result of this morality is totalitarian dictatorship, whether communist or fascist.
The moment you introduce an element of duty, you’re on the road to communism. Do not be concerned with giving away or hoarding things, but with a man’s right to live and produce.
It is an unspeakable evil. It is impossible for the naive man who attempts to practice it voluntarily; it is possible for altruism’s executioners. An innocent man cannot practice altruism—not unless he leaps into the first cannibal’s pot he sees, to provide the cannibal dinner. So long as he lives, he cannot be an altruist. But think of what the executioners—the recipients—of altruistic sacrifice can do.
Altruism is the sole justification used by every dictatorship—for example, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. And it’s used in America today any time anyone wants something immoral or unearned. In that sense, altruism is possible, as the sea of blood throughout history demonstrates.
A: The line you quoted was Galt’s. (The second point, incidentally, was not Galt’s but Dr. Ferris’s, though it is true.) What Galt meant was philosophical sanction: do not accept your enemies’ ideas; do not compromise with today’s trend; do not pretend to approve of today’s ideas for some ulterior motives.
But what do you mean in asking how one can withdraw support without losing freedom? About which country are you talking? The United States is in bad shape, but not so bad that you lose your freedom for refusing to share the ideas of your enemies. If you have in mind paying taxes, that’s way down the line of importance. That’s not how you support today’s government; you support it every time you tacitly accept collectivist-altruist-statist slogans or ideas.