Some Points on Altruism and Politics

Malcolm Lavoie in this post takes issue with my statement "we reject altruism."  That post, like all my posts, was written for my own blog and then cross posted.  I was referring to my fellow writers at GCH, not the Shotgun.  Nevertheless, I do believe that altruism is incompatible with a classical liberal view of politics.  Let me be clear as what I define as altruism.  Altruism, in ethics, is to hold the other above oneself.  The term was coined by Auguste Comte, in the 19th century,  and meant the renouncing of self interest to serve others.  The term itself means "otherism."  It does not mean simply that the individual owes certain responsibilities to others in the society in which he lives.  To live within society requires you to discharge certain responsibilities, if only of the very basic negative one of non-interference.  Rand observed that the issue was not whether you should give a dime to the beggar, but whether you have a moral right not to give the dime to the beggar.  To concede that the purpose of your life is to live for the benefit of others, is effectively a form of moral serfdom.  

Very few people accept this extreme position.  To most, in North American society at least, altruism means simply helping those incapable of helping themselves.  Selfishness, in the common perception, is bad only when practiced to extremes which harms others.  Most people would not consider holding down a job, or raising a family, as being selfish acts, though they clearly benefit the self.  This rather muddled position is where conventional opinion roughly stands.

The issue fundamentally is not so much what we owe others, but how we are to go about determining what we owe.  If the first principle is that we place others before self, then the other may place a virtually unlimited claim upon the self.  Again, most will reject this position as extreme.  There must be, morally, a balance between the self and other.  Placing the self before others will, allegedly, lead to individuals treating others as "second class" moral citizens to be used and abused.  Another extreme position.  Why not a balance?  Because it is logically, and practically, untenable.  

On what criteria could we strike a balance?  At least a criteria that would be anything less than arbitrary? Is it 50% of one's income - whether given voluntary or taxed - or 20%?  Ten hours of working a soup kitchen or merely three?  Helping only those in your neighbourhood, or everyone in the world?  Most people will reply that altruism means helping as much as you reasonably can.  Again, this is arbitrary and vague.  A rule of thumb, but not really a principle.  What if someone says you can help more?  A widescreen TV or helping the widow across the street?  Should you feel guilty when eating a large meal, knowing others are going hungry tonight?  The consistent altruist will say yes, pretty much anything above subsistence should be used to help others.  Few are so consistent, though many will feel guilty in buying luxuries when others lack necessities.  Therein lies the problem, the political and moral problem, that we cannot fully enjoy what we have while others do not have the same.

The most common argument against capitalism is that while it is efficient, it is also immoral.  It is immoral because it enshrines self-interest.  Since most people hold the muddled view of ethics, they say that self-interest is fine but only up to a point.  As such capitalism needs to be "adjusted" to make it more moral, either through regulation or redistribution of wealth.  The altruistic libertarian, or classical liberal, will protest that while this is ethically fine, the principle of non-coercion means that the redistribution of wealth should be done voluntarily.  

**** (those coming over from The Shotgun, begin here) ****

Ethics, however, precedes politics.  People's ethical views influence their political values.  If the other is above the self, then the collective is above the individual.  The altruist libertarian is placed in a position of saying that his ethics are unrelated, or contradictory, to his politics.  Hiding behind individual rights doesn't work either.  Why accept individual rights as a standard?  If individual rights prevent society from being moral, why bother with individual rights?  Why assert that non-coercion is sacrosanct?  Why is liberty a value?  Altruism is a morality of collectivism.  Imagine a nation where the great majority believe they have no moral right to their own lives, yet somehow they will be fierce defenders of individual liberty.  It cannot happen.  They will not care a whit about individual liberty since they do not regard the individual as being morally relevant - except as a serf to others.  Russia is a highly collectivist culture, whose version of Christianity is more consistently altruistic than any other in the West.  Not surprisingly it has been a brutal dictatorship for virtually all its history.  America, a highly individualistic culture, has historically been among the freest nations on earth. 

Again, am I being too extreme?  Let's take a more "moderate" example, a British one.  In about 1870 the term liberal in Britain meant a defender of individual rights.  The year marks the political highwater mark of what we today call classical liberalism.  A Liberal government was in power in Britain, under the man widely regarded as its very embodiment - William Ewart Gladstone.  Half a century latter the word had transformed itself, a liberal now meant a critic of individual rights and a proponent of the welfare state.  The Liberal Party itself did not survive the change in meaning, blowing apart in the 1920s.  

The liberalism of David Lloyd George was a far cry from that of William Ewart Gladstone.  Both men were Christians, though Gladstone was regarded as far more devout.  Both men, as virtually everyone in that era, would have been taught the Sermon on the Mount as children.  The interpretation of what Jesus said has varied over the centuries, but it has frequently been invoked as an attack on selfishness.  The late Georgian and early Victorian era, in which Gladstone grew into maturity, was deeply influence by the Enlightenment.  The broad consensus of English speaking Enlightenment thinkers was that self-interest was natural, usually beneficial, and should be curbed only from time to time so that society could function effectively.  

Few serious thinkers of the era (in the English speaking world), outside of the Church at any rate, regarded selfishness as a grave sin. Their more benign view influenced the Victorian era, and Gladstone.  As the 19 th century wore on, under the influence of Rousseau and Kant, this relatively benign view began to wane.  From the pulpit, from newspapers and magazines, the moral claims of the other were being reinforced.  Selfishness was no longer something acceptable, if perhaps at time regrettable, it was the source of society's ill.  Socialism, and the social democracy, cashed in on this moral shift.  The old line classical liberals protested that they did not want to force people to do the moral thing, they wanted them to do it voluntarily.  The new liberalism asked why?  Why should morality be constrained by some arbitrary belief in liberty, which so far seems to help the rich far more than the poor.  Anatole France's line about the rich and poor both having the same right to sleep under the bridges of Paris.  Political classical liberalism was destroyed because its ethical foundations were undercut.  To call for altruistic libertarianism today is to invite a repeat of the process, to ask again that people argue for liberty and individualism while asserting a morality of serfdom.  

As I wrote in my original post, I am in favour of compassion - a point that was omitted in Malcom's quote and discussion - but not in altruism.  In other words, yes I want to help the poor and sick, but I do not regard their claims as a first call on my existence and life.  To accept altruism consistently is to in practice deny individual rights.  It is to step forward in public debate and say yes I wish to serve others, but don't force me.  Once you concede the moral high ground, you've lost the debate.  Once you've said your politics allows - to a greater or lesser extent - immorality to flourish you've undercut yourself.  To argue that altruism is more efficient in private than public hands - the classic error of many conservatives - is to begin haggling over details with your political enemies.  What if it was more efficient to have the welfare state than private charity?  What then of liberty?  The tragic history of political classical liberalism suggests that a belief in political individualism requires a belief in ethical individualism.