Return to Altruism

Some unphilosophical, eclectic altruists, invoking such concepts as "inalienable rights," "personal freedom," "private choice," have claimed that service to others, though morally obligatory, should not be compulsory. The committed, philosophical altruists, however, are consistent: recognizing that such concepts represent an individualist approach to ethics and that this is incompatible with the altruist morality, they declare that there is nothing wrong with compulsion in a good cause—that the use of force to counteract selfishness is ethically justified—and more: that it is ethically mandatory.

Every man, they argue, is morally the property of others—of those others it is his lifelong duty to serve; as such, he has no moral right to invest the major part of his time and energy in his own private concerns. If he attempts it, if he refuses voluntarily to make the requisite sacrifices, he is by that fact harming others, i.e., depriving them of what is morally theirs—he is violating men's rights, i.e., the right of others to his service—he is a moral delinquent, and it is an assertion of morality if others forcibly intervene to extract from him the fulfillment of his altruist obligations, on which he is attempting to default. Justice, they conclude, "social justice," demands the initiation of force against the non-sacrificial individual; it demands that others put a stop to his evil. Thus has moral fervor been joined to the rule of physical force, raising it from a criminal tactic to a governing principle of human relationships.

  <div class="social_block">
  <div class="gplus_wrapper"><div class="g-plusone" data-href="https://aynrandlexicon.com/ # site base urllexicon/altruism/11.html" data-size="medium"></div></div>
  <div class="fb-like" data-href="https://aynrandlexicon.com/ # site base urllexicon/altruism/11.html" data-send="false" data-layout="button_count" data-height="20" data-width="90" data-show-faces="false"></div>
  </div>