Individualism and Altruism

This collection of excerpts from Hayek's "Fatal Conceit" combined with Rizzo's notes on the subject discusses the contradictions of philosophy in the views of those who believe "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Forced altruism should be the enemy of any individual who values their liberty, and Rizzo makes the case that it is the opposite of individualism. Giving is not an immoral action, but forcing others to give is. All philanthropy should be voluntary. Now, individualists are not against giving. They just recognize that even when they are charitable, it is generally in self-interest. For instance, helping a friend may seem charitable, but in truth one may just value the friendship over the monetary cost of helping them out. This is an individualistic rather than altruistic form of charity, and is the correct form of charity. Individualists are not selfish. Rizzo goes on to explain how moral intimidation is not a sustainable incentive and can derail a society, and that altruism is not a morally sound belief, though it appeals greatly to our human sense of empathy. In small societies and actions, altruism functions vibrantly, but on a broad-scale it can not and should be implemented.

I think Rizzo and Hayek have it right. People generally only think of altruism in terms of money. This is where all the confusion begins. If someone gives money, they are altruistic. If they don't, they are selfish.  But what is neglected is the non-monetary value being traded. As in Rizzo's friend example, what is being valued and traded is friendship against money, not money for money. So Rizzo's decision to bail out his friend is a selfish transaction, pure and simple. He values the friendship over the money. This is a truly hopeful concept. Yet, ironically enough, altruists see this as unselfish because all they follow is the money, regardless of more subtle values. Altruism is also indiscriminate in giving, deeming any selectivity in charity as morally depraved. This is a flaw ideology. If I only have a certain amount of money to give, and give it to anybody and everybody who asks for it, I am being inexcusably lazy. Instead, I should determine who could do the most with it, or I believe I could truly help. Which would be the best investment? If I gave all my money away to scoundrels, and then came across someone who deserved the money, I would be at a loss. In a nutshell, the money you give to toxic investments is money taken away from good investments. Instead of saving the virtuous, you are sacrificing them over the altar of the non-virtuous. This is where individualists have it right and altruists trip up.

That all being said, I think that there are some failures of individualism in explaining people's charity. Just because something can be explained in terms of self-interest does not mean that it is in self-interest. Today I saw Bill Clinton speak, and he talked about his charity work in Haiti rebuilding after the terrible destruction. I could explain this in terms of selfish investment, but I do not think that argument would hit the mark. There is some charitable impulse which drives non-selfish actions, like stopping to help someone pick up books they've dropped or holding the door for someone. Often there is little to gain from these actions, yet good samaritans still exist and lend a hand on a regular basis. How would individualism explain these exceptions?

Main Ideas:
1. Altruism is not an inherently sound moral philosophy.
2. Individualism is not inherently selfish
3. When examining altruistic actions, look for "soft" values being exchanged. Then determine if the action is altruistic.