How Societal Ideals Conflict With Societal Goals

| Ash | Comments View Comments

Between some deep thought, some Ayn Rand and more Vienna Fingers than I really should have consumed, this, friends, is my conclusion: USA? We’ve got some issues, yo.

It all started way back when, say 3 days ago, I was furiously writing in the notebook that I keep with me in the car and–yes–might have been guilty of scribbling while driving. I know, you don’t have to say it. That is a bad idea. Admittedly, they should probably administer DUIs for this.

In any event, I was surely on the brink of having a head-on collision as my gel pen & I deliberated over the notion of guilt, our nation, religion, capitalism, and whether or not Fergie’s ass really doesn’t have any cellulite on it, or if it’s the tights. For the record and in the name of my self-esteem, I prefer to believe the latter.

ANYWAY…

The Unfortunate Role Guilt Plays In Our Lives

Supposedly, we’re this great nation of freedom & liberty, but it seems that realistically, we’re actually some of the most frightened cowards on the planet. Was that too straightforward? Let me try again.

There’s no denying our freedom and liberty in terms of politics & capitalistic opportunity–in short, as a society. As a nation, we’re some of the baddest, raddest cowboys around. On a large scale, we’re all sorts of free. That is, until Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake get together, in which case freedom is explicitly frowned upon. Silly nudity.

On the flip side, however, what concerns me is that these same principles don’t apply on a humanistic level; as individual citizens, we aren’t free in the least. While slavery in the U.S. has been technically abolished since 1865, it exists in other forms, and regrettably, our lifestyle reflects that. The truth is, many of us are slaves to our own guilty conscience, which may not always be the most accurate barometer.

In effect, we make decisions based on what we “should” do in line with our guilty conscience (which, if I may point out, in this context is not referring what you “should” do by your own personal moral standards, but what you “should” do as a function of societal pressures to be, act, live a certain way). Ultimately, our entire lives are characterized by decisions born from guilt, essentially transforming guilt into a tool that plays the role of compass. While we’re on the topic, this is fundamentally how religion operates–by providing us with a set list of consequences for certain behavior, it’s easy to control large groups of people by capitalizing on their guilty consciences. But, I digress.

The point here is that oftentimes, we aren’t these fearless rebels like we’re made out to be. We’re terrified to move outside of what’s commonly accepted.

Ayn, Ashley & Altruism–And How It Relates Back to Guilt

So, back to my girl Ayn. She talks a lot about our social system being based on an altruistic code of morality, in which it’s perpetuated that self-service is our highest moral duty, virtue and value. In saying that, she cautions about not hiding behind superficialities as to whether you should or shouldn’t give a dime to a beggar, and claims that the issue isn’t whether or not you give the beggar the dime, but whether you do or do not have the right to peacefully exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether or not the needs of others is the moral purpose of your existence. Altruism answers yes. Our society answers yes.

The question becomes as simple as one little word: Why? Why must man live for the sake of others? Why must we sacrifice ourselves in order to be deemed worthy? Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own?

Rand’s answer? Mysticism. The unearthly, the supernatural and the irrational is called upon to justify it–or, more appropriate, as Rand states, to escape the necessity of justification. My answer? Altruism, in its purest form, doesn’t exist in the first place, and there’s a hidden benefit in doing seemingly selfless work such as volunteering, which is the feel-good feeling that one receives in return. Therefore, we aren’t really living for the sake of others, as it may appear. More on that in another post.

To get down to business, here’s the issue that plagues us without us even knowing it: While society answers yes to altruism, its systems answer no. Our system of capitalism is defined by individual profit motive, whose values stand in stark opposition to our altruistic societal ideals. Talk about a mind %$#.

Now let’s really get wild and juxtapose that with another fun factor. According to the American Religious Identification Survey of 2008, 76% of the population identified themselves as Christians. 34% of them considered themselves “Born Again” or “Evangelical Christians.” That terrifies me for so many reasons, but I’m not going there today. The point is that it’s reasonable to claim that 76% of the population, by default, maintains an altruistic philosophy.

Big, Bad Conclusions

So what the hell does all of that mean? What it means is that we have is a bunch of altruists living in a capitalistic society. Is it any wonder why our nation is plagued with guilt? Essentially, we’ve got one force badgering us to be capitalists–which emphasizes individual gain–and another force badgering us to be altruists–which emphasizes individual sacrifice. Does this call for some mad eenie meenie miney mo, or what? Therefore, it’s nearly impossible not to make a decision based on guilt, because either way you cut the cake, you’re still alienating one in favor of the other.

In the end, I can’t help but believe that this serves as further support for a call for critical thinking, and the ability to deconstruct one’s realities, analyze them and then use those conclusions to serve as one’s compass. Perhaps then, we won’t be guilted into life, but rather, will start actually living it.

Oh yeah, and one last thing. For the record? I don’t need tights.

Thoughts on this? Think Rand’s way off? Think I am? I welcome you to contribute to the conversation.

From the middle finger project, post How Societal Ideals Conflict With Societal Goals

Post Footer automatically generated by wp-posturl plugin for wordpress.

If you liked that jazz. . .check out some of these:

HOOK A GIRL UP WITH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA LOVIN:

Hide Sites

Filed Under: Philosophy, baby • Society & Culture

Tags: altruism • American society • Ayn Rand • guilt • societal goals • societal ideals • society

About the Author: Ashley Ambirge is the sarcastic, brash, hot-sauce-addicted founder of The Middle Finger Project, where she gives the evil eye to mediocrity, fervently questions societal assumptions, and aims to inspire readers to flip a cordial bird to the shoulds, and live how they want. Whiskey shots strictly optional.

courtdemone

Dear Middle Finger Project Lady,

Firstly, I would like to thank Christopher Dugan for his comment. I would like to spend a moment expanding upon it here.

I share your love of Ayn Rand, the Fountainhead is one of my favorite books. So much so that I came within inches of becoming an architect. The fire that burned within her was unparalleled, and when it aspired to that ultimate individual whom she idolized oh so much, there are few that could match its brightness. My qualms with dear old Ayn's views is when she uses that fire to punish as opposed to warm.

Not to reduce such a masterpiece as the Fountainhead down to mere psychology, but let us examine this work against Ayn Rand's own life. She was forced to flee communist Russia at a young age, and naturally grew up demonizing the communist ideal which pushed her from her home. Altruism, more-or-less the initial ideal of communism, certainly an unrealized ideal, became the core tenet which she began to attack.

In the novel the Fountainhead, Rand's glory is shown mostly via the character of Howard Roark. When Roark speaks, we listen. When he does anything, he does so amazingly. He is that individual whom Ayn had such a dear love for and hoped to inspire all of us with. When we read her descriptions of him, our breath is still and our heart skips a beat.

Compare this to her depiction of Ellsworth Toohey, the "bad guy" of the story, the diabolical mastermind who uses altruism as a platform by which he degenerates all to useless scum. Her description of him is vulgar, using horridly cliche antics to make him sound as despicable as possible. It is all so childish, she seems to be going out of her way to create a small puppy whom she can then kick to make her look superior.

Ayn's heart is in the right place, but her mind is not (Just look at any of her book's sex scenes). She wants to trek up that mountain which when she reaches the top she will be that perfect individual, but she wishes to find an enemy along the way. It is the fault of many an unbridled passion, wanting to gauge their success by the failure of their enemy.

We all essentially want the same thing. Evangelical Christians just want a perfect world. Muslim Extremists just want a perfect world. The Nazis just wanted a perfect world. Its in their misdirected passion, their obsession on hatred (Of sin, the Western World, or Jews) that they fail and became just another miserable and childish sect, wanting to prey on an inferior or 'less holy' kind.

To be of true power is to aspire to all, and reject none. To love all, and hate none. And doesn't loving all sound a little like altruism? I know it's called the Middle Finger project, but could, for once, Fuck You turn to Love you?

PS You say that religion operates on fear and consequences, and while I'm not going to differ from you, as there are aspects of religion which are certainly centered around consequences, I would like to say that that is only one aspect. There are plenty of other aspects of religion, if you are to read the gospels you'll realize that Jesus essentially is advocating that Howard Roark mentality when he says "You will always have the poor" when he is reproached by the Apostles for allowing Mary Magdalene to apply perfume to his head when the money from selling that perfume could be used to help the poor. Religion is just as much about living courageously as objectivism. If you're interested in Religion at all, check out http://killingthebuddha.com Some great articles in there.
TMFproject

@courtdemone
First, I just need to tell you how wonderful of a writer you are. You've captivated my attention with your words here, and you've evoked all sorts of sentiment. Thank you so much for taking your time to write this, and to communicate this wonderful message. Your point is well-taken, especially your perspective on Rand and the influences that have shaped her. Essentially, you've highlighted a really valuable idea that we all should be considering about ourselves. Thank you, again, for your thoughts here.

P.S. Just to clear it up, the finger in The Middle Finger Project was aimed at rigid, money and power-driven societal expectations....not people. :) So yes, "Love you" it is!
PedroSobota

In a biological context, there is a theory that supports your observation of the necessary reward for altruism. It maintains that the benefit goes beyond the good feeling, into somehow higher chance of survival. Of course, that would only apply to our ancestors, but the conduct remains in us, even if it ain't of any help anymore. (Dawkins explains it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEn4QvaEeb0) Our moral system would then have been built from poorly understood behaviour, however that wouldn't be problem, since us being conscious human beings, should enable us to freely rebuild it and rethink our values (such as pick the best things and leave the misconceived things behind)
TMFproject

@Pedro
I'm so glad you brought this up! I definitely have heard Dawkins speak on this topic, and tend to support his theories. I didn't bring it up here because I was worried I'd overwhelm, but it's important to note. I'd recommend the link to anyone following the conversation that's interesting in pursuing this topic further.

Thanks for the comment, and welcome to the site. :)
TMFproject

@Pedro

P.S. I really wish I could read what looks to be Portuguese. :)
George Angus

Hi Ash,

A bit late to the party here, but what the heck. So, in responding to this, I need to pull out my old faithful bag o' philosophies and trundle a few of them on stage. No stage fright here - they've been up before.

Connectedness, I say. I believe we are all connected. When you are a positive, giving person you can raise untold thousands to a higher level of existence (Dr David Hawkins, Power-vs-Force). So, any good thing that you do ripples outward through the masses. Altruistic? Maybe.

The best way for me to be able to help my fellow humans (and therefore myself) is to be in a position where I can focus and do the things I want to do. My greatest likelihood for success is through ensuring that I have the things that I want and need in my life. The capitalist model works for me in that regard (at least on a temporary basis).

Anyhoo, that's me two cents!

George
TMFproject

@George
Dude! Loving the philosophy. Glad you dusted 'er off.

I definitely don't mean to imply that capitalism is bad, nor engaging in altruistic activities, but just thought I'd point out the inconsistency. :p

But you make an excellent point--in order to even think about doing things for others, we first have to be in a position to do so. In that respect, it seems to represent a cycle.

As always--thanks for stopping to hang out. :)
mskarenau

Ah yes. Guilt. Guilt, I've discovered, is one of the things that drives our fear of failure. We feel guilty for failing, because WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO FAIL AWO;RGUIHFKLJVOFH!!!!!!! So people feel paralyzed and end up just taking the safe route.

Whatever. Eff that, guilt. SUCK IT.

I know, how elegant of me.

Anyway, this is a digression from the point of your post (the big idea of which I agree with and don't have anything to add at the moment) but I must say that I've got issues with the statement: "pure altruism doesn't exist". Because then pure selfishness doesn't exist either. Pure ANYTHING doesn't exist. There will always be another emotion involved in our actions. We feel good when we do something to help others, we feel guilty when we do something selfish and inconsiderate of others. Humans aren't black and white, and by that logic alone, saying that "pure altruism doesn't exist" is, to me, irrelevant and not worth arguing about. So we feel good when we do something nice. Isn't that all that matters? As opposed to feeling regretful when we do something nice? Isn't that what defines a nice person and a not-so-nice person?

My two cents.
TMFproject

So you don't have issues with the statement "pure altruism doesn't exist," because then you went on to say that nothing is pure! :p Right? Did I read that correctly? The reason why I made the argument is because there are many that do consider altruism to be a selfless act, but it isn't entirely, because you've got the accompanying feel-good emotion that you cited here....which is a benefit to you, and, as I would argue, the motivating factor behind seemingly altruistic acts. There are others that would argue that nice people don't exist in isolation either; they're being nice perhaps for a subconscious motive, whether that's simply just to make another person think favorably about you or in order to assert your own agenda later down the road. Not sure that I agree with that, because I tend to be overly nice by default when I should be a jerk, but it's a perspective to consider.
mskarenau

I suppose I have issues with WHY people tend to say "pure altruism doesn't exist", as opposed to the statement itself.

Everyone I've come across so far (except yourself, actually) who has made that statement has done so cynically, as a way of calling out the hypocrite in people who put effort into doing nice things for others. In this scenario, saying "pure altruism doesn't exist, you're only doing it so you can feel good about yourself" is not only mean-spirited, but it's also counter-productive. I think you would agree with me on this one: not only is saying that with these intentions making the good-doer feel crappy, but it makes it seem as though the act of kindness is less beneficial to this world simply because the doer feels good for doing it. It's happened to me on more than one occasion, and it's created a negative association to that statement.

Does that make sense? It's midnight over here after a long day. I hope I've clarified my thoughts a bit better.
mskarenau

Also, I just reread what I wrote the first time. My point was, really, just a big "so what?" to the statement itself. Cynics around me discuss the lack of pure altruism all the time, and to what ends? I don't understand their triumph in proving such a thing. So pure altruism doesn't exist. Neither does pure selfishness. But we don't see people pointing THAT out. Again, this goes back to what I just wrote above: so what if pure altruism doesn't exist? I'd rather feel good about doing something nice, than to feel crappy about it. And at least I'm trying to do something nice. This rant is more to express that I don't appreciate the way non-good-doers make good-doers feel crappy by saying something as pointless as "pure altruism doesn't exist".

Hmm.. I think this should be a blog post at mskarenau.com. Man, you and Chevy have provided me with quite some material to think and write about, either indirectly or directly. Sweet.

Anyway, sorry I ranted on your comment section, I didn't mean for it to turn out a rant, nor did I mean to make you feel bad about saying "pure altruism doesn't exist"! Because it's important to recognize the motivations behind our deeds, and I don't have issues with the way you've framed it. My reaction unfortunately came more from my past experiences. I hope you don't feel I took it out on you!
TMFproject

Karen-

Your comment is totally fine. :) That's the point of this entire website--to encourage dialogue and get a conversation going. Thanks for making it! I understand the point you're making, and I suppose my response would have to be that technically, you could probably say "So what?" to my entire website. Everything that I post is in the name of provoking thought. That said, asking "so what," is sort of like saying that people shouldn't debate whether God does or doesn't exist since there isn't going to be a solidified answer, or the difference between right and wrong. Obviously, blindly accepting assumptions isn't the ideal scenario, so we question those assumptions. That was my intention here. Within this context, calling out altruism was done more for us to be mindful of others' intentions with us, rather than our intentions with them, although it's all relative. It sounds like you're highly offended that I would ever suggest that anything that you do is done without the purest of intentions, and I apologize if that was your reaction but I didn't mean to say that such acts shouldn't be performed; simply that we receive psychological benefits from doing so in the process. But beyond seemingly selfless big acts like volunteering in orphanages, for example, we're surrounded with this concept everywhere, right down to this blog comment. For example, what are you getting from leaving it in the first place? Well, you definitely get the benefit of being able to express yourself and feel as if you've got some type of influence in the world, you get the benefit of social interaction, you get the benefit of having further refined your thought processes and life philosophies, and you might even be receiving the benefit of possible traffic to your own website from readers here that might see this. Whether you're consciously doing it for those reasons or others is a different matter. On my end, what do I get from responding? All of the same things you do with the exception of the last, but in exchange I get the benefit of showing readers that their comments matter to me, which will build trust and hopefully ultimately help me expand The Middle Finger Project.

See what I mean?

Brian can call me cynical all he wants, but I'd rather be considered cynical than obtuse. (I'm not calling you that!) By the way, I know Brian in real life and he usually doesn't send so many jabs my way when there's a round of beers involved! :p
mskarenau

Man! We totally just did the whole, "I'm sorry I lashed out! - I'm sorry if you were offended! - I'm sorry if I made you feel like I was offended!" thing. All because I didn't make my point all that clear, and started off this comment thread rashly. Whoops. GG on being succinct, Ms. Au.

Let me try again, and incorporate also what both you and Brian have said, cuz it's good stuff:

Firstly! Rest assured that there was nothing anywhere on this website that I took personally. Your comment on altruism had set me off, not because you brought it up, but only because it reminded me of others with more malicious (or perhaps simply self-conscious?) intent who happened to make the same point as you for different reasons. I get what you're saying and even agree: people who do good things do them because it makes them feel good. There's nothing wrong with that sort of motivation, and I'm glad you pointed it out.

My problem comes in when, like I said, cynics (yourself NOT included!!) try to make me feel silly for doing things for others, and do so by telling me that pure altruism doesn't exist. Like Brian said, it's almost as though the cynic is trying to erase any notion that my humanitarian actions make me "better than her" (as if I would imply such a thing, anyway). I suppose then, my "so what?" is said more to question the intent of the cynic; said more to beg the question, "why are you making me feel guilty to replace your guilt for not contributing to society? I'LL FIGHT YOU." (Okay so I won't actually fight her. Not until my BF makes me a Tae Kwon Do master, at any rate. I'm too little to go around beating people up, even for the good of humanity.)

My last digression aside, I hope that made sense. The point of all my seemingly endless rambling here was not so much to disagree with you, nor to shake my finger at you for discussing the existence of true altruism (heaven forbid I shake my finger at you for initiating discussion, period!). My intent was more to say that, yes, pure altruism doesn't exist. But like you said, that's no reason to stop doing good things for others, and we shouldn't feel guilty for feeling good when we contribute to the greater wellfare of society. There's nothing wrong with doing good things because it makes us feel chipper. Better than doing things to hurt others and feeling good about *that*!

And thanks also to Brian for your input, it helped ground my thoughts.
Brian W.

Funny, after reading your first post, I sat and thought for a minute, and thought "So what?" Then I read your second post and chuckled heartily.

I think the "so what" is that if altruism is pure self-interest, the cynic tries to remove any notion that the altruist is better than her. If you have no problems with the cynic putting herself at your level, then I suppose there really is no "so what" there at all. On the other hand, if you'd like to say that other people also ought to be altruistic, because it represents some higher cause for humanity, then I think you're going to have to fight her on that one.
kathy

thanks ash for another thought provoking post! i can feel my brain expanding with every word i read.
i guess for me i've always related guilt with being raised catholic. but now i'm a recovering catholic and guilt is a wasted emotion for me. i agree with luckybiker in that guilt and fear are hand in hand. i also feel that guilt is associated with self-worth. if one doesn't feel worthy of something, then they will feel guilty having it and will give it to someone else. i believe that we are here to help out each other in whatever capacity we can.

p.s. i'm with you, ash, on the 34%!
TMFproject

@kathy
Funny--my mom was raised a strict Catholic, which was enough to make her decide to go the opposite direction with me, and not instill any religion in me, but rather taught me values from a humanistic perspective. It's nice to be free from that indoctrination, and has probably been a critical factor in allowing me to be so open-minded. Salud!!!
Nate

This guilt is something I deal with every single day. I was raised in a Baptist church all the way up, and am reeeeally familiar with the whole "use guilt to control large groups of people" thing. Since I've become an adult (it's still a work in progress) things have changed completely. I've started thinking for myself and began analyzing each situation. Like if I'm planning go out out and have a few (a lot) of drinks my first thought is still OMG I can't do that! But wait, I can. I'm 21. I'm responsible. I'm kind of pissed that I was raised to not think for myself for the most part, but oh well, it's too late now. And I'm having a really eye opening experience so it's sweet like that. Great post Ash you kicked some serious ass as usual.
lenaroth

Don't let your past get you down. You have your own thoughts now and that's really what counts.
TMFproject

Nate--you've mentioned this briefly in the past, and I'd be super interested to perhaps do an interview with you on how your perspectives have been altered, and discuss this experience. I think this is fascinating; it must be tough to deconstruct and reconstruct your beliefs in the way that you are, because they're typically so ingrained. Let me know if you'd be interested in something like that?
Adrian Swinscoe

Hi Ash,
Great post. I agree, the juxtaposition is stark and something that both Marx and Adam Smith alluded to a long time ago.

And I think that there is a rising debate and search for answers (albeit a little late) to the question: Am I going to leave the world a better place as a result of my actions OR Am I making this world a good place to raise my children in? We may be in a lot of trouble in a lot of ways but, perhaps all is not lost. There are things happening (a movement, shall we say) that could help balance these challenges we face.

Have you ever heard of Social Enterprise? Check out the following link
http://www.goodentrepreneur.com/Discussion/The-...

Chip Feiss in the article says that:
"I define it (Social Enterprise) as a for-profit/non-profit or hybrid business, using private investment to work on common-good social problems.
Virtually daily there is news of another social enterprise initiative, as individuals and institutions such as business schools, where courses on social enterprise are among the most popular, explore alternative ways to create financial and social value. Those involved in launching these new enterprises clearly reject Milton Friedman’s perspective “that the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”.

This is one of the fastest growing areas of the UK economy, that is what I know, and is gaining and gaining momentum in the US. I think it's an exciting development and builds hope and potentially can marry the conflicts that you address.

Bit of a ramble. Make sense? What do you think?

Adrian
TMFproject

@Adrian
What fantastic information! This brings up a great point--I think social enterprise is largely reflective of a shift in personal values. Friedman's perspective illustrates the work-hard-get-money philosophy of prior generations; social enterprise illustrates the ever-changing work-hard-and-get-more-out-of-it-than-money-because-money-isn't-everything philosophy of up and coming generations. Young generations now demand more from their careers; we expect fulfillment, not just a paycheck. For whatever reason this came about, it's here and it's producing movements like this. I have to admit--for all of the complaining that older generations do about Gen Y being "lazy and entitled," I will say that it seems they've got their priorities more in check, and I'm excited about it!

I adored this comment. Thank you so much!
Adrian Swinscoe

Glad you liked it. Let me know what you think about the education project brief I sent you.

Adrian
simpleinfrance

Very interesting! A couple of thoughts:

I don't necessarily equate Christian and Altruistic (man, I don't want to get flamed ok, preparing fire retardant . . .) Some Christians can be seen being charitable, altruistic or concerned with others. Those are things you can take from Christianity if you want. . .but you can (and people do) take a lot harsher lessons from it. (the old puritan construct of the damned and the blessed are predetermined and will show signs of which camp they come from in their daily lives--hence if things don't go so well for you, you might be damned.) Or the modern version of this, "God wants you to be successful."

Also . . .Here in France, people don't refer to altruism but *solidarity.* I recently watched a news summary on how food drives in French supermarkets are flourishing in these hard times--especially in poorer neighborhoods. Why? Because here you help others not because you feel you are giving, or doling out charity, but because you realize that if it happened to them, it could happen to you!

So solidarity and altruism might have the same 'look' to them: people donating time, energy, money, food etc. But altruism is supposedly for those poor others and allows you to identify with the non-losers in the system (and maybe even blame the victim a little so that you can feel safer). Solidarity is for yourself/humanity: you identify with the victims and hope that someone would help you if you ended up there.

Wow, I'm so inspired I may have to write my own post on this topic over at my blog--Fantastic post by the by.
TMFproject

@simpleinfrance
I did hesitate to make that sweeping generalization connecting Christians and altruism, but I did so based on their supposed beliefs; that said, I can't say that I know too much about it, myself.

Interesting perspective on the food drives in France--in terms of the altruism/solidarity breakdown, on the surface I think it seems that altruism looks like it's strictly for the benefit of others, but I'd argue that there are ulterior motives that drive those types of acts, which points to a benefit that is gleaned. In that sense, it's similar to solidarity in that you're actually performing these acts, at least in part, for yourself. Also--the food drives are interesting--reflective of a slightly more collectivist culture than we see here in the U.S.? Just a guess.
simpleinfrance

Yes, I think more collectivist could be a way of describing it--I really notice that people seem to respond to other people in trouble with the idea of "Oh, man, that could happen to me too! Better help out." It's an actual thought or statement, not so much an ulterior motive. People want to live in a society where you don't get left to fend for yourself with things go wrong. In the States, I sometimes think we tend to think, "Oh look what happened to that guy--good thing I'm smarter, more prepared (whatever) so it can't happen to me." Meritocracy and all--you get what you deserve.

I can't say I actually have a preference for either really . . .both have their strong points.
Shane Vaughn

Great topic! Reminds me of a TED speech by Jonathan Haidt which is great about the moral mind. http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_...

I feel guilt from judgement (and sometimes perceived judgement) so what if we just didn't judge anyone? Thinking back to Paleo times, was there tribe judgement and then guilt for not sharing food? I would suspect there was (sorry, no paleo sociology education). I can picture the big eyes and sad face of a weaker man, it seems like he'd be thrown a drumstick. Add a survival mindset though and all bets are off for the weak. Speaking of weak, are altruists weak and capitalists strong?

There is always balance as a moderate, but the extremes are not sustainable. If you're not making money, you can't really be an altruist for long. The blatant grab for wealth and vacuous symbols of status that are at the heart of today's capitalist is far from sustainable. They will consume anything for a short period, then flare out and die. Some practices (which make tons of cash) even kill the very customer that is supporting them. Cigarettes, Soda, HF Corn Syrup and pharmaceuticals. I put them in the "Not Sustainable" category.

I like the approach of Dr Bronners where they balance capitalism, sustainability and giving. Practices like paying the executives/owners only a certain percentage above the lowest paid employee of the company, fair trade and re-investing profits. They seem to balance making money with doing great things for humans at the same time. When contemplating guilt, think about whether your practices are sustainable. If they are, you're most likely doing the right thing.
TMFproject

@ShaneVaughn
I just watched that TED talk--thank you so much for adding the link. I had never seen that one, and loved what he said about openness to experience and the connection between liberals & conservatives. Might have to look into that further and discuss that here on the site!

The image you evoked of the man with the big eyes and sad face was heartbreaking. In terms of whether altruists are weak and capitalists are strong, I don't think this is a natural state; I think that a causal relationship might exist between living in a capitalist society, for example, and then being forced to be "strong" in order to survive. Since capitalism is based on the survival of the fittest, it's a lot of sink or swim that promotes elitism, egoism & competition. Being "strong" seems to be a byproduct.
Shane Vaughn

I agree that strength is a byproduct. You have a great talent for pulling our minds out of idle and pressing the accelerator to the floor! (sorry, no Toyota pun intended) Thank you. Now I'm off to ponder the creation of wealth without destruction to people or our world.
stevenponec

This blog should be named "Middle Finger Project - Mind Food for Open Minds"
haha seriously.
This post was very interesting. It brings up things I hadn't thought about.
That's why I love your writing. I know I've probably said it too many times, but it seriously has the most interesting ideas anywhere. And, to top it, it's in informal and fun language, while still talking about big ideas.
Cool
TMFproject

Damn, I swear--if I ever need an ego boost, I'm totally just going to re-read all of your comments. THANK YOU! Writing in a conversational tone about things that matter is exactly my goal--I'm glad it seems like it's working. Cheers, Steven!
Ben Moreno

I have been thinking about it for a long time now and last night I had an epiphany. Our system of profit is so deeply ingrained in our countries people that it is going to take blood shed to actually change it.

Also, the government and corporations have so much control over people it is disgusting. Yesterday I got an email to tell me that UCLA students were "SCHEDULED" to protest out side of my building. They are also have a "PERMIT" to do it. This made me start cracking up really hard and an overwhelming feeling of "I give up" came over me. Protest is now done by appointment and with permits. Wow, this sucks really bad.

It wasn't enough to make me actually give up though. I will just have to find another approach. It is going to take a huge spark to really make a difference. Sorry, I know this is kind of a down response but it is all related.
TMFproject

If you think this was negative, I can't imagine what people think of my posts! :)

Your point is well-taken, indeed. On a related note, I was speaking with a school teacher yesterday who was telling me that a corporation was coming in and buying her school, located in center city Philly. I can't figure out on what grounds this isn't a conflict of interest, but hey. I guess I could say the same for all for-profit schools. I don't have the brain power to get into that now, at all, but I was shocked by it, for sure.
LuckyBiker

Ah, guilt. Guilt is a motherfucker, and it's holding hands with fear. There are times when guilt is exactly the correct feeling, but too many times it's just there to screw with us. Through the influence of various authorities in our lives (parents, school, church, police, TV news, bosses, advertising...) we can end up with some pretty screwy ideas of what is right. For a large number of people, what is "right" is being selfless to the point of self-toxicity.

"Sure, I'm in the middle of my own thing, but I can do that for you right this second. Sure, here's my shirt. Sure, here's my last fifty bucks. Well, I wanted a soda, but here, you can have it instead."

Sometimes, you need to say "No, this is my twinkie, and I'm going to eat it right now," and feel OK about it. Which is quite a trick for a few of us. It's all well and good to whip yourself now and then, for fun, if you're in to that, but quite another when you inadvertantly turn it into a way of life.

Ultimately, one has to take care of him/herself in order to take care of others. Put the oxygen mask on yourself first, then help the passengers around you... Which is to say - help people as much as you can, but not at your own expense.

Great post!
TMFproject

P.S. It was me who you were following the other day to work. What, you have a problem with U-turns? Haha. Just kidding. Entertaining post, my friend.
TMFproject

"No, LuckyBiker, this is my wine cellar full of Malbec!!"

Oh, it's nice to fantasize.

:p

In line with this post, I can cite an example that came to mind when I read what you had written here. As children, we're told to share, not to be selfish, and to play nice. Over and over again. As adults, however, we're told, verbally and nonverbally, that it's each man for his own. It seems that the changeover occurs once you enter the adult working world, although, now that I think about it, it's actually always been each man for his own...even when we were told to share.

There's nothing wrong with sharing, but like you said...it's gotten to a point where we're guilted into doing so when, sometimes it's at our own expense. That in itself isn't necessarily bad, either, but it's when it becomes a perpetual occurrence that we're eventually doing it to the point of our own self-detriment. Funny how there's so much emphasis on personal well-being in terms of external appearance, but not a whole lot on serving one's soul...just everyone else's.
Heather

Timely post; I'd actually just been prodded to look at this as it relates to me personally. I'm in the UK, though I figure we have pretty much the same problem (or at least I do). Takes a lot of working out where you stand yourself, and even then... ei.

Great job pointing it out.
TMFproject

Welcome, Heather! For the record, I totally imagined you saying that comment in a British accent. :p

P.S. 3-D rocks.
Heather

Lol, my accent is on my blog if you're that curious :P Thanks for the welcome! Glad you like 3D ^_^
Colin Wright

Anytime I'm feeling down, I break open my (digital) copy of Atlas Shrugged. Ahhhh, it's nice to have hero figures to look up to, even if they're fake (and perhaps a bit too idealistic to ever exist in real life).
TMFproject

AHHH! I'm dying to read that! How have I not done this already?
Colin Wright

Seems like an oversight to me! Get on it, woman!
Christopher Dugan

On capitalism and altruism:
Within a given market, as businesses compete and supply approaches demand, saturation occurs and prices inevitably fall toward zero (free). The industrial revolution did this with physical labor and the internet is doing it now with information.

At the same time, the key to creating a succesfull business is finding a pain or problem within a community or niche you are involved in or knowledgeable about, developing a solution and trading it (for money, reputation, etc.). Then, when that solution's market becomes saturated (or, preferably before), either improve upon it or move on to another.

The secret goal of capitalism is to encourage innovation (codeword: risk-taking) and abundance (codephrase: market saturation). On a larger scale in which everything is interconnected, this causes self intrest to become altruism in disguise as mutually beneficial and redundant systems arise to create and maintain solutions to human needs and desires. This is evolution (codeword: progress) at work in society and, in a way, capitalism and behavioral economics are simply an observation of this trend.

At least, this remains true for small and start-up businesses. Government, "Big Business," and Walstreet on the other hand, are cumbersome entities that stifle innovation by treating human beings according to their percieved, "lowest common denominator," but have been fortunately outdated with the advent of ubiquitous internet access and outsourced design and distribution infrastructure. Their downfall, or evolution, is imminent.

To restate my point: Self interst is altruism and vice versa. This is not a contradiction but a paradox.
TMFproject

Christopher--

I want to thank you so much for taking the time to discuss this. This is probably one of the most insightful, intelligent comments that's been made here on the site to date, and I've re-read it several times because I want to remember what you've said. This is excellent; most notably where you say, "this causes self-interest to become altruism in disguise as mutually beneficial and redundant systems arise to create and maintain solutions to human needs and desires."

This is precisely why I love having this site--the conversation that arises. I learn more from my readers than they do me, I'm sure. Hope anyone that's interested on this topic stops by to read your comment thoroughly.

Thanks again.
Christopher Dugan

You're very welcome. Though I commented mainly for myself, to express the fire of a thought your post sparked within my brain (connecting altruism, capitalism and societal guilt), I am glad you found value in it. These kinds of mutually beneficial transactions are the fabric upon which societies, communities, are built.

I begin to wonder if we taught children to trade with each other rather than share, and provided a means for them to do so, would they learn to get along better, faster? Then again, we're all children at heart. ;)