Reciprocal Altruism: Anti-Concept

Reciprocal Altruism: Anti-Concept
by Ed Thompson

First, Rand’s illumination* of Anti-Concepts (from CUI, page 176):

Observe the technique involved ... It consists of creating an artificial, unnecessary, and (rationally) unusable term, designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concepts - a term which sounds like a concept, but stands for a "package deal" of disparate, incongruous, contradictory elements taken out of any logical conceptual order or context, a "package deal" whose (approximately) defining characteristic is always a non-essential. This is the essence of the trick.

Let me remind you that the purpose of a definition is to distinguish the things subsumed under a single concept from all other things in existence; and, therefore, their defining characteristic must always be that essential characteristic which distinguishes them from everything else.

So long as men use language, that is the way they will use it. There is no other way to communicate.

*And here’s Rand’s insight distilled:

Anti-concepts are:
1)      a new term, not needed, nor rationally usable
2)      designed to replace or obliterate a legitimate concept
3)      a “package deal” of disparate elements, defined by a non-essential

And second, some operational definitions of 3 relevant concepts:

Altruism: Code of behavior that holds the “sacrifice of value for the perceived welfare of another” as a moral good. Any (particular) human’s (particular) need is taken as a moral claim on another’s (or on all other’s) wealth or ability. Sacrifice is the highest moral good.

Irrational (unethical) Egoism: Code of (cut-throat) behavior that spits in the face of nature, identity, and the wellspring of value that each individual entails (via the division of thought, art, and labor). Any (particular) human’s (particular) need is taken as a moral claim on another’s (or on all other’s) wealth or ability. Sacrificing others to the self is the highest moral good.

Rational (Ethical) Egoism: Code of behavior that recognizes the individual as the fundamental source of prosperity and the fundamental unit of value in society. As the fundamental source of prosperity, wealth (prosperity) is always and only produced from individual, creative persons who have been given the freedom that is required to make the progress that is possible to free thinking/free acting humans. As the unit of value, humans are always and only an end in themselves. They are not ever a mere means for another’s ends (be it God, the Master Race, Society, Nature, etc). This code of behavior dictates that rational individuals remain politically and economically free from the initiation of force - and that they deal with one another as trading partners, trading value for value. The highest moral good (the sum of individual happiness) does not require human sacrifice.

Reciprocal Altruism: Tit-for-tat behavior (the Trading Principle), applied to “generosity.” An offspring of Game theory, this code of behavior establishes generosity as the default mode, and reciprocity as an instructive guide toward repeated interaction with others. “Cooperators” respond in kind to generosity, “cheats” don’t (though cheats may start off quite generous - as a mere ploy in a sinister con-game).

And finally, a conceptual analysis of Reciprocal Altruism:

Let’s ask the Big Three questions regarding anti-concepts – as applied to reciprocal altruism.

Is reciprocal altruism …

1)      a new term, not needed, nor rationally usable(?)

Yes. Behaviors can be first defined differentially as “self-serving” or “other-serving.” These 2 mutually exhaustive halves can then each be further conceptually divided by reference to their rationality, producing four apparent concepts:

A)    irrational self-serving behavior (unethical egoism)
B)    irrational other-serving behavior (altruism)
C)    rational self-serving behavior (ethical egoism)
D)    rational other-serving behavior (?)

As the qualifying tags above indicate, option D appears to be a candidate for reciprocal altruism, but this will not do. Before a new term is let loose on the world, it should be grounded in the facts of existence (to make sure we “need” it; to make sure that it is “rationally usable”). No such grounds exist for “other serving behavior” that is also “rational.”

Is reciprocal altruism …

2)      designed to replace or obliterate a legitimate concept(?)

Yes. The legitimate concept is ethical egoism (rational self-service). The reason to replace or obliterate it would be two-fold: to establish a rational basis for action that IS NOT SELF-SERVIING. As it turns out – upon adequate experience and reflection – ethical egoism DOES SERVE OTHERS, albeit indirectly (as individuals are the fundamental source of good, and they produce the most good when they are self-serving, then they have the overflow of good – Aristotle’s magnanimity – by which to enrich the lives of others close to them). And a point with more universality: highly productive INDIVIDUALS have always been the source of progress – by which whole societies benefit (a telling point is the fact that over 90% of the poor in the US - own color televisions!).

Is reciprocal altruism …

3)      a “package deal” of disparate elements, defined by a non-essential(?)

You bet it is. The nature of reciprocity and the nature of altruism are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED! This “package deal” combines such disparate elements as to mean anything to anyone - or nothing at all (it is rationally unusable – a true mind-destroyer).

Discuss this Article (71 messages)