Skip to content

The Evil of Altruism: The Moral Base of Every Dictatorship on Earth

September 22, 2010

I’ve said it many times before, that the root of all evil on earth is the morality altruism. This code of morality does not merely mean kindness or charity, but the full, complete sacrifice of one’s self to others. But let me make it clear that if you want to sacrifice your life to others, that’s just fine so long as you don’t force others to sacrifice theirs. Therefore if you want to be altruistic, you only have yourself as your own victim. However, altruism becomes evil and unjustifiable if it were imposed by government force, law, or edict. An altruism-by-force or by-law seeks the unconditional sacrifice of men to others- to the state- or to the dictator.

One good example of a proposed altruistic legislation in the Philippines is the infamous Reproductive Health bill that seeks to sacrifice health care providers, businessmen and taxpayers to the poor. Another example is the proposed Text Tax bill that seeks to immolate successful telecommunication companies to what its proponents call the greater good or common good. The government cannot achieve “greater good” or “common good” by sacrificing a particular sector of our society to another sector. In a truly free society there should be no sacrifices.

I stated the following in my previous blog:

I’m not surprised that most people in this country will find it hard and “harsh” to accept that man’s ethical standard is self-interest. Most universities today preach the opposite, telling students that we must live for others— that we must sacrifice ourselves to others, and that it is our duty to serve the welfare and good of others. We have an educational institution in this country that seeks to perpetuate this goal with its philosophy of “men and women for others.” The morality behind this philosophy is that of altruism. The meaning of altruism is not simply kindness or generosity toward other people. Altruism means that man must serve others and that it is his duty to satisfy and fulfill the welfare of others. This kind of morality is not simply immoral; it is evil at best. It means that man must put the interests of others above his own. Altruism demands that man must do the impossible.

Also in my previous blog I wrote:

An altruistic system only thrives in an irrational society run by collectivist-mystics and altruists. It has no room in a free or even semi-free society where objective laws do not demand the people to do something but limit the power and authority of the government. Voluntariness is part of the code of ethics in a free society. Observe that most developed nations like the United States of America volunteer to provide for the needs of poor nations. Observe that most successful men in the world today reach out to the poor through their charitable institutions.

If a social system were based on the morality of altruism, the successful and those who are willing to produce wealth would be reduced to mere slaves. The men who cherish individual rights and freedom will cease to exist in a society that enshrines sacrifice and altruism as a social system. The political slogan of these environmental- and population-altruists is that Marxist credo— “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” A society that holds that man is a tool for the needs and welfare of others regards population growth as evil that must be condemned. If people begin to think that man is a helpless animal who has no capacity to improve his life on earth, they would not hesitate to resort to brute force to achieve their altruistic goal.

However, a free society does not regard population as a social problem. A society beleaguered by government controls and regulations cannot be considered a free society, so is a society founded on the morality of altruism. Aristotle’s law of identity postulates that contradictions cannot exist. Thus, for a society to be free, it has to embrace a certain type of socio-economic system that is consistent with man’s nature and rights. Man’s nature suggests that he cannot exist in a society that regards him as a sacrificial animal. Man’s rights also suggest that man has to live in a society that embraces rational principles and objective moral ideals. This is how the United States of America developed and became the most prosperous nation in the world.

Yes, the men who reject philosophy need it most urgently, since they are most helplessly in its power.[x] Ideas are more powerful than a cabal of fully armed men. Most of the murderous nations on earth—Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Soviet Russia, and Maoist China— were all based on collectivist ideologies that enshrined state’s authority and regarded men as a collection of atoms. A collectivist/socialist state does not recognize individual rights, but only the state’s supremacy to govern and rule its subjects. Observe that those who reject philosophy and ideas do not believe in absolutes—they do not believe in objective reality. Reality for them is subjective to be determined by their consciousness. Everything that is not consistent with man’s nature and rights is a breach of reality.

Related Videos:

2 Comments leave one →
  1. October 12, 2011 3:38

    Using reductio ad absurdum and taking your the totality of your (and Ayn Rand’s) arguments, you and your cohorts should live outside and without the benefit of civilization. Many of the comforts, like the freedom to express yourself, were garnered by sacrifice at the altar of altruism.

  2. Kev permalink
    April 15, 2018 3:38

    Obectivist logic: “Hitler had a moustache, ergo moustaches are evil”: Hitler was a manipulative psychopath. Prime motivation: pure unadulterated egoism. Psychopaths are devoid of empathy and any altruistic sentiment.
    If Hitler appealed to “altruistic self-sacrifice” it was for his own egoistic motives.
    Hitler used a perverse interpretation of Darwin to further his eugenic ideas. That does not mean Darwin’s scientific ideas are invalid.
    Hitler called himself a socialist to get socialist working class votes. That does not mean that Hitler was a Marxist. You could not argue that Marxism is evil because Hitler called his party socialist.

    By your Objectivist logic, Hitler was an egoist, therefore ALL egoism is evil, ergo Objectivism is evil. Perfect Randian conclusion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: