My Response to Slate Article: I don't give to my neighborhood panhandlers. Should I?
Original Article: http://www.slate.com/id/2209038/
-----
Life on earth requires that you support yourself. You make your own way to the best of your ability never seeking nor giving the unearned.
A panhandler is probably someone about whom you know nothing, and whom has done nothing to prove that he earns his own way through life. In fact, the only evidence that you have is to the contrary: that he seeks that which he has not earned and which he does not intend to. You owe this person nothing. Not even pocket change, which you had to work to acquire.
The principle involved is justice. In justice, we are to evaluate people according to their character which, by their choices and actions, they have earned. Similarly, we must evaluate the result of our effort and productivity based on its metaphysical importance to our survival.
The panhandler's purported need does not make his character a non-issue. As an example of how people apply this principle, if inconsistently, is in their reluctance to give their money away to support drug use. This is a moral evaluation and it is an appropriate one since a virtuous person cannot serve vice and say that his values mean anything to him.
The inconsistency is a sign of having accepted contradictory morals. The specific idea I am referring to is that one should feel guilty about questioning whether it is appropriate to help at all, because helping others is good (no matter the circumstances) and the pandhandler's seeming helplessness presents an opportunity to do "good works". Because of the pervasiveness of the morality of altruism, the pan handler's need, instantly equates to some moral duty to do *something*.
I, who do not accept altruism, am writing to say that it is not a duty and that it is not a good.
Duty. Unchosen duty is as false a claim on you as original sin. The only duties we are born with are the ones necessary for our own survival: Life is supported by productive work, which is made possible only by reason. Therefore you have a duty to support your existence and a right to the product of your work. Physical force or compulsion denies people the use of reason forcing them to act against their interests, therefore one must never initiate its use. That's what you owe to your fellow man.
Good. This too is determined by what is necessary for your life as a human being. Virtues and values have survival function. If you cherish your own virtues of independence and productive work, then it cannot be appropriate to pay tribute to the lack of these virtues in another person. Thus, I submit that it cannot be *good* to give away any value you have earned, no matter how small, to someone you don't know the first thing about. One cannot promiscuously help others. The decision has to be rational.
Over time, I intend to provide as many concrete examples as I can that serve one hypothesis: That the morality of altruism is not only inherently impractical, but it is also self-destructive and therefore does not deserve the claims of nobility that have been bestowed upon it.
Your morality is yours to choose and it, like everything else in life, has to be done must be done according to your nature as a human being on this earth if you are to survive, thrive, and live a life of deep personal meaning.
-----
Life on earth requires that you support yourself. You make your own way to the best of your ability never seeking nor giving the unearned.
A panhandler is probably someone about whom you know nothing, and whom has done nothing to prove that he earns his own way through life. In fact, the only evidence that you have is to the contrary: that he seeks that which he has not earned and which he does not intend to. You owe this person nothing. Not even pocket change, which you had to work to acquire.
The principle involved is justice. In justice, we are to evaluate people according to their character which, by their choices and actions, they have earned. Similarly, we must evaluate the result of our effort and productivity based on its metaphysical importance to our survival.
The panhandler's purported need does not make his character a non-issue. As an example of how people apply this principle, if inconsistently, is in their reluctance to give their money away to support drug use. This is a moral evaluation and it is an appropriate one since a virtuous person cannot serve vice and say that his values mean anything to him.
The inconsistency is a sign of having accepted contradictory morals. The specific idea I am referring to is that one should feel guilty about questioning whether it is appropriate to help at all, because helping others is good (no matter the circumstances) and the pandhandler's seeming helplessness presents an opportunity to do "good works". Because of the pervasiveness of the morality of altruism, the pan handler's need, instantly equates to some moral duty to do *something*.
I, who do not accept altruism, am writing to say that it is not a duty and that it is not a good.
Duty. Unchosen duty is as false a claim on you as original sin. The only duties we are born with are the ones necessary for our own survival: Life is supported by productive work, which is made possible only by reason. Therefore you have a duty to support your existence and a right to the product of your work. Physical force or compulsion denies people the use of reason forcing them to act against their interests, therefore one must never initiate its use. That's what you owe to your fellow man.
Good. This too is determined by what is necessary for your life as a human being. Virtues and values have survival function. If you cherish your own virtues of independence and productive work, then it cannot be appropriate to pay tribute to the lack of these virtues in another person. Thus, I submit that it cannot be *good* to give away any value you have earned, no matter how small, to someone you don't know the first thing about. One cannot promiscuously help others. The decision has to be rational.
Over time, I intend to provide as many concrete examples as I can that serve one hypothesis: That the morality of altruism is not only inherently impractical, but it is also self-destructive and therefore does not deserve the claims of nobility that have been bestowed upon it.
Your morality is yours to choose and it, like everything else in life, has to be done must be done according to your nature as a human being on this earth if you are to survive, thrive, and live a life of deep personal meaning.