We are all born into a social environment set against the human individual. To be more precise, the official philosophical environment is actually anti-social. We are taught by word and deed that our purpose in life is for the glory of "God", to serve our country, to help others, to deny self for the good of all. Deny self - that is the crux of the matter. The issue is not whether one chooses to help another or others for personal reasons. The issue is that individual choice is denied and the individual is regarded as nothing more than a means to ends not of his own choosing.
The command to deny self is heard in formal religion, the pledge of allegiance to flag and country, and oaths of governmental offices. Indeed, the command is everpresent and all encompassing and sets our lot in life as servitude to alleged superior beings, or "others" as a surrogate "superior being". This philosophy goes by the name altruism. It is allegedly set in opposition to self-interest which is assumed to be inherently "evil".
This antagonism is sometimes called the great philosophical divide. In popular thought and in popular language usage, the impression is given that one has the philosophical choice of altruism or self interest. No such option is available. It is literally impossible for anyone to knowingly go against what they conceive to be in their own best interest. Certainly, one may take an action and later discover that it was not in their interest, but at the time of the action, it was thought to be. Pursuing self-interest is as certain as consciousness and volition. What constitutes one's self-interest is dependent upon one's values, which in turn, are dependent upon one's beliefs. Whether one is aiding the poor and helpless or stealing from them, it's still a matter of self-interest. Each intends to gain tangible or intangible reward. Material reward, either immediate or delayed, is just part of the picture. To leave out future expectations or intangible value as means of pursuing happiness denies the reality of the situation.
The condemnation of self-interest, per se, ties directly to the innate evil syndrome and a mind divided by a god concept. Further, since everyone pursues self-interest, pretense otherwise has value only in hiding the specific self-interest pursued; not only hiding the specific interest from others, but from self as well. The hiding is not always of conscious construction, nor conscious intent. It is a matter of derivatives of fallacious beliefs. The whole fallacy of philosophical selflessness can be easily exposed by a few simple observations.
The fallacy is easily exposed by envisioning only two individuals. Aside from the fact that selflessness is a synonym for death, if one preaches altruism to another, is he not asking to be served rather than "selflessly giving" as he would have us believe? Who are the "others" if not the one promoting the idea of altruism? Unless and until someone can demonstrate that he can go against his nature and act without the motivation of self-interest, the issue is not self-interest vs non-self-interest. The issue is what those self-interests are and how they relate to the social condition of a believer and persons with whom the believer interacts.
The god concept self-interests of an "altruist" are multifaceted. If a believer feels subordinated, unworthy, and fearful of receiving help when needed, would not it be in the self-interest of the believer to have "evil man" subscribe to the philosophy of "altruism" or be forced to act for the benefit of "others"? This also serves the purpose of controlling "evil man" for the sake of "security".
There is an even more sinister side of the altruism myth that may be seen in contrast with individualism. In a social environment of individualism and voluntary mutual exchange for mutual benefit, it is certainly quite possible that any individual at any given time may need some help. If someone chooses to offer such help, it may be gratefully received. However, this is a voluntary and temporary social situation and not a constant and prevailing philosophy of subservience.
On the other hand, "altruism" as a constant philosophy requires a constant pool of "the needy". Obviously, if a believer is to promote and sustain "altruism", it is in his self interest to see to it that the pool of "the needy" does not disappear. The multiple adverse effects of the god concept illusion fulfills this requirement. The value of "the needy" is two fold. First, as one of "the needy", the "group needy" provides a place in the recipient line of the sanctioned policy. The second value is once again best seen in contrast with individualism. In individualism where there are no "objective values", nor superior and inferior beings, help needed, offered, and accepted is simply a part of a harmonious social interchange with no lowering nor raising of anyone in the process. In "altruism", as a "giver", "the needy" provides a subordination by which to act god-like in giving and raising self-value via the god-dependent relationship. While there may be some trace of human compassion in the scenario, when offensive physical force is added, there is no doubt that the main psychological drive is the god concept values. Of course, the core god concept self-interest is to "please god" by doing "God's will", "national interest", etc.
Since nearly all hold a god concept and seek to have all abide by "divine will" or "society's values", power is the ultimate value almost universally sought and revered. On any given day, one can read of or hear the reverence for power expressed or implied again and again. This value is so nearly universally accepted and unquestioned, it is spoken of as a matter of course and implied by attitude and actions to be a "natural condition" and a "natural value". To a believer, it is incomprehensible that anyone would not want to hold dominion over others, that ruling or being ruled is equally abhorrent.
Since nearly all subscribe to the god concept, the official socio- economic governmental system is set up on the belief in illusory altruism. It is implemented by "guilt drive" and coercion as each believer pursues self-interest in the name of non-self, i.e., the god concept. Although the actual philosophy and agenda may be hidden by unspoken consensus or agreement, its hiding place is rather shallow and easily exposed as demonstrated above. Further analysis of mind principles lays it bare.
Literally every belief and value an individual holds plays directly or indirectly to the concept, self value. To grasp the significance of this, and to grasp the depth and intensity of the natural directive, observe that it is human nature to hold onto what one values and discard that which one does not. Ergo, one's value of self is directly relative to sustaining life itself. This is not to say that all the beliefs and values one holds are life oriented. To the contrary, in a mind divided by a god concept, many are not. In fact, all god concept beliefs and values are anti-life. In formal religion with the idea of eternal life after death, one must necessarily value death as a means to achieve this goal. Outside of formal religion without the belief in death as means to an eternal life, allegiance to any other god concept is no less divisive and death oriented. Whatever the confusion and contradictions, believers still seek self value in the god concept context. It is this self negating context that is the crux of the matter. Arbitrary labels and claims are irrelevant to effect.
A believer, of course, does not know that the god concept is their own mental invention. To emphasize the point again, it makes no difference whether one calls the god concept, "God's will", "Society's values", "American interest", or whatever, its all epistemologically, philosophically, and psychologically the same. A believer believes there are two beings, and therefore, two sets of values and two sets of interests: self, subjective value and personal interest; and superior being, objective value and superior being interests. Actually, self, being psychologically subordinated, is emotionally regarded as non existent, thus negating the concept subjective value as well. However, self and self-interest are seen as contrary to the superior being and the superior being's interests. Since the superior being and superior being's interest are held as the ultimate good, it follows that self-interest is held as the ultimate evil. Hence, the popular notion that self-interest, per se, is to be condemned outright without any exploration of the specifics of any person's self interests.
The god concept has many self-interest directives, the main being ownership, i.e., the control of others. To control others via direct physical force or purchased physical force is to cause subordination. It is the god concept realized in self and is regarded as the source of self value. Fame is setting apart and adulation and simply another manifestation of subordination to enhance the feeling of self value. This scenario has numerous drawbacks. First, everyone can't be a god and achieve self value in this manner. Second, even for those who achieve the god status, it doesn't work. No matter what successes they may achieve in the god concept values, the god concept itself always leaves them with a feeling of subordination and diminished self value. It's the pursuit of illusion; the pursuit of some undefined, mystical, and emotional goal that doesn't exist. The returns of such a pursuit are at best transient, shallow, and temporary, and at worst, not at all except to compound the feeling of inferiority and unworthiness because the efforts to alleviate these feelings always fail. The feeling goes with the god concept context. As long as one holds onto these beliefs and context, the feeling of self diminished and unworthy is certain to be a constant companion.
The natural self-interest questions that everyone consciously or unconsciously asks are: What do I want? Can it be achieved? If so, how? From an individual identity perspective, it is a straightforward proposition that recognizes limits, ends, and means in a non-contradictory sequence of thought. The god concept throws the whole thing into self conflict. Needed self value and self confidence is sought in the god concept that takes away these very things. Worst of all, while conscious mind may desire freedom and peace, the god concept denies the individual and freedom and sets a condition of rule as absolute. Thus in conflict and confusion, domination and suffering are valued and "peace" is pursued by means of war. Such is the nature of the god concept and the myth of altruism.
Copyright at Common Law, Delmar England,
1997
Permission in hereby granted to copy this work for personal
use or for FREE distribution provided that the work is copied or distributed in
its entirety and that this copyright notice accompanies each copy.
