Altruism and Mental Illness: Self-Sacrifice is Mind-Sacrifice

A man goes to college to be a biologist. He has always been fascinated by and loved the subject. As a child then adult, he spends many hours reading, studying, experimenting, and so on. It is very important to him; it is one of his top values. He works hard and excels in school, and continues to do so in his career after graduation. He looks forward to going to work each day, and puts in a lot of time there. He goes on to make a significant discovery in the field. He sees his life as a progression, a steady movement from one state of affairs to a better state. He enjoys his life and the effort he puts into it. All his effort is worth it, because it is important to him.

Another man goes to college to study biology. He likes science generally, and has a semi-interest in biology in particular. His father was a renowned biologist and he wants to make his father proud by following in his footsteps. He is mostly a C student, yet isn’t motivated to put forth more effort. Over time, he sees he cannot match the skill and intelligence of many others in his classes, and secretly doesn’t want to. But he knows he needs good grades to get a good job when he graduates. He cheats on some of his exams and gets through college with a fair GPA. However, he feels a growing pressure to prove himself, but to who and why? He doesn’t try to answer these questions, and pushes himself on. He ultimately gets a job in the same lab as the man in the first story. Again he sees he is no match for the skills of the first man or others there. However, he does want the recognition others seem to get. He steals the research that led to the first man’s discovery and claims it as his own. Whether the man becomes rich from his deception or is ultimately caught and punished, he feels completely empty inside. In fact, he is more likely to feel empty if he becomes rich; getting caught at least relieves him of the burden of living a lie.

There are obvious and significant differences between these two men. They have different motivations for pursuing their careers, use different methods along the way, and have different results, both concretely and psychologically. But what is the fundamental difference between these two men? That is, why do these men differ in their motivations, means, and results?

The answer lies in each man’s approach to an extremely important area of philosophy (and man’s life): Ethics.

Ethics is a code of values that enables one to determine and direct the course of his life. Ayn Rand defined a value as that which one acts to gain and/or keep. A value can be material (such as food, a car, a house, etc.) or spiritual[1] (such as getting an education). Values are what make life worth living.

Achieving a value requires engaging one’s virtues, which are principles that guide one’s actions. These include rationality, independence, and honesty, to name just a few.

For instance, a man who wants to buy a house must learn what needs to be done to make it happen. He must use his mind to learn about the home-buying process; he must use his independent judgment about his best options; and be honest with himself about what is possible for him (in terms of how much he can afford, location, and so on). In other words, the man’s ethics set a course of action toward a desired end—a value—in this case, buying a house.

Man doesn’t have a choice about whether he needs a code of values and virtues (i.e., ethics). However, he does have a choice of what code to accept and pursue. And it is in this choice that we can see the difference between the two men described earlier.

The first man identifies, chooses, and pursues his own interests—biology has always been something he loves; pursuing it as a career was something important to him. The second man places his value and effort in others’ interests, in this case, his desire to please his father. In other words, he placed his father’s happiness above his own.

The first man is willing to put forth effort—to work—to achieve his values. Psychologically, this man is motivated to work; he wants to use his mind to understand his subject. The other man steals the product of other’s efforts; he is not motivated to work and doesn’t particularly want to engage his mind.

The first man experiences success; he enjoys his life. The second knows only mediocrity or failure, and no one enjoys that.

In sum, the first man primarily values himself, his life, his interests, and all the specific things that are the substance of his life. His approach to ethics is to ask what it is he wants, why, how to achieve it, and so forth. He is self-focused (but not self-absorbed). The second man primarily values others, others’ lives, their interests, and all the specifics that he presumes make them happy. His approach to ethics is to ask himself what others want, although he doesn’t necessarily care why. He is other-focused and, psychologically, seeks a sense of self-worth in others’ minds.

These two different approaches to ethics have names: egoism and altruism, respectively. Egoism means pursuing one’s own rational self-interests. Altruism means sacrificing oneself to others’ interests. The psychological results of both have been indicated above. But consider the more in-depth analysis offered by Ayn Rand in The Ethics of Emergencies:

"The psychological results of altruism may be observed in the fact that a great many people approach the subject of ethics by asking such questions as: ‘Should one risk one's life to help a man who is: a) drowning, b) trapped in a fire, c) stepping in front of a speeding truck, d) hanging by his fingernails over an abyss?’"

In other words, altruism sets the philosophical and psychological terms of ethics on the foundation of an other-orientation. It assumes that ethics is only concerned with the beneficiary of one’s actions and that, to be virtuous or moral, it is precisely someone else who must benefit from one’s actions, not oneself. On these terms, there can be no such thing as a moral self-interest. Rand continues:

"Consider the implications of that approach. If a man accepts the ethics of altruism, he suffers the following consequences (in proportion to the degree of his acceptance):

1. Lack of self-esteem—since his first concern in the realm of values is not how to live his life, but how to sacrifice it.

2. Lack of respect for others—since he regards mankind as a herd of doomed beggars crying for someone's help.

3. A nightmare view of existence—since he believes that men are trapped in a "malevolent universe" where disasters are the constant and primary concern of their lives.

4. And, in fact, a lethargic indifference to ethics, a hopelessly cynical amorality—since his questions involve situations which he is not likely ever to encounter, which bear no relation to the actual problems of his own life and thus leave him to live without any moral principles whatever."

Let’s take each of these consequences in turn.

Lack of Self-Esteem: Self-esteem is having confidence in and rational reverence for one’s own mind. One is confident to extent he has used reason and rationality to create, produce, solve problems, or achieve something. He can see the direct relationship between his mental effort and success. As such, he reveres his mind and does all he can to improve it. In short, he values himself.

Altruism is not concerned with self-esteem. It preaches that virtue consists of always placing the interests of others above one’s own. It elevates others’ interests to a position of primary concern in one’s mental and psychological focus. The purpose of one’s life is to fulfill others’ needs, it says. Indeed, pursuing one’s own interests is greedy, selfish, evil. In fact, to pursue and achieve any personal benefit from one’s actions is to sacrifice others to oneself. If you are helping yourself, you are necessarily hurting others.

Lack of Respect for Others: Altruism, to be practiced fully and consistently, means that one must focus not only on others, but on others who are in a state of need, despair, or demoralization. It means that one must actively seek out others who are miserable and then sacrifice oneself to them. Indeed, the essence of altruism and its version of virtue is that one must sacrifice all his values, his self, to a lesser or non-value.

For example, given the choice of spending, say, $10,000 to treat a disease suffered by a loved one or giving that money to the local homeless shelter, one must choose the homeless shelter and not the loved one. It would not be a sacrifice to help a loved one, and altruism is about sacrifice. To achieve the “virtue” of altruism, one has to give up (i.e., sacrifice) something that is more valuable to him for something less valuable or even worthless. It means choosing a bum over your wife. And, even more disgustingly, one’s virtue requires others’ vice. One must seek out the worst in humanity, so that one can practice his virtue.

How can this possibly engender any feeling of goodwill or brotherhood among men? How can one respect his fellow man if he is, first, constantly looking for others’ weaknesses and, second, exploiting those weaknesses so that he can demonstrate his virtue? How can one be happy if his constant focus is on misery and then catering to that misery? Obviously, one can’t be happy with that kind of focus, nor can one respect his fellow man.

A Nightmare View of Existence: More deeply, altruism is based on and reinforces, as Ayn Rand indicates, a “malevolent universe” premise. That is, it’s not just one’s fellow man for whom one has no respect; it is the world, even the universe, in which we all live that he condemns.

If altruism requires that one be on constant lookout for misery in man, then he must also seek out places where misery exists, especially misery caused by acts of nature. Events like hurricane Katrina are, to committed altruists, the essence of life on earth. Such disasters are the normal, the to-be-expected in life. To them, man is doomed because the world is doomed. We can’t escape and the destructive path of the world cannot be changed. Therefore, give up and give in. Give yourself over. Submit. Obey.

A Hopelessly Cynical Amorality: Upon reaching this point, one gives up on ethics altogether. Why bother pursuing any values or using any virtues if one lives in a world that is doomed to destruction and is surrounded by miserable little losers who can’t help themselves? Why not “go along to get along?” Why not give up? Isn’t it the meek who shall inherit the earth?

Of course, this is the extreme position, and most people don’t accept and hold it to such a strong extent. Recall from above that Ayn Rand indicated that the psychological consequences of altruism will result only in proportion to the degree of acceptance of those ideas. The same is true for egoism. That is, people can vary in their levels of acceptance of various ideas.

For instance, one person might accept altruism fully and try to sacrifice himself to others all the time. These are people you’ve undoubtedly seen at parties or various functions that unnecessarily make it their job to ensure everyone is having a good time. They spend the entire time focused on whether others are having fun, then wonder why they didn’t have (and never have) any. Such people are usually pretty depressed.

Another person may think that one must pursue his own values occasionally, if only so that he has some abundance to give to others. He has still accepted the premise that virtue means self-sacrifice, but his acceptance isn’t as deep or committed—he allows for some rational self-interest. In fact, this is precisely the way many people approach the issue.

One should also not assume that acceptance of altruistic premises necessarily means that one goes around sacrificing himself to others. In fact, vicious thugs—those who sacrifice others to themselves—actually accept altruism’s basic ideas. They say to themselves, in effect, “if those poor saps who go around tending others’ wounds are truly the representatives of morality and virtue, then I want nothing to do with morality.” They fully accept altruism as the definition of virtue, but reject acting that way. Instead, they brand themselves immoral and act accordingly. This is the general course that the second man described earlier follows.

As Ayn Rand pointed out, altruism ultimately leaves one with no moral principles or guidance at all. One has nothing to direct his actions and no end to achieve. Psychologically, altruism is devastating.

Altruism is part of an ideology, but is also a psychological manipulation. If accepted, it leads to psychological disorder. To give a sense of how it works, recall stories you’ve probably heard about going to Catholic schools before, say, 1970. It’s common to hear of cold, strange nuns who would walk slowly down rows of desks, periodically cracking some kid in the knuckles with a thick ruler. (I’m not painting all nuns in this way; it’s merely an analogy by way of an image). This is precisely how altruism works psychologically. It is a sneering scrutiny that lurks on the edge of one’s consciousness. And it is a petty inner voice that whines “There are starving children in Ethiopia...”

As psychological acceptance of altruism deepens, one’s psychological functioning becomes more disordered. It corrupts one’s self-concept and, therefore, self-worth. Whereas it may start with ideas such as “it’s better to give than receive,” “I believe in the public good,” and “I have a duty to the less fortunate,” it takes the form, over time, of such statements as “I’m not worth it,” “I don’t deserve it,” “I can’t.”

Altruism seeks to convince man of his own worthlessness. If one accepts this, what else can result except mental illness?

Mental health, on the other hand, means that one is using reason to achieve his own rational goals. Using reason means to ask oneself important questions about life generally and, most importantly, one’s own life. One asks himself what he wants in life, why, how to achieve it, and when.

Rational goals are the markers one uses to judge progress in life; they are born from the intellectual understanding that one’s own life is, and ought to be, his highest value and from a psychological motivation for the pleasure of achieving his personally chosen goals.

Pursuing and achieving one’s rational values is psychologically elevating. It is the hallmark of mental health.

[1] By spiritual I mean concerning the mind, not a religiously or mystically defined soul that leaves the body upon death.