Altruism is an evil moral doctrine.
 
A first step on the path to understanding the evil of altruism can be an old joke about Robin Hood. The joke goes something like this:
 
Robin Hood put in a lot of effort to steal from the rich. But after he had done so, he found he only had more work to do. For after he had stolen from the rich – he gave the loot to the poor. And then they, the formerly poor – they were now suddenly rich! So, then Robin Hood had to steal from these new rich people and give to others who were poor. And then Robin Hood had to steal from them. And give to someone else. And so forth and so forth ad nauseam! Robin Hood, because of the ethics he tried to live by (i.e. altruism), ended up in a perpetual treadmill of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.
 
This cheesy joke makes clear an inherent self-contradiction in the moral doctrine of altruism. According to altruism, selflessness is the essence of moral goodness. While selfishness is the essence of moral evil. Selflessness essentially means sacrificing/giving away values. While selfishness consists of gaining/receiving values.
 
But altruism says that the individual should sacrifice himself for others. Period. The rich should, for example, give to the poor. But if the rich are morally good (selfless) when they sacrifice their values by giving them to the poor – are not the poor at the same time morally evil (i.e. selfish) when they receive/gain the values that the rich give them?
 
According to the moral doctrine of altruism, there must always be a class of people who are morally good because they make sacrifices – for, they are in fact selfless. But at the same time there must be another class of people who are morally evil because they receive/gain those values which are sacrificed – and, these latter people are “selfish”. According to the logic of altruism, the morally good members of mankind must lose and suffer when they act in accordance with the morality of altruism by making sacrifices – while the morally evil members of mankind profit from the moral goodness of the sacrificers! So – the morality of altruism must necessarily harm the morally good and benefit the morally evil!
 
This must in reason be an intolerable state of affairs! The moral doctrine of altruism teaches that the morally evil must necessarily profit at the expense of the morally good. How on earth can such a moral doctrine be evaluated as decent?
 
There is only one way out of this moral dilemma. That way out was put forward as a formal theory by the philosopher Immanuel Kant – and was put into practice in reality by Adolf Hitler. The way out consisted of getting rid of that part of the morality of altruism which said that some people should accept the sacrifices and profit from them. The way out consisted of the idea that all people without exception should sacrifice – and not a single blessed soul should profit from those sacrifices. In other words, people should simply sacrifice – as an end-in-itself. Everyone must sacrifice - i.e. hurt themselves – and no one must gain or win anything. The moral doctrine that by logical necessity grew out of altruism was that all people must make losses and thus suffer. All people without exception must lose when they followed the dictates of morality. And no one should benefit from morality!
 
Can we recall any concrete examples of this moral doctrine being put into practice? The answer is yes.
 
The Holocaust - but of course!
 
Think. The greatest sacrifice of them all that is possible in reality is the extinction of an innocent human life. How many innocent human lives were extinguished in the gas chambers of the concentration camps?
 
Millions and millions!
 
The Holocaust was an orgy of sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice itself. The Holocaust served no sensible purpose.
 
The concentration camps suffered enormous economic losses. It cost the Nazis a ginormous amount of resources and money to run the concentration camps – with their thousands of guards, kilometres of barbed wire fences, great big buildings, expensive technical equipment (gas chambers, railway yards, etc.). And the concentration camps brought in only a few grams of dental gold and one or two kilograms of body fat per prisoner! Nazi Germany lost a fortune on the concentration camps.
 
For the sake of what?
 
The Wehrmacht was at the time in dire need of rail transport so that the Nazi invading armies in the Soviet Union would not perish. But nevertheless - Hitler chose to give higher priority to the transport of millions of Jews who were sent by train to the death camps. The Wehrmacht in Russia was starved for supplies. But the trains were commandeered for the transport of Jews to the concentration camps! Hitler placed an enormous value on the extermination of the Jews. It was evidently more important to him than even the winning of the war!
 
For the sake of what?
 
Sacrifice for its own sake! Period. Eradicating the lives of the Jews was a means of bringing into existence an enormous amount of sacrifice. Hitler just loved sacrifice qua sacrifice! Because he embraced Kant's moral teachings!
 
So, the inherent self-contradiction of altruism must logically lead to the moral doctrine that preaches sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice. And that moral doctrine must logically result in mass murder! The logical conclusion we see here is simply that altruism is an evil moral doctrine!
 
But - how can the promoters of altruism possibly be evil?
 
Well, if their intentions had been good – if they had been motivated by benevolence - then they would, but of course, have said to their fellow human beings, "Go out into the world and get as much of life's good stuff as you can by producing it. Just make sure you leave your fellow human beings alone so they can do the same. Live and let live. Enjoy and let enjoy. Be happy and let your neighbour be happy, too. Live life - without any meaningless sacrifice and self-denial. Be selfish! By means of doing that which is truly in your own interest.”
 
If the purveyors of altruism had been motivated by benevolence there is no way in the world that they would have advocated sacrifice instead!
 
There is more to be said about the evil of altruism. The purpose of the moral doctrine of altruism was never that people should practice it. No – altruism cannot be practiced consistently unless the morally good of their own free will go to their graves. For, according to altruism, moral goodness consists of the subject sacrificing his values for others. Complete, consistent altruism must, in that case, entail that the subject sacrifices literally all his values for others. He must give away every single scrap of food he possesses to other people who go hungry – and starve to death himself! He must give away his last drops of water to others who happen to be thirsty – and die of thirst himself. He must give away his very last pennies to the poor – and wind up wasting away out on the street himself. Etc. But virtually no human being whomsoever, is capable of persuading himself to commit suicide for the sake of his neighbour!
 
And those who advocate altruism know this! They expect that the victims who accept the moral doctrine of altruism will not be able to resist the temptation to “cheat” and indulge in at least a little bit of selfishness every now and then. Those who advocate altruism expect their victims to practice hypocrisy for the sake of staying alive! And, the evil advocates of altruism expect, that their victims will suffer chronic pangs of guilt for the “crime” of existing their entire lives as pathetic hypocrites!.
 
The purpose of inflicting chronic feelings of guilt on their fellow human beings is, but of course, to bully them into submission to any authority figure who appears and demands that everyone obeys. People who lack authentic pride cannot stand up for their right to live freely and pursue happiness. The supporters of altruism, who themselves are devoid of happiness, know or at least sense, that people who lack pride will become small and humble. They will thus not challenge the altruists’ malicious envy.
 
The will to inflict burdensome, chronic feelings of guilt on humanity are, in addition to the will to bring about mass murder and suffering, some of the most important driving forces of the proponents of altruism. The supporters of altruism are evil types. They hate their fellow human beings and want to inflict as much misery and death on them as possible. This fact can be difficult for many people to wrap their heads around at first glance. The idea seems like a manifestation of paranoia and conspiracy theorizing.
 
But a good way to acquire the ability to understand just how evil altruism really is can be to read a work of fiction that shows altruism "in action". It is a novel called Atlas Shrugged (written by Ayn Rand). This novel concretizes altruism. It has been sold and read in millions of copies so far since it was first published back in 1957. It is a modern bestseller and classic. This novel has changed the lives of countless members of the public all over the world!
 
Last edited by henriku; 26-01-28, 19:10