Reference no: EM133569833

Although both situations are quite different, different moral judgments could be drawn about them based on those differences. It is much easier to ignore an appeal for help to children you have never met than to send a child to death just because he stands right in front of you. However, if the result of the American's refusal to donate the money is that one more child dies on the streets of a Brazilian city, then in some sense it's just as bad as selling the child to an organ dealer. For a utilitarian philosopher like me -- that is, one who judges right from wrong by their consequences -- then that failure is just as bad as selling the child to an organ dealer. Despite my utilitarian ethic, it seems troubling that, at the very least, we are so quick to condemn Dora for taking her child to the organ peddlers when, at the same time, we do not consider the behavior of American consumers to be morally problematic. Her opposition to altruism was not against benevolence, but rather toward the French philosopher Auguste Comte, whom she viewed as the basis for moral behavior. The moral justification of acts other than those done for someone else's well-being was deemed invalid by Comte. Then a charitable contribution would lose its morality if the tax deduction was taken. In the same way, feeling good about doing good motivates us to do more. The unlimited duty that his version of altruism imposes on others, "love your neighbor as yourself", falls short. Since the meaning of altruism has eroded to little more than a synonym for generosity due to modern usage, it is difficult to understand Rand's position on this subject. Rand's rejection of the original meaning, which required total selflessness, is mistakenly interpreted as rejecting generosity.

Question

How are the ideas and information in their post connected to what you already know?