Beggars in Spain

[Dr.Who]

I just finished reading this short story/novella in an anthology.

At first it was a bit slow but when I figured out what the intent of the story was I got into it.

The author does not draw a conclusion and leaves the reader to mull over the question. And what is that question?

Well the author takes Objectivist ideas from fiction writer Ayn Rand and socialist ideas from a science fiction writer Ursula Le Guin in Dispossessed, and pits them against each other.

I had actually never heard of Objectivism before reading the book and it inspired me to look it up. I had also never heard of the ideas of Ursula and have yet to learn much about them.

It is a great book and if you have read it I would like to discuss it. If not I recommend reading it which can be done in a few hours.

The only drawback as I see it is that the two ideas juxtaposed are both on the far ends of the spectrum and do not represent what anyone is actually doing in the world. I would have preferred a contrast of the mixed capitalism we have versus European socialism.

So what are your answers to the problem of Beggars in Spain?

 

[Dr.Who]

Here is a question posed from the book:

Start from the perspective of a person who subscribes to Aynd's Objectivism in which all people engage in free trade for mutual benefit. Then ask, if such a person walks past a hundred beggars in Spain and each one ask for a dollar but none has anything at all to offer, i.e. no mutually beneficial free trade, then what is the obligation to give a dollar?

The book goes to lengths to describe and expand on the idea that free trade is the only way to honor personal dignity. But still leaves the question open.

I have an answer but what is yours?

 

[dogtowner]

Here is a question posed from the book:

Start from the perspective of a person who subscribes to Aynd's Objectivism in which all people engage in free trade for mutual benefit. Then ask, if such a person walks past a hundred beggars in Spain and each one ask for a dollar but none has anything at all to offer, i.e. no mutually beneficial free trade, then what is the obligation to give a dollar?

The book goes to lengths to describe and expand on the idea that free trade is the only way to honor personal dignity. But still leaves the question open.

I have an answer but what is yours?

Christian charity.

 

[Openmind]

Christian charity.

I agree with the "charity" part of your statement.

But I disagree that "Christian" is necessary for charity to occur!

Charity comes in many forms, and from MANY sources, "Christians" do not have a monopoly on charity. . .far from that!

 

[clarkatticus]

Both sides in their extremes ignore reality, meaning both ideologies cannot function in pure form. Europe is not totally socialist as is your assumption and their brand of capitalism varies in each country. The premis that all people or all cultures can agree to have the same mind set and share common goals when capitalism forces individual competition (a good thing) and socialism strives for universal equality (also a good thing) in a non-competitive umbrella of social contract. The answer is what we discuss on these forums and will be a compromise for both sides, at least until a better form of economic system is devised.

 

[GenSeneca]

Start from the perspective of a person who subscribes to Aynd's Objectivism in which all people engage in free trade for mutual benefit. Then ask, if such a person walks past a hundred beggars in Spain and each one ask for a dollar but none has anything at all to offer, i.e. no mutually beneficial free trade, then what is the obligation to give a dollar?

To answer the question: There is no obligation.

That aside, I think the author of this book may have misrepresented, or misunderstood, the Objectivist philosophy. Here's how I believe Ayn Rand, the creator of the Objectivist philosophy, would answer your question on the subject of Charity:

To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.
...
The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance. - ARL, Charity​

 

[Dr.Who]

Christian charity.

That is exactly what I was thinking.

 

[Dr.Who]

I agree with the "charity" part of your statement.

But I disagree that "Christian" is necessary for charity to occur!

Charity comes in many forms, and from MANY sources, "Christians" do not have a monopoly on charity. . .far from that!

I agaree that charity can come from many sources.

But it is interesting that the Objectivism used in the story comes from Ayn Rand, it ignores charity, and Ayn rand was an atheist. Just saying...

 

[Dr.Who]

To answer the question: There is no obligation.

That aside, I think the author of this book may have misrepresented, or misunderstood, the Objectivist philosophy. Here's how I believe Ayn Rand, the creator of the Objectivist philosophy, would answer your question on the subject of Charity:

To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.
...
The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance. - ARL, Charity​

Thank you for that. It does show that Ayn was misrepresented (in theory since it was a fictional story).

As I stated I was not familiar with Rands work. It still seems a bit skimpy in that it permits charity when the conditions are right but does not seem to have any impetus in support of it. Based on what you quoted or am I wrong?

I think that charaity offered based on a person need is valuable and is even valuable if the giver makes a sacrifice. I don;t think this diminishes dignity but affims that all people are worthy even when they are in need

 

[dogtowner]

I agaree that charity can come from many sources.

But it is interesting that the Objectivism used in the story comes from Ayn Rand, it ignores charity, and Ayn rand was an atheist. Just saying...

The thread is about Spain, a Christian nation (at least until it was overrun with Socialism) ergo Christian charity. Don't know much about the Basques but I suppose they might know charity.

 

[GenSeneca]

Thank you for that.

My pleasure. Being a Rand fan, I'm probably the person most familiar with Objectivist philosophy on the forum.

It still seems a bit skimpy in that it permits charity when the conditions are right but does not seem to have any impetus in support of it. Based on what you quoted or am I wrong?

Perhaps this will help:

The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness.

To illustrate this on the altruists’ favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one’s life no higher than that of any random stranger. (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for one’s sake, remembering that one’s life cannot be as valuable to him as his own.)

If the person to be saved is not a stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that person’s value to oneself. If it is the man or woman one loves, then one can be willing to give one’s own life to save him or her—for the selfish reason that life without the loved person could be unbearable. - ARL, Charity​

If that did not answer your question, please rephrase it as I might not have understood what you were asking.

I think that charaity offered based on a person need is valuable and is even valuable if the giver makes a sacrifice.

Concern for the welfare of those one loves is a rational part of one’s selfish interests. If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a “sacrifice” for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies.

Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him. In the above example, his wife’s survival is of greater value to the husband than anything else that his money could buy, it is of greatest importance to his own happiness and, therefore, his action is not a sacrifice.

But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him—as the ethics of altruism would require. That would be a sacrifice. Here the difference between Objectivism and altruism can be seen most clearly: if sacrifice is the moral principle of action, then that husband should sacrifice his wife for the sake of ten other women. What distinguishes the wife from the ten others? Nothing but her value to the husband who has to make the choice—nothing but the fact that his happiness requires her survival.

The Objectivist ethics would tell him: your highest moral purpose is the achievement of your own happiness, your money is yours, use it to save your wife, that is your moral right and your rational, moral choice. - ARL, Sacrifice​

I don;t think this diminishes dignity but affims that all people are worthy even when they are in need

Unless I've misunderstood the point you were making, I do not consider everyone with some need to be automatically, and certainly not equally, worthy of my charity.

 

[Openmind]

Unless I've misunderstood the point you were making, I do not consider everyone with some need to be automatically, and certainly not equally, worthy of my charity.

Then you have NO IDEA of what REAL charity means!

You just enjoy "playing God" with the life of "some" people. . .

 

[GenSeneca]

Then you have NO IDEA of what REAL charity means!

You just enjoy "playing God" with the life of "some" people. . .

You have no idea what you're talking about...

Two people on the street both asking for a dollar. I only have one dollar to spare. The first person wants it to buy crack and get high, the other wants to buy food. Is it your belief that both people are equally worthy of my charity? Would you give each .50c?

 

[Dr.Who]

The thread is about Spain, a Christian nation (at least until it was overrun with Socialism) ergo Christian charity. Don't know much about the Basques but I suppose they might know charity.

I think you are joking there.

The metaphor of beggars in Spain comes from a line from one of the characters in the book of that title. A beggar in Spain refers to any person at all who finds himself in need of some other persons help when he has nothing to offer in exchange for that help.

 

[Dr.Who]

My pleasure. Being a Rand fan, I'm probably the person most familiar with Objectivist philosophy on the forum.


Perhaps this will help:

The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness.

To illustrate this on the altruists’ favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one’s life no higher than that of any random stranger. (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for one’s sake, remembering that one’s life cannot be as valuable to him as his own.)

If the person to be saved is not a stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that person’s value to oneself. If it is the man or woman one loves, then one can be willing to give one’s own life to save him or her—for the selfish reason that life without the loved person could be unbearable. - ARL, Charity​

If that did not answer your question, please rephrase it as I might not have understood what you were asking.

Concern for the welfare of those one loves is a rational part of one’s selfish interests. If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a “sacrifice” for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies.

Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him. In the above example, his wife’s survival is of greater value to the husband than anything else that his money could buy, it is of greatest importance to his own happiness and, therefore, his action is not a sacrifice.

But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him—as the ethics of altruism would require. That would be a sacrifice. Here the difference between Objectivism and altruism can be seen most clearly: if sacrifice is the moral principle of action, then that husband should sacrifice his wife for the sake of ten other women. What distinguishes the wife from the ten others? Nothing but her value to the husband who has to make the choice—nothing but the fact that his happiness requires her survival.

The Objectivist ethics would tell him: your highest moral purpose is the achievement of your own happiness, your money is yours, use it to save your wife, that is your moral right and your rational, moral choice. - ARL, Sacrifice​

Unless I've misunderstood the point you were making, I do not consider everyone with some need to be automatically, and certainly not equally, worthy of my charity.

That does shed light on it. Objectivism starts to appear to me to be utilitarian and selfish.

In the book the point is made that we belong to a community and are tied to each other through an "ecology". The fault with that as I see it is that the ecology mentioned in the book is a part of our social interactions but the author applies it to our economic interactions - this is a main flaw that many socialists make. For me I am my brothers keeper because according to my God my fellow travelers are not strangers but are fellow children of God, I have a duty to love them as much as myself. Additionally, their heavenly father wants what is best for them and it makes Him happy when they are cared for. As a person who is grateful to my God and loves my God I would want to make Him happy by helping them. I am confident that all of that could be expressed in terms of objectivism since my happiness is a part of all of that.

But I think that the spirit of the way the two points of view are expressed does make a difference; the same actions if the result of brotherly love or the result of benevolent self interest has a completely different flavor in each case. (did that last bit make sense? In fact I felt compelled to add the word "benevolent" just to make objectivism appear less selfish)