Hacker News Reader

Comment by douglaswlance | Hacker News Reader

Objectivism means putting your own oxygen mask on before helping anyone else when you're on a crashing plane.

People have a gut reaction to it as if it means putting on your own mask and letting others die.

If prosocial behavior is the best option for the individual, then the most selfish thing for the individual to do is that prosocial behavior.

View on HN

This is a good and underappreciated point. With collectivism the idea inherently implies "do what is good for the group at the cost of the individual." I argue that we should do what is in our best interest, which will often mean cooperation and working with the group (as long as it is beneficial for both). People treat "individualism" as though one will just wander off into the woods and begin eating tree bark and never speak with or cooperate with another human again.

For anyone who thinks "collectivism" is superior, think about employment. Do you really think people should take no pay and work on things they don't enjoy because it serves the collective (e.g. company)? If not, how do you decide which collective to join (e.g. Nazi Germany vs Charity Org), or does the collective decide that too? I argue deciding what collectives to voluntarily support is the ultimate act of individuality, and also keeps a check on the corruption by allowing a person to leave at will.

Maybe like the distinction between personal health and public health. Clearly there will always be a tension.

Moral philosophy breaks my head.

There's just so much missing from tit-for-tat, reductionist, game theoretic treatments. Fairness, context, identity, values.

But I'm not smart enough to resolve or articulate my confusion.

So I settled on a personal moral philosophy for my daily reality:

"Help people help themselves; help those who can't."

I purposefully omit anything about mitigating cheating (punishing free loaders). Though it's important, I just don't have the bandwidth.

What if prosocial behaviour isn't the best option for the individual?

I can't think of any situations in which that would be the case.

Not paying into social security would very likely lead to better outcomes for me, but not for society as a whole.

Edit: The current gun rights debate in the USA is if making it more difficult for hobby marksman is worth the collective safety.

>Not paying into social security would very likely lead to better outcomes for me, but not for society as a whole.

You should get some of that money back. Also, by not paying, you would be fined by the government. It's ultimately not overall a benefit to you.

>Edit: The current gun rights debate in the USA is if making it more difficult for hobby marksman is worth the collective safety.

Thinking about the collective, as suggested, doesn't make any sense.

Individuals responsibly owning and carrying firearms is self-beneficial and prosocial.

Individuals irresponsibly owning and misusing firearms is self-harming and anti-social.

This is the whole point of the Objectivist point of view.

This feels like it might prove to be an unfalsifiable claim.

What if I had to, for whatever reason, choose between me dying and fifty other people dying? Or me and some really socially valuable person?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com