[MD] Altruism

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ben,

>From Craig:

> [Ben]
> > 1)  John is wealthy.  A government worker, Tom, takes 100$ from John,
> > claiming to be acting altruistically.  Tom keeps 40$ as his salary,
> > wastes 30$ and divides the remaining 30$ amongst poor people.
> 
> > 2)  John is wealthy.  A government worker, Tom, takes 100$ from John,
> > claiming to be acting altruistically.  Tom keeps 2$ as his salary,
> > wastes 2$ and divides the remaining 96$ amongst poor people. As an
> > objectivist, is there any difference in the morality of 1 and 2?
> 
> Ben,
> Rand is not a utilitarian.  From her moral point of view, the forcibly
> taking of the $100 from John is what is determinate. John might object
> less to 2) than 1), but that is merely a practical matter. Craig

Hi Ben: As usual, Craig has zeroed in on the crux of your post about 
various aspects of altruism. To Rand (and me) there's no moral 
distinction between 1) and 2) for the reason Craig cites. To "take" 
anything from John implies force. If 100 percent of John's income is 
taxed, he is a slave. If 90 percent because he is "wealthy," he is 90 
percent a slave. If 10 percent because by some ill-defined standard he 
is poor, he is still a 10 percent slave. I'm against any degree of 
slavery. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not my idea of morality. If in 
the cases you cite John volunteers to give money to Tom, the
morality of what Tom does with money becomes irrelevant unless John
was persuaded to give money under false pretences or in the absence of 
full disclosure (as is often the case with "charitable" giving.)

Platt