As consequentialist ethics[edit]
Altruism is often seen as a form of consequentialism, as it indicates that an action is ethically right if it brings good consequences to others.[7] Altruism may be seen as similar to utilitarianism, however an essential difference is that the latter prescribes acts that maximize good consequences for all of society, while altruism prescribes maximizing good consequences for everyone except the actor. Herbert Spencer argued that since the rest of society will almost always outnumber the utilitarian, a genuine utilitarian will inevitably end up practicing altruism or a form of altruism.[8] Effective altruism is a philosophy and social movement that maintains that the consequences of our actions — for ourselves and others — are important, and seeks to maximise the overall quality of these consequences.
Criticisms[edit]
David Kelley, discussing Ayn Rand's views, says that "there is no rational ground for asserting that sacrificing yourself in order to serve others is morally superior to pursuing your own (long-term, rational) self-interest. Altruism ultimately depends on non-rational 'rationales,' on mysticism in some form..." Furthermore, he holds that there is a danger of the state enforcing that moral ideal: "If self-sacrifice is an ideal — if service to others is the highest, most honorable course of action — why not force people to act accordingly?" He believes this can ultimately result in the state forcing everyone into a collectivist political system.[9]
Norwegian eco-philosopher Arne Næss argues that environmental action based upon altruism — or service of the other — stems from a shrunken "egoic" concept of the self. Self-actualization will result, he argues, in the recovery of an "ecological self", in which actions formerly seen as altruistic are in reality a form of enlightened self-interest.[10]
German philosopher Max Scheler distinguishes two different ways in which the strong can help the weak, one which is an expression of love, "motivated by a powerful feeling of security, strength, and inner salvation, of the invincible fullness of one’s own life and existence"[11] and another which is merely "one of the many modern substitutes for love, ... nothing but the urge to turn away from oneself and to lose oneself in other people’s business."[12] At its worst, Scheler says, "love for the small, the poor, the weak, and the oppressed is really disguised hatred, repressed envy, an impulse to detract, etc., directed against the opposite phenomena: wealth, strength, power, largesse."[13]