n Rand’s Ethics
Reply to Robert H. Bass, “Egoism versus Rights” (Spring 2006)
Altruism in
Auguste Comte and Ayn Rand
Robert L. Campbell
Robert H. Bass (2006) emphatically rejects Ayn Rand’s wellknown
argument that altruism in morality is inconsistent with respect
for individual rights in politics. His article raises a multitude of issues.
As much needs to be said about its treatment of egoism as its
treatment of altruism. A good deal could be said, as well, about Bass’s
insensitivity to the ancient ethical tradition to which Rand’s moral
theory largely belongs. But here I will target a single point of
controversy: Rand’s interpretation of altruism, which Bass declares
is such a gross distortion as to invalidate her entire critique of it.
Did Rand Misunderstand Altruism?
As Bass correctly summarizes, Rand ([1943] 1968; 1957; 1961;
1964) maintained that altruism means placing what is good for others
above what is good for oneself. According to Rand, the altruist
regards achieving the good of others as essentially unconstrained by
any concern for the rights or dignity of mere individuals, whose prime
moral obligation is to submerge themselves within the collective and
sacrifice themselves for it.
This, however, should be no comfort to any Objectivist
seriously concerned to address positions that real people
hold. For Rand’s conception of altruism was entirely
fantastic. It is a doctrine that has never been held by any
important moral thinker and, in particular, not by any of the
358 The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies Vol. 7, No. 2
thinkers she castigated as espousers of altruism—not, e.g., by
Kant or Marx, Mill or Spencer, Dewey or Rawls. [My
emphasis. Here Bass is footnoting pages 32–37 of For the
New Intellectual.] Not one of them has maintained that the
interests of the individual are of no importance, that service
to others is the only justification for her existence, or that
anything goes, so long as there is some beneficiary other than
herself.
It is difficult not to suspect a bait-and-switch at work here.
The thinkers she criticizes are indeed exponents of altruism
in the ordinary sense of the word—that is, they believed that
the interests of others matter in their own right, apart from
the way they might impact upon one’s own interests, and
therefore that, in varying degrees (depending upon the
thinker and his other commitments), it could be appropriate,
desirable or morally required, on some occasions to act on
behalf of others, even at some cost to one’s own interests.
Then, having identified these thinkers as altruists, in the
ordinary or garden-variety sense, she charges them with being
altruists in her entirely different sense. (Bass 2006, 331)
There is a good deal more to be said about Kant and Marx and
Dewey and Rawls than I can get to in this brief response. Here one
point will have to suffice. Bass’s criticism would carry a good deal
more weight had he deemed it worthwhile to mention Rand’s
response to a real person named Auguste Comte (1798–1857). Comte
might be thought to merit a little attention in this regard, since he
actually invented the word altruism (1973a). Here is what Rand (1961,
36) had to say about him:
Auguste Comte, the founder of Positivism, the champion of
science, advocated a “rational,” “scientific” social system
based on the total subjugation of the individual to the
collective, including a “Religion of Humanity” which substituted
Society for the Gods or gods who collect the blood of
Campbell — Altruism in Auguste Comte and Ayn Rand 359
sacrificial victims. It is not astonishing that Comte was the
coiner of the term Altruism, which means: the placing of
others above self, of their interests above one’s own.
What Did Comte Think?
It has been pointed out, on more than one occasion, that Rand’s
one or two paragraph treatments of Western philosophers in For the
New Intellectual are less than charitable, and in some cases substantially
distorted. I’ve complained myself about the way she ran Herbert
Spencer over (Campbell 1996). So our first order of business is to
assess whether she got Comte right or not.
She did, as an examination of Comte’s later writings will confirm.
Comte was so devout a collectivist that he denied there could be a
science of psychology—on moral grounds, for it would be too
individualistic! And although Comte (1966; 1973a) was squeamish
about the death penalty, and reluctant to discuss the use of force, the
exquisitely planned and directed social order that he pined for had no
chance of coming into being without massive compulsion. By
addressing his personal appeals to the Tsar of Russia rather than, say,
the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Comte (1966) implicitly conceded
this point.
A long way from indulging in fantasy, Rand was merely taking
Comte’s conception of altruism seriously. Comte, who sought to 1
establish a new religion of “the Great Being, Humanity,” defined
altruism as “living for others” (vivre pour autrui):
The individual must subordinate himself to an Existence
outside himself in order to find in it the source of his
stability. And this condition cannot be effectually realized
except under the impulse of propensities prompting him to
live for others. The being, whether man or animal, who
loves nothing outside himself, and really lives for himself
alone, is by that very fact condemned to spend his life in a
miserable alternation of ignoble torpor and uncontrolled
excitement. Evidently the principal feature of Progress in all
360 The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies Vol. 7, No. 2
living things is that the general consensus which we have
seen to be the essential attribute of vitality should become
more perfect. It follows that happiness and worth, as well in
individuals as in societies, depend on adequate ascendancy of
the sympathetic instincts. Thus the expression, Live for Others,
is the simplest summary of the whole moral code of Positivism.
(Comte 1973a, 565–56)
Of moral education, Comte declared:
[O]ver and above the several means of repressing personality,
the essential condition of purification is the exertion of
sympathy, which regulates individual existence by the family
relations, and these again by the civic.
It follows that, from every point of view, the ultimate
systematisation of human life must consist above all in the
development of altruism. (1973b, 253)
For Comte, as the above passage suggests, “personality” was invariably
a bad thing. Not only must feelings for others be promoted, any
form of self-regard or positive self-evaluation must be discouraged.
As for Comte’s politics, his uncompromising collectivism comes
through clearly in the passages already quoted. The four hefty
volumes of the System of Positive Polity embroider on the regimentation
that Comte sought to impose, in detail that readers not committed to
his scheme for remaking society will find mind-numbing. Of
particular interest: Comte thoroughly rejected any notion of individual
rights as opposed to social duties, detested any form of liberalism
as “modern anarchy,” and envisioned a Religion of Humanity,
established by the State, whose function would be to train every
citizen in altruism and discourage outbreaks of “personality.” It’s
worth noting, too, that in pressing for altruism, Comte exalted the
emotions over the intellect. Rand (1957) also maintained that altruism
depends on putting feelings before facts, though Bass does not
mention this.
Campbell — Altruism in Auguste Comte and Ayn Rand 361
Rand’s Choice of Terms
What’s more, there is reason to think that hard-core, Comtean
altruism was of particular importance to Rand. An examination of her
earlier writings, as well as the published portions of her journals,
shows that it took some years for her to settle on “altruism” as her
label for the moral tendencies that she most deeply opposed. In her
earliest published journals, she referred to the viewpoint that she
opposed in varying terms: collectivism, Christian morality, the
morality of selflessness, and so on.
Greater clarity began to emerge with her notes for Second Hand
Lives, eventually published as The Fountainhead. In one of the first that
has survived, she asks “What it means to live for others”; the
adversary is identified, not as altruism, but as “ethical collectivism” or
the “old Christian-Communist denial of ‘self’” (1997, 85; 22 December
1935). Her first actual reference to altruism is in a character
sketch of Peter Keating (1997, 99; 12 February 1936); Keating’s
altruism is described as phony, functioning primarily to feed his
vanity.
Rand’s second reference to altruism in her journals is a quick note
from 1942, as she was rushing to complete work on the novel. Now
altruism is seen as fundamental: “We must be ashamed to admit
second-hander’s motives—acts of altruism” (1997, 220). Three other
such notes follow from the same year (221). Each equates altruism
with living a second-hand life; one seems to indicate that “egotism”
and “altruism” are words better not used in Howard Roark’s courtroom
speech. But toward the end of 1942, she changed her mind; the
morality of altruism is a secondary theme in that speech, but a
prominent one.
“Altruism,” Roark tells the court, “is the doctrine which demands
that man live for others and place others above self” ([1943] 1968,
712). Altruism was fully cemented in Rand’s standard terminology in
1943, as she began sketching an intended treatise on the morality of
individualism. As per the initial outline, human beings ought to be
“Traders, not servants. . . . Altruism is an absolute evil” (1997, 244;
18 August 1943). An early synopsis barely paraphrases Roark’s
362 The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies Vol. 7, No. 2
speech: “Altruism is the doctrine which holds that man must live for
others and place others above self” (249; 4 September 1943). This
does not merely echo Rand’s note from 1935—it is a perfectly
Comtean definition.
Did Rand know then that “living for others” was Comte’s
definition? We cannot be entirely sure, because Rand does not
mention him in her journals. We do know that during this period
Rand was in close contact with Isabel Paterson, who was definitely
aware of the outlines of Comte’s system. In a newspaper column,
Paterson had made fun of several prominent social theorists,
including Jean Bodin, Giambattista Vico, Auguste Comte, and
Herbert Spencer, quoting passages on each from The Story of Social
Philosophy, by Charles A. Ellwood (supposedly, as read out loud to her
by humor columnist Will Cuppy). “There was just one thing none of
them knew—the appropriate phrase to inscribe on the final page of
their immortal works. . . . No dice. . . .” (Paterson 1938, 12).
So Rand’s characterization of altruism was impeccably Comtean.
What’s more, her selection of altruism as the primary label for the
tendencies that she opposed was plausibly occasioned by an encounter
with Comte’s ideas. Rand could actually claim greater authenticity
than a good many others who have held forth on the subject.
Watering Altruism Down
Since Comte was there first, and his formulation was crisp and
uncompromising, how did altruism come to be understood as Bass
insists we understand it? When and how did altruism devolve to the
wide and smeary range of views that “the interests of others matter in
their own right, apart from the way they might impact upon one’s
own interests, and therefore that, in varying degrees (depending upon
the thinker and his other commitments), it could be appropriate,
desirable or morally required, on some occasions to act on behalf of
others, even at some cost to one’s own interests” (Bass 2006, 331)?
The answer is that the notion of altruism (the word entered the
English language through commentaries on Comte and translations
of him) was thoroughly watered down within a generation.
Campbell — Altruism in Auguste Comte and Ayn Rand 363
Comte’s altruism was evidently disturbing to many of his readers.
But there was great reluctance to pronounce altruism a misguided
ideal in general. John Stuart Mill, who had been a financial supporter
of Comte’s efforts, found the System of Positive Polity reactionary and
grossly illiberal, when not obsessionally bizarre, and, some years after
Comte’s death, voiced his criticisms openly.
Because the good of the human race is the ultimate standard
of right and wrong, and because moral discipline consists in
cultivating the utmost possible repugnance to all conduct
injurious to the general good, M. Comte infers that the good
of others is the only inducement on which we should allow
ourselves to act; and that we should endeavour to starve the
whole of the desires which point to our personal satisfaction,
by denying them all gratification not strictly required by
physical necessities. The golden rule of morality, in M.
Comte’s religion, is to live for others, “vivre pour autrui.”
To do as we would be done by, and to love our neighbour as
ourself, are not sufficient for him: they partake, he thinks, of
the nature of personal calculations. We should endeavour
not to love ourselves at all. . . . All education and all moral
discipline should have but one object, to make altruism (a
word of his own coining) predominate over egoism. (Mill
1865, 138–39)
Mill had a major opening. The notion of altruism was new, the
word not widely used yet, and Comte’s moral orientation was at odds
with both the utilitarianism of Mill’s upbringing and the individualist
tendencies of Mill’s maturity. But Mill would not reject altruism
outright, in favor of a different moral standard. Instead, as he
immediately continued:
If by this were only meant that egoism is bound, and should
be taught, always to give way to the well-understood interests
of enlarged altruism, no one who acknowledges any morality
at all would object to the proposition. But M. Comte . . .
364 The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies Vol. 7, No. 2
thinks it the grand duty of life not only to strengthen the
social affections by constant habit and by referring all our
actions to them, but, as far as possible, to deaden the personal
passions and propensities by desuetude. Even the
exercise of the intellect is required to obey as an authoritative
rule the dominion of the social feelings over the intelligence
(du cœur sur l’esprit). The physical and other personal
instincts are to be mortified far beyond the demands of
bodily health, which indeed the morality of the future is not
to insist much upon, for fear of encouraging “les calculs
personnels.” (139)
In other words, Mill felt obliged to concede that altruism must be
a good thing, not to be questioned by any moral person. So if
Comte’s definition was unsatisfactory, better that the notion be given
a different one—or left undefined entirely.
Indeed, within a few more years, altruism had acquired a
spectrum of weaker meanings. Meanwhile, Comte’s original radical
conception of it was being shunned as scarcely worthy of mention in
discussions among moral philosophers.
For Leslie Stephen, whose views show both Kantian and
utilitarian influences, altruism (a word Stephen just assumes his
readers know) is a matter of sympathetically feeling pain when another
person feels pain, and consequently acting to relieve the other’s pain.
[A]ltruism, whatever its meaning or analysis, begins at the
point where I am capable of benevolent intentions; or, in
other words, where conferring pleasure upon others becomes
a possible motive. (Stephen 1882, 224)
Examples of altruistic behavior, Stephen thinks, are readily provided
by common sense:
A man is altruistic who loves his neighbour as himself; who
gives money to the poor that he might have spent in luxury;
who leaves house and home to convert savages; who sacri-
Campbell — Altruism in Auguste Comte and Ayn Rand 365
fices health to comfort prisoners or sufferers in a plaguestricken
city. (220)
Leaving aside disagreements over the value of missionary work,
there are obvious problems with these examples. On the one hand,
many acts of benevolence are far less costly to the benefactor than
those that Stephen has chosen. On the other hand, as Mill had
accurately noted just a few years before, loving your neighbor as
yourself would not have satisfied Comte. Comtean altruism entails
loving your neighbor and doing your utmost not to love yourself.
Still, according to Stephen, the “moral law” of any society
requires altruistic behavior, which in some cases will entail selfsacrifice,
even to the point of martyrdom. That seems rather more
Comtean—but Comte is never cited in any of these discussions.
One of Stephen’s goals was to situate his system of morality in an
evolutionary context, a project in which he drew considerable
inspiration from his contemporary Herbert Spencer. But he did not
go nearly so far as Spencer in the direction of trivializing altruism.
A significantly deeper thinker than Stephen, Spencer (1978)
sought to resolve the tension between egoism and altruism through
an intricate dialectical argument. Some portions of that argument
should have met with Rand’s entire approval. Notably, Spencer
rejected “pure” or “perfect” altruism as perverse, even “suicidal”
(259). In arguing against it, he cites Comte’s definition, though
without ever mentioning the man who formulated it:
In yet one more way may be shown the inconsistency of this
transfigured utilitarianism which regards its doctrine as
embodying the Christian maxim “Love your neighbor as
yourself,” and of that altruism which, going still further,
enunciates the maxim “Live for others.”
. . . Mark the consequences if all are purely altruistic.
First, an impossible combination of moral attributes is
implied. Each is supposed by the hypothesis to regard self so
366 The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies Vol. 7, No. 2
little and others so much, that he willingly sacrifices his own
pleasures to give pleasures to them. But if this is a universal
trait, and action is universally congruous with it, we have to
conceive each as being not only a sacrificer but also one who
accepts sacrifices. While he is so unselfish as to yield up the
benefit for which he has labored, he is so selfish as willingly
to let others yield up to him the benefits they have labored
for. To make pure altruism possible for all, each must be at
once extremely unegoistic and extremely egoistic. As a giver,
he must have no thought for self; as a receiver, no thought
for others. (262)
But the overall strategy of his argument required Spencer to find
some form of egoism and some form of altruism up and down the
process of biological evolution, at the cost of trivializing both. It
required him to say that when an “infusorium or other protozoon”
(232) reproduces by dividing, it is practicing “physical altruism of the
lowest kind.” Somehow there can be egoism or altruism without any
valuing of self or other.
Among human beings, Spencer posits not just “family altruism”
and “social altruism” (234–35); he insists that merely refraining from
aggression against others constitutes “negative altruism” (235).
So despite his cogent argument against Comtean altruism,
Spencer’s own formulation ends up even broader and smearier than
Bass’s. Those who wonder how genes could ever be “selfish” or how
the simplest exchanges of benefits could have ended up being labeled
“reciprocal altruism”—usages that are current in sociobiology and
evolutionary psychology—can find the origins of these confusions in
Spencer’s writings.
Who’s Been Baiting and Switching?
Even after due allowance is made for the way that altruism was
watered down within three decades after Comte’s original presentation,
Bass’s complaint about baiting and switching might still be
justified. But only if the advocates of weaker forms of altruism held
Campbell — Altruism in Auguste Comte and Ayn Rand 367
consistently to them, never sliding into the promotion of generalized
living for others, or of submerging the individual in the collective
mass. In examining the views of moral development researchers,
John Christopher and I (1996a; 1996b) found that some of them do
indeed slide around, from describing low-cost forms of generosity as
altruistic to treating altruistic acts as frankly self-sacrificial; for
instance, Eisenberg’s (1986) book on the subject fails to maintain a
consistent standard of altruistic motivation or behavior from one
chapter to the next. If advocates of weaker forms of altruism allow
Comtean implications to slip in, and do nothing to repudiate them,
they and not Rand are the ones who might be fairly reproached for
baiting and switching.
By 1935, Ayn Rand was defining her moral views in contrast with
a purported ideal of living for others. This was, in fact, altruism as
understood by Auguste Comte, the man who introduced the word,
although Rand made little use of it herself for several more years.
Rand’s Comtean understanding of altruism had fully crystallized by
the end of 1942, when she wrote Howard Roark’s courtroom speech,
and it informs all of her later writings.
Perhaps, then, it is the champions of weaker or more wavering
conceptions of altruism that Bass should be complaining about,
instead of a critic of altruism like Rand, who was being true to the
intentions of the founder. At the very least, any moral theorist who
appeals to “common sense” or “garden-variety” understandings of
altruism owes the reader an account of his or her decision to keep 2
using a word that Comte brought into the language and that is still
quite capable of bearing a Comtean meaning.
Acknowledgments
My thanks to Alex Levine for his help in tracing responses to Comte in British
moral philosophy, and to Stephen Cox for a copy of the 1938 column by Isabel
Paterson.
Notes
1. Some may excuse passing Comte over because his writings are not treated
as canonical in contemporary Anglo-American academic moral philosophy. But
368 The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies Vol. 7, No. 2
what is the warrant for excluding him? His later writings were fairly influential in
their day: the Brazilian flag still carries the Comtean slogan “Order and Progress,”
and Comteanism contributed to the Progressive movement in the United States via
such figures as Utopian writer Edward Bellamy, sociologist Lester Ward, and public
intellectual Herbert Croly (Harp 1995). The young Jean Piaget (1918), one of the
founders of moral development research, also acknowledged Comte as an inspiration
(Campbell 1999). One suspects that Comte’s mania for systematizing lost its political
appeal to the Left long ago because he believed in an overt social hierarchy with a
semi-hereditary “patriciate” as well as a State religion with a priesthood; his outlook
on the social and political status of women was hyper-Victorian; and he favored
veuvage perpetuel, in which widows and widowers would never remarry so they could
devote the remainder of their lives to venerating the memory of the deceased.
2. It is doubtful that appeals to common sense are worth a whole lot when
egoism and altruism are being discussed. Isthere common sense agreement on what
is good for me, and on what is good for others? Or about the extent of harmony or
conflict between what is good for me and what is good for every
an interesting article