In the last part of this series I showed the devastating results the moral code of altruism and its political expression of ‘the strong must be sacrificed to the weak’ have had on human progress and human prosperity throughout history.  In this post, I am going to show exactly what the implementation of this philosophy does to each human being who subscribes to it or is forced to live under it.

According to altruism, the ‘good’ is represented by the strong sacrificing to the weak.  If this is true, then the actions taken while following this code, either voluntarily or involuntarily, should ultimately be beneficial to the individual human beings involved.  Let’s see if this is true.

First let’s look at those who might be deemed as ‘the strong’ under the altruist moral code; businesses, the wealthy, the healthy, the skilled, the educated or just generally anyone who has more of some value than someone else.  For ‘the strong,’ does sacrificing their values help them in any way?  Remember, according to altruism you are only morally good if you do NOT get any value in return for your sacrifice.  This includes any kind of spiritual joy for having helped someone.  The answer is blatantly obvious.  If you have a value, be it wealth or skill or health or happiness or anything objectively of value to you, and you give it away for nothing you are not better off.  How can this be good … for anyone?

So if this moral code does not benefit the ‘strong, surely it must be of benefit to those receiving the sacrifice of these values, ‘the weak.’  Nothing could be further from the truth.  To be human in any sense of the word requires self-esteem, the innate understanding that one is capable and worthy of living one’s life.  Self-esteem cannot be GIVEN to you.  It must be earned.  Altruism can give a person ‘values,’ but if those values were not earned, the person receiving them will KNOW that he is not competent or worthy to receive such values.  He will quickly cease to live as a human being, devolving inevitably into the human equivalent of a pet.  If this condition persists for any length of time then a person accepting it will become virtually irredeemable – certainly not someone who would be recognizable as a person of any value or worth to anyone else or much more importantly to himself.  How is this good … for anyone?

Finally, let’s discuss precisely what is required when this moral code of sacrifice is codified into the laws of the land.  When something becomes a law it is intended to be applied universally to all citizens, but altruistic laws require winners (the weak) and losers (the strong).  Because of this, you will be lumped into one group or the other depending on the superficial distinction written into the law.  Your personal circumstances and most especially your personal desires are irrelevant to how the law will be applied and enforced against or for you depending on where you fit on the altruistic scale.  Whether you like it or not, you have become part of a collective, and in the words of the purest fictional collective ever created, ‘Resistance is futile.’

Whether you earned your wealth through a legitimate enterprise or as a mafia mob boss, your money will be forfeit to whatever scheme the law requires regardless of how legitimately you acquired it.  And if you are an old person or a disabled person or a black person or a Native American or a child or any of a seemingly endless array of different distinctions of human beings that arise when government-enforced altruism begins picking winners and losers, you will be entitled to the benefits the law requires regardless of whether you need them or want them.

If you want the starkest representation of where all of this leads to in reality, look at how Jews were treated in Nazi Germany or how the owners of anything of value have been treated in every totalitarian Communist state ever devised.

The conclusion is obvious.  The more the political philosophy of sacrificing the strong to the weak takes over the government of any people the less individuality is allowed to those people, and the more they become only so many faceless cattle waiting for the slaughter.

This concludes my series of posts, which began with the most innocent of proposals to provide assistance to one needy group of individuals by requiring it through government force, and ended with a description of the horrors perpetrated throughout history because of the moral philosophy underlying that ‘innocent’ proposal.  Such is the nature of altruism, the moral code that is accepted without question by many of the people reading this and by virtually everyone on the planet.

Isn’t it time to start questioning this moral code … before it’s too late?