Ā»

The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others ā€” a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal .Ā .Ā .Ā .

To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruismā€™s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste ā€” then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiverā€™s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.

“The Question of Scholarships”
The Objectivist, June 1966, 6

The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to oneā€™s own rational self-interest and oneā€™s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to oneā€™s own happiness.

To illustrate this on the altruistsā€™ favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to oneā€™s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value oneā€™s life no higher than that of any random stranger. (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for oneā€™s sake, remembering that oneā€™s life cannot be as valuable to him as his own.)

If the person to be saved is not a stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that personā€™s value to oneself. If it is the man or woman one loves, then one can be willing to give oneā€™s own life to save him or her ā€” for the selfish reason that life without the loved person could be unbearable.

“The Ethics of Emergencies”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 45

The small minority of adults who are unable rather than unwilling to work, have to rely on voluntary charity; misfortune is not a claim to slave labor; there is no such thing as the right to consume, control, and destroy those without whom one would be unable to survive.

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

Playboy Interview: Ayn Rand
Playboy, March 1964
All rights reserved including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form. Used by arrangement with Plume, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC.