My Reference Shelf

You may have gone to Resources, my list of links to various sources of information (and timeless tracts) that are available on the web. I am a frequent visitor.

I am also a frequent visitor to the row of books that sits on a shelf above my computer. The books are arrayed roughly by subject but also (for aesthetic reasons) in “waves” by height (peak-trough-peak-through-peak). Here, from left to right, are the titles on my reference shelf (with links to editions that are available online):

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, Edwin Meese III (chairman of the editorial advisory board)
The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions, Kermit L. Hall (editor)
The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations
The Great Thoughts, George Seldes (editor)
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America (published by the U.S. Government Printing Office [GPO], 1972)
The Constitution of the United States of America (footnoted version “presented by” Emmanuel Celler, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives, GPO, 1972)
Layman’s Guide to Individual Rights under the United States Constitution (prepared by the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committe on the Judiciary of the U.S. Senate, GPO, 1972)
FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression, Jim Powell
The Law, Frederic Bastiat
The Constitution of the United States of America (“presented by” Wayne Hays, chairman of the Committee on House Administration, GPO, 1972)
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America (pocket version published by Cato Institute)
The Summing Up, W. Somerset Maugham
The Great Quotations, George Seldes (editor)
The New American Roget’s College Thesaurus in Dictionary Form
The Elements of Style, William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White
The Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions (prepared and published by the Board of Governors, 1961)
The King’s English, H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler
A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, H.W. Fowler (revised by Sir Ernest Gowers)
Modern American Usage: A Guide, Wilson Follett
A Manual of Style, University of Chicago Press
Legal Problem Solver (a Reader’s Digest compendium)
Know Your Rights (a Reader’s Digest compendium)
The Timetables of History, Bernard Grun
The Statistical History of the United States: From Colonial Times to the Present (prepared by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1976)
Relativity Visualized, Lewis Carroll Epstein
Amo, Amas, Amat and More: How to Use Latin to Your Own Advantage and to the Astonishment of Others, Eugene Ehrlich
Dictionary of Foreign Terms, C.O. Sylvester Mawson
Webster’s New World French Dictionary (concise edition)
21st Century Dictionary of Acronyms and Abbreviations, Diana Ajian (compiler)
The Complete Plain Words, Sir Ernest Gowers
Harbrace College Handbook, John C. Hodges and Mary E. Whitten
Handbook of Mathematical Tables and Formulas, Richard Stevens Burington (compiler)
A Guide to American English, L.M. Myers
Principles of Speech, Alan H. Monroe
The Macmillan Handbook of English, John M. Kierzek and Walker Gibson
The 1,911 Best Things Anybody Ever Said, Robert Byrne
The Plain English Approach to Business Writing, Edward P. Bailey Jr.
The Art of Literary Research, Richard D. Altick
The Basic Patterns of Plot, Foster-Harris
Written Words: A Literary Introduction to English Composition, Arthur Norman and Lewis Sawin

I have many other reference works in other parts of my house. Those listed above just happen to be the ones at hand. I would be grateful for suggestions about other titles that I should keep handy.

Current Reading

I am reading The Sea, by John Banville — one of my favorite authors. The Sea won the 2005 Man Booker Prize for Fiction, an honor justly deserved. Last night, I read (and re-read) a paragraph that exemplifies Banville’s command of language and ability to paint word-pictures:

I wonder if other people when they were children had this kind of image, at once vague and particular, of what they would be like when they grew up. I am not speaking of hopes and aspirations, vague ambitions, that kind of thing. From the outset I was very precise and definite in my expectations. I did not want to be an engine driver or a famous explorer. When I peered wishfully through the mists from the all too real then to the blissfully imagined now, this is, as I have said, exactly how I would have foreseen my future self, a man of leisurely interests and scant ambition sitting in a room just like this one, in my sea-captain’s chair, leaning at my little table, in just this season, the year declining toward its end in clement weather, the leaves scampering, the brightness imperceptibly fading from the days and the street lamps coming on only a fraction earlier each evening. Yes, this is what I thought adulthood would be, a kind of long indian summer, a state of tranquillity, of calm incuriousness, with nothing left of the barely bearable raw immediacy of childhood, all the things solved that had puzzled me when I was small, all mysteries settled, all questions answered, and the moments dripping away, unnoticed almost, drip by golden drip, toward the final, almost unnoticed, quietus.

A Belloc Anthology

My son has compiled an anthology of previously uncollected short stories by the English writer, Hilaire Belloc. You can buy the book here.

One Small Step for Literacy

Steve Burton (Right Reason) writes: “100th anniversary”. That’s precisely the right way to put it, as opposed to the wrong but increasingly common ways, such as “five-year anniversary” or, more barbarically, “six-month anniversary.”

The word “anniversary” means “the annually recurring date of a past event.” To write or say “x-year anniversary” is redundant as well as graceless. To write or say “x-month anniversary” is nonsensical; what is meant is that such-and-such happened “x” months ago.

Heat Got You Down?

Here in central Texas we have been enjoying unseasonably warm temperatures for a month or so. Daytime highs aren’t in the 100s, but they’re close. I’m not complaining; I enjoy the persistently sunny and dry weather, and the relatively low humidity that accompanies it. For those of you who have been experiencing similar weather but are less enamored of it than I am, here’s a poem that might cause you to bless the bright, blazing Sun:

The Cremation of Sam McGee
By Robert Service (1874-1958)

There are strange things done in the midnight sun
By the men who moil for gold;
The Arctic trails have their secret tales
That would make your blood run cold;
The Northern Lights have seen queer sights,
But the queerest they ever did see
Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge
I cremated Sam McGee.

Now Sam McGee was from Tennessee, where the cotton blooms and blows.
Why he left his home in the South to roam ’round the Pole, God only knows.
He was always cold, but the land of gold seemed to hold him like a spell;
Though he’d often say in his homely way that “he’d sooner live in hell.”

On a Christmas Day we were mushing our way over the Dawson trail.
Talk of your cold! through the parka’s fold it stabbed like a driven nail.
If our eyes we’d close, then the lashes froze till sometimes we couldn’t see;
It wasn’t much fun, but the only one to whimper was Sam McGee.

And that very night, as we lay packed tight in our robes beneath the snow,
And the dogs were fed, and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel and toe,
He turned to me, and “Cap,” says he, “I’ll cash in this trip, I guess;
And if I do, I’m asking that you won’t refuse my last request.”

Well, he seemed so low that I couldn’t say no; then he says with a sort of moan:
“It’s the cursèd cold, and it’s got right hold, till I’m chilled clean through to the bone.
Yet ’tain’t being dead — it’s my awful dread of the icy grave that pains;
So I want you to swear that, foul or fair, you’ll cremate my last remains.”

A pal’s last need is a thing to heed, so I swore I would not fail;
And we started on at the streak of dawn; but God! he looked ghastly pale.
He crouched on the sleigh, and he raved all day of his home in Tennessee;
And before nightfall a corpse was all that was left of Sam McGee.

There wasn’t a breath in that land of death, and I hurried, horror-driven,
With a corpse half hid that I couldn’t get rid, because of a promise given;
It was lashed to the sleigh, and it seemed to say: “You may tax your brawn and brains,
But you promised true, and it’s up to you, to cremate those last remains.”

Now a promise made is a debt unpaid, and the trail has its own stern code.
In the days to come, though my lips were dumb, in my heart how I cursed that load.
In the long, long night, by the lone firelight, while the huskies, round in a ring,
Howled out their woes to the homeless snows — Oh God! how I loathed the thing.

And every day that quiet clay seemed to heavy and heavier grow;
And on I went, though the dogs were spent and the grub was getting low;
The trail was bad, and I felt half mad, but I swore I would not give in;
And I’d often sing to the hateful thing, and it hearkened with a grin.

Till I came to the marge of Lake Lebarge, and a derelict there lay;
It was jammed in the ice, but I saw in a trice it was called the “Alice May.”
And I looked at it, and I thought a bit, and I looked at my frozen chum;
Then “Here,” said I, with a sudden cry, “is my cre-ma-tor-eum.”

Some planks I tore from the cabin floor, and I lit the boiler fire;
Some coal I found that was lying around, and I heaped the fuel higher;
The flames just soared, and the furnace roared — such a blaze you seldom see;
And I burrowed a hole in the glowing coal, and I stuffed in Sam McGee.

Then I made a hike, for I didn’t like to hear him sizzle so;
And the heavens scowled, and the huskies howled, and the wind began to blow.
It was icy cold, but the hot sweat rolled down my cheeks, and I don’t know why;
And the greasy smoke in an inky cloak went streaking down the sky.

I do not know how long in the snow I wrestled with grisly fear;
But the stars came out and they danced about ere again I ventured near;
I was sick with dread, but I bravely said: “I’ll just take a peep inside.
I guess he’s cooked, and it’s time I looked”; … then the door I opened wide.

And there sat Sam, looking cool and calm, in the heart of the furnace roar;
And he wore a smile you could see a mile, and said: “Please close that door.
It’s fine in here, but I greatly fear, you’ll let in the cold and storm —
Since I left Plumtree, down in Tennessee, it’s the first time I’ve been warm.”

There are strange things done in the midnight sun
By the men who moil for gold;
The Arctic trails have their secret tales
That would make your blood run cold;
The Northern Lights have seen queer sights,
But the queerest they ever did see
Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge
I cremated Sam McGee.

(Source: Poem of the Week)

The Illusion of Reality

A self-description by the spinster, librarian narrator of Jincy Willett’s novel, Winner of the National Book Award:

You escape, said Abe Marx, into your books. I didn’t have the wit then, quite, for the obvious riposte: I escape, when I feel the need, into what all you bullies insist is reality. I study birds, library patrons, local politicians. Sometimes I garden. Sometimes I watch the Sox. Sometimes I drink. I keep a neat house and I pay my taxes, all in the real world. But I don’t live there.

She speaks for me.

The Intellectual Life

Alanyzer posts a review of The Intellectual Life, by A.G. Sertillanges, O.P. Read the review, then buy the book. A faculty adviser gave me a copy about 45 years ago. I read it then, and re-read it many times before passing it along to my son. I think I’ll buy another copy and read it again.

Book Beat

For unremittingly clever wordplay and a tantalizingly tortuous plot, you must read Reginald Hill’s Dialogues of the Dead. It’s another Dalziel and Pascoe mystery — the best of the many I’ve read. The bonus: Dalziel’s hilarious, politically incorrect ruminations and interjections.

True Confessions

One of my favorite passages from W. Somerset Maugham’s The Summing Up:

From time to time I have asked myself whether I should have been a better writer if I had devoted my whole life to literature. Somewhat early, but at what age I cannot remember, I made up my mind that, having but one life, I should like to get the most I could out of it. It did not seem to me enough merely to write. I wanted to make a pattern of my life, in which writing would be an essential element, but which would include all the other activities proper to man, and which death would in the end round off in complete fulfillment. . . . I had . . . an instinctive shrinking from my fellow men that has made it difficult for me to enter into any familiarity with them. I have loved individuals; I have never much cared for men in the mass. I have none of that engaging come-hitherness that makes people take to one another on first acquaintance. Though in the course of years I have learnt to assume an air of heartiness when forced into contact with a stranger, I have never liked anyone at first sight. I do not think I have ever addressed someone I did not know . . . unless he first spoke to me. (Pocket Book edition, 1967, pp. 34-5)

Related post: IQ and Personality

An Appropriate Award

Headline:

Murtha to Receive JFK Profile in Courage Award

Lede:

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), who was the subject of a recent Cybercast News Service investigation of his military and political record, will receive the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award for his stance against the Iraq war.

A pertinent analysis of JFK’s Pulitzer prize-winning book, Profiles in Courage, for which the award is named:

The book was published on January 1, 1956, to lavish praise. It became a best seller and in 1957 was awarded the Pulitzer prize for biography. It established Kennedy, till then considered promising but lacking in gravitas, as one of the Democratic party’s leading lights, setting the stage for his presidential nomination in 1960.

But doubts about the book’s authorship surfaced early. In December 1957 syndicated columnist Drew Pearson, interviewed on TV by Mike Wallace, said, “Jack Kennedy is . . . the only man in history that I know who won a Pulitzer prize on a book which was ghostwritten for him.” Outraged, Kennedy hired lawyer Clark Clifford, who collected the senator’s handwritten notes and rounded up statements from people who said they’d seen him working on the book, then persuaded Wallace’s bosses at ABC to read a retraction on the air.

Kennedy made no secret of Sorensen’s involvement in Profiles, crediting him in the preface as “my research associate,” and likewise acknowledged the contributions of Davids and others. But he insisted that he was the book’s author and bristled even at teasing suggestions to the contrary. Sorensen and other Kennedy loyalists backed him up then and have done so since.

The most thorough analysis of who did what has come from historian Herbert Parmet in Jack: The Struggles of John F. Kennedy (1980). Parmet interviewed the participants and reviewed a crateful of papers in the Kennedy Library. He found that Kennedy contributed some notes, mostly on John Quincy Adams, but little that made it into the finished product. “There is no evidence of a Kennedy draft for the overwhelming bulk of the book,” Parmet writes. While “the choices, message, and tone of the volume are unmistakably Kennedy’s,” the actual work was “left to committee labor.” The “literary craftsmanship [was] clearly Sorensen’s, and he gave the book both the drama and flow that made for readability.” Parmet, like everyone else, shrinks from saying Sorensen was the book’s ghostwriter, but clearly he was.

Murtha’s “courage” with respect to Iraq is as bogus as JFK’s Pulitzer. Murtha’s “heroism” in Vietnam — his bona fides for attacking the war in Iraq — may also be bogus.

Thoughts for the Day

W. Somerset Maugham, in his anecdotal memoir The Summing Up, wrote:

If . . . I seem to express myself dogmatically, it is only because I find it very boring to qualify every phrase with an ‘I think’ or ‘to my mind.’ Everything I say is merely an opinion of my own. The reader can take it or leave it. If he has the patience to read what follows he will see that there is only one thing about which I am certain, and this is that there is very little about which one can be certain. (Pocket Book edition, 1967, p. 9)

Maugham, I think, feigned humility. If he was certain of nothing else, he must have been quite certain about how he should lead his life, which is saying quite a lot. Certainty about how to lead one’s life is the most important certainty to hold, but it cannot be arrived at without introspection and self-criticism. To put it another way, a life lived willy-nilly, with only immediate gratification in mind, is likely to be chaotic and, in the end, disappointing.

Given the difficulty of ordering one’s own life, it is wise to be uncertain about precisely how others should lead their lives, except to admonish (and sometimes punish) those who trespass against us. We must try to raise our children well, but we should not behave toward adults as if they were children. Paternalism toward adults is a form of consdescension. It says, in effect, “I am privileged (i.e., superior to you), and I am therefore qualified to decide how you should live your life and how others must or must not deal with you.”

Useful Additions to My Lexicon

Boundary violation

Genetic fallacy

Remedial Vocabulary Training

David Bernstein, writing at TCS Daily a few years ago, recounted tales from the department of politically correct speech. This one struck close to home:

One especially merit-less [hostile work environment] claim that led to a six-figure verdict involved Allen Fruge, a white Department of Energy employee based in Texas. Fruge unwittingly spawned a harassment suit when he followed up a southeast Texas training session with a bit of self-deprecating humor. He sent several of his colleagues who had attended the session with him gag certificates anointing each of them as an honorary Coon Ass — usually spelled coonass — a mildly derogatory slang term for a Cajun. The certificate stated that [y]ou are to sing, dance, and tell jokes and eat boudin, cracklins, gumbo, crawfish etouffe and just about anything else. The joke stemmed from the fact that southeast Texas, the training session location, has a large Cajun population, including Fruge himself.

An African American recipient of the certificate, Sherry Reid, chief of the Nuclear and Fossil Branch of the DOE in Washington, D.C., apparently missed the joke and complained to her supervisors that Fruge had called her a coon. Fruge sent Reid a formal (and humble) letter of apology for the inadvertent offense, and explained what Coon Ass actually meant. Reid nevertheless remained convinced that Coon Ass was a racial pejorative, and demanded that Fruge be fired. DOE supervisors declined to fire Fruge, but they did send him to diversity training. They also reminded Reid that the certificate had been meant as a joke, that Fruge had meant no offense, that Coon Ass was slang for Cajun, and that Fruge sent the certificates to people of various races and ethnicities, so he clearly was not targeting African Americans. Reid nevertheless sued the DOE, claiming that she had been subjected to a racial epithet that had created a hostile environment, a situation made worse by the DOEs failure to fire Fruge.

Reid’s case was seemingly frivolous. The linguistics expert her attorney hired was unable to present evidence that Coon Ass meant anything but Cajun, or that the phrase had racist origins, and Reid presented no evidence that Fruge had any discriminatory intent when he sent the certificate to her. Moreover, even if Coon Ass had been a racial epithet, a single instance of being given a joke certificate, even one containing a racial epithet, by a non-supervisory colleague who works 1,200 miles away does not seem to remotely satisfy the legal requirement that harassment must be severe and pervasive for it to create hostile environment liability. Nevertheless, a federal district court allowed the case to go to trial, and the jury awarded Reid $120,000, plus another $100,000 in attorneys fees. The DOE settled the case before its appeal could be heard for a sum very close to the jury award.

In a meeting with a group of employees, in which I discussed our company’s budget, I used the word “niggardly” (meaning stingy or penny-pinching). The next day a fellow VP informed me that some of the black employees of her division had been offended by my use of the word “niggardly.” My reaction was to suggest that she give her employees remedial training in English vocabulary. That should have been the verdict in the Reid case.

Brunettes

Hedy Lamarr


Catherine Zeta-Jones

What’s Wrong with Wikipedia?

Robert McHenry, a former editor-in-chief of the Encyclopedia Britannica, tries to explain the source of Wikipedia‘s flaws:

Many revisions, corrections, and updates are badly done or false. There is a simple reason for this: Not everyone who believes he knows something about Topic X actually does; and not everyone who believes he can explain Topic X clearly, can. People who believe things that are not the case are no less confident in their beliefs than those who happen to believe true things. (In case this point interests you, I have written extensively on it.) Consequently, it is far more reasonable to expect that, while initially poor articles may indeed improve over time, initially superior ones will degrade, with all tending to middling quality and subject to random fluctuations in quality. Note that this has nothing to do with the vandalism or the ideological “revert wars” that are also features of Wikipedia’s insistence on openness and that apparently occupy much of the volunteer editors’ time and effort.

But McHenry omits the key explanatory variable. Wikipedia is not subject to the usual discipline of the market:

  • Wikipedia is a hobby-shop, not a business. Its “owners” (volunteer Wikiwatchers) are not interested in making a profit. Even if relatively few persons used Wikipedia, the volunteers (or most of them) probably would continue to volunteer because they enjoy doing so — just as millions of volunteers perform ineptly for non-profit organizations and millions of bloggers maintain obscure, incoherent blogs. Wikipedia‘s owners have no pecuniary stake in it.
  • Because Wikipedia is a hobby-shop, contributors to Wikipedia are not screened by an expert editorial board that solicits paid contributions from credentialed sources. Wikipedia‘s contributors are essentially bloggers who have found another outlet for expression — they have no pecuniary stake in the quality of their contributions.
  • The users of Wikipedia do not pay to use it, either directly or indirectly (by clicking through to advertisers). Wikipedia is used mainly because it is free. It is used mainly by bloggers who do not “re-sell” Wikipedia‘s content and, therefore, have no pecuniary stake in the quality of Wikipedia‘s content. Therefore, unlike the buyers of a defective product who take their business elsewhere, Wikipedia‘s users have no effective way to discipline Wikipedia for its failings.

In sum, you get what you pay for when you use Wikipedia. That said, it’s still very often a useful source of basic facts and links to (sometimes) authoritative sources.

Christmas Movies

Last night my wife and I saw, for the first time, A Child’s Christmas in Wales (1987), a 55-minute, made-for-TV adaptation of Dylan Thomas‘s eponymous short story. A Child’s Christmas now tops my very short list of great Christmas movies.

Thomas’s poetic language is spoken beautifully by Denholm Elliott. Elliott plays a grandfather who, on a Christmas eve in the present, is telling his grandson about Christmases past. The filmmakers set the past in the first decade of the 1900s — a bit before Thomas’s time (he was born in 1914), but more appropriate to the film’s sense of innocence and joyousness than would have been a post-World War I setting.

A Child’s Christmas is richer in humor than other great Christmas movies, but there is no doubt about its ability to tug at the heartstrings. The soft, sweet ending leaves a lump in the throat. In spite of the Welsh accents, which are toned down, the movie would be a treat for children of, say, ages eight to twelve because so many scenes are played for laughs. But it would be enjoyed only by those children (and adults) who read to learn, who appreciate gifted writing, and who disdain the raucousness, vulgarity, viciousness, and anomie that seems to pervade today’s music, movies, TV, and video games.

Other great Christmas movies, in descending order of preference:
A Christmas Carol (1938, the warmest and brightest of the many versions — and not, praise be, a musical version)
Miracle on 34th Street (1947)
It’s a Wonderful Life (1946, the darkness becomes bright)

A Long Long Way

That’s the title of the novel I finished yesterday. A Long Long Way, by Irish writer Sebastian Barry, was shortlisted for the 2005 Man Booker Prize for Fiction, which went to John Banville for The Sea. Banville’s novel is on my to-read list, but it will have to be a masterpiece to top Barry’s novel.

A Long Long Way is the story of William (Willie) Dunne, an Southern Irish Catholic who volunteers for the British Army soon after the outbreak of the Great War. Willie, who is not yet 18 years old when he enlists, is motivated by the belief that a good showing by Southern Irish troops will be rewarded by Home Rule when the war is done.

The action follows wee Willie (who is just 5’6″ tall and naïve, if not simple-minded) through the mud, blood, and abject terror of trench warfare. If Barry meant to write an anti-war novel it doesn’t show. The gory fighting, rendered in a wholly believable way, is only a backdrop for Willie’s thoughts, loves, comradeships, and (most of all) his relationship with his towering figure of a father. All of that holds center stage.

What happens to Willie? Read A Long Long Way and find out.

Rich October Skies

I used the phrase “bright, blue, mid-October skies” in the preceding post. That reminds me of one of my favorite Carter Family songs,* A.P. Carter’s “School House on the Hill,” the third verse of which ends in the evocative phrase “rich October skies”:

Fond memory paints its scenes of other years
Bring me their memory still
And bright amid those joyous scenes of years
The schoolhouse on the hill

Oh, the schoolhouse that stands upon the hill
I never, never can forget
Dear happy days are gathered ’round me still
I never, no never can forget

There hangs the swing upon the maple tree
Where you and I once swung
There flows the spring, forever flowing free
As when we both were young

Oh, the schoolhouse that stands upon the hill
I never, never can forget
Dear happy days are gathered ’round me still
I never, no never can forget

There climbs the vines and there the berries grow
Which once would rise so high
And there the ripe nuts glistened in the grove
Of rich October skies

Oh, the schoolhouse that stands upon the hill
I never, never can forget
Dear happy days are gathered ’round me still
I never, no never can forget

The song was first recorded on June 17, 1933, in Camden, New Jersey, by A.P., Sara, and Maybelle Carter. And here they are:


Standing, A.P. and Sara; seated, Maybelle.

Here’s a snippet of the Carters’ original recording. And here’s a longer but, unfortunately, incomplete excerpt of a recording made by Jim Watson, Mike Craver, and the late Tommy Thompson of the original Red Clay Ramblers. The excerpt is from a 1980 album, Meeting in the Air, in which Watson, Craver, and Thompson performed 14 original Carter Family pieces. If the Ramblers’ rendition of “School House. . .” doesn’t bring a lump to your throat, you’re too young, too citified, or both.
__________
Lyrics of original Carter Family songs are available here and here.

A Belated Anniversary

September 16 marked the 60th anniversary of the death of John McCormack:

John McCormack (14 June 1884 – 16 September 1945), was a world-famous Irish tenor in the fields of opera and popular music, and renowned for his flawless diction and superb breath control. . .

. . . and for his silvery, lyrical voice.

Here he is singing, appropriately, “Goodbye” by Francesco Paolo Tosti.

Enough of Altruism

These are excerpts of a very long post at Liberty Corner II, where my longest posts reside.

A while back I posted “Redefining Altruism,” in which I said:

Altruism is defined as “the quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others.” . . . A better definition of altruism would go like this:

Altruism is the quality of concern for the welfare of others, as evidenced by action. An altruistic act is intended, necessarily, to satisfy the moral imperatives of the person performing the act, otherwise it would not be performed. The self-interestedness of an act altruism does not, however, detract in the least from the value of such an act to its beneficiary or beneficiaries. By the same token, an act that may not seem to arise from a concern for the welfare of others may nevertheless have as much beneficial effect as a purposely altruistic act.

There is no essential difference between altruism, defined properly, and the pursuit of self-interest, even if that pursuit does not “seem” altruistic. In fact, the common belief that there is a difference between altruism and the pursuit of self-interest is one cause of (excuse for) purportedly compassionate but actually destructive government intervention in human affairs.

Don Watkins III of Anger Management had much to say about my post, including this:

Thomas is defending psychological egoism: the view that all actions are selfish, because the fact that a person chooses to do something shows that he valued it more than the other options available to him. He then uses this premise to try to reconcile altruism and self-interest. . . .

I am not defending psychological egoism, nor am I trying to reconcile psychological egoism and altruism. I reject the concept of psychological egoism because it’s just a label for behavior that seems to involve a “gain,” as Don would have it. I similarly reject the concept of altruism because it’s just a label for behavior that seems to involve a “loss,” as Don puts it. The problem with trying to separate egoism and altruism is that a person’s behavior arises from a single human mind. One cannot accept a “loss” without considering (even for a subconscious instant) the potential “gain,” and vice versa. . . .

Let me make it clear that Don’s post isn’t a defense of altruism but of the concept of altruism against my denial that there is such a thing as altruism. In the essay linked to by Don, Rand makes it clear that she has no use for altruism. . . .

Rand gives altruism a life of its own — makes an evil totem of it — in order to oppose it. And that is where Don goes wrong: He insists that there is a separately identifiable thing called altruism. I am surprised that an Objectivist adheres to the notion that there is such a thing, for, as Rand says, “Reality exists as an objective absolute — facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.” . . .

The implication of calling another person’s act a “sacrifice” is that someone can get into that person’s mind and determine whether the act was a gain or a loss for the person. I say that someone must be able to get into the person’s mind because I don’t know how else you one determines whether or not an act is altruistic unless (a) one takes the person’s word for it or (b) one assembles a panel of judges, each of whom holds up a card that says “altruistic” or “selfish” upon the completion of an a particular act. . . .

My argument rests on the proposition that human actions are, by definition, driven by the service of personal values, which come to us in many and mysterious (but not supernatural) ways. As a consequentialist, I prefer to look at results, not motivations. (“The road to hell,” and all that.) I eschew terms like altruism and egoism because they imply that a given result is somehow better if it’s “properly” motivated. A result is a result. What matters, to me, is whether the result advances liberty or infringes on it. What matters to others may be something else entirely. . . .

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL POST.