Altruism: Guilt and Subservience Disguised as Virtue

Altruism is one of those buzzwords like "esoteric" that is meant to shut down a conversation and guilt you into submission. The textbook definition of the word is, "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others", which is fairly straightforward and carries the connotation of this being a good thing because it benefits others. At the cost of seeming like an ass and a nitpicker, I'm going to posit that this seemingly innocuous word is one of the biggest oxymorons in the English language and is used to inspire anything but "unselfish concern".

When I think of the word "altruism", there are various things that I tend to associate with it. They tend to comprise of concepts like:
                         1. Helping the poor
                         2. Feeding the hungry
                         3. Volunteering at _____
                         4. Joining the Peace Corps.
                         5. Donating money/clothes to charity
                         6. Taking part of projects in 3rd world countries
                         7. Doing "random acts of kindness"
                         8. Taking in a family that is "in need"

All of which are admirable notions and deeds and to claim that they're not would make me a dick, right? What if I were to say that, more often than not, the people that do the things that I listed (and other "altruistic" deeds) are doing them for reasons that aren't so innocent? Oh yes, people that go out and do these supposed acts of kindness and goodwill can very easily be doing it for very selfish and pretentious reasons!

We all know about those kinds of people and their intentions in playing the role of the do-gooder. People join various charity projects and organizations to "find themselves", "pick up chicks", "make a difference in the world", and to "give to the less-fortunate" all of the time and we hear about it. It's been showcased in media where some progressive person joins somethings "greater than themselves" to cover their own insecurities or to serve as a disguise for disingenuous intent.

In the show Bojack Horseman, Diane Nguyen (played by Alison Brie) is a progressive, 3rd-wave feminist that wallows in insecurity, indecisiveness, and the perpetual need to satisfy the insatiable beast that is altruism. She's more than content to rant about how others are acting in a destructive manner, all the while being just as destructive to herself and those around her by her need for approval. Diane attributes this to feeling like she's without purpose or that she's not involved in anything that matters, but what she's desperately seeking is attention and recognition for supposedly being humble.

Although this is a fictional character I'm talking about, I'm sure that anyone can name at least a handful of people in their lives that they've encountered that are real-life versions of Diane. This is what altruism, and how the word is utilized in today's nomenclature, does to people and it's fairly harmful. Most people act "altruistically" not because they are actually selfless in their actions, but BECAUSE these are inherently selfish actions that serve to benefit both parties involved. The primary motivation behind those actions are guilt, the fear of ostracization, the need to gain attention and accolades from others, or just to do something that only serves to directly benefit their emotional state of being.

What makes "altruism" harmful is that the people who use it are being disingenuous about their usage of the word. It's used as a jab in a 1-2 combo against people or actions that the user would claim to be "selfish", which is fairly petty to say the least. An example of this would be to suggest that investing in a private construction business in South Africa dedicated to building cheap housing for the poor is a product of greed and selfishness. That the investor, as well as partners in the enterprise, only wanted to monetarily profit from the poor people of South Africa and, in turn, exploit them and their poverty/race/etc. To the person suggesting this idea, the only "altruistic" means  of aiding the South African people would be to build these houses for "free" through charity organizations or through whichever channels they preferred.

What needs to be understood is that while the investor and the construction business partners do seek a profit in their endeavour, there is a common, selfish desire shared by all of them to benefit the people of South Africa by building houses that they can afford and hold up better than the "free" houses. It is a mutually beneficial action that is being taken and, in many ways, will benefit the consumers of those houses in the long-term more than it will those that sell those houses. The same could be said about offering a homeless man education and a job rather than giving him a few dollars to sustain himself for a day or so. Yes, it's seen as a nice gesture to help the immediate needs of the man, but the opportunity for him to better himself in the long-term is a much nicer and mutually beneficial gesture.

The message I would emphasize about "altruism" and the application of the word is that it's a word that is commonly used to distort, dissuade, and redirect people's sense of self-worth to the direct and greed-driven desires of those who use it. Altruism and the guilt-tripping that goes along with it has become modern society's "fire and brimstone", cautioning those who do not fall in line with what is good that they will face ostracization and demonization. Those who don't support Planned Parenthood, the Global Warming narrative, "Democratic Socialism", redistribution of wealth and resources, and any other rhetoric deemed good and holy should be considered "selfish", greedy monsters.