Submitted by Jason Pappas, Jan 3, 2007 13:28

I'd like to suggest that the problem with Kristof is what the late author, Ayn Rand, would call the fallacy of altruism: an action is good when there is absolutely no self-interest involved. In this view even actions beneficial to others are tainted if benefits accrue to us or our friends. Thus, Darfur is the perfect cause. What have we to gain?

By this theory, the effort in Iraq is tainted by oil, while the effort in Kosovo wasn't. The threat of Iran is tainted by our friendship with Israel, while we have no friends in the Sudan. The threat of North Korea is tainted by our business interests with Japan and South Korea, but Rwanda is a missed opportunity because we had no interest!

Notice in Kosovo how the pre-emption, lack of UN sponsorship, lack of an international threat, and speed of response failed to bring widespread criticism of our action. However, such issues were considered grave matters in Iraq merely because we deemed Iraq as a threat to us and our interests. A "pure" altruist endeavor would be exempt from such criticism. Darfur is pure altruism and as such qualifies as a clean and clear moral imperative.

Let's remember that the left rallied around Israel before the '67 war when she seemed weak and pathetic. But then she committed the sin of achievement by defending herself against the aggression of a coalition of neighbors. She lost "moral" stature, according to the altruist ethics, by being worthy rather than needy, self-sufficient rather than dependent, and proud rather than pathetic. It's Israel's virtues that make her low on the list of the altruist. But that's always been the source of anti-Semitism, hasn't it?

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.