1. Is Rand correct in saying that if you accept altruism, then you end up with lack of self-esteem and a lack of respect for others?

I opined that Rand is incorrect in saying this. Altruism, according to Rand, is “willing to sacrifice your life for others.” This is consistent with the dictionary definitions of altruism such as “unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others.” By accepting altruism, a person showed that he has respect for the value of life. On the contrary, studies have shown that practicing altruism enhances personal well – being and affects the community positively as a whole. And because when we give, without expecting return is true charity. To some extend; due to vested interest, people are more willing to go the extra mile to help their family and friends as they are likely to suffer if their friends and family is at risk. However, it has nothing to do with neither lack of self-esteem nor lack of respect for others. 2. Is Rand criticizing ideal or reciprocal altruism? Do you think that she would differentiate between the two? Would you?
It seemed that Rand is criticizing reciprocal altruism. It refers to the human social idea and expectation that if a person performs an altruistic act, other people will perform altruistic acts in return. She argues that to sacrifice oneself for another person will result in a threat to one’s existence and helping other is not a moral duty or obligation. However, I disagree, as I know that, “no man is an island,” we cannot live by ourselves, and we most certainly would have encountered situations whereby we help others because we would also want help from others next time. I think that Rand would not be able to differentiate the two: ideal & reciprocal as she has a fixation on reciprocal altruism and she is unable to see that pure, ideal altruism. A mother suffering complications in her pregnancy would rather die than let her child die, such selfless unconditional love is intangible between mother and child is something that cannot be explained or denied. While altruism is practiced, whether ideal or reciprocal, we should not focus on people’s motives but recognize that it is only human nature. There is no wrong in giving the beggar a coin for my satisfaction, but does the beggar care? He is still thankful – that is what matters.

3. Comment on the following question: “ The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness,” What might the social and political outcome be if that approach were implemented?
“Call a spade, a spade,” whether altruism practiced is ideal or reciprocal; it is still an act of altruism. There are two distinct social outcome if the above mentioned were to be implemented. Firstly, people will grow to be calculative. We understand and know that “no man is an island,” so we will need help at some point in time. The proper method of judging will become a calculation to whether one should help another person is by the time money or effort one gives; then the measurement of time money or effort has to be defined rather clearly. Secondly, people might take advantage of those who are softhearted and abuse their “rights” to ask for assistance. “If you scratch my back, I will scratch yours,” it is scary to think that we can be selfish like that. Not too long ago, we has an incident in Singapore whereby a man was caught spitting at two women at a bus interchange. The second woman who was allegedly spat on was trying to help the first woman who was already in the queue that the man claims that he was previous in. If not for the second lady’s help, the man would have got off the hook easily for being a public nuisance and especially rude to the first lady. Noting that there were plenty of bystanders around, but nobody chose to help either of the ladies. http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013/10/rude-man-spitting-at-commuters-in-bus-interchange/
At a political level, politicians have to exhibit individualism to certain extend striving towards their own fulfillment and self-interest, sometimes putting citizens in a compromising situation to accomplish their agenda.

5. Go back to Chapter 3 and reread, in the excerpt from Ruth Benedict’s paper “Anthropology and the Abnormal,” the section about “ unbridled and arrogant egoist” as being typical of Western civilization. What might Rand’s comment be about that remark?
I would assume that Rand would not agree to Ruth Benedict’s assessment of the western civilization as unbridled and arrogant egoist because of her background. Rand moved to the United States in the twenties and had been exposed to the culture as well as people there. She found America to be the most moral country in the world. “My philosophy… is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life,” from Atlas Shrugged, it allowed me to see the kind of perspective that Rand had at the point in time. Moreover, she placed high regard for man’s intellect and rationality; hence if one is rational, one’s only judge of values and only guide to action. Therefore, being “unbridled and arrogant egoist” is an outward behavior, which is not rational nor shows the setting of man’s moral standard.

6. On p. 196 you read that one philosophical argument against Rand is her false dichotomy between altruism and objectivism. Here you’ve read her own words that altruism itself engages in a false dichotomy between selflessness and inhumanity. Which version do you find most compelling? Is there another fallacy from Chapter 1 that might apply to Rand’s text? (Strawman fallacy)
I find that altruism and objectivism make a more compelling argument as objectivism rejects any form of altruism. While the former teaches that one cannot look out for both- one’s own interests and interests of others; no one can live a perfectly altruistic life. Tyranny, slavery, conquest are acts that were committed because people were overly caring? No! Such evil was committed to benefit someone at the expense of another.

The comparison between love and sacrifice seemed to me like a Strawman fallacy. The author argues, “Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice.” It showed a distorted version of a position that does not address the actual position.