When you help others without sacrificing yourself (sacrifice, meaning giving up of something that is of a greater value to you for something that is a lesser value to you) you are acting on the morality of egoism – i.e. acting on a hierarchical system of values where you hold yourself as the top value (or your life as your moral purpose and your happiness as your goal).
In such a case “helping others” is a win-win situation, not your duty and something that results in a benevolent society.
When you are expected to sacrifice for others (i.e. give up a higher value for some benefit of others which is a lesser value to you) – that is, hold others’ benefit over your own and others’ happiness as your primary goal in life, that is the morality of self-sacrifice or altruism – which is far from acting from benevolence.
This morality cannot be consistently followed because life demands value-gaining and not giving up and leads to mixture of guilt (when you don’t sacrifice) and hostility (when you are coerced into it). Thus leading to a malevolent society and malevolent view of life.
Charity is a moral virtue only in an altruist code of morality. In a morality of rational self-interest, it is “no big deal” – an optional, good thing that you pursue if that is your choice.
Ayn Rand is not against Charity, she is against elevating Charity to the level of moral virtue – i.e. prescribing it as a guide to man’s every thought, decision and action.
Using the term “sacrifice” to define what parents give up for their kids or what motivates our brave soldiers’ is insulting the parents/soldiers by making bad assumptions of they hold dearer.
