bprice@bmcg.UUCP (08/09/83)
Subject: Selfishness, altruism, and reality
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.politics
The discussion of selfishness and altruism, from the various points of view,
has been most enlightening. Noone seems to have convinced anyone of anything,
but is has been good, clean, productive fun.
Maybe the following observations will unjam a log or two: they concern the
unstated assumptions and value system differences that so often prevent
communication from happening.
Given that neither side has a monopoly of concern about right and wrong,
love for oneself, and love for others, it appears to this reader that the
discussion is talking about answers to this question: "What is the best (e.g.,
most productive, most moral) response to the nature of mankind and of the
universe, as I understand that nature?" It is, of course, that last phrase
that makes the question different from person to person. Since the question
differs, naturally so do the answers.
Both sides of the discussion reject greed as a proper response (where greed,
for my purposes, implies the unwillingness to pay the cost of getting what one
wants). Further, the discussion has not degenerated to some altruist calling
the objectivists "greedy": that speaks quite highly of the participants.
A zero-sum game is one in which there is no winner without a loser, and no
loser without a winner: there is a conservation of "goodies", whatever the
scoring units are, in that goodies are neither created nor destroyed, only
redistributed by playing the game. A negative-sum game is one in which
goodies are (or can be) destroyed by playing--poker-parlor poker is an example,
as far as the non-house player is concerned. A positive-sum game is one in
which goodies are (or can be) created by the process of playing.
Let's try this: Altruism is only consistent with the assumption that life
is a zero(or negative!)-sum game; Capitalism is only consistent with the
assumption that life is a positive-sum game. Given a value system that values
human life and happiness (and thus qualifies as humanistic), to assume that
living in a society is a non-positive-sum activity requires the response of
mitigating the suffering that a personal gain imposes on others.
Alternatively, the assumption of life as a positive-sum game allows the
realization that it is possible for all players to win: humanism then demands
that one's life and all of society be constructed so as to take advantage of
the all-win possibilities.
Objectivism is a personal philosophy, based on the assumption that life is
a positive-sum game: Capitalism is the corresponding societal structure.
(See George Gilder, "Wealth and Poverty" on the inherent humanism of capitalism
in a positive-sum game.) Since I am convinced of the positive-sum nature of
life, it is difficult to be charitable or objective about altruism beyond
a bland acknowledgement that it is a humanistic (morally positive, 'right')
answer to the (wrong) question.
--Bill Price {sdcsvax,sdcrdcf}!bmcg!bprice