trc@houti.UUCP (07/26/83)
Response to Paul Torek (sorry about the typo in my last note, Paul) You state that not subordinating "caring for others" to one's "self-regarding concerns" can be made compatible with not "ignoring one's own welfare", by considering the two concerns to be *equal*. Suppose that that can be true - is it going to be true in all cases? If so, on what basis does one decide how to act morally - since the choice between acting for one's own benefit or for that of the other is arbitrary under the moral system this would imply. It will NOT always be possible to act for the interests of both, nor will the benefits to be gained usually be equal. (Typically, the person that you might act for would benefit more greatly - since you have to make an effort to create the benefit, and they would not.) Further, by "equal concern", do you mean that concern for the sum of all other individuals' needs is equal to your own, or that each other individual's needs deserves equal concern with your own? If the former, then no single individual can ever claim equal concern. If the latter, then any two others can always claim greater concern. In the former, you should never act for others unless the action benefits everyone else, and in the latter, you would have to act in a self-sacrificing manner for any gang that laid claim to you. (Besides, you argued strongly in the first note for the morality of loving others with no equal concern for oneself.) ----------------- You state that "altruism has nothing to do with moral beliefs". HUH?! Even your definition of altruism is that one is acting morally when one acts benevolently. This is, itself, exactly a "moral belief"! ----------------- You state that "The difference between benevolence and altruism is small to nonexistent". This is simply not true. Benevolence is an attitude towards others. Altruism is the belief that one *should* be benevolent toward others in order to be moral, without regard for the consequences for oneself. You made this half of this claim yourself - "morally required means they would choose to be [benevolent]". ----------------- It is true that you did not ignore the benefits of loving others - I should have used the term "disregarded". You claim that you have some other reason for loving others - that benefits are "emphatically NOT . . . my reason for loving". What *is* your reason then? Why love others? Just for the sake of loving? Why?? In your original note, you were "emphatically" sure that good feelings should have nothing to do with your reasons. In your second note you allow that it is alright to seek good feelings, so long as that is not the "WHOLE motivation". If the benefits one receives are not "the WHOLE motivation" for loving, what else do you consider? Why would it be wrong to seek to love others just for the good feelings it gives one? I think it is the obvious orientation towards oneself that is bothering you. But the *desire for* one's good feelings is the *purpose* for seeking love, not the love itself; just as the love is the cause of the good feelings, and is not the good feelings received. Yes, I would condemn a "love" in which one continually loses out. Love should be a two way street, not a one way, 'all give, no take' relationship. --------------- On the subject of obligations, you still seem to be confusing the terms "duty" and "obligation". You speak of an obligation to keep promises and bargains as if it were a duty imposed upon one by some means. Promises and bargains *are* obligations - agreements freely entered into by choice, you *are* speaking of an "obligation" to fulfill an obligation - which you deny doing. Why would a selfish person want to fulfill obligations? So that others will continue to allow that person to make obligations in the future. That is, participation in a society of other rational, productive humans allows a person be more productive, and so achieve greater satisfaction from life. Thus, a rational, selfish person will seek to stay on good terms with the other members of society, and will want to fulfill obligations because that is necessary for the beneficial society to continue. Plus, societies often create means of enforcing obligations, once entered into. --------------- I did not ignore your statement to the effect that considering something moral does not imply that one thinks others must be coerced into it. I had already quoted your statement that you "do think that people should sometimes be coerced to benefit others", and I felt that that was fair evidence of either your "real" opinion, or of an inconsistency in your views. When one uses the word "requires", it generally means "implies a duty", and duties are generally enforced by someone. Tom Craver houti!trc