trc@houti.UUCP (07/12/83)
Response to Paul Torel:
You claim that altruism means "caring for others; having their good at
heart", and that it "does NOT mean ignoring one's own welfare". Yet you
later state "Nor is caring for others to be subordinated to self-regarding
concerns" In other words, one must look first to the needs of others, and
then if there is something left over, look to one's own needs. But
even with this (weakened) version of altruism, it is quite possible that
one will end up ignoring one's own welfare. Suppose there are 5 people
in need of 1/5 of all you have. Just meeting their needs will leave
nothing for you. If you also required 1/5, but did not give it away,
you would be subordinating "caring for others to self-regarding concerns".
In fact, the essence of altruism is as I described it - the belief that
the only way to be moral is to give up things that are of real value to
oneself for a lesser, or no return. That is, that one must sacrifice
in order to be moral. As you state at one point, this is irrational,
and nearly impossible - it is simply against human nature to give up
that which one perceives are being in one's best interest. Thus,
there are really very few *practicing* altruists - so few that they
are given the special name "martyrs". However, there are lots of
*preaching* altruists - those who claim that if we dont practice
altruism, we are immoral.
This sounds ridiculous - why would they claim such a thing, and how
could they get away with it, since no one can really practice it?
The answer to the first is simple - those that preach altruism
are either deceived disciples (who truly think that altruism is the
right moral system), or else those that want to control people via
the guilt that the system induces. The control occurs, whether
it is consciously desired or not. Guilt in a person gives power
over that person to anyone who knows of that guilt and chooses to
use it. They may use it simply to reinforce the ideas of altruism,
as a priest might, or they might use it to gain control over a nation,
as Hitler did. ("If you dont love the fatherland above your life, you
are immoral, and probably dont have pure Aryan blood.") You, yourself,
note that "the person who is moral only BECAUSE OF the guilt . . . will
have his morality slowly eaten away."
The answer to the second is harder. People do know that it is proper
to act morally, and that it is less than human to act immorally. They
do not *want* to act immorally, generally. However, for the most part,
they do not think through the issues of morality for themselves. A
person is not *sure* of what is moral, and someone else claims to be sure.
Whenever people of different principles dispute, it is the person with more
clearly defined principles that wins. So the guilt ridden person is left
open to anyone that chooses to attack them by claiming that they are not
moral because of "X", where "X" is whatever the attacker wants the person
to change. The attacker may want the person to believe in his religion,
or to give him money for charity, or to march in his army.
The essence of your argument is an attempt to blur the distinction
between what is benevolent, and what is altruistic. You do this mainly
by ignoring benefits one gains from actions you claim are altruistic -
such as loving someone else. Do you never feel good about loving
someone? Is a good feeling not a benefit? Or do you claim that in
order for something to be "true love", one cannot feel good about it?
(Kant would agree with the latter - he was the major guru of altruism.)
Or perhaps you would claim that loving in order to get this good feeling
is wrong? Why? Typically, when it is wrong to do one thing (that is
normally right) because of a second, it is the second that is wrong.
This means that you consider seeking good feelings wrong. On the other
side of the coin - do you ever *really* love someone that you get no
good feeling or other benefit from loving them? You may decide that you
love them, (on the principle of duty to them - IE altruism), but do you
really love them? It is hard to admit that one does not love someone
that society says one should. What is love, anyway, but a *good feeling*
about another person?!?
Misc points:
A duty or obligation to satisfy an obligation? There is generally
no such thing. One satisfies an obligation because one still recognizes
the value of satisfying it that one recognized when one entered it.
Even if the direct benefits that were to be gained have been lost
(EG one buys a car, then wrecks it before the payments are done),
one recognizes the benefit to oneself of being known as a person that
meets obligations. If you have a credit rating, you know the value of
that. It is *very* worthwhile to be known as an honest person that
fulfills obligations. There is no circularity involved in obligations.
The same cannot be said of "duty". Why does one have a duty to fulfill
a duty? A duty is something that one did not agree to, but that, somehow,
one is expected to meet. A duty is something that one would not generally
voluntarily agree to (else one would make an obligation). No benefit
is gained from "doing one's duty", so why should one care to be known as
someone who does? One does not *want* to get more *duties* - that would be
a contradiction in terms.
You ask "what . . . [is] so objectionable about the claim that morality
requires that people act in a benevolent manner"? The key word is
"requires". If it is right to be benevolent, why should anyone have
to be forced? Implicit in this is the idea that morality is something
that one will NOT WANT TO DO. Thus, your idea of morality allows no
real rights - if one does not act "benevolently", one can be robbed,
enslaved, or killed - that is what coercion is, and that is what "requires"
really means. You state yourself that you "think that people should
sometimes be coerced to benefit others". You may choose to limit what
methods are OK for coercing others, but will others? History says no -
as in the Inquisition, the Crusades, Russia, Cambodia, China, Iran,
Nazi Germany . . . . . . . . .
Sorry about the length of this note
Tom Craver
houti!trc