trc@houti.UUCP (06/30/83)
Response to F. Fite on individual rights and morality: Perhaps some of my notes have not gotten through to your site. I have posted a number of notes describing the objective basis for individual rights. Practically every other note has at least mentioned that the basis of individual rights is the individual human life. Perhaps what I have left out is a denunciation of altruism. To make it clear - altruism (along with mysticism) is one of the ideas that is rotting our civilization from within. Altruism is the idea that individuals should sacrifice their own interests for others, with no desire or hope of any benefit for themselves. The basis given for altruism is either mysticism (do it because God or Allah (etc) says it is the thing to do), or "power to the people". Either way, it boils down to arbitrary power of some over others' lives. There is no way to derive individual rights from altruism - they are incompatible. Some might argue that people could be benevolent, under altruism, and *act* as if they were respecting rights. But the very fact that it is considered as an act of benevolence, rather than an obligation one accepts by claiming to be human, contradicts the idea of "rights". A right is that which one should have regardless whether one does in fact get it. If one's rights are respected by others, it is not benevolence by the others, but simply doing what is correct. If those rights are violated by others, the rights still exist, and the violators have acted immorally. Altruism would claim as a right the ability of some group (the priests or the masses) to demand anything of any individual. That is, it would not only be all right for them to do so, but the individual would be evil if he resisted. (Note: an obligation to respect rights is not the same as a Duty. Duty implies something must be done without any reason other than that some superior entity demands it. "Duty to" can often be replaced by "Obey all whims of" - "Duty to the nation" becomes "Obey all whims of the nation". An obligation is based upon a personal choice.) If you truly WANT to find a basis for a valid government, you have only to read the work of Ayn Rand. She takes practically every common argument, claim, and idea of the altruist brand and exposes them for what they are - Anti-human life. If you are bored by philosophy, try "Atlas Shrugged", a novel which is interesting simply as a novel - though it also has several speeches by characters, in which they effectively summarize the ideas that have been presented. Tom Craver houti!trc
larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (06/30/83)
Tom Craver argues against altruism as something that is bad, that we should not do. That misses the point. Altruism is innate. It is something that makes most people feel good. A species with an altruistic urge certainly has more survival value than one in which each member only cares about himself. How does Tom explain the fact that most people find objectivism repugnant. The only places I've ever found signifigant numbers of objectivist is in situations with lots of engineering types. I think that is because engineers tend to 1) put large emphasis on purely rational thought 2) ignore the spiritual part of man Part of the spiritual part of man is a need for companionship, and a sense of community. NO MAN IS AN ISLAND, although some, who feel alienated from society (bad childhood, or whatever), pretend that they don't need others. These people become objectivists. (setq flame nil) -- Larry Kolodney (USENET) decvax!genrad!grkermit!larry allegra!linus!genrad!grkermit!larry harpo!eagle!mit-vax!grkermit!larry (ARPA) rms.g.lkk@mit-ai
tim@isrnix.UUCP (07/07/83)
MAHATMA GANDHI! Tom certainly has a different understanding of altruism
than I do! I had always thought that "altruism" was something voluntarily
given to another or some service voluntarily performed for another!
I.E. a gift with no expectation of return. I have known people who only
give with the idea of getting something back but that is not really
giving as I define it. This is rather curious-here a few notes back I
recall Tom fighting vociferously for the "right" of the wealthy to
pass on all their advantages via inheritance-it is just a "gift" from
them to their children so it is OK. Now we find that ,egads, if
I give my sister a Christmas present in a gesture of "altruism" that
it implies some degree of coercion? "Altruism" is something given
without coercion or any strings attached. Whether excessive giving
breeds dependency in the receivers is another question-but then they
can always refuse to accept the proffered gifts. It is not crammed down
their throats. If it is it is no longer altruism as I define it.
But perhaps Tom is confusing altruism with the obligation to
repay rights under the government with some services or money. If people
have a "right to life" as Tom implies then doesn't that also imply
that we all have some reponsibility to see that others continue to live?
Let us take a newborn child for example. We COULD take the Objectivist
attitude and say "let the kid fend for itself". However I don't think
the human race would last very long with that attitude. The fact is that
children HAVE to be cared for by adults or they will die. It is part of
the price we pay for our incredibly long gestation period as human beings.
Which is why "love", "altruism" whatever one wishes to call it is part
of our biological being-without care for infants our species would have
died many thousands of years ago. Many people find such love for others
very fulfilling. I happen to agree with Mohandas Gandhi that it is one
of the most powerful forces in the universe, more powerful than guns or
bullets-indeed Gandhi freed a nation without guns but through
calling up the vast human reserves of love and sympathy. I would much
rather have everybody in the world take love as their supreme value
than rationality-one can be utterly rational in exploiting other human
beings. Like Hitler for example-the gas chambers were oh so rational,
why they even reused the hair for wigs and other purposes, corpses
were studied for the advance of science, why nothing went to waste.
All very rational.........
Not that I am accusing Objectivists of anything like that, I know Tom
will immediately jump on me and say:"that's a violation of people's
rights,etc." But how about not positive violence done to people but
simply incredible neglect by which many are just as effectively
harmed. If a child is starving is it a crime of "altruism" to give
the child food? Is it terrible to think that perhaps we all have some
obligation to our fellow human beings to care for them and see they
don't starve to death? Or how about someone crippled in an auto accident?
Should we leave them "fend for themselves", I mean who cares, they have
their rights why worry about more? Or people who have given their lives
in work and love as parents who now find themselves slowly falling apart?
Is it wrong to say as human beings we have some obligation to care for
the people who cared for us, who brought us into the world?
That is what is best about humanity is people caring for each other.
I see nothing wrong with that and we will not survive if we don't
start caring about every other person in this planet, Russians aas well
as Americans, the third of the world that is hungry as well as our own
little section of humanity that must fight obesity.
LOVE to all,
Tim Sevener
decvax!pur-ee!iuvax!isrnix!timlaura@utcsstat.UUCP (07/09/83)
Some people have been arguing about altruism and biology and Goedel and all storts of things. For those of you who are reading this, and are interested in the whole issue, "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins is a short, easy-to-read book which was written to explain "altruism" and "apparant altruism" and "apparant selfishness" from a BIOLOGICAL (as opposed to political or philosophical) basis. It is very good reading. It also is the popular version of a wider-reaching theory called SOCIOBIOLOGY, whose most reknowned leader is Wilson. He has written several books and articles about Sociobiology, of which the longest and best known are "On Human Nature" and "Sociobiology". Both of these books are harder reading, but (in my opinion) well worth it. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura