trc@houca.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/26/83)
Re-response to Paul Torek:
Altruism refers to a particular moral system that uses the principle
that we have also been calling altruism - that of having as a declared
purpose for action the benefit of others. It is distinguished from
the middle ground positions in that it declares that its principle
is *exclusive* of the principle of self-purpose.
Selfishness refers to a particular moral system that uses the
principle that we have also been calling selfishness - that of having
as a declared purpose for action the benefit of one's self. It is
distinguished from the middle ground positions in that it declares that
its principle is *exclusive* of the principle of other-purpose.
As I said explicitly in a previous note, it is the principles, not the
moral systems, that are mixed in the middle zones. So, while what you
are saying is literally true, if you mean the moral systems (how does
one mix a moral systems if not by mixing their principles, anyway?),
it is really not very relevent to this discussion. I think that the
only relevence is that it *is* possible for a human to simultaneously
*believe* that they hold both moral systems - and that this is called
double-think. However, this is uncommon - most people just think of
their purpose, if they think of it at all, as a mix of the principles
of altruism and selfishness. The fact that these principles will
in fact contradict each other does not mean that the middle ground
philosophies are not based upon them - by definition, they are.
Of course, if you wish to agree that no *valid* middle ground
position exists, I would certainly agree. I can see no valid basis
that resolves the conflicts between the principles, and further,
I can see no valid basis for claiming that such a mix is better then
its components.
Virginity and prostitution are not comparables. Virginity is something that
one either has, or has not. There is no second "system" involved, to be
mixed with. ("Sexually experienced", is the logical complement of "virgin".)
Thus, the analogy does not hold.
To get back to your trying to give some basis for altruism other
than your argument that "altruism is just as good because of no ethical
difference between self and others": I've already *given* you a real
and significant difference - that one only lives one's own life and
so one cannot have actual values for another. Think of values as
a recursive definition - a value is something that supports values, or
that directly supports one's life and enjoyment of it. The problem
with claiming to have a value for someone else is that it must either
be derivative from another (derived-from-self) value, or else it must
be directly to the support of one's own life (or both). The essence
of this idea is - values are based upon one's life, because one could
have no other values if one did not have life. The sort of things
you are apparently claiming to be fundamental values (benefits to
others) obviously would not exist for one if one did not exist. Such
things can only be of value to the living. Thus, such are not as
fundamental as the value of life, and depend upon one's being alive.
Tom Craver
houca!trc