charliep@tekgds.UUCP (08/20/83)
I've discovered that a favorite activity of people reading this
newsgroup is incompatible with altruism, namely masturbation.
Any benefits to other people caused by pounding it must be at
least second order effects, and I can hardly imagine one of you
telling yourself "I'm doing this for mom...". Therefore, I don't
think that there are a lot of real altruists, and I certainly
don't want anyone feeling guilty because they did not base some
of their actions on the welfare of others!
To demolish Objectivism seems more difficult, but I think the case
of the racially discriminatory employer is close enough. To use
Tom's analysis, the employer must only accept that other people
can discriminate against him, in order to justify to himself that
he can discriminate against others. However, if he is an Aryan
he may pursue his bigotry and never come to harm (except for certain
Federal policies which would not be condoned by Objectivism).
Following this group's tradition in making every triviality explicit,
I propose that he might obtain pleasure from his bigoted actions.
This bigot can (Objectively) write a lot of articles to net.philosophy
claiming that his moral standards are good ones.
SO much for that crap. I'll propose a theory (the analog {vs. digital}
theory of good living) and perish philosophically in the aftermath of
having done so, since this may well be my first and last submission to
this group. What if we just do what we FEEL is right? This theory is
obviously not axiomatic. What we FEEL is right depends on many factors,
and to detail them would exceed the average length of a submission to
net.philosophy, so I won't. Most people would also agree that many
situations would cause them to be unsure of what is right - in fact they
might do one thing today and another next week, in the same situation.
This process is part of gaining experience, and experience has a critical
role in determining what we think is right. What makes mine an analog
theory is that there is a continuum of ways and degrees to which our
experiences affect our moral sense. Please, do not suggest
that I discount the value of a rational approach to the world.
I just say that our rational deductions must be tempered by our
non-rational experience and what we feel is right. Also note that I
am not out to PROVE anything, just to espouse my opinions.
In connection with this theory, I should point out that the way that
moral axioms are judged is by trying to discover whether they give the
"right answers"; that is whether they would require that we do what
we already (a priori) feel is right in some example situations.
I also think that there is somehow an absolute standard for morality.
However, we cannot yet hope to put down a few rules that would simplify
our decisions and still leave us in accord with the absolute standard.
While I am being silly, I'd like to point out that practically NO
Christians are altruists. Since their goal is salvation, and they
try to model their every action using guidelines for obtaining
salvation, their every action would ideally lead towards the (selfish)
goal of obtaining salvation if they were not subject to human(!)
failings(?!). In fact, in my school I was told that we should
love Negroes because the Bible said we should love one another as
we loved ourselves. Hell of a reason.
One final subject. A Wise Saying is that you can tell a tree by
its fruit. On that basis I must say that Objectivism seems much farther
from good living than is altruism. I'd rather meet an altruist
any day of the week, keeping in mind the last paragraph. And I'd rather
that people not try to axiomatize morality. At least until we have
a little better idea of what it means to be human in the first place.
Charles Perkins
PS. Are their any articles submitted to this newsgroup that actually
justify over 100 lines of text? I think not, so far.
PPS. Why is the juvenile trick of dissecting other's articles like a
fetal pig so prevalent over the network? Do people really like
to tear each other apart as much as they seem to?
PPPS. I think the Golden Rule has a lot of merit in many situations,
unless interpreted by a lawyer.liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/23/83)
I'd just like to comment on something Charles Perkins said about Christianity -- that Christians are not altruists since their goal is salvation. This isn't true. Salvation is a free gift which is obtained when a person becomes a Christian. There is no need to work for it. (This doesn't mean that we don't try to do what's right -- on the contrary, our response of obedience to God is out of love for Him which comes from knowing His love for us and what He's done for us. It's really all Him saving us. Good works are not required for salvation but are a natural by-product (if you will) of faith in God.) Actually, Christians should be altruists (at least) in the sense that Paul Torek has been using the word. The command "Love your neighbor as yourself" implies considering other people's needs as important as your own. Also, "Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." (Eph 2:4) shows that we should be considerate of others while at the same time not totally neglecting of our own needs. Why, philosophically, should Christians love? Simply because God has loved us in spite of ourselves. Saying that someone is not worthy of love is saying somehow that they are not as good as you are. But that is a judgement that you cannot make knowing that you're really no different from them... -- -Liz Allen, U of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz.umcp-cs@Udel-Relay