trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/23/83)
Response to Paul Torek: {agreeing with Paul Torek (- more)}
See one of my previous notes with regard to the applicability of
"contradictory" to the discussion of altruism/selfishness.
To extend the idea presented there (that they are the opposite
ends of a spectrum of purposes) a bit: you seem to be claiming that
selfishness is just one end of that spectrum, (since you say you agree
with my definition of it as "having one's own benefit as one's only
purpose") while what you call altruism is everything else. I think
that this is clearly not correct - you would not claim that someone
who acts selfishly nearly all the time, with perhaps one rare exception,
is an altruist. I think that my "spectrum" model fits both my arguments
and your presentation of utilitarianism quite well. Not using the
terms to cover the middle ground does not mean I am "trying to define
it away". Rather, it means that I am defining it *in relation to the
end points of the spectrum*. That is, I am denying that each point
between altruism and selfishness is totally separate from those two.
Under this model a philosophy is altruistic to the "percent" that it
claims benefit to others as purpose, and selfish to the "percent" that
it claims benefit to self as purpose. The end points are "exclusively"
selfish or altruistic, and the mid-points are a mix. Note that this
model only applies to *claimed* purposes.
I think that maybe we'd better either outlaw or clarify the meaning of
"concern" You say you "mean at the most fundamental level, rather than
merely as a means to something". This sounds like you mean related to
"purpose". (If you meant it related to "cause", I disagree with your
statement about selfish people only being concerned about themselves,
since one can love another, within the constraint of doing it from a
selfish purpose.) How about if we use the term "fundamental concern"
for purposed concern, and "care" instead of caused concern? Thus, a
loving selfish person could say "I care about you, but not fundamentally
concerned for you."
Tom Craver
houti!trc