dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/21/83)
Reply to Tom Craver on definitions and their use: I agree that we can think of the problem as a linear scale of purposes. However, I do not think that it is appropriate to think of the middle regions as being a "mix" of the two extremes. Altruism (I'm using your definition here) is being concerned *exclusively* about others; selfishness, *exclusively* about oneself. A "mix" implies that there is some of both present. However, there can not be some of both present, because the concerns would no longer be exclusive. In my view, it is precisely their *exclusiveness* that makes both extremes wrong. The middle ground is not a "balance" between self-concern and self-disregard, nor between other-concern and other-disregard. It is the *combination* of self-concern and other-concern. The best (in my view) of the middle grounds are those that refuse to *disregard* ANYBODY. I don't see why a disagreement about a few definitions should delay the main discussion. If (contra fact) we disagreed about all definitions, we couldn't communicate. But we obviously are communicating. I still don't see why you won't go with "True Altruism" as the phrase, but I want to hurdle this difficulty, so I'll start using "altruism" your way. I'll try to avoid "benevolent", and I'll drop "motivation" per your suggestion. Concerning "hypocrisy," you're taking this in the wrong direction. Maybe I'm not being a perfect utilitarian (actually, right now about the only non-utilitarian thing I do is check to see if utilitarianism is right -- e.g., thinking and reading and writing philosophy). The point is, I want to know if you think I'm a hypocrite about the middle ground. Forgetting utilitarianism for the moment, do you think that while I preach middle ground I practice *total* selfishness? I.e., do I not merely fail to live up to (very exacting) utilitarian standards, but even to live up to ANY "middle ground" standard? I find that incredible, yet it seems to be implied by your statement that "in descriptive terms, all humans are selfish." I imply that "proof by definition" is somehow a flaw in your argument about human nature. I take it you mean to deny that proof by definition is a flawed method? Let me try to explain why proof by definition is hopeless. The problem is, it makes the conclusion arbitrary -- if not by your arbitrary decision, then by that of the English-speaking world through history. I agree that it is perfectly valid to make up a name for the class of creatures that is capable of [rationality], and call them "human". However, it is just as valid to make up the name "jerks" for the class of creatures who are unobservant, oversensitive, and petty. I can apply either of these labels, or any one of an infinite number of other labels; however, that does not tell me what I should do. --Paul Torek, U of MD College Park