dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/14/83)
Byron Howes is right about definitions. Unfortunately, Tom won't accept Byron's proposed word, and doesn't provide any other alternative. Also, while I would accept "benevolence" as a good description of what I want most of all to defend, I don't think Tom would. For example, he holds that giving a child a toy can be benevolent even if the *purpose* of giving it is *not* to benefit the child. I think that Tom's understanding of the word "benevolent" is mistaken, but let's not get into another definitional argument (please!). I have already proposed "True Altruism" for a substitute for what Tom means by "altruism". I think that everyone in this net would understand what that meant, and I would not object. If he doesn't like that, how about "self-renouncing altruism"? Admittedly, that's redundant in Tom's view, but at least it would be precise. Or, how about "self-abnegation for the sake of others" -- long, but otherwise perfect. I ask Tom to try to find a suitable expression, since he knows better than I, what he wants to say. I will use several different expressions instead of "altruism", depending on what I refer to. I will use "True Altruism" to refer to Tom's pet peeve, unless and until he endorses a different expression. I will use "intrinsic concern for others" to refer to what I used to call simply "altruism". (I will post a note explaining just exactly *what* I meant by "altruism"; which is the same as what I think the word means in standard English.) I will specify "intrinsic *moral* concern for others" when I refer specifically to cases where the concern is based on a moral belief; and "intrinsic *non-moral* concern for others" when I refer specifically to cases in which the concern is *not* motivated by a moral belief. I will specify "intrinsic *and exclusive* concern for others" to refer to self-sacrificing actions; and "intrinsic *non-exclusive* concern for others" to refer to a concern for others *and* oneself (which is what I am defending). Whew! That's a long list, but the gain in precision will be worth it. Now, I hope the reader has already seen that "True Altruism" is equivalent to "intrinsic *moral* *and exclusive* concern for others". And -- much more important -- I hope the reader can see that the fact that True Altruism is wrong DOES NOT LOGICALLY IMPLY that intrinsic *non-exclusive* concern for others is wrong. --Paul Torek, U of MD College Park