bprice@bmcg.UUCP (08/09/83)
Subject: Selfishness, altruism, and reality
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.politics
The discussion of selfishness and altruism, from the various points of view,
has been most enlightening. Noone seems to have convinced anyone of anything,
but is has been good, clean, productive fun.
Maybe the following observations will unjam a log or two: they concern the
unstated assumptions and value system differences that so often prevent
communication from happening.
Given that neither side has a monopoly of concern about right and wrong,
love for oneself, and love for others, it appears to this reader that the
discussion is talking about answers to this question: "What is the best (e.g.,
most productive, most moral) response to the nature of mankind and of the
universe, as I understand that nature?" It is, of course, that last phrase
that makes the question different from person to person. Since the question
differs, naturally so do the answers.
Both sides of the discussion reject greed as a proper response (where greed,
for my purposes, implies the unwillingness to pay the cost of getting what one
wants). Further, the discussion has not degenerated to some altruist calling
the objectivists "greedy": that speaks quite highly of the participants.
A zero-sum game is one in which there is no winner without a loser, and no
loser without a winner: there is a conservation of "goodies", whatever the
scoring units are, in that goodies are neither created nor destroyed, only
redistributed by playing the game. A negative-sum game is one in which
goodies are (or can be) destroyed by playing--poker-parlor poker is an example,
as far as the non-house player is concerned. A positive-sum game is one in
which goodies are (or can be) created by the process of playing.
Let's try this: Altruism is only consistent with the assumption that life
is a zero(or negative!)-sum game; Capitalism is only consistent with the
assumption that life is a positive-sum game. Given a value system that values
human life and happiness (and thus qualifies as humanistic), to assume that
living in a society is a non-positive-sum activity requires the response of
mitigating the suffering that a personal gain imposes on others.
Alternatively, the assumption of life as a positive-sum game allows the
realization that it is possible for all players to win: humanism then demands
that one's life and all of society be constructed so as to take advantage of
the all-win possibilities.
Objectivism is a personal philosophy, based on the assumption that life is
a positive-sum game: Capitalism is the corresponding societal structure.
(See George Gilder, "Wealth and Poverty" on the inherent humanism of capitalism
in a positive-sum game.) Since I am convinced of the positive-sum nature of
life, it is difficult to be charitable or objective about altruism beyond
a bland acknowledgement that it is a humanistic (morally positive, 'right')
answer to the (wrong) question.
--Bill Price {sdcsvax,sdcrdcf}!bmcg!bprice
trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/11/83)
Response to Bill Price: You make some interesting points I would be interested to hear whether the various supporters of altruism or some "mixed" philosophy agree with the assumption of zero/negative-sum-game society, though. I suspect that they would not agree that that is the only basis for altruism. However, no one has yet given me any other even semi-rational basis - and I thank you for your explanation. However, I think it is possible that altruism has other bases - such as mysticism - which are *not* correct answers to the wrong question. Probably mysticism (through Christian influences) has a lot more to do with why so many accept altruism. Not that all altruists are Christians or mystics - it is just that they have accepted what the culture presents. The intellectuals who should know better, but promote altruism anyway, have no such excuse - they must either be mystics, or falsely belief life to be non-positive-sum. Rather than say Objectivism assumes life is a positive-sum game, I think it might be more accurate to say that Objectivism would say it is possible for a rational human being to make his/her own life be positive-sum game with respect to others, and that that is the moral way to live - as a producer, rather than a parasite. Entropy in the universe as a whole is increased, but within the limits of the system of humanity, decreases in entropy are possible. This explains why human society need not be zero or negative sum with respect to other humans. The existence of human society is proof that this is *possible* - though not *necessary*. I stressed "necessary" in the last sentence, because it emphasizes an assumption that altruists seem to often make - that the state of humanity is somehow a metaphysical *given* - that nothing is required for it to come into existence, or continue. While they would probably reject this, if put to them as bluntly as that, they seem to act upon that assumption. When practiced on a personal level it is not so apparent - but when altruism is instituted in government, this tendency becomes obvious. Altruists tend to blank out the *source* of the benefits that they would distribute - as in welfare programs. Who created the wealth to distribute? Why was it created? Who was it created for? Why would more be created? Tom Craver houti!trc
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (08/13/83)
I probably shouldnt get involved in anther debate, but here goes: Tom Craver, In your last article you mentioned that "The intellectuals who ought to know better ...are either mystics or falsely believe in ...". From this I gather that you do not have much of an opinion of mysticism. Care to defend this one? laura creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura