trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/12/83)
Response to Byron Howes: I agree that the debate seems to be getting bogged down, and that definitions are part of it. However, I think that a big part is that we are actually trying to run several debates in parallel here. Unfortunately, I dont agree that "self-renunciation" is adequate to describe what I am talking about. True, the altruist renounces self, but there is more to it than that. The concept I am talking about involves self- renunciation for the purpose of benefiting others, which is [without any justification from reality] declared to be moral. In other words, I am talking about the moral system which declares actions to be moral solely by virtue of their being for others, and which disallows from morality any motivation or purpose for one's self. If someone can come up with a better word for this, I will gladly use it. I think, however, that I have given a satisfactory proof of "altruism" referring to this concept. I am getting rather tired of this argument - I have other stuff I want to do. As a result, I will probably stop answering most points, unless they have significant new points to them. I will leave it mostly up any interested net readers (are there any left?) to figure out when an attack is off base. (Opponents are hear by notified that silence does not mean consent.) In any case, thanks for a generally insightful and fair minded note, Byron. (Suffering from typer's cramp...) Tom Craver houti!trc