trc@houti.UUCP (08/05/83)
Response to Alan Wexelblat on my note on altruism in Christianity: You ask how I 'assign the quality "good" to one or the other' of altruism or selfishness. They are opposite moral principles for action, and so declare various motives or purposes for action good or bad. In this context, "good" will mean "assigning moral value correctly" to a motive for actions. Because they are opposite in the purpose they declare good, if one is correct, the other is not, and so one is "good" and the other "bad". If one has mixed motives, then one will be partly good, partly bad, under either principle. This is necessarily poorer than being good (under whichever principle is correct). ---------------- When I say "human nature", I mean exactly those qualities that humans have in common, and which they cannot really change. The important aspects of human nature are summed up in the description "rational animal". It is fundamental that humans are living creatures, with the needs of such creatures, and that they have minds, which also have requirements, and which happen to be the fundamental means of their human survival. One aspect of the human mind is that it is independently conscious - humans do not have a "hive mind", as has been proposed for alien species in SF. Thus, it would be wrong to *demand* things of the mind that only a hive mind could accept - such as sacrificing one's life for the good of the hive. In the hive mind, this is supposed to be no real lose - either there never was an individual mind in the body being killed, or the individual mind can live on in the bodies of others. This is not possible in humans. ------------------ I wrote the note on Ayn Rand's stories in response to a comment - I do not see how your comment "leaving aside your slavish devotion to Rand..." is relevant. Nor is it true - I do not agree with Rand at all points, and I certainly dont accept her work on a "mental slavery" basis. I do respect her work greatly, however. ----------------- I did not lump "mystic" and "altruistic" together - rather, I lumped them in individually with "irrational". I assume that you are objecting to my lumping altruistic, rather than mystic? If selfishness is rational (as I have presented in prior notes), and altruism is the opposite of selfishness (established in my "definitions" note), then altruism cannot be rational. If it were somehow neutral to selfishness, it might be "non-rational", but in fact, it opposes selfishness, and so opposes rationality. Hence, irrational. (By the way, a case could be made for lumping altruism and mysticism - if altruism cannot be justified rationally within reality, it requires justification from "outside" reality - IE from mysticism. Note that I am not trying to make this case here.) ---------------- Soviet Russia's version of altruism is "serve the state, *because* it serves all people" - in effect, surrogate altruism. That is the principle, but of course, in practice, altruism is not practical, and so the Russian people are not well served by the state. (Note that you appear to be making an implicit assumption "the Soviets are bad, so how could they be considered altruistic (IE good)". Perhaps you had something else in mind?) The important aspects of the Soviet political philosophy are its demands that individuals sacrifice for the good of others, and its opposition to self- interested actions. --------------- You ask that I give and example of the "all" other modern philosophies that are "anti-mind/anti-life". I admit that I made an unwarranted statement - on hearsay. I will retract the statement, conditional upon your presentation of another modern philosophy that is not anti-mind/ anti-life - but remember that I consider altruism and mysticism irrational, and hence anti-mind/ anti-life. (Note that my supplying an example of an anti-mind/anti-life philosophy would not prove my statement. However, an example...) Pragmatism is the idea that one should do anything that "works" - IE that achieves one's goals. However, it leaves out the questions "what goals are moral?", and "are there methods that are immoral of themselves?" Or, if you prefer, they are answered "any that one chooses" and "no - all are moral if they are the most effective means to an end". This is anti-life, because it doesnt respect the right to human life, freedom, etc, if those should get in the way. Utilitarianism starts at "humans have needs" and jumps to the conclusion "it is moral to maximize human good, which means fulfilling human needs (greatest good for greatest number)". It is allowable to steam- roller individual lives/minds at any point in this quest. Of course the question arises - who gets to determine what is the greatest good for the greatest number? The answer is generally either "the majority", or else "the squeakest wheels (the PAC's)". ---------------- You *must* not not have seen my prior notes on selfishness and rights! Briefly, the most fundamental right is the right to one's *own* *human* life, at no one's expense but one's self. Derived from this right, and from the nature of the human mind (which is required to support that right), is the right to freedom - physical and mental. Similarly, because humans need material things to survive, one has a right to property. The right to property can alternatively be derived by considering that one has a right to life, and that one expends one's life to create or gain property - so that property is "stored up life". This is *not* merely metaphorical - consider what one's savings mean to one when one becomes too old to work! (You could read "the Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism - the Unknown Ideal" for a full exposition.) ---------------------- You claim that it is an unfounded conclusion that "there is no area of human life that one's mind cannot consider". You give contemplating a symphony or weeds in a garden as examples. Simplistically, what do you contemplate with, if not your mind? More directly, you can learn about music, to increase your appreciation of what you hear. You can use your mind in learning an instrument, to appreciate the artistry and difficulty involved. For the weeds, you can consider what you wish to do about them, and why, and what is the best means of accomplishing that. Generally, I support the original statement by saying that there is little that one *can* do without one's rational mind, and nothing that cannot be done better if one uses one's rational mind to understand the factors involved. --------------------- To rank a nation as to altruism, determine the fundamental degree of altruism of its political system (which is generally in fair accord with it's philosophical ideas, or it would not last long). It is the political system that determines the general state of the nation. Altruism is not socialism, but socialism is based on altruism. --------------------- I did not say that bad results made a system bad - but that bad results do indicate a bad system. Consistently bad results are almost certain evidence of a bad system. If one believes a system is good, anyway, "how could the system be good, and still have these bad results?" is exactly the question that it is important to answer. -------------------- Perhaps the problem you have with my statement about capitalism and victims arises from a difference in understanding on the definition. On the other hand, you did not comment on my statement that capitalism requires respecting others rights to life, freedom, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Within the context of assuming you accepted that, I will address your examples. The boys joining ROTC seems to have nothing to do with capitalism - rather, it sounds like nationalism or patriotism. And even so, why do you assume that the boys are responsible for their father? You did not mention any agreement between them. The only conclusion I can draw is that the father did not provide adequately for his future - EG with life insurance (on the boys perhaps?). We discussed the issue of monopolies in net.politics. A coercive monopoly (where people are forced to deal with one) can only be had with government backing - which would not be available under laissez-faire capitalism. Why does the person in need of money have to come to you, rather than to someone else who pays better, or to work for themselves? Under the principles required for capitalism, one cannot morally or legally rob others. The fact that it (robbery?) happens "every day" is no evidence - we do not live in a laissez-faire capitalist nation or world. Thieves are not capitalists, and would not be such even in a purely capitalistic nation. The essence of capitalism in action is "savings and investment for future gains". -------------- My comment about Objectivism asserting the value of man was not addressed to you or your philosophy. It was addressed specifically to Christianity. I believe I made the stated point, with regard to Christianity. I would be willing to consider your equivalent statement, for the philosophy you believe exceeds Objectivism's claim on respect for man, given that you would care to make the statement. Tom Craver houti!trc
wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (08/11/83)
In the interest of time and net space, Tom and I have moved our dirty laundry to private mail. Tom has convinced me that he is correct in his assertions that altruism and selfishness (which I think he is using as synonymous with objectivism are in fact both moral theories and are opposed, but not necessarily contradictory. So far so good. From Tom Craver: ... I have just posted a note in which I point out a contradiction that can arise in any system that attempts to mix the two. Namely, altruism and selfishness will not always agree on the moral action in a particular circumstance - there will be cases in which the two specify mutually exclusive courses of action. Any mixture of the two systems will allow internal contradictions. Resolving these on a case by case basis is no solution. If one states a general principle of how to choose, the principle will either be arbitrary (on what basis will you decide to choose, since your moral system gives no guidance? Here Tom has made a logical error which, while small, is still crucial: he has confused the choice OF a moral system with the choices UNDER a moral system. When I am designing the system itself, I need NO justification for my principles. ALL moral principles are, at base, arbitrary, since they ultimately spring from intuition. (This is a separate argument entirely, but I'll debate it if you like.) And if the "completed" system is a mixed system itself, the contradiction still exists.) This is not necessarily so, by any stretch of the imagination. Of course it is difficult to do. That's why Nagel got his Ph.D. for doing it. I certainly don't claim to be up to doing it; I just claim that it's possible. ...or will *always* favor one system over the other when the two conflict (in which case, what is the real difference between the mixed system and the "pure" system?) The difference is exactly that area covered by the new principle, where selfishness and altruism were (by themselves) mutually exclusive. The resulting system might be quite similar to its "parents," but it's not the same as either. You state "under many philosophies, this is a null statement. You need to show why this is not so" in reference to human nature being "qualities that humans have in common, and which they cannot really change"(me). I completely disagree - I have stated examples (living creature, rational capability) that you need to refute. I cannot address "many philosophies" unless you present them. The burden of disproof now lies with you. (And to avoid one cycle of notes: when I say "change", I mean "change and remain human", and yes, I am assuming that human life is the fundamental value.) I'm sorry, I don't understand that collection of fragments. However, I'll take a stab at it, based on what I think you mean. I think you're saying that "being a living creature" is part of human nature. I also think that you're saying "having the capability to reason" is part of human nature. Now, I think you're also saying that nothing we can do changes this (without it rendering us not-human). It is an interesting point as to whether a dead person is still a person. Obviously we each have the ability to make ourselves dead. As far as reason goes, I would mildly suggest that you look around you. How many people are being rational how much of the time? Or perhaps your definition of rational is different from mine. Do you consider it irrational to do something which you know is likely to kill you, and even more likely to leave you in a miserable state for decades? If you agree, then you'll agree with me that smokers are irrational. Do you think that it is irrational to produce wastes that will be deadly for over two hundred thousand years? Then you agree with me that the nuclear industry, and nuclear weapons makers are irrational. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point: the vast majority of the human race is irrational, and is making no effort towards rationality. You state that my quote "One aspect of the human mind is that it is independently conscious" is a "Null statement." As support you claim that "eastern masters *claim* [emphasis added] to have reached..." Nirvana, which you describe as "the loss (or submergence) of the individual consciousness". Need I point out that hearsay evidence is not acceptable? Why do you consider it unacceptable? Your use of the term hearsay indicates that you think these accounts unreliable. Why do you think this? What evidence do you have that these persons are lying? You need to show why their testimony is inadmissible. However, there is another (more important) issue here: I can no more "prove" that the human experience of ego is not inescapable than you can "prove" that it IS inescapable. The point is that other philosophies exist which claim the opposite of what you claim. It is up to you to show why your claim is more beleivable. As to your claim that "I myself ... have come close", I would have to know what you mean by close (this isnt horseshoes or hand grenades!) Do you mean that you can *nearly* enter the state where you can "read" the conscious minds of those around you? I made no claim of "reading" anything. Please stop quoting things that I didn't say. I also made no comment about other minds. What I claimed was that I had come close to losing the sensation of individual consciousness. By close, I mean that feeling one has when, for example, a name is "on the tip of your tongue," but you can't recall it. You know that you are "close." If you have never had this sensation, then I cannot explain to you what I mean. Or just that you can *nearly* lose consciousness? I would point out that I can do the latter with a rock! Now who's baiting whom? This is not what I meant, but perhaps I expected too much background knowledge on your part. So: There is an experience which most humans seem to have. That experience is the thought of "I"-ness, which leads one to believe that one's mind exists within the universe, yet in some way, you can model the universe within your mind. This model necessarily includes your mind, which contains a model which includes your mind which... An infinite regress. The state of Nirvana (a mental state) is one in which the separation of the I from the universe is removed. The sensations associated with a central "ego" (not in the Freudian sense) are lost, and other sensations are experienced. I confess that I don't know what those sensations are. Now do you understand the term? Even if you *could* change this aspect of your consciousness (and I do not accept that), what about the rest of your mind - for example the *ability* of your mind to be rational - how do you go about cutting that out while preserving human life - the *capability* is hardwired into the brain. How do you get to make this claim? What evidence do you have for ANYTHING being hardwired into the brain? ...I also noted Russia's "opposition to self-interested actions". Do you see how this is exactly altruism, in a concrete example? This is not an "imaginary motive", but the *stated* motive of the Soviets. You are correct: those are the stated motives of the Soviets. Which brings me back to my original argument of "good intentions, bad executions." The Soviets are internally hypocritical from the word GO, and so their stated motives have no force. The Soviet constitution also contains 'guarantees of free speech.' Does that make them defenders of free speech? Of course not. Actions are what concerns me (with regard to the Soviets as example), not words. However, I admit I do not know what the real motives of the Kremlin are. Therefore, I admit that you might assume them to be trying to act as altruists, providing you are willing to admit that a bad result may issue from a good philosophy. Ca va? Tom wishes me to provide an explanation of existentialism, and why it is not anti-human/anti-life. Existentialism is a complex philosophy. I assumed that you would be familiar with the it. My fault. I will try to summarize, although I suspect I will probably leave things out: Existentialism claims that all things are inherently possible. Existence precedes essence; what you are is in no way determined before you are born. All influences in the world are of equal non-importance. It is *you* who gives the meaning to the things in the world, without you, the alarm clock means nothing. If you choose to ignore it, the "DON'T WALK ON THE GRASS SIGN" is just paint and wood. Your values (which you have selected and assigned to things in the world) are expressed through your fundamental project. This project defines you and all your relationships with the world. It is (in principle) possible to change your fundamental project at any time. It is not easy, since it means abandoning every value that you hold. If everything was peachy, people would all determine their own projects freely. However, there exist in the world many influences upon you. These come from other people (things only influence you indirectly). This process is an unavoidable consequence of living in a society. Your parents begin it as soon as you are born. These outside influences seek to shape your fundamental project. Any time you bend to these external pressures, you are not expressing yourself. You are in a mental state called "bad faith." It is not sensical to talk of "good" or "bad" outside influences, since it is YOU who must determine what is good or bad. The only opposite of bad faith is "authenticity," a state where your values are derived solely from within. This state is what we can (not must, although Sartre implies that he thinks we should) strive for. This expresses the concept of existential "total freedom." However, existentialism also places a heavy burden on you. Since YOU have determined the values in the world, it is YOU who must take the responsibility. You cannot say "Well, I had to do it." There is no 'had to.' You CHOSE to do it, so you are responsible. Lastly, there is no God, no hell, no heaven, no afterlife. All you have is your own life, and it is up to you to make it be what you want it to be. Whew! I'm sorry to be so long-winded, but that barely scratches the surface of the philosophy. I'm sure you'll have questions, which I'll try to answer. One important thing to remember, though, is that existentialism is a *descriptive* philosophy, not a normative one. It describes the way Sartre (and others) see human existence NOW, as it is. As I've said elsewhere (in my Kant articles), I think that this sort of philosophy is much more palatable than normative ones. You make the claim that 'there is no such thing as the "nature of the human mind"', and support it *apparently* (you say "see above") on the basis that there are modern philosophies such as existentialism that *claim* that there is not such thing. Do I need to point out that a *claim* is not *proof* that there is not such thing? What evidence do those philosophies offer in support of that conclusion? As I've said before, such claims cannot be proven (see above and below). Sartre (in Being and Nothingness) actually takes a stab at this, but it takes over two hundred pages, and I must confess that I don't understand it The fundamental nature of a human mind, as opposed to an animal mind, is its ability to be rational - to form consistent concepts and to initiate action upon them. Now you are doing exactly what you accuse me of! This is *your* claim. Where is *your* proof? Of course that's rhetorical, since you really can't answer, unless you say that X is a property of human minds, and if minds don't have property X, they're not human. This, however, is proof by definition. I did not mean to imply that one could not be rational in some areas without being an Objectivist - merely that if one were not rational in some area, Objectism would benefit one there. Hmm. All right, I consider that my dislike for certain pieces of classical music is irrational. Please explain how objectivism will help when I consider a symphony I have never heard before. Tom completely sidesteps the question of how one can rank countries with respect to altruism. I agree that no absolute measuring system is needed. Please provide a relative one. (By the way, when I said "absolute," what I mean was "not subject to the prejudices of the ranker." When you rank people by height without first measuring them, you are making an absolute ranking, since anyone who knew what "height" meant would make the same ranking.) You will have to tell me what is so inobvious about the idea that there is a causal connection between one's philosophy and one's actions, and that this implies that bad actions *can* and *frequently do* mean a bad philosophy, rather than a "bad implementation". You're correct. However, it was you who said something along the lines of (referring to Rand's book on Russia) 'describes what she saw there [Russia] which was altruism in action.' (I'm sorry I can't find the original article now.) My counter-claim was that this was too strong. There is no NECESSARY connection between motivating philosophy and resulting actions. You claim that you can "point to literally dozens of cases where the Soviets ... violate the principles of altruism. Be my guest! Surely: every Russian athlete receives enormous preferences and benefits, despite the fact that they make no greater tangible contribution to benefit others than any other Russian citizen does. Ditto that for party members. Each and every instance of favoritism is a violation of the principles of altruism. If you really want to see altruism in action, visit an Israeli kibbutz (one of the original ones, not the government founded ones!). I know people who were born and raised in one such place. ...neither they [the boys in my example], nor capitalism should be blamed - the father was a "victim of circumstances". However, under a non-capitalist system, there would have been some form of guaranteed, institutional help for the man. In the sense that capitalism does not have any mechanism to help him, he is a victim. As for the sons joining ROTC as not being capitalistic, I have always been under the impression that capitalists felt that they should fight to defend themselves against communism. That is why we got involved in Vietnam, isn't it? Tom, you said exactly the following: "And even so, why do you assume that the boys are responsible for their father? You did not mention any agreement between them." My response, which you misinterpreted, can be restated: I consider it unnecessary for any explicit agreement to exist. I consider it to be a fact of caring that sons will be responsible for their father when he is too old to care for himself. I then made the statement (which I probably ought not to have made) that if you considered an explicit agreement (of the sort you mentioned) necessary, then I considered you morally reprehensible. Your latest article makes it seem that *I* am the one who called for an explicit agreement for the boys to be responsible. This is simply not the case. You claim that the man would be a "vulture, feeding off the corpses of his sons" if he insured them. So all those widows and orphans and widowers out there are vultures because they had the foresight or good fortune to have a loved one insured? Most of those widowers &c are benefiting because the DECEASED had the sense to insure him/herself, and named them as beneficiaries. My father has life insurance that names me as beneficiary. But I would feel distinctly creepy if he took out insurance on ME with himself as beneficiary. If I knew that others depended upon me in some way, I might take out insurance on myself with them as beneficiaries. I hope I've answered the objections you raised. --Alan Wexelblat decvax!ittvax!wex