trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/09/83)
Response to Paul Torek on dictionaries: You state "Benevolent actions are then a proper subset of the set of altruistic actions". But you provide no predicate for your "then"! I dont want to turn on the gas jets here, but this has been typical of your arguments - you make a bald assertion, and then demand that I disprove it! In this case, you even state it in a way that a careful reader might be misled into thinking you had provided some justification for the idea! Benevolent actions are in no way a subset of altruistic actions (by the way - does that mean that you agree *some* altruistic actions are not benevolent?). I can act in a benevolent manner without acting altruistically. For example, I can give a child a toy, strictly for the pleasure it gives me to see the child's pleasure, and to get that child's affection. The *purpose* of this action is *not* to benefit the child. There is a definite difference between benevolence and altruism - the two concepts are commonly associated with one another in our culture, but that does not mean that they are correctly associated, let alone being nearly identical. You seem to be saying that because only one dictionary explicitly supports the idea - that altruism necessarily involves self-disregard - that the others must be opposing that! In fact, lack of supporting evidence is not equivalent to opposition, anymore than it is equivalent to "tacit agreement". Of course, if it were the only one giving that idea, it should be questioned. However, there was the mention of "uncalculated consideration" in Webster's dictionary. You state that the dictionary only meant to exclude "calculated consideration of ... others' interests", and that this would mean that one "treats others' welfare as a means to some other end." Even if the exclusion you imply were true, you seem to have chosen a rather obscure meaning for "calculated". (Why couldnt such calculation be to the end of the others' interests?) I think that it is obvious that in this context, "calculated" means "with the cost considered", just as a "calculated risk" means a risk that one takes after considering the costs involved. Uncalculated would then mean that *no* factors, other than the action's being in the interests of another, are considered. So, there are at least two dictionaries giving support to the "sacrifice of self - required" idea. I might make a case for Random House as well - on the basis that it defines egoism as regarding "his own welfare as the *supreme* end of his actions" and selfish as "care *only* for oneself" [emphasis added]. Since the altruism is the opposite of these, one could say that R.H. means an equal strength of principle for altruism - which would be "others' interests as the supreme end", and "care only for others". This connection may be somewhat tenuous, but is valid, as supporting evidence. You state, that 'there are two ways the two [altruism and egoism] could be opposed: as contraries, or as contradictories. I maintain that they are contradictories. Therefore, altruists include Utilitarians and other humanitarians as well as "True Altruists".' How does the third sentence follow from the first two? If they are contradictory (which I assume means that they cannot *logically* be combined, due to implicit contradictions) and those other philosophies are combinations, the third statement would seem to be ruled out! If you meant to say that the two were "merely" contraries, and not contradictory as well, I disagree as follows: I stand by the statement that the two are systems of morality, and that they declare opposite things to be moral - altruism declares that those things done for others are moral, while selfishness declares that those things done for one's self benefit are moral. A combination of these two might declare some actions to be moral under both systems (though for different reasons), but there would inevitably be some actions that the two would disagree upon - namely those where one would be acting purely for one's self or purely for another, *to the exclusion* of an action declared moral *purely* under the other system. Thus, (regardless of how *little* the dictionaries support the idea - and they do not oppose it), they *are* contradictories. They cannot be logically combined, without a contradiction arising. (One contradiction is all it takes to logically discredit the value of a system.) --------------------- What do you mean by "moral beliefs"? I have been assuming you meant the same thing as "a system of beliefs assigning morality to actions". So you would seem to be saying that it is possible to be altruistic (not merely appear to act altruistically) without thinking that one is acting on a moral basis - that is, that one's actions are not arbitrary, but are in fact the *right* things to do - the things that one *should* do. Yet you have also said things that lead me to believe that you do think that altruism is at least *a* correct basis for determining what actions are right and wrong - as with your example of the man with a suffering wife that wanted a car. Note that I am not speaking of some mystical *right and wrong*, but rather of what it is right for human beings, as human beings, to do to others and to themselves. You imply that the Random House definition that describes egoism as "Ethics the view that each person should regard his own welfare as the supreme end of his actions" is un-important because it is 3rd, and is "a technical definition". In fact, ethics is exactly what we are discussing here, and so any dictionary that gives a technical definition of it, specifically with respect to ethics, should certainly not be disregarded! You claim that the fact that Webster uses "sometimes in accordance with a moral principle" "supports [your] view 100%" because it means that it is "*sometimes not*" done from a moral principle. First, I would point out that you have been consistently declaring that altruism has nothing to do with moral beliefs - and now when you see it in black and white, you declare that it somehow "supports [your] view 100%"! Furthermore, in allowing a (small) distinction between benevolence and altruistic, you agree that "if benevolence...has nothing to do with moral beliefs... then there is a small difference" - that is, the difference must be that altruism has to do with moral beliefs! Secondly, I interpret the "sometimes" statement to mean that people sometimes *think* they are acting *only* from a moral principle - which does not mean that they are not doing so when they don't think it. I could also use your technique here, and declare that since only one dictionary gave that idea any support, it is not valid. Actually, I agree that the fact that only one dictionary gives an idea is reason to question it - after all, dictionaries need not be considered infallible. (For example, R.H.'s definition of selfish as "materialistic".) However, there is other evidence, though not explicitly stated, for the idea that altruism is a system of morality. R.H. refers to "The *principle* ... of unselfish concern". R.H. also speaks of "*valuing* everything only in reference to one's personal interest" in describing egoism - and values are part of what morality is about. R.H. also uses a number of synonyms for selfish and altruistic that have moral connotations to them. [Emphasis added to quotes.] Finally, one can go beyond the dictionaries, to how altruism is practiced. In practice, when one acts altruistically, it is generally because one thinks it is the right thing to do - not the evil or wrongful thing, nor even the neutral or amoral thing. Why would one give away money, give one's time and energy, etc, if one did not think that one was doing something that was right? If an action is neutral, morally, but "hurts" personally, why should one do it? Note that I am not defining what I think is moral by the examples I give - rather, they are examples of things people might do in the name of altruism. The opposite argument has to be made for selfishness - why is something that rationally seems good for one's self *not* moral? Why would that be neutral or bad, or else good only if it also helps others? Tom Craver houti!trc