trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/08/83)
Response to Paul Torek on caring, coercion, obligations: Let me put the most important thing first - upon reading your reason for loving another, I realized that I had made the mistake of using the word "reason" imprecisely, where I was really intending "purpose". Perhaps it could have been clear from the context, but that does not change my mistake. OK: so within this context, of "what is the purpose (goal, object, aim) in concerning oneself with others": You say 'drop the term "morally"' from "on what basis does one decide how to act morally". If one drops that, one could answer "one can flip a coin - it doesnt really matter, since we're not discussing moral actions." But in fact, we are discussing moral action, and so it is inappropriate to drop the word "morally". If I understand your position, you are saying that one holds all people, including one's self, inherently worthy of equal concern, but that one then decides on the basis of who, individually, has the greatest need. To take the example of the wife and the car - I assume there are no other important factors involved, other than the husband's desire for the car, the wife's suffering, and the ability to satisfy one or the other but not both (you mentioned none). You say "you decide ... her pain relief is more important to her welfare than your car is to yours". Fine then - what about all the other wives in the world with greater pain than the wife? How is the wife in this example special? In fact, you gave nothing to indicate that she was special, except that she was the wife of the involved man. So why *should* he give higher consideration to her than the others? Or to other people who need the benefits even greater? In fact, would the man ever be able to get his car, since there are lots of people in the world that need things "more important to their welfare"? If I now understand your viewpoint, the only answer is "no, he may not, but it is right that he does not". If you truly accept this philosophy, you have the choice of living immorally, or of sacrificing until the either you are brought down to the level of the worst off person in the world, or they are brought up to meet your level. Since the worst-off persons in the world are dying, you would have to try to save their life, at any expense, up to losing your own life. (And since you wont really feel it is fair that anyone else get away with not helping out, you will accept that "people should sometimes be coerced to benefit others" - sound familiar?) Now if that man were a selfish man, he would have no problem - he would say "that is my wife, I love her more than any car, and because she is precious *to me*, I will pay for the operation, to reduce her pain. Further, I will pay for her operation, even though I know there are others in the world that have greater needs than hers; because she is precious to me." Your assumption that it would be possible for the man to buy the car with no affect on their relationship seems invalid. The wife might resent it, and even if she did not, her pain would prevent her from living and loving fully. A loving husband is not going get as much pleasure from his wife if she is in pain. Of course, if you are correct, and the man would *truly* be happier with a car, I would say that he does not really love his wife that much. And unless he had made some obligation to her (which is the normal case in a marriage anyhow), he would not have any more reason to pay for her operation than he would for a casual acquaintance. I agree that you would not, under my new understanding of your meaning, have to sacrifice to any random gang that laid claim to you. However, you would have to sacrifice to the gang that *needed you most* - who would benefit more from your sacrifice than you benefit from not sacrificing. For example, two bums could approach you and demand 1/3 of your possessions for each of them, leaving you with the same amount as them. Morally, you could not turn them down, because you would be doing it out of equal concern for their welfare. (Again, my "besides" comment was motivated by the misunderstanding on "reason" vs "purpose".) It was you stating your reason for loving someone that exposed the ambiguous way that "reason" was being used. (It would have saved us both some time if you had mentioned it several notes ago.) I agree - the *reason* one loves someone else is that one reacts to the type of person they are. You go on to say "The reason I act in a loving manner...is the benefits to THAT PERSON as well as myself." I believe this is reversed - one is acting in a loving manner when one benefits another. One acts in a loving manner because one loves. You are also making the same mistake I did, confusing "reason" and purpose - since you seem to be talking about purposes in that sentence. If I might reword it - "The purpose in my loving is the benefits to THAT PERSON as well as myself." If that is what you mean, I disagree. The purpose of loving is to get the pleasures of loving and of being loved. The word "agreement" can be either a noun or a verb - I think it is clear from the context that I used it as a noun, while you criticized it as a verb. You assume that obligation is normative - but what is the word "duty" for? Why not use that, when discussing normative requirements? Obligations are *not normative*. Your "allegedly equivalent question" "should I keep my agreements?" is only equivalent if you add "freely entered" to modify agreements. (I might agree to jump off a cliff at knife point, but I'm not going to honor that if I can help it!) The answer then is that there is no *should* to it, in the sense of moral requirement *because* it is a freely entered agreement. In the sense of "is it the correct thing to do", one has to ask, "in what context?" If I made an irrational agreement to jump off a high cliff on a dare, it would likely be rational and correct to back out, even though I entered the agreement freely. As for why a selfish person "would keep those agreements he knows he can get away with breaking", the answer is that the *rationally* selfish person (to use a redundancy, in my view) will realize that one can never get away from one's self. I just realized another assumption I was making that you might not be - I was assuming that when one backs out of an agreement, one attempts to repay all the injured parties. If this is not done, one has violated others' rights, and it is wrong. How is your self-image affected when you do something wrong, but "get away with it"? I want to be as moral a person as I can, not for others' sakes, but for my own. I do not understand your last paragraph, unless it is an agreement, however sideways, that I did not ignore your statement. Who is this George, and why do you think it is so important that I be fair to his views? I will say that I am willing to be *just* to his views - assigning them the value I see them as rationally deserving - but if you mean by "fair" that I must respect them regardless of content, I disagree. Tom Craver houti!trc