bch@unc.UUCP (08/08/83)
While I hesitate to step into what has become an extremely lively debate between Paul Torek and Tom Carver it appears that they have become bogged down in definitions which distract from the thrust of their arguments. In addition, my high-school debating coach always taught me that when one side or the other of a debate begins insisting on its own definition of a commonly understood word, it is more than likely there is a "straw man" argument underlying that side's position. So, instead of having an inter- minable argument over whose definition of "altruism" is correct, why not adopt words which *already* have clear-cut definitions in line with what you mean. I have a few suggestions: Tom Carver's definition of altruism corresponds to what Webster's New World Dictionary calls self-renunciation -- "renunciation of one's own interests or desires, esp. when directed toward the benefit of others" -- or self-abnegation -- "lack of consideration for oneself or one's own interest." In addition, both of these words carry with them a negative connotation that Tom seems to want to associate with his "altruism." On the other hand, the concept that Paul Torek seems to be referring to corresponds with benevolence -- "an inclination to do good; kindliness" -- or self-denial -- "denial or sacrifice of one's own desires or pleasures often for the sake of others." These also carry with them the kind of positive connotation that Paul seems to want. It actually doesn't matter to me what other words are chosen, so long as different words are chosen for these concepts. Let us move away from the now-overused "altruism." Of course, if one side or the other can't bring themselves to move away from this word, then I would look for other peculiarities in the argument. If the argument is valid, then the its force and substance should remain essentially the same, no matter what words are chosen to represent the concepts in question. Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill