trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/04/83)
Response to Paul Dubuc: (I will post this to net.philosophy, but if it begins to wander from the discussion of altruism, the discussion should move to net.religion. At that point, I will drop out.) First, check out my note on the definitions of altruism and selfishness, and note that they are opposites, and are ethical or moral principles of action. They are not both good. Any attempt to mix them is an attempt, no matter which you prefer, to sully the better with the poorer of the two. A compromise between right and wrong is never worthwhile. Why do you suppose that the Bible assumes that people will naturally act in their own self-interest? Could it be that it is so obviously right for them to do so? If it is right, then altruism must be wrong - see above. I agree that you have presented some evidence for the Bible's recognition of the fundamental naturalness of selfishness, but not that the Bible says that that selfishness is inherently good - just unavoidable in men. Nothing in the verse from Ephesians implied that the man or Christ should love himself - just that it was natural to do so. As to "blessed", I would point out that "blessed" is also used in the Bible to describe people who suffer in various ways - which does not support the idea that "blessed" means "happy". I believe that the literal interpretation is much more applicable - that Jesus is promising a mystical blessing, perhaps to be awarded after death. As to why Jesus would offer such a benefit, I believe the answer is simply that he realized that pure altruism cannot normally be made palatable, since it offers no temporal benefits, and so substituted a promise of mystical blessing for the promise of happiness while they lived. There is no way to prove or disprove such a blessing. Though Jesus did not say it, the Bible does say something elsewhere about the rain falling equally in the just and unjust - evidence of the lack of tangible "temporal" and tangible blessings, at least, and from the context, I suspect that the verse meant intangible temporal benefits as well. The altruist is not morally allowed to seek either form of benefits. Altruism might benefit one, but only accidentally, and incidentally. The point of altruism is for others to benefit - not that one's self benefits. Even though you have become a Christian, you are still human, and you will have, inherent in your nature, aspects that require selfishness. The choice you must make is between calling that nature sinful, fighting it, and trying to be "selfless"; or living within it and being "selfish". The "sinful" nature is nothing but the nature of human beings - not some mystically inherited taint of evil. Ayn Rand wrote several works of fiction portraying a handful of selfish people in societies of altruists, mystics, and other irrationalists. She also wrote a large number of essays, many of which have been collected into books. She would have had a hard time writing a biographical account of an Objectivist, since not too many have died yet. Practically every other modern philosophy is anti-mind/anti-self in some way, and so there have been few fully rationally selfish modern people. She did write "We the Living", which she stated was close to an auto-biography, in that it described the Russia she saw. While it is not the story of a real Objectivist, it does show the other side of the coin - real altruists. If you are willig to wait, perhaps someone will write Ayn Rand's biography. Selfishness does not mean that one is incapable of prioritizing one's values - thus, there is no conflict in working for a restrictive employer, if that is required for survival. Roark *did* do exactly this, early in his career. When he could survive without it, he chose not to put up with such an employer - that was his personal ordering of his values. Note that he did not allow himself to starve - when he ran out of money, he went and worked in a quarry, where they only made demands of his body, not his mind. You state (I assume sarcastically) that "That's the wonder of Rand's philosophy--any situation can be fitted into it." First, it is true that Rand's philosophy is comprehensive, and that it does allow a lot more freedom to choose what is right for oneself than others do. However, it does not allow "any situation", if you include actions that violate rights of others in that. Nor does it declare one to be moral if the reason one has in doing something is not rational, and in particular, if it is not done from self-interest, which is the proper purpose that should underlie one's reasons. Rand's philosophy can apply to people that are not exceptionally talented. She chose to portray her heroes as exceptionally talented, because she preferred to portray what she saw as the essence of humanity - beauty, talent, ability, strength. Her motive was the same as an artist that sculpts a statue of a beautiful and strong person, rather than a cripple. She did portray some characters of normal ability - such as Dagney Taggart's aid, Hank Reardon's secretary, and the friends of Howard Roark. These were people who were not "Atlases", but were predominantly rational and selfish. A garbage collector could benefit from the philosophy in his personal life, in which Hank Reardon has no great advantage over him. He could learn to do his job honestly and as well as he is capable, as that is what he is paid for. He could think more clearly about the motivations of people, and see historical trends more clearly. There is no area of human life that one's mind cannot consider, and thus, no area that Objectivism could not benefit one in. The essence of Objectivism is rationality, which requires selfishness, in the face of human nature. Quite frankly, I do not care whether Christianity is purely altruistic or not - it is sufficient to point out that it is predominantly altruistic, and that that is wrong. You have only to rank the societies in terms of degree of altruism times the length of time they have been so. Within that ordering, decide which countries you would most prefer to live in. I suspect you will find that the more altruistic the country, the less you would like to live there, and the less it is *possible* to live there. Then ask yourself how a moral system can be considered good when its results are so bad. By definition, there can be no victims of pure capitalism. Capitalism requires that all respect the rights of all others to life, freedom, property, and pursuit of happiness. One cannot force others to trade with one. One cannot force others to work for one. One cannot rob others to make a profit. The under-developed nations of the world were as bad off, (in fact worse in many cases) before any "exploitation" of them by industrialized nations. (By the way, much of the imperialism that is commonly attributed to capitalism should really be associated with national policies of merchantilism - which was a form of fascism really. Businesses were made tools of the state.) I agree that the Bible declares in the myth of the Garden of Eden that humans chose to disobey, and so created their own sinful nature. But note what it is that they chose, and what God had denied them - they chose knowledge of good and evil. That is, they learned what is good for them, and bad for them. From my point of view, they learned what is good for their survival and life, and what is bad for that life. This is what they are being condemned for - learning how to live without depending on a paternalistic god - for learning to live by the use of their minds, rather than mystical rules and regulations. Would *you* condemn *your* children for the analogous choice? You have now heard of Objectivism, so you can no longer claim to have never heard of a philosophy that asserts the value of man more than Christianity. This is by virtue of its declaration of the value of man *without* making it dependent upon a god. Tom Craver houti!trc
sts@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stanley T Shebs) (08/05/83)
Well, Mr. Craver has finally done it to me. Can no longer restrain myself from the great Altruism vs Objectivism debate - just gotta stick my oar in. First, let me say that Ayn Rand made quite an impression on me (via The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged), so I'm somewhat familiar with Objectivism and its ideals. Unfortunately, "ideal" is just the word for it. John Galt's paradise on earth, under the Almighty Dollar, is just as utopian and impossible as the "worker's paradise". So I suppose I should back up the assertion. First, "rationality". Do you know any rational persons? Someone who never lies, steals, buys on impulse, advocates altruism, dates a jerk (as in the net.singles discussion), or does any of the other irrational things so typical of the average human? The insistence on "rationality" makes Mr. Craver my top choice for AI project on the net (sorry, no insult intended, just making a point). How many societies on earth don't have a considerable share of those who would rule by force, and consider human rights to be an impediment? I could go on, but you get the idea. Next, "rights". What rights do I have? Surely I have the right to live and the right to speak out (except in cases of national security, hmmm?), and so forth. Do I have the right to a job? Mr. C probably says no. If I don't have the right to a job, do I have a right to eat? A little trickier now! If I'm starving, am I supposed to be rational and not steal food? Is it rational for a starving person to resort to crime? Is it rational for a drug addict to support his habit somehow? If a fetus has rights, then how does Mr. Craver resolve conflicts between mother and fetus, if one or the other must die? How does he solve that problem in general? Asimov's Third Law of Robotics solves it by choosing the larger group of people; perhaps Ayn Rand would solve it by choosing the wealthier? (I don't know, can't recall seeing anything on the question). Onward into the fog! Do I have a right to hear the truth? If so, most advertising infringes on my rights. If not, what can I do about those advertisements that attempt to sidestep rational thought, using every psychological trick in the book? (There's a good one!) Do I have the right to not have my rationality interfered with? As an example, the "flash" advertisements that go directly to the subconsious are illegal. Would they be permissible in Ayn Rand's ideal world? Or does she just assume that rational persons would never resort to such a trick? Anyway, the point of all this rambling is to get some better idea of exactly what rights I do have in an Objectivist system. Since everyone acts with complete freedom, my rights are my only protection. When you're done with these, I got more stan the leprechaun hacker (are nicknames rational?) ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs) ps Upon rereading, this seems to have shifted direction mid-stream Don't fuss please, I'm half an Objectivist myself, and the other half is not very rational