wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (08/04/83)
Tom Craver has been carrying along a long discussion of the nature of
altruism and selfishness. Now, in a reply to Paul Dubuc, he has laid
out a philosphy of sorts. I would like to add my two cents to the
discussion at this point, leaving off the issue of defining altruism,
and restricting myself to Craver's "objectivism."
From Tom Craver
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.
So far, so good. I agree with Tom that they are indeed moral principles.
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.
Whoa, Tom. How did you assign the quality "good" to one or the other of
these items? Did I miss some philosophical argument of yours (my apologies
if I did) during the definitional discussion? Just because an item is an
ethical or moral principle does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that
it is "good." I think that you err when you say that both are not good. I
can easily find examples of moral situations in which I would find both
qualities "good." Furthermore, mixing the two does not necessarily 'sully'
(a poor term) anything. Most moral systems that I know of call for a
mixture of the two. (In fact, the modern philospher Thomas Nagel earned
his {I think} Ph.D. in philosophy by designing just such a system. I have
the book that he published from the thesis, if you're interested.)
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.
I agree with you in your criticism of Christianity, but I must warn you that
many philosophies take it as given that a person can change his nature.
Therefore the statement "...you are still human, and you will ..." is not
a valid statement. Probably the most famous recent example is existentialism.
Ayn Rand wrote several works of fiction portraying
a handful of selfish people in societies of altruists,
mystics, and other irrationalists.
Leaving aside for the moment your slavish devotion to Rand, I must take
objection to your lumping of the terms "altruist," "mystic," and
"irrationalist." The terms \may/ in some cases be related. This is not
by any means a necessary connection.
Practically every other modern philosophy is
anti-mind/anti-self in some way, and so there
have been few fully rationally selfish modern
people.
Two objections: 1) Have you actually made a study of modern philosophies? I
have, and I have not come to this conclusion. Could you please give me an
example of such a philosophy, since my studies disagree with you? 2) You have
yet to demonstrate that there is any connection between "rationality" and
"selfishness," let alone a necessary one. Perhaps after you have made this
connection, you would care to give an example of a "rationally selfish"
non-modern person?
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.
WHAT?? Russians altruists? I'm sorry, but that's beyond belief. Are you
prepared to back this up, or is this just hyperbole for the sake of
hyperbole?
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.
Again, I ask for an example of "others." Perhaps you could take another
philosophy and compare it point by point with Randism.
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.
Where does Rand define "rights"? What is a violation of rights? Again, you
are assuming a necessary conection between selfishness and rationality. I
disagree. How do you come to the conclusion that "self-interest ... is the
proper purpose" for action? Mind you, I am not attacking you, but I am
interested in hearing more from you. These questions are designed to elicit
that information.
There is no area of human life that one's mind
cannot consider, and thus, no area that
Objectivism could not benefit one in.
Again, this is an unfounded conclusion. How does objectivism benefit me
when I contemplate a symphony, or when I consider the weeds in my garden?
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.
I fail to see how one can rank a society in relative atruistic terms. It
seems as though you are confusing altruism and socialism, but perhaps I am
mistaken.
Then ask yourself how a moral system can be
considered good when its results are so bad.
It is a logical fallacy to consider a moral system "bad" purely on the
basis of the results of its implementation. You must demonstrate a
weakness in the system itself. By analogy, I cannot say that FORTRAN is
a bad language because all the people I know write lousy FORTRAN code.
Rather, I can say FORTRAN is a bad language because it uses such
obsolete techniques as column positioning, and is unstructured.
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.
Now I'm sure you're confusing philosophy with politics, but no matter. Let
me demonstrate that a person can be a victim of capitalism: This person is
a worker. He has worked long and hard to support himself and his two sons
since his wife died. He doesn't save much, but he scrapes together enough
to send both boys to college. The boys join ROTC there, since they are
good capitalists, too. And when Vietnam needs protecting from those
Communist altruists {:-)}, there they are in the front line. Both are killed.
Now dad is all alone, old, and with advancing age comes infirmity that
prevents him from working. He has no money left; what will happen to him?
I maintain that dad is a victim of capitalism.
One cannot force others to trade with one.
If you have a monopoly, you can.
One cannot force others to work for one.
If others need money, you bet you can.
One cannot rob others to make a profit.
And yet it happens every day.
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.
I've now heard \of/ objectivism, but not anything really substantial about
it. So, I can still claim whatever I want, regarless of whatever
declarations you make. You must provide logical proof, not assertions,
if you wish to continue the discussion.
--Alan Wexelblat
decvax!ittvax!wex