trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (07/22/83)
Response to Paul Dubuc on Christianity and altruism: (Lets keep this in net.philosophy for now, though it may evolve into something that belongs in net.religion. Any other discussion of altruism can change over to net.philosophy too.) Your major claim seems to be that Christianity "is not purely altruistic", but allows some concern for oneself as well. I agree that Christians are not consistent on some things - I've met a great variety of them, and they do vary from materialistic to mystical - but that has little to do with selfish vs altruistic. Communists are typically considered materialistic, but they are altruistic. I would claim that Christians are "mystical altruists". They do not practice altruism consistently, but that says nothing about what the Christian religion teaches. It only gives evidence that, even with the sincerest intentions to follow those teachings, altruism is impossible for humans to practice fully. I know of no strong Biblical evidence supporting the idea that it is a sin not to give at least a minimum of concern for oneself. I do know of plenty of evidence supporting the idea that one should sacrifice one's own good for others. Examples are "turn the other cheek", "carry the (enemy) soldier's pack an extra mile", "sell all that you possess and give it to the poor", "love your enemies", etc. I would agree that there are in additional actions that are considered sins against God - cursing, worshiping false idols, etc; and that these have little to do with altruism. On that basis, Christianity is not "purely altruistic". However, *I* would consider such actions as generally *amoral* - you would not think it a sin to insult some other religion's god, would you? Thus, I still claim that in the realm of moral choices in reality, altruism is dominant in Christianity. The thing that appears closest to concern with self is the consideration of suicide as a sin, by Catholics. However, that seems to be based upon the proscription on killing in general of the 10 commandments. I seriously doubt this really refers to suicide, any more than it refers to slaughtering animals or plants. Secondly, calling suicide a sin can be be justified, in a twisted sort of way, within altruism. After all, suicide is often called "the easy way out" - and that is something that altruism doesnt allow its victims. They must always do that which is hardest for them to do, to be moral, and so they must stay alive as a duty to others. (One sometimes hears suicides referred to *contemptuously* as "selfish".) As for pure selfishness not working either, I disagree. First, you provide no basis for your assertion other than "Can you imagine everyone in a society being a "Howard Roark"?" No, I cant fully imagine it - but what I can imagine of it is just fine. For those of you who havent read the book, Howard Roark was almost completely selfish. (However, "Atlas Struggled" deals more fully with altruism.) Most conflicts in the story arise because Roark doesnt care about what people think of him, which irritates most people he meets, and inspires hatred in some. You will have to tell me how such conflicts would arise if *everyone* rejected the ideas that they *should* care what others think of them, and that they *should* act altruistically. Selfishness (individualism) would be a good basis for society. Ethically, it is the idea that one's life is one's own to live, and to enjoy. Politically, it gives rise to the ideas of individual rights and Capitalism. Aesthetically, it is expressed in art and literature that portrays human ideals, rather than portraying humans as debased animals and reality as a inconsistent or incomprehensible mush. Tom Craver houti!trc
pmd@cbscd5.UUCP (07/29/83)
[from T. Craver]
Your major claim seems to be that Christianity "is not purely altruistic",
but allows some concern for oneself as well.
I agree that Christians are not consistent on some things - I've met a great
variety of them, and they do vary from materialistic to mystical - but
that has little to do with selfish vs altruistic.... I would claim that
Christians are "mystical altruists". They do not practice altruism
consistently, but that says nothing about what the Christian religion
teaches. It only gives evidence that, even with the sincerest intentions
to follow those teachings, altruism is impossible for humans to practice
fully.
I was not talking about the inconsistent actions of Christians when claiming
that Christianity is not purely altruistic. I was talking about biblical
teaching. Those who try to be purely selfish or purely altruistic justify
their beliefs with an unbalenced treatment of Scripture.
I know of no strong Biblical evidence supporting the idea that it is a sin
not to give at least a minimum of concern for oneself. I do know of plenty
of evidence supporting the idea that one should sacrifice one's own good
for others. Examples are "turn the other cheek", "carry the (enemy)
soldier's pack an extra mile", "sell all that you possess and give it
to the poor", "love your enemies", etc.
The Bible assumes that people will naturally act in their own self intrests.
So there is not much need to teach self concern. Consider the following
biblical evidence:
Ephesians 5:28-30 (RSV)
"Even so husbands should love there wives as their own bodies. He who
loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but
nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are
members of his body".
Also, many duties given to Christian by Scripture carry implicit benefits
for the performance of those duties. See Mark 10:28-31; Matthew 25:34-40;
Matthew 5:1-12. In the last reference, an alternate translation for the
word "Blessed" is "Happy". Jesus is not merely pronouncing blessing on
those of a certian character, he is saying that those with such character
are truly happy--because this happiness is the consequence of their actions.
Living for the benefit of others is very much entwined with living for our
own benefit. If Jesus wanted to be purely altruistic why didn't he just
leave off the second half of each beatitude? Why remind his followers of
any benefit they will receive if any benefit to self is strictly of no
concern?
The Bible does teach, however, that wanton selfishness destroys not only
society but the individual himself. As a Christian, I can love because
I am loved, I freely give up much of the temporal satisfaction and gain
I am offered in life when the fulfillment of those selfish desires hinder
the attainment of a greater desire. I forget who it was that said, "He
is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep for that which he cannot
lose". As I live in a relationship with my God, I find my desires coming
closer to those of the Apostle Paul expressed in Philippians 3:8-11.
For Paul there was not much conflict between selfishness and being
Christian. Of course a new self has to be developed for this to happen.
I like the new one better. But I could never make the comparison without
having it first, I guess.
As for pure selfishness not working either, I disagree. First, you provide
no basis for your assertion other than "Can you imagine everyone in a
society being a "Howard Roark"?" No, I cant fully imagine it - but
what I can imagine of it is just fine. For those of you who havent
read the book, Howard Roark was almost completely selfish. (However,
"Atlas Shrugged" deals more fully with altruism.) Most conflicts in
the story arise because Roark doesnt care about what people think
of him, which irritates most people he meets, and inspires hatred in some.
You will have to tell me how such conflicts would arise if *everyone*
rejected the ideas that they *should* care what others think of them,
and that they *should* act altruistically.
I guess I'd be more convinced of the value of Rand's philosopy if she didn't
resort to fiction so much to illustrate it. I have yet to see one real life
person who practices it consistently. And even if such a one did exist (I'm
sure they do) that would not prove that it would work for everyone.
If you have an employer, other than yourself, do you often find yourself
obeying his/her wishes against your own desires? Does't this cramp your
sense of freedom and desire for self expression? If so, why do you put up
with it? Roark never did. Even if you are self employed, your paycheck
comes from somewhere. Do you sometimes put up with a lot you don't like
to insure that it keeps comming? Why?
Perhaps you could think about a lot more 'necessities' of life that prevent
us from being totally selfish. Of course you could always say that you
cater to these thing because they benefit self. That's the wonder of
Rand's philosophy--any situation can be fitted into it. How do we know,
objectively speaking, if we are being truly selfish when we often have
so many conflicting desires?
Also Rand gave Roark a lot of talent and determination, a profession
that he did well in. How would Rand's pholosophy benefit the one who
is a garbage collector? Or do you think that in a purely selfish world
the need for people to do such jobs will cease? How? There will always
be those on the bottom rung of society. What hope does Rand offer them?
(Of course, if we are really selfish, we don't think about them. Right?)
Again, I want to assert that biblical Christianity is not purely altruistic.
I think is a better basis for society than selfishness.
Selfishness (individualism) would be a good basis for society. Ethically,
it is the idea that one's life is one's own to live, and to enjoy.
Politically, it gives rise to the ideas of individual rights and
Capitalism. Aesthetically, it is expressed in art and literature that
portrays human ideals, rather than portraying humans as debased
animals and reality as a inconsistent or incomprehensible mush.
By "Capitalism" you must mean *liassez-faire* capitalism; which we don't
quite have in this country. If we did I think we would see the problems
with it more vividly. I'm not against some form of capitalism. But I
often wonder if we would not glorify it so much if we were its victims
instead of its beneficiaries.
As for humans being debased animals, that is not by design, according
to the Bible. I think that Scripture asserts the value of man more
than any other philosophy I have heard of. This is by virtue of their [sic]
creation in the image of God.
Paul Dubuc