trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (07/28/83)
Response to Steve Hutchison on Altruism and Christianity:
You state that 'sin is not "selfishness". Sin is rebellion against God'.
I agree that there is more to "sin" than selfishness, in Christianity.
Perhaps I worded my statement poorly, causing you to think I meant that the
*only* Christian "sin" is selfishness. However, I would point out that the
major Christian extension to the idea of sin, from Jewish law, is essentially
that selfishness is bad, and altruism is moral. This is justified by the
claim that Love is the basis of morality. ("Love one another...") There
may be a different way to interpret Jesus' teachings, but that is the way
that it *has* been interpreted historically. Christian sin *is* rebellion
against God - "putting one's own self on the throne of one's life, rather
than God" is the way I have heard it described. This is *exactly* what
selfishness is - taking responsibility and control of one's own life.
Choosing to obey a god is not selfish just because one thinks that that
god knows best. When one is selfish, one does not acknowledge anyone else's
right to control one's life.
You claim that my statements that "that God declares that we are only good
when we do good for others" and that "salvation" is an undeserved gift for
sinners are contradictory somehow. How? Are you implying that the fact that
God supposedly gives salvation means that he views humans as basically good?
That is certainly in contradiction to what I know about Christianity.
My understanding is that the Christian view is that humans are so debased that
God cant even stand to look upon us, and yet loves humans enough (regardless
of their evil, not because of their good) that he sent Jesus to provide a
means of salvation. At best, once the salvation is accepted, the person
is "wiped clean" - neither good nor bad, just neutral. One is supposed to
then go on to do "good acts", or else the faith is "empty". ("Faith without
works is dead".) Thus, I see no contradiction - Christianity does teach
that one must do good works once the salvation is accepted, in order to
be good. If a Christian does no more than accept salvation, he remains
essentially *amoral*. Further, the Christian must avoid further sin,
including selfishness. It still sounds a lot like altruism to me.
I did not claim that benevolence excludes doing things for one's own benefit -
only that altruism excludes that, if it is practiced consistently. One of the
major points was that the two are not the same. (I would note that the idea
that it is alright for a Christian to take care of his own life is rather
modern - historically, I believe that the idea of duty to God was paramount,
and any demands made in his name were to be obeyed.)
You say that altruism can be "an important and useful tool" to a system in
which "morals are in place". First, altruism *is* a system of morality.
Second, accepting it as a "tool" means accepting it period - unless you
are willing to allow contradictions in your moral system. In order to be
a "useful tool" to another moral system, the other system must be consistent
with altruism. In light of what altruism is, your statement appears to *me*,
from my view of altruism, as a condemnation of Christianity.
Altruism may not properly define morality, but it does try to do so. Whether
those morals are correct and consistent is another issue. As I pointed out,
altruism does evade the question of "what is moral" by declaring that anything
that benefits another is moral. However, benefits to others is not as
arbitrary as you declare. Food, shelter, medicine, etc are needs of any
human being. Altruists see that need is one standard of benefit, and make the
jump to the conclusion that the needs of others are the standard of morality.
Benefit to one's self, constrained only by respect for the rights of others,
*is* a sufficient basis for morality. As I pointed out above, there are
definitely things that *are* beneficial to one. The fundamental rights
to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness are not benefits of
themselves, but are necessary conditions for the creation of benefits.
Thus, is *is* possible to know that certain things are beneficial. Each
person is different, which puts them in the best position to judge for
themselves what is to their rational benefit, and so what is moral.
I have never tried to "refute morality". I have tried to refute altruism
as a *proper* moral system. You seem to make the implicit assumption
that altruism == morality - which is particularly interesting in light
of the fact that you had just completed an argument that altruism is not
morality and that it is only a "useful tool". Thus, I do not believe I
am guilty of using the straw man technique.
With regard to creators and creations, it is possible that a creator might
choose to deceive a creation into thinking that an inconsistent universe
is consistent, and perhaps even that a consistent universe is inconsistent.
I'll let you tell me what kind of creator would do such a thing. Assuming
that there is no deception involved, you seem to be making an argument that
is often based loosely on a mis-interpretation of Godel's theorem. There was
some discussion of this recently. There is nothing in the theorem that says
one cannot find internal contradictions - merely that one cannot conclusively
prove consistency from within the system. If you are not referring to this
idea, you will have to tell me why you think it is impossible to detect
contradictions in one's own system.
I should note that I DO NOT think the universe is inconsistent! I was merely
pointing out that anyone that accepts that a creator would demand altruism
for selfish humans will be forced to also accept that that is an inconsistency
in the universe, and that the creator made it so. And altruism would be a
contradiction to the selfishness of human nature even if I did not define
either. It is true that one could try to apply the names "altruism" and
"selfishness" to different concepts that do not conflict - but what would
that prove? So what if I then rename what is really altruism and selfishness
"A" and "B"? Do their natures change for having renamed them? If you want
to attack the applicability of the concepts to humans, fine - but you have
not done so yet.
I do agree that your concept of altruism is a lot "fuzzier" than mine is -
and I further claim that is your problem, not mine. To show me that it is
mine, you will have to give me an idea of what parts you claim I have
"stripped away" from the concepts involved, and how that makes them less
valid. When you have achieved that, then you can address the issue of what
and how contradictions were induced.
Sorry about the length
Tom Craver
houti!trc