trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (07/26/83)
Response to Paul Torek about a middle ground between selfishness and altruism: Perhaps you have not yet received my response to your note of July 18th. I decided that my note on altruism, plus sending the response to you personally would be sufficient - a number of the things addressed were getting a ways off the main topic. I will post it now, since you apparently did not get it. You asked "Objectivism says (doesn't it?) that the ONLY REASON to care for others is to get benefits for oneself"? again, so I will address it here. Objectivism states that the only *purpose* in doing anything is to achieve rational benefits for oneself. The only proper way to achieve this purpose is by rational action. It is proper to benefit someone else, if it is done, not because of a duty, but because it is something that one rationally desires to do. Not because it is good for the other, but because it is good for oneself (not mystically "good for the soul") that the other benefit. One could support a beloved child, a struggling artist that expresses the essence of one's ideal world, etc. Now, as to why I insist on my definition of altruism. Simplistically, because I believe it is correct! But from a point that I believe you could appreciate better, my definition describes a very real system of morality. I claim that this is the system that is most widely accepted today, and through most of history, and that it is the source of most of the wrongful actions that were done with "good intentions". It is true that it has many watered down variants in practice, and those who stop to think about altruism for long generally begin to see its problems, and so moderate their acceptance. However, I would point out that since you "AGREE that altruism-Craver-style is a bad thing", and since I do not agree that selfishness-Rand-style is a bad thing, the ball is in your court. In effect, you are making the positive statement that there is something redeeming about altruism, that makes it worthy of mixing with selfishness. Equivalently, you are claiming that there is something wrong with selfishness, that requires a mixing in of altruism. (The above should also answer your "what have you got against altruism-Torek-style" question - I dont think mixing dirt with water makes the water more potable, nor does it make the dirt more palatable.) Selfishness "Rand-style" (I didnt originate it - credit Rand) means simply "having the quality of being selfish (giving highest priority to one's own concerns)". It does not (as altruists - such as theists and collectivists - claim and as most people accept), mean that one should do whatever one wants at the moment, regardless of consequences to others. That doesnt mean that one must work to improve the condition of others, but simply that one should not violate other's rights. This consideration of others rights does not come from altruism or benevolence, but from recognizing that rights arise from the nature of humans, and that if one denies other humans rights, one denies that oneself, as a human, has rights. Concerning your definition of Utilitarianism: you state that "the only intrinsically valuable things are those that constitute the welfare or happiness of beings." Valuable to whom? Values do not arise without a valuer. Only individuals can value something. What and how can a society or species value that its members do not? In short, how do you justify the leap to your next assertion that "the right thing to do is to try to maximize the total happiness or welfare of all beings" - which I presume implicitly means "on the average", and at very best would include "within a certain standard deviation"? (Unless you would accept that it is reasonable for a few to benefit tremendously at the modest expense of the majority.) The question to ask about this is "at whose expense?" - whose lives should be expended in whole or in part for the lives of others? Further, note that this can be against their will - for if it is moral to take from some for others, on what basis could those who disagree be exempted? If you would claim that it would not be enforced, how could you insure the maximum happiness for all, if the most capable decide not to help out? Your suggestion that if a selfish person knew that he would live all other lives, he would act like a Utilitarian, is very revealing. First, it is a simple fact that that is not so - one lives only one's own life. With this statement, you actually provide an argument *against* Utilitarian- ism. Secondly, it reveals the basically collectivist nature of the system - despite its paying lip service to individual benefit. Finally, it declares that the best justification for Utilitarianism is mysticism - a mystical belief that one may be infinitely reincarnated (which I doubt you seriously believe, but that *is* the implication of your statement). Tom Craver houti!trc