trc@houti.UUCP (07/21/83)
Several people have asked me why my definition of altruism seems to be different from the commonly accepted one. How many of you that accept the equation of "altruism == benevolence" have considered *your* reasons for accepting that equation? It was suggested that perhaps there is some commonly used word that better describes the concept that I call altruism. There is not - in common usage, the term altruism been watered down from its full meaning, but altruism is still *practiced* in the full sense, (though inconsistently, since that is the only way it can be practiced by humans). The full, real meaning of altruism is explained in the following quote from Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness": --------------- "There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into one "package deal": (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance. Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value - so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes." --------------- Lest anyone doubt that the above is the primary system of morality in practice, (as well as being given lip service) consider most of the things government concerns itself with these days - welfare, foreign aid, regulation of business (for the benefit of consumers), etc. All are justified on the basis that it is moral to tax people for these things, because they serve the needs of others. Consider what most Christian churches preach - that one is naturally a "sinner" (IE selfish), and one can only achieve salvation by a undeserved *gift* from God, and that that God declares that we are only good when we do good for others. Consider what every graduating student hears in the commencement address - that he or she can have no higher aspiration than to go out into the world and serves others - that that is the moral purpose for life. Consider who our society praises, and who it condemns - it praises those that help the weak and poor, and condemns those that seek to improve their own condition in life above that of other people. So what is wrong, beyond its poor foundation, with such a moral system? Again, I quote Ayn Rand, from "The Virtue of Selfishness": ---------------- "Observe what this beneficiary criterion of morality does to a man's life. The first thing he learns is that morality is his enemy: he has nothing to gain from it, he can only lose; self-inflicted loss, self-inflicted pain and the gray, debilitating pall of an incomprehensible duty is all that he can expect. He may hope that others might occasionally sacrifice themselves for his benefit, as he grudgingly sacrifices himself for theirs, but he knows that the relationship will bring mutual resentment, not pleasure - and that morally, their pursuit of values will be like an exchange of unwanted, unchosen Christmas presents, which neither is morally permitted to buy for himself. Apart from such times as he may manage to perform some act of sacrifice, he possesses no moral significance: morality takes no cognizance of him and has nothing to say to him for guidance in the crucial issues of his life; it is only his own person, private, "selfish" life and, as such, it is regarded either as evil or, at best, *amoral*." ----------------- That is what altruism is all about. Ask yourself "WHY should 'benefiting others' be a sufficient condition for an action to be moral?". I know that it seems "obvious" to most people - it certainly did to me. But I found that when I tried to make it explicit, I could find NO BASIS IN REALITY for it. I had been taught the precepts of altruism all my life, and had accepted them so completely that they seemed natural. In fact, the only way that such a moral system can be justified is by an appeal to mysticism - to some supernatural power that has the power and right to require that it be correct. For those of you who believe that such an entity exists (God, Allah, whatever), consider - what kind of a god would make an inconsistent universe, in which it is un-natural for people to be good (by the altruistic standard)? Benevolent or malevolent? Wouldnt the standard of altruism require that the god make the universe as rewarding a place to be moral as possible, if morality is good for people? And the same goes for people - why make it natural for them to desire to help themselves, rather than at least indifferent to whether they helped themselves or others (which would make "free will choice" on the matter of "sinning" more realistic.)? Tom Craver houti!trc
pmd@cbscd5.UUCP (07/21/83)
I don't think that Tom Craver's reduction of Christian teaching to altruism can be so easily done. Christianity is not purely altruistic. Sure it bids man consider himself a fallen sinner, but it also commands him to do something about it. I cannot say that I accept Christianity purely for God's benefit (What does it benefit an omnipotent God that I submit to him?) or the benefit of others. Much blessing and reward is given and promised. There is a delicate balence in biblical teaching between altruism and self esteem. Many who are Christians justify their selfishness and materialism with Scripture. (Haven't you heard Oral Roberts preach?). Others categorically condemn anything that benefits self. Both positions are out of balence bibically. Although pure altruism may not work for the individual in society, pure selfishness doesn't work either. Ayn Rand's gospel of selfishness cannot be accepted by everyone. Can you imagine everyone in society being a "Howard Roark"? (as in "The Fountianhead") Paul Dubuc
hutch@dadla-b.UUCP (07/22/83)
In reply to Tom Craver on Altruism - Tom, you weaken your argument (which is interesting but holds several fallacies) by attributing qualities to Christianity which are NOT there. I quote: Consider what most Christian churches preach - that one is naturally a "sinner" (IE selfish), and one can only achieve salvation by a undeserved *gift* from God, and that that God declares that we are only good when we do good for others. Your quote contradicts itself. I will delve very briefly into the theology you misinterpret. Sin is not "selfishness". Sin is rebellion against God, who is understood by Christians (whether you LIKE the notion or not) to KNOW what is the best thing for each person, and to desire that each person HAS this thing. By rebellion one ABANDONS selfishness in its only positive form. The statement that God declares us good only when we do good for others directly contradicts the first half of the sentence, wherein you correctly state that salvation is achieved by an undeserved GIFT. The only thing which Christians believe God to have said, regarding what He considers good, is that NO man is good, unless the rebellion (sin) has been repaired by the willful acceptance of the gift of salvation. You make similar generalizations about government, the institutions of higher learning, and "society in general". These are incomplete generalizations (which is my primary gripe with them) and the qualities you selected are offset by other factors. For instance, although there is a strong push in universities reminding people to be of service to others, the subject matter and attitudes of (in my experience) the majority of teachers and schools in a given university also emphasize maximizing personal gains. AS for the other fallacies: Benevolence does not exclude doing things to one's own benefit. It does seem to exclude doing things to one's own benefit when those things are to the immediate detriment of others. Altruism as a PHILOSOPHY may correspond to Ayn Rand's definition, but as an adjunct to a system where morals are in place, it becomes an important and useful tool. Clearly it is insufficient in itself to define morals since the definitions of benefit and detriment can, for any person, only be based on their own experience, and this is clearly both incomplete and unreliable without an externally supplemented set of definitions (which are a major part of a set of moral values). Benefit to others was NEVER sufficient condition for any action to be considered moral. Nor is benefit to SELF, since there is no way to tell whether any given act is, in the long run, beneficial or detrimental to oneself. The assertion that either is sufficient has not been made, and to try to refute morality (which is heuristic in practice) on the basis of that assertion is called a "straw man". As for your assertions about a Creator, how would you the creation be able to judge the consistency of the creation? You can clearly discern APPARENT contradictions. However, unless you can encompass the whole of creation you cannot determine its consistency. Since your "contradictions" with regards to altruism are largely due to your definition of those concepts, it is invalid to try to apply them to the universe at large. In conclusion, your argument stems largely from a tendency to try to take a complex and fuzzy notion, to strip away those parts of it which you decide are not relevant (thereby introducing contradiction), and then to use that introduced contradiction to try to confute other, unrelated assertions. Lest it seem that I am trying to roast you over a high flame, be assured that I found it very hard to find the weaknesses in your argument. The depth of thought and deliberation is somewhat above the majority of the submissions. I will probably enjoy your rebuttal if it is as good as the oroginal. Steve Hutchison Tektronix Logic Analyzers
dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/24/83)
Well, I checked two (out-of-date) dictionaries so far on "altruism," and one agreed with Tom and the other with me. The former said altruism was sacrifice of self in the interests of others; the latter said it was regard for the interests of others (not necessarily EXCLUSIVE regard, mind you). Neither one said anything about moral beliefs being necessary for altruism. I wish Tom would reply personally to my altruism article of July 18th. Particularly: "Objectivism says (doesn't it?) that the ONLY REASON to care for others is to get benefits for oneself." Anyway, quibbling over words is pointless. Does Tom have anything against altruism-Torek-style (roughly equivalent to benevolence)? Let me say that I AGREE that altruism-Craver-style is a bad thing! And OK, it's not entirely a straw man, insofar as some people actually do think that way. Just what do we disagree about? Why do you insist on your definition, Tom? Won't you allow us the possibility of a middle ground between selfishness and True Altruism? Let me outline my own position to give you an example (not the ONLY example!). I'm a Utilitarian with some difference from Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. My version of Utilitarianism is close to that advocated by Richard Brandt in *The Theory of the Good and the Right*, although we hold the same view for different reasons. Utilitarianism is an unfortunate name; a better one might be Universalism. The way I see it, Utilitarianism is the combination of two views. First, the only intrinsically valuable things are those that constitute the welfare or happiness of beings. Second, the right thing to do is to try to maximize the total happiness or welfare of all beings; the welfare of every individual should count equally in the "utility function". The second principle essentially says that one should care BOTH for oneself and for others. One way to explain this is to say that a selfish person, who knew that he would have to live each and every life in the history and future of the universe, would act like a Utilitarian. Variations on Utilitarianism are possible depending on what is specified as constituting an individual's welfare, and on how one should try to maximize this welfare. Also, just how wide is the class of beings whose welfare counts. Some say only those in your society, others say humans, others (including myself) say all sentient beings. Let me repeat that one need not be a Utilitarian to refuse to choose between the extremes of Objectivism or True Altruism. I only described that position because I hold it and because it is a simple example. The basis in reality for my own position is that others are just as real as you, and their good and bad experiences are just as important as yours are. --Paul Torek, U of MD College Park