wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (08/05/85)
In article <534@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: > ... The analogy is not as easy to make with humans, >but though it is weaker if it holds at all it would >give a biological reason that there would no benefit >to individual humans to do something that would >greatly degrade the lives around them. > > Even if this theory it too weak at the biological level it >certainly provides a philosophical foundation. If people believe >that the best intrestest of those around are also their best >interests, then, to further their own self-interest they would >want to improve the quality of life of those around them. One problem I still have with self-interest is that the individual's definition of self-interest may change as personal circumstances or economic realities change. I guess it's the residue of thirteen years of Roman Catholic education; I still want to base my own behavior on something more than my own interpretation of what's best for me at the moment. Since the appeal to a higher authority is not available to an agnostic like me, I've decided to examine my behavior in a social context for its altruistic content since altruism seems to separate the social being from the nonsocial. Thus I see my ethics as maximizing in some sense my human nature, or my perception of my human nature. I suppose in some sense you could call this a pursuit of a special kind of self-interest. > ... > The Iks have no word for altruism. "Good" means >"food", a "good man" is one with a full stomach. >They live in an harsh environment. There is not enough >to go around. Each Ik eats when and where they can and >they never share. > >It is interesting to know that people like that exist. >It suggests than in general people do act in their >own self-interest, and it is highly unusual circumstances >where that translates to "every person for themselves." I'm not that well-versed in anthropology, but it seems to me that the Kalahari bushmen who also live in an extreme environment have not evolved a society that stresses self-interest to this degree. The Australian aborigines are another example of a culture or group of cultures that live in harsh conditions but still base their interactions on sharing. The kind of extreme self-interest exhibited by the Ik seems to be interesting because of what it says about the range of behaviors that can evolve in response to a particular kind of environment. Thus I'd disagree with your claim that the behavior of the Ik illustrates in some sense a general principle of human behavior. A parent bird who attracts a predator and leads it away from the nest may be acting in self-interest since the surviving parent can successfully see that the young preserve the dead parent's genetic material. Consider the sacrifice of the atheist in wartime, however, who gives up his life for his country. There are probably many examples from atheistic societies like the USSR, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, etc. in the last few conflicts in various parts of the world. Some of these people are probably going into battle because they're forced to or because they see the consequences of NOT going into battle as dire, but I find it hard to believe that NONE of them gave up their lives for the good of their countries or just for their fellow soldiers on the battlefield [by the way, I use communist-atheist societies as examples because altruism with no hope of an afterlife can't be based on pure self-interest, not because I'm an admirer of these cultures: so no political flames, please]. I think pure altruism based on a consideration of the value of one's sacrifice for the common good or for the preservation of another's life/happiness is possible for human beings, and that it can be an ideal standard of behavior around which a set of ethics can be based. It seems that a moral system based on altruism is much less likely to change in the face of personal adversity; this is why I prefer altruism to self-interest as a motivator for my own behavior. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly