steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (08/02/85)
> > In article <521@scc.UUCP> steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) writes: > > > I am amazed that you would believe that I am a Christian > >or something like that. I am an agnostic too! > > I must have misread your posting, so I apologize. Whew! I'm glad we got that straightned out. Next thing you know people would be asking me for donations. :-) > > Proper and improper behavior is a matter of social consensus not > individual choice. The definitions may change through time and across > cultures, but there's always a core that most people in a society will > agree on. The decision to act only in one's own self interest seems > barbaric to me because it runs contrary to that which makes us most > human: the social contract we sign with our fellow human beings when > we come into the world. > -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly I understand your point, but our differences might be only superficial. Human beings are unarguably social creatures. One of the more important differences between people and other creatures is our lanugage use, and that requires several users. For a creature that is organized the way we are, generally, if it is beneficial to everyone then it is beneficial to an individual. We an't go off and live on an island like Robinson Caruso. We are like prairie dogs, bees, and many other types of animals. We are social animals and humans depend on societies humans for survival. It is easy to think of a hive of bees as a single organism with many parts, like cells in our bodies. 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. I have done volunteer reading and writing tutoring (never spelling). Just think. I have read time and time again that the better educated people are the less likely they are to wind up on welfare. If I help someone learn to read, that person is less likely to end up on welfare, which I ultimately pay for with my taxes. Likewise, if I hurt someone and others find out about it, I am sure I would not have as many pleasant relationships as I do now. I am considered to be pretty friendly and not one to try to hurt peoples feelings. Since we exist in society, we need to follow society's rules. It is in a persons best intrest to get along in the society he or she lives in. Of course, that is easy for me to say. I have just been reading about the Ik of Uganda. (pronounced Eek). They through their children out of the house at 3 years old. If a person is too old, sick, or otherwise unable to feed him or herself, their fellow Iks let them die. They never have enough food, they have been starving for generations. 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." -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060