RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:18 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm
When I was very young and was taught in Sunday school, that selfishness was wrong and only unselfishness (altruism) was good, I knew there was something wrong with what I was being taught. When I asked why I should be unselfish and give up what I wanted for the sake of someone else who would then be getting what they wanted thus making them selfish, I of course, received no answer.
Heh. You had a bad Sunday School teacher.
You don't want to say that, IC. It was not just Sunday School teachers, it was every Christian I've ever asked those questions of, and they all give the same non-answers as you.
Now, now, RC...you can decide not to agree with someone's view without implying an insult to them or even to the quality of their thinking IF their assumptions were right.
So one can fairly say, "I understand your reasons, but still think you're wrong," without going on to say anything like "that's a non-answer," or "you're conventional."
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm
When I was told I should be unselfish because that pleased God and I would be blessed for it, it was obvious to me that everything everyone did was selfish--because they expected something good to result from their so-called unselfishness.
I can't say what you found in your own heart on that account. I believe you. But I there's a serious problem with that hypothesis: it's incorrigible. That is, like Determinism, it cannot be proved, but also cannot be falsified. There's no act anyone can point to that a cynic can't say was ultimately "selfish," even if that's not the case.
That's exactly the kind of non-answer I always receive, or perhaps I should say, evasion, because it evades the question.
I don't think it does. When the charge itself is structured in such a way as to be incapable of disproof, you can't fault people for not disproving it. And that's precisely the problem in the cynic's program -- since he can't be refuted, he may believe he's right; whereas, since his view is incapable of correction or absolute disproof, he could as easily be quite wrong.
Which it is, is going to turn out to be on grounds other than the cynic's irrefutability.
As Kierkegaard says,
“…one can be deceived in many ways; one can be deceived in believing what is untrue, but on the other hand, one is also deceived in not believing what is true; one can be deceived by appearances, but one can also be deceived by the superficiality of shrewdness, by the flattering conceit which is absolutely certain that it cannot be deceived.”
I don't accuse you of that. But I point out the problem. Cynicism appears "safe" to the cynic: but it's not. It can as easily betray him as can gullibility, but with this additional deception; that the cynic, unlike the gullible man, may well believe it is simply impossible that he is being deceived at all.
You are right, "there's no act anyone can point to that a one can't say was ultimately 'selfish.'" If you believe that is not true, all you have to do is provide an example of one such case of someone doing something, that, in their own best estimate, is not ultimately in their own best interest.
But that doesn't pass the cynical test, for a number of reasons. One is simply that we have no idea what people's "own best estimate" really is. We have to believe what they tell us, or doubt it, but in each case, not on certain grounds.
Secondly, it's a really open question as to whether or not people even know what's motivating them. And isn't that the cynic's claim? Isn't he saying, "You
think you're being altruistic, but
really, you're being selfish." But if even the person committing the act can't be relied upon to know his own motive, how is it that the cynic thinks he can judge that same man's motive.
And, of course, your test is no good for other reasons, too. I gave you several such cases as you call for, such as a woman giving birth, a soldier giving up his life, and so on, and in every case, you said it was
not an example of altruism...for just the sorts of cynic's reasons I predicted you would. So my examples were correct, then.
Possibly the problem is that you misunderstood, and thought I was giving examples of what I believe, rather than what the cynical anti-altruist can say to "disprove" any sort of case of altruism. So I wrote...
- Why did that man donate his kidney? He wanted gratitude from the donee, and he hoped the press would show up and say what a great guy he was...
And you replied,
This is how you think?
Answer: no.
This is how the cynic dispenses with any cases of apparent altruism. Personally, I think he's not on any good epistemological grounds in doing it. It might be that the soldier gives up his life not for a good reason but for a bad one. But it might also be the case that he gives up his life for a very good one.
I remember reading a first-hand account of a survivor of WWI. Apparently, he and his troop were holed up on a hillside, with barbed wire above them. They had what were called "bangor torpedoes," which were tubes of metal filled with explosive. The idea was to push the tube through the barbed wire, detonate the torpedo, and blow the wire apart so the men could get through.
Anyway, they were lying on the hillside, and one of them crawled up and inserted some bangor torpedoes on the top of the hill, then rolled back down to the troop that was ducking for the explosion. But suddenly, one of the torpedoes dislodged, and came sliding down the hill toward the horrified troop on the hillside.
With but seconds to go, one of the men didn't hesitate. He jumped up the hill, seized the torpedo, ran it back up the hill, then fell on it to hold it from coming back down. Of course, he was killed in the ensuing concussion, but his friends were spared.
This kind of altruism is impossible, according to the cynical egoist. Nobody does anything unless it benefits him. So now, the cynic has to invent an elaborate explanation as to how being gutted by a bangor torpedo was in the interest of the brave young soldier.
And at some point, such explanations seem a little dusty, don't they?
There is no shortage of fools, however, who have bought the altruist lies and regularly throw themselves into the volcano to save their people.
That is true. But it does not tell us whether or not good altruism can exist, and whether or not good altruism is good. It only tells us that
some altruism can be phony or misguided.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm
It's a mistake to think that having a
reason to sacrifice is the same as having a
selfish reason to sacrifice.
Well, you've got me there. I just do not see the difference between having, "a reason," and having, "a selfish reason." If someone has a reason, isn't it necessarily their own reason? Is there something about a reason belonging to one's self that, in some mysterious way, taints it? [/quote]
No, I think not. But one's own reason can be selfish.
A rapist has his reasons. So does a child molester. So does a thief, a murderer, or a gossip...except in those cases of true dementia, when there are no reasons for what a particular person does.
So one's own reasons can be bad, but they can also be good. What's unduly cynical, I think, would be for us to suppose that any kind act a person appears to do must secretly be motivated by a belief that he or she is going to get something out of it. In cases of true altruism, the good of another supersedes the selfish goods.
I really think you miss my point.
Perhaps. Perhaps you can make it again.
I don't care what terms you use, selfishness, altruism, or sacrifice, if they mean ultimately giving up, surrendering, or destroying anything of a higher value for the sake of anything of a lower value they are immoral.
Agreed. But where we might not agree is what is of higher value and what is lower. I expect you'll find a great deal of disagreement among people on that question.
"Value" if it exists objectively at all, is something only secure in the assessment made by God Himself. Among humans, "value" is a verb...it's "valuing," a thing we do, as we try to figure out what the objective value of a thing might really be. That's why so many of us can get it wrong so often, and why so many estimates of higher and lower value differ.
We may disagree on what determines the value of anything (and we certainly do), but whatever one's value system is, within that context, sacrificing a higher value to a lower value is wrong.
Of course -- but only when we know what is higher and what is lower.
===================================
Just a clarification: I wrote, "Since you despise her so much,
I must protest.
I never used the word "despise," nor implied it. Rather, I
understand Rand, and have
enjoyed reading her philosophy, but
disagree with her. I find no need to dislike her personally, or even to participate in exercises of negative emotion upon hearing her arguments. I simply think she's wrong. There's no "despising" needed there.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm
... after all, ethics begin with the existence of at least two people, for ethics are
relational values, ...
Ah that "magic" meaningless word, duty.
You misunderstand. "Moral duty" simply means "obligation to act on a moral imperative." It's not speaking of the kind of "duty" that, say, an army commander enjoins upon his recruits, or a Collectivist demands of his sheepish followers.
Every moral principle has an imperative, a duty associated with it. If, for example, murder is wrong, then it means that we all have a
duty not to murder. If theft is wrong, then we have a
duty not to steal. So don't tee off on the word "duty." It's automatic, in ethics. It has nothing to do with what you talked about.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:35 pm
Why should he not saw off his own leg or head, if he were so inclined? If he did, who would say, "John Galt, what doest thou?" Nobody.
Because we are talking about objective moral principles, which are those by which a rational human being must guide his life and make all his decisions if he is to live happily and successfully in this world. Such an individual never makes his choices based on feelings, desires, whims, or irrational
inclinations.
Again, you misunderstand the point here.
You may imagine that "a rational human being" has a duty to "live happily and successfully in this world." But that cannot be established. "Happiness" is an emotion. No one can have duty to have an emotion. And "success" begs the whole question of what it is "rational" or "right" for a person to be "successful" in doing.
So your explanation really informs us of nothing. There are no "objective moral principles" that can be established on a "rational" basis, without first dealing with the problem of ontology. What is it "rational" to do? We can only know that after we know what a human being is FOR, why the human being is here at all, and what human beings true
telos is. Only then can we assess how "rational" his behaviour is, and whether or not the "moral principles" he adopted were the best ones. Only then can we call him (in the much more substantial) Solonic sense, "happy."
Implying that what Goodyear did was some kind of, "inheritance," is deceitful.
Not at all.
Goodyear invented vulcanization, sure. But you are not going to say he discovered rubber. That honour goes to Amazonian Indians. Then, it goes to Giovanni Fabbroni. Then it goes to many others, before Goodyear ever got hold of it.
And that's the point. Goodyear, for all his innovating, was supported on the shoulders of all these predecessors. He was not some kind of magical individual who invented things
ex nihilo.
Why are you arguing like a collectivist?
I'm not. I'm giving the devil his due. Collectivists are not wrong when they say that the myth of the tremendous individual obscures the role that previous generations and present society have played in that man's success. There is a substantial role there, in most cases. True geniuses -- the ones that completely depart all frames of reference in their societies and are indebted to no one for their achievements -- are actually very few.
Really, only one.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm
What does this phrase mean? Again, I am always amazed when I see it.
How can one "force" one's views on another person?
If you vote for or support laws...
This can't be what you meant.
You know I wasn't proposing to "vote" for anything. I was simply making my case. If there was "force" involved, it was not of any physical sort...perhaps the compulsion of reason or of argument, no more...and did not deserve the term "force" in any sense.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm
We've done well in the past; I see no reason to discontinue that now.
Yes we have, and quite frankly, I'm sometimes pleasantly surprised, because I am not a compromiser and am unapologetically ruthless in expressing my opinions, and we are both radicals in our views. It is actually a wonderful illustration of how individuals, no matter how different, can interact benevolently when all coercion is excluded and reason is the only basis of their relationship.
Well, I'm happy for you not to compromise. And I'm certain we can keep getting along.
