RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:05 pm
I have never understood why theists, especially Christians, have been taken in by the concept of altruism, even though sacrifice and self-sacrifice are Biblical concepts.
They're more than that. They're mandated for Christians. We find the concept, of course, in the Golden Rule...but also in places like Phil 2:
"Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus..."
And in 1 John 3:16,
"We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."
The
word "altruism" is apparently Compte's -- but the concept is decidedly not original with him.
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.
Always answer a kid. Do your best, and don't fake what you don't know. Just admit it, and say, "I'll look into it." Then go do it. That's the right rule. Your Sunday School teacher didn't do that.
Maybe she panicked.
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.
- Why did that mother go through labour for that child? Because she was selfish, and wanted a kid.
- Why did that soldier lay down his life? He thought it would make him a hero, and he'd live on in people's memories.
- 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...
That game can be played forever. The problem is, we can't know it's true. It might just be cynical. And personally, I think it is.
It's a mistake to think that having a
reason to sacrifice is the same as having a
selfish reason to sacrifice. Everyone has some reason for what they do; but some motives are higher, and some are lower than others. In Christian thought, the reason for sacrifice is faith: the putting off of immediate gratification, sometimes to an extraordinary degree, out of an expression of gratitude to and belief in God. Is that selfish? Looked at one way, the cynic could say, "Yes." But looked at fairly, the case is harder to make. After all, the sacrificer, in this case, is prepared to risk proximal, comparatively certain and immediately appealing rewards for something only verbally promised by God, and by all accounts, something quite opaque to human imagination.
Is that selfish? There's no means to prove it's not. But I think that's unduly cynical. There's also no basis to prove it is. The hypothesis of universal egoism is, thus, a null hypothesis. It may remain appealing to the cynic; but its real applicability cannot ever be gauged.
Altruism is the morality of collectivism with no other purpose than to justify the sacrifice of others to their collective causes. Even you have bought the collectivist lie that ethical principles are, "social."
You must mean Comptean altruism. Or maybe the alleged altruism of perspectives like Neo-Marxism.
Perhaps so, then.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:35 pm
... after all, ethics begin with the existence of at least two people, for ethics are
relational values, ...
Since you despise her so much, let me quote Rand:
I don't despise her. I disagree with her, and she amuses me. Our relationship is quite companionable.
"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most." [Atlas Shrugged, "Part Three,—Chapter VII, 'This is John Galt Speaking.'"]
She explains that the purpose of ethics is to provide the principles by which individuals make the choices that result in their own success and happiness. Every life is an individual life, every mind is an individual mind, and the success or failure of every individual is the consequence of their own individual choices.
"... knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, ... the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual ..." [Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal, "Theory And History, 1. What Is Capitalism?"]
Even if an individual were the only individual in the world, it would be necessary to live according to the ethical principles if one were to survive. Unless one knows how to live their own life morally, they will certainly not know how to relate to others morally.
I know about all this. I just think she's quite wrong. And apparently, so do you; for you speak of how it is an asset to "know how to relate to others morally." But if we take Rand seriously, this is no point in favour of morality at all -- morality only concerns the individual, she says.
In point of fact, she (and Galt) is wrong about the desert island. If we imagine a universe with only one sentient being in it, John Galt, we cannot defend the idea that he owes a single duty to a single thing...not even to himself. 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.
What Rand's got ahold of there is the recognition that ethics
speaks to the individual. She has mistaken this for the idea that it only
speaks about the individual. And since she valourizes the individual to a ridiculous degree, she can find no other locus of her admiration but the John Galt's of the world. Ironically, she is not John Galt. She is admiring
another, an idealized version of herself that does not even share with her her gender.
The evidence of the benefit to mankind of those pursuing their own, "selfish," moral principles is irrefutable.
Pardon me, RC, but I have to say that I love it when people say "the evidence of X is irrefutable." It invariably means, "I don't want you to examine me too closely on X."
In other words, the bravery of it betrays a failing of conviction.
Between 1785 and 1958 (just 173 years) the following discoveries and inventions were made...
Ah, but how easy it is to destroy this argument.
The Collectivist merely points out that none of these individuals made his discovery in isolation. Every one of them was a member of a society, of a discipline, of an education, of an opportunity...and of a host of other things that came from other people. Not one of them made his achievement floating in a vacuum in space. And each invention was brought about on the shoulders of the inventions of previous persons in a long line of invention and innovation. Not only did
present society contribute to the achievement, but a long line of
past societies were also essential to each individuals achievements...
Did Goodyear discover rubber? No, he inherited it. Did Banting create his own beakers and bunsen burners? No, he bought them. Did Lavoisier become a scientist all on his own? No, he was educated by others...and so on.
So the Collectivist simply says, "You're oversimplifying the case."
And that's true. We must grant that.
Let the altruist list the benefits their moral code has contributed to mankind. I can list some: war, communism, fascism, socialism, mass oppression, and terrorism, all done in the name of some altruistic lie about the good of society, mankind, or humanity.
If we mean Comptean altruism, I don't deny that this makes some case against it. And certainly, I think it constitutes a substantial rebuff to Collectivism. It does not, however, do anything to patch up the implausibility of the "great man" view of history.
So long as you do not wish to force your views on anyone else...
What does this phrase mean?
Again, I am always amazed when I see it.
How can one "force" one's views on another person? I must reassure you, RC, the amount of actual "force" I can exert through this medium is not great...a few electrons worth, at most. I do believe any ordinary person, of minimal stamina, will be able to withstand any "force" I can exert thereby.
But if you mean, by "force," something like, "So long as you are content to agree that I am as right as you are," then I guess I am guilty of a terrible show for force...force of reason, force of argument, and perhaps force of speech as well.
But I beg you to forgive me.
Of course I'm happy to be civil. Of course I'm happy to exchange views courteously. Of course I will listen to you, and I hope, you to me. That's how we make progress. But I trust that our mutual respect is greater than that we must necessarily agree with each other at first mention of any topic, that we must avoid an exchange of views that might challenge either of us, or that we cannot disagree without animus developing.
We've done well in the past; I see no reason to discontinue that now.