Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm
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.
Yes!
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm
The
word "altruism" is apparently Compte's -- but the concept is decidedly not original with him.
Mark Twain observed that Adam had one advantage over all others in that he knew whenever he said something, it was original. Since then, there is almost no idea that is original, especially bad ideas, like altruism.
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.
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. 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. Giving up something short-term for something better long term or sacrificing something of lesser value to gain something of greater value does not count.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm
- Why did that mother go through labour for that child? Because she was selfish, and wanted a kid.
Your the one who would call that, "selfish," I call it normal.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm
- 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.
You don't want to use this one. A soldier who willingly, "lays down his life," is a fool willing to die for some collectivist lie. It is very difficult to convince young men they ought to die without first convincing them there is some, "greater reward," even another life, that makes their death worth it. That game is not so successful today and has been replaced by the promise that becoming a professional murderer is risky, but "you probably won't die," and you'll be rewarded with all kinds of free things, like education, a pension, and free health care, etc.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm
- 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...
This is how you think? All the one's I know who have made that kind of choice have done so because the one who benefited was someone they loved so much, they would do anything not to lose them. There is no shortage of fools, however, who have bought the altruist lies and regularly throw themselves into the volcano to save their people.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm
It might just be cynical. And personally, I think it is.
It
is cynical. It's the opposite of that gullibility that believes all those things that lead to self-destruction.
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?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm
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.
I really think you miss my point. 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. 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.
You can say that is not what you mean by altruism, unselfishness, or sacrifice, and maybe you really don't. But I'm certain, as soon as we end this discussion, that's the way you will use those terms in the future.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm
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.
No, I was referring to your next statement:
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, ...
===================================
Just a clarification: I wrote, "Since you despise her so much, let me quote Rand," to which you commmented, "I don't despise her. I disagree with her, and she amuses me. Our relationship is quite companionable." I only meant her philosophy, not her person, and "despise," only in the sense of "disdain" or "regarding as having no value," as, "... Esau
despised his birthright.” [Gen. 25:34]
===================================
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:35 pm
"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." ...
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.
Where? You better have a reference for that,
else it is simply a lie. A quote from anything she ever wrote saying that will do. Her only point, relative to others is that an individual who is not moral themselves can never have moral relationships with others.
Just so you'll know what she
did say about social relationships—
The two great values to be gained from social existence are: knowledge and trade. Man is the only species that can transmit and expand his store of knowledge from generation to generation; the knowledge potentially available to man is greater than any one man could begin to acquire in his own lifespan; every man gains an incalculable benefit from the knowledge discovered by others. The second great benefit is the division of labor: it enables a man to devote his effort to a particular field of work and to trade with others who specialize in other fields. This form of cooperation allows all men who take part in it to achieve a greater knowledge, skill and productive return on their effort than they could achieve if each had to produce everything he needs, on a desert island or on a self-sustaining farm.
But these very benefits indicate, delimit and define what kind of men can be of value to one another and in what kind of society: Only rational, productive, independent men in a rational, productive, free society." [The Virtue of Selfishness, "The Objectivist Ethics"]
You are right, of course, when you say that collectivism disintegrates human cooperation and comes to "dog-eat-dog." Only free, independent men can cooperate and feel benevolence toward one another. But they can do it only because (and only so long as) they know that cooperation will involve no pain or injury to them—that is, no demand for self-sacrifice. [Letter to Rose Wilder Lane, November 3, 1946]
Of course, Individualism doesn't mean isolation, aloofness or escaping to a desert island. In fact, only true Individualists are fit to associate with other men. But they do it only on the basis of the recognition of each man's essential independence: each man lives primarily for, by and through himself and recognizes the same right in others; all relations among men are secondary; men are legally and morally free to associate together or not, on any particular occasion, as their personal interests dictate. There is the pattern of a free, moral society, of human cooperation, and of benevolence among men. [Letter to Rose Wilder Lane, November 3, 1946]
Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members.[The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, "Racism"]
The [individualist] in the absolute sense ... is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men." [For the New Intellectual—The Fountainhead, "The Soul Of An Individualist"]
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:35 pm
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. ...
Ah that "magic" meaningless word,
duty. After altruism, it is perhaps one of the most evil concepts ever thrust on the world. No one is born with some unearned obligation to anyone or anything. When anything for which there is no rational or moral reason is demanded of individuals, the magic word, "duty," is invoked. In the name of duty men can be persuaded to do anything, to kill others in foreign lands, to violently molest people in the name of one's duty to uphold the law (no matter what that law is—think police), to restrict other people's freedom. You are absolutely right, that "the idea that he (or anyone) owes a single duty to a single thing...not even to himself," can be defended. There is no such unearned obligation as
duty."
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.
A rational individual with those objective values does not need someone or something else to tell him it is not in his own best interest to cut off a perfectly healthy limb. Only someone who has surrendered his own reason to some authority, such as one that recommends cutting of one's limbs [Matthew 5:30] or is suffering from
Body Integrity Identity Disorder could even consider such an absurd question.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:35 pm
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."
I love it when people say, "invariably it means ..." followed by their own meaning never intended by the one quoted. [Sorry, couldn't resist the sarcasm. I'm actually sorry to hear that kind of argument.] The reason I included the evidence was so you could examine it.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm
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.
Charles Goodyear, a, "self-taught," chemist, invented the chemical process called vulcanization that made all useful rubber products possible. Read his story. It is typical of the kind of intransigent dedication to the pursuit of one's own vision of all individualist creators.
Implying that what Goodyear did was some kind of, "inheritance," is deceitful. Why would you do that? I'll assume it was a mistake, even though Rand suggested, mistakes of that magnitude are not accidents.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm
So the Collectivist simply says, "You're oversimplifying the case."
And that's true. We must grant that.
"WE," certainly do not!
Years ago the same collectivist arguments you just used were used to claim the reason the United States became the most prosperous and powerful nation in the world was because it was so rich in raw material and resources, not because of the creative power of individuals using their minds and effort to discover how to use those resources to produce and create that wealth and power. That worked until someone observed that human beings had been on this continent with all those same resources under their feet for thousands of years without producing anything much above mere survival.
At any time in history, there is some accumulated knowledge, some form of cultural structure, commerce, materials, previously developed which are the resources available to all men at those times. Though all those things are available to everyone, they do not produce any advances in knowledge, wealth, production or technology on their own. It is always only the creative genius and ruthless effort of those individuals who use those resources to make the new discoveries and create new technologies that provide every improvement and advance in knowledge and the condition of human life.
Why are you arguing like a collectivist?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm
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 know you would not personally use coercive force to make others behave as you would like, and, I am sure you are sincere when you say would not even consider such a thing. Most people do not, and yet they indirectly contribute to the use force to those ends.
If you vote for or support laws that empower government agents to en
force laws that regulate others lives regarding such things as your views on abortion, the forced education of others children, marriage, taxes, any regulation of business or the economy, how individuals use their own property and wealth, etc. you are using force to impose your views on others by proxy. I didn't suggest you do any of those things, I only said, "So long as you do not," do them ..., "we at least have that in common, a benevolence I truly appreciate."
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.