From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!npoiv!hou5f!ariel!houti!trc
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: Re: Property Rights and justice
Article-I.D.: houti.226
Posted: Tue Mar  8 17:14:08 1983
Received: Thu Mar 10 02:13:49 1983


Mr Sher:

	I dont think that the two quotes you gave were contradictory.
The first says merely that the starting point of an argument must be
valid, and that I think that valid starting points must be based, at
the bottom level of argument, upon an appeal to reality.  Reality is
everything that really exists, can be sensed, and remains consistant
with itself.  This is simplistic, but I think you know what I mean.
The second quote says that there are valid starting points for examining
a life to determine its quality or self-worth.  One of these IS morality,
though I do not agree that altruistism is the correct moral system. I
believe self-interest is.

	You make a good point about kings and such.  It was not my 
intention to convince anyone that no one ever gains *anything* from
crime - merely that the self-harm out-weighs the benefit.  And even if
this is not true for a few, for humans in general it is - there
can only be so many kings!  The likelihood of succeding by criminal
actions is so small that crime is not a rational course of action.
(Again, I wish to emphasize that I am not just speaking of material
gain, but of the net effect on one's life.)

	I made a poor word choice in the third quote, though I think
that it was clear from the context that I should have used "self-consistent"
rather than self-supporting.  That is, no paradox or contradiction
arises in the elements of the argument when it is extended to cover the
cases of theft and so on.

	You state that altruism is self-interest in the long run. While
it is true that there are cases where self-interest and altruism dont
result in conflicts, I do not see any basis for saying that
they are the same, or even that altruism might be based upon self-interest.
Altruism means always choosing that which is best for others, at the expense 
of one's self if necessary.  This cannot be the same as self-interest.

	In the final quote, I said that you stated that one has to give
up something if the other needs it more.  On re-reading what you said,
I would agree that you meant that the other has to need it a lot more.
But where do you draw the line?  At what point does need cross over into
right?  As I mentioned before, altruism and self-interest do not always
conflict.  In some cases, such as the one you describe, the benefits
gained from living in a society are often sufficient to make one wish to
support that society by abiding by certain conventions of benevolence,
kindness, or politeness.  And under self-interest, the cross-over point
is exactly that point that the individual chooses as being in his rational
self-interest.  



	Tom Craver
	houti!trc