Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!houxm!hogpc!houti!trc From: trc@houti.UUCP Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: RE: Subjective Objectivism Message-ID: <366@houti.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Aug-83 08:46:23 EDT Article-I.D.: houti.366 Posted: Fri Aug 5 08:46:23 1983 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Aug-83 04:06:26 EDT Lines: 142 Response to Alan Wexelblat on my note on altruism in Christianity: You ask how I 'assign the quality "good" to one or the other' of altruism or selfishness. They are opposite moral principles for action, and so declare various motives or purposes for action good or bad. In this context, "good" will mean "assigning moral value correctly" to a motive for actions. Because they are opposite in the purpose they declare good, if one is correct, the other is not, and so one is "good" and the other "bad". If one has mixed motives, then one will be partly good, partly bad, under either principle. This is necessarily poorer than being good (under whichever principle is correct). ---------------- When I say "human nature", I mean exactly those qualities that humans have in common, and which they cannot really change. The important aspects of human nature are summed up in the description "rational animal". It is fundamental that humans are living creatures, with the needs of such creatures, and that they have minds, which also have requirements, and which happen to be the fundamental means of their human survival. One aspect of the human mind is that it is independently conscious - humans do not have a "hive mind", as has been proposed for alien species in SF. Thus, it would be wrong to *demand* things of the mind that only a hive mind could accept - such as sacrificing one's life for the good of the hive. In the hive mind, this is supposed to be no real lose - either there never was an individual mind in the body being killed, or the individual mind can live on in the bodies of others. This is not possible in humans. ------------------ I wrote the note on Ayn Rand's stories in response to a comment - I do not see how your comment "leaving aside your slavish devotion to Rand..." is relevant. Nor is it true - I do not agree with Rand at all points, and I certainly dont accept her work on a "mental slavery" basis. I do respect her work greatly, however. ----------------- I did not lump "mystic" and "altruistic" together - rather, I lumped them in individually with "irrational". I assume that you are objecting to my lumping altruistic, rather than mystic? If selfishness is rational (as I have presented in prior notes), and altruism is the opposite of selfishness (established in my "definitions" note), then altruism cannot be rational. If it were somehow neutral to selfishness, it might be "non-rational", but in fact, it opposes selfishness, and so opposes rationality. Hence, irrational. (By the way, a case could be made for lumping altruism and mysticism - if altruism cannot be justified rationally within reality, it requires justification from "outside" reality - IE from mysticism. Note that I am not trying to make this case here.) ---------------- Soviet Russia's version of altruism is "serve the state, *because* it serves all people" - in effect, surrogate altruism. That is the principle, but of course, in practice, altruism is not practical, and so the Russian people are not well served by the state. (Note that you appear to be making an implicit assumption "the Soviets are bad, so how could they be considered altruistic (IE good)". Perhaps you had something else in mind?) The important aspects of the Soviet political philosophy are its demands that individuals sacrifice for the good of others, and its opposition to self- interested actions. --------------- You ask that I give and example of the "all" other modern philosophies that are "anti-mind/anti-life". I admit that I made an unwarranted statement - on hearsay. I will retract the statement, conditional upon your presentation of another modern philosophy that is not anti-mind/ anti-life - but remember that I consider altruism and mysticism irrational, and hence anti-mind/ anti-life. (Note that my supplying an example of an anti-mind/anti-life philosophy would not prove my statement. However, an example...) Pragmatism is the idea that one should do anything that "works" - IE that achieves one's goals. However, it leaves out the questions "what goals are moral?", and "are there methods that are immoral of themselves?" Or, if you prefer, they are answered "any that one chooses" and "no - all are moral if they are the most effective means to an end". This is anti-life, because it doesnt respect the right to human life, freedom, etc, if those should get in the way. Utilitarianism starts at "humans have needs" and jumps to the conclusion "it is moral to maximize human good, which means fulfilling human needs (greatest good for greatest number)". It is allowable to steam- roller individual lives/minds at any point in this quest. Of course the question arises - who gets to determine what is the greatest good for the greatest number? The answer is generally either "the majority", or else "the squeakest wheels (the PAC's)". ---------------- You *must* not not have seen my prior notes on selfishness and rights! Briefly, the most fundamental right is the right to one's *own* *human* life, at no one's expense but one's self. Derived from this right, and from the nature of the human mind (which is required to support that right), is the right to freedom - physical and mental. Similarly, because humans need material things to survive, one has a right to property. The right to property can alternatively be derived by considering that one has a right to life, and that one expends one's life to create or gain property - so that property is "stored up life". This is *not* merely metaphorical - consider what one's savings mean to one when one becomes too old to work! (You could read "the Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism - the Unknown Ideal" for a full exposition.) ---------------------- You claim that it is an unfounded conclusion that "there is no area of human life that one's mind cannot consider". You give contemplating a symphony or weeds in a garden as examples. Simplistically, what do you contemplate with, if not your mind? More directly, you can learn about music, to increase your appreciation of what you hear. You can use your mind in learning an instrument, to appreciate the artistry and difficulty involved. For the weeds, you can consider what you wish to do about them, and why, and what is the best means of accomplishing that. Generally, I support the original statement by saying that there is little that one *can* do without one's rational mind, and nothing that cannot be done better if one uses one's rational mind to understand the factors involved. --------------------- To rank a nation as to altruism, determine the fundamental degree of altruism of its political system (which is generally in fair accord with it's philosophical ideas, or it would not last long). It is the political system that determines the general state of the nation. Altruism is not socialism, but socialism is based on altruism. --------------------- I did not say that bad results made a system bad - but that bad results do indicate a bad system. Consistently bad results are almost certain evidence of a bad system. If one believes a system is good, anyway, "how could the system be good, and still have these bad results?" is exactly the question that it is important to answer. -------------------- Perhaps the problem you have with my statement about capitalism and victims arises from a difference in understanding on the definition. On the other hand, you did not comment on my statement that capitalism requires respecting others rights to life, freedom, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Within the context of assuming you accepted that, I will address your examples. The boys joining ROTC seems to have nothing to do with capitalism - rather, it sounds like nationalism or patriotism. And even so, why do you assume that the boys are responsible for their father? You did not mention any agreement between them. The only conclusion I can draw is that the father did not provide adequately for his future - EG with life insurance (on the boys perhaps?). We discussed the issue of monopolies in net.politics. A coercive monopoly (where people are forced to deal with one) can only be had with government backing - which would not be available under laissez-faire capitalism. Why does the person in need of money have to come to you, rather than to someone else who pays better, or to work for themselves? Under the principles required for capitalism, one cannot morally or legally rob others. The fact that it (robbery?) happens "every day" is no evidence - we do not live in a laissez-faire capitalist nation or world. Thieves are not capitalists, and would not be such even in a purely capitalistic nation. The essence of capitalism in action is "savings and investment for future gains". -------------- My comment about Objectivism asserting the value of man was not addressed to you or your philosophy. It was addressed specifically to Christianity. I believe I made the stated point, with regard to Christianity. I would be willing to consider your equivalent statement, for the philosophy you believe exceeds Objectivism's claim on respect for man, given that you would care to make the statement. Tom Craver houti!trc