Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!dadla!dadla-b!hutch From: hutch@dadla-b.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics,net.philosophy Subject: Re: TC's altruism Message-ID: <497@dadla-b.UUCP> Date: Fri, 22-Jul-83 14:08:17 EDT Article-I.D.: dadla-b.497 Posted: Fri Jul 22 14:08:17 1983 Date-Received: Sat, 23-Jul-83 17:40:39 EDT Lines: 77 In reply to Tom Craver on Altruism - Tom, you weaken your argument (which is interesting but holds several fallacies) by attributing qualities to Christianity which are NOT there. I quote: Consider what most Christian churches preach - that one is naturally a "sinner" (IE selfish), and one can only achieve salvation by a undeserved *gift* from God, and that that God declares that we are only good when we do good for others. Your quote contradicts itself. I will delve very briefly into the theology you misinterpret. Sin is not "selfishness". Sin is rebellion against God, who is understood by Christians (whether you LIKE the notion or not) to KNOW what is the best thing for each person, and to desire that each person HAS this thing. By rebellion one ABANDONS selfishness in its only positive form. The statement that God declares us good only when we do good for others directly contradicts the first half of the sentence, wherein you correctly state that salvation is achieved by an undeserved GIFT. The only thing which Christians believe God to have said, regarding what He considers good, is that NO man is good, unless the rebellion (sin) has been repaired by the willful acceptance of the gift of salvation. You make similar generalizations about government, the institutions of higher learning, and "society in general". These are incomplete generalizations (which is my primary gripe with them) and the qualities you selected are offset by other factors. For instance, although there is a strong push in universities reminding people to be of service to others, the subject matter and attitudes of (in my experience) the majority of teachers and schools in a given university also emphasize maximizing personal gains. AS for the other fallacies: Benevolence does not exclude doing things to one's own benefit. It does seem to exclude doing things to one's own benefit when those things are to the immediate detriment of others. Altruism as a PHILOSOPHY may correspond to Ayn Rand's definition, but as an adjunct to a system where morals are in place, it becomes an important and useful tool. Clearly it is insufficient in itself to define morals since the definitions of benefit and detriment can, for any person, only be based on their own experience, and this is clearly both incomplete and unreliable without an externally supplemented set of definitions (which are a major part of a set of moral values). Benefit to others was NEVER sufficient condition for any action to be considered moral. Nor is benefit to SELF, since there is no way to tell whether any given act is, in the long run, beneficial or detrimental to oneself. The assertion that either is sufficient has not been made, and to try to refute morality (which is heuristic in practice) on the basis of that assertion is called a "straw man". As for your assertions about a Creator, how would you the creation be able to judge the consistency of the creation? You can clearly discern APPARENT contradictions. However, unless you can encompass the whole of creation you cannot determine its consistency. Since your "contradictions" with regards to altruism are largely due to your definition of those concepts, it is invalid to try to apply them to the universe at large. In conclusion, your argument stems largely from a tendency to try to take a complex and fuzzy notion, to strip away those parts of it which you decide are not relevant (thereby introducing contradiction), and then to use that introduced contradiction to try to confute other, unrelated assertions. Lest it seem that I am trying to roast you over a high flame, be assured that I found it very hard to find the weaknesses in your argument. The depth of thought and deliberation is somewhat above the majority of the submissions. I will probably enjoy your rebuttal if it is as good as the oroginal. Steve Hutchison Tektronix Logic Analyzers