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