Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!dr_who
From: dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.philosophy
Subject: TC's altruism
Message-ID: <1113@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 24-Jul-83 05:18:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1113
Posted: Sun Jul 24 05:18:34 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Jul-83 10:17:32 EDT
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 48

Well, I checked two (out-of-date) dictionaries so far on "altruism," and one
agreed with Tom and the other with me.  The former said altruism was
sacrifice of self in the interests of others; the latter said it was regard
for the interests of others (not necessarily EXCLUSIVE regard, mind you).  
Neither one said anything about moral beliefs being necessary for altruism.

I wish Tom would reply personally to my altruism article of July 18th.
Particularly:  "Objectivism says (doesn't it?) that the ONLY REASON to care 
for others is to get benefits for oneself."

Anyway, quibbling over words is pointless.  Does Tom have anything against
altruism-Torek-style (roughly equivalent to benevolence)?  Let me say that 
I AGREE that altruism-Craver-style is a bad thing!  And OK, it's not entirely 
a straw man, insofar as some people actually do think that way.

Just what do we disagree about?

Why do you insist on your definition, Tom?  Won't you allow us the
possibility of a middle ground between selfishness and True Altruism?  Let 
me outline my own position to give you an example (not the ONLY example!).

I'm a Utilitarian with some difference from Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart
Mill.  My version of Utilitarianism is close to that advocated by Richard
Brandt in *The Theory of the Good and the Right*, although we hold the same
view for different reasons.  Utilitarianism is an unfortunate name; a better
one might be Universalism.  The way I see it, Utilitarianism is the
combination of two views.  First, the only intrinsically valuable things are
those that constitute the welfare or happiness of beings.  Second, the right
thing to do is to try to maximize the total happiness or welfare of all
beings; the welfare of every individual should count equally in the "utility
function".  The second principle essentially says that one should care BOTH
for oneself and for others.  One way to explain this is to say that a
selfish person, who knew that he would have to live each and every life in
the history and future of the universe, would act like a Utilitarian.

Variations on Utilitarianism are possible depending on what is specified as
constituting an individual's welfare, and on how one should try to maximize
this welfare.  Also, just how wide is the class of beings whose welfare
counts.  Some say only those in your society, others say humans, others 
(including myself) say all sentient beings.

Let me repeat that one need not be a Utilitarian to refuse to choose between
the extremes of Objectivism or True Altruism.  I only described that position 
because I hold it and because it is a simple example.  The basis in reality
for my own position is that others are just as real as you, and their good
and bad experiences are just as important as yours are.

--Paul Torek, U of MD College Park