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