Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand's derivation of her ethics
Message-ID: <1203@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 14:43:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1203
Posted: Fri Jul 12 14:43:24 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 13:25:34 EDT
References: <787@umcp-cs.UUCP> <3978@alice.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 66
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2038 net.politics.theory:890

>>More to the point of arguing against so-called "Objectivist"
>>ethics, a person might rationally say "my brother's life is
>>worth enhancing independently of the effect on myself, and there
>>is some level of benefit for him such that, to achieve it, I would
>>forgo all future benefits to myself".   Call it altruism (def.?) or 
>>humanitarianism or whatever, when this kind of thinking is applied
>>to all people (not just one's relations) it seems to bother Rand
>>et. al. a great deal.  (Actually, Rand's villains (try to?) care 
>>ONLY about others and NOT about themselves; she never considers
>>the possibility that one might care about both -- again Rand 
>>represents as binary a choice that is multiple.)

> I do not think Rand had any desire to prevent individuals from
> believing they are the least important people in the world.
> I expect she would hold that belief to be mistaken.
> What she unfailingly denounced as evil is the common consequence
> of that belief:  people who say "I believe that everyone else's
> life is more important to me than my own.  Therefore, YOU should
> believe that everyone else's life is more important to you than
> your own."  THAT is the view of her villains.

What irks me here is the seeming black-and-white dichotomy I seem to
hear here.  Either you're the least important person in the world or
the most important.  How about JUST as important as anybody else?
Granted, you want your own self-interests to be taken care of, but do
you define your self-interest to be so much more important than that
of someone else that you take care of it at the other person's
expense?  One thing seemingly forgotten is the fact that no matter how
much you claim to be self-sufficient, you still live in a world with other
human beings, and that only through cooperation can real long term survival
be ensured and maximized.  (Hofstadter is supposed to have shown empirically
that such cooperation is best in one of the articles he reprinted in
Metamagical Themas, but I've yet to read that.)

> In several places, she said that it is entirely rational that you
> might value another person so much that you would be willing to
> do anything for that other person.  But to so value people you have
> never met?  That you don't even know exist?
> Scrimping and saving to put your kids through college is not a
> sacrifice.  Giving everything you own to a bum on the street is.

Again, it's not as simple as "do anything" or "do nothing".  Who says it's
not a sacrifice?  It sure as hell is!  But one you willingly choose to
make because you want to.  Most people seem to forget that love is that
sort of investment in another person:  you trust them or care for them
enough that you put in that investment or sacrifice, knowing that you'll
get it back (maybe even tenfold!) in return, either through similar
investment and sacrifice on the other person's part, or just through the
sheer force of pleasure you receive from their company/existence.  Of course,
some people make such sacrifices with no hope of a "return" on their
investment.  Who is any of us to say that that's wrong? (Unless of course
it's emotionally damaging.)  By that same token, who is any of us to claim
that it's wrong or misguided when one does the same thing for someone who's
just a fellow human being, not expecting a return?  Again, in the case of
the bum, it may be a bad investment, a case of poor judgment (the bum may
spend it all on booze or some other such horrible thing); but just as often
it may be a case of good judgment.  The recognition of interdependence
among human beings may certainly lead one to do such things, and to gain
positive results from them.

If you get something emotionally, spiritually, or (perhaps in the long term)
economically from performing an altruistic, then you gain from it, and thus
you are being selfish!  Tell THAT to Ayn Rand...  (I know, I know.)
-- 
Like a bourbon?  (HIC!)  Drunk for the very first time...
			Rich Rosen   ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr