Stillbirth of reason: Altruism


eva matthews

Recommended Posts

Here's an article from the Stillborn site by 'Rowlands' that offers the party line on 'altruism'.my response follows.

Since OL readers more or less agree on the 2500 year old truth that philosophy is about open discussion rather than a postured, pre-labeled dissent or agreement, you might find this interestingly amusing.....

Altruism Against Freedom
by Joseph Rowlands

Politics is a branch of ethics. It is defined by the ethical system at its root. You can't just pick and choose ethical standards and political systems. Some are necessarily incompatible, and others are mutually reinforcing. The combination I want to focus on is the political system of liberty and the ethics of altruism.

Altruism is the ethical system that holds the well-being of others as the standard of good. Your actions are moral to the extent that you benefit other people. This can be seen clearly by the use of the phrase "good deed". Taken literally, it means an action or achievement that is morally praiseworthy. But in the conventional sense, which is dominated by the ethics of altruism, it only applies to actions taken in order to help other people. A good deed is helping an old lady cross the street, not learning a new skill.

Under altruism, your own happiness and well-being come last. There's nothing morally praiseworthy about getting an education, or making money, or starting a business, or increases prices to raise your own profits. Further, your motivations are considered suspect if you benefit from the actions at all. The ends result is that the only morally good actions are those that benefits others at the expense of yourself.

So is individual liberty supported by altruism? If it is, what are the qualifications? How principled is the position, and how secure is the conclusion? Does it support violations of rights as well? And is it fundamentally compatible with freedom?

The first question to answer is how altruism allegedly supports freedom. How can a system of self-sacrifice lead to a system of individual liberty?

The first possibility is that if freedom leads to prosperity, it could be considered good for others. Notice that this is not a principled support of liberty, though. There's nothing about freedom itself that is being supported in this example. Freedom is just a means to the prosperity. It's at best a partial defense of freedom, and only to the extent you can prove that it will lead to prosperity. Social freedoms, for instance, would not be justified here. Even economic freedoms would hinge on the debate over whether freedom leads to prosperity. It is not a principled position. If you could help people through the use of force, this argument for freedom couldn't stand in the way.

There are other problems here worth noting. For instance, what happens if some people cannot make a decent living under a system of individual liberty. Or what if they choose not to? In both cases, freedom would have to be violated. Once you start with the assumption that everyone has a right to be fed, freedom is a luxury you won't be able to afford.

Furthermore, freedom does often lead to prosperity, but only because when people pursue their own interests in a free-market, others benefit from it. If you assume a system where everyone is acting self-sacrificially, is the assumption about prosperity true any longer? And is it moral to have a society that encourages and allows the rewarding of self-interested behavior? Altruism would seem to be in conflict with a society based on liberty.

What about the fact that altruism is about self-sacrifice, and that hurts the people the practice it consistently. Reality doesn't reward self-sacrificial behavior, it punishes it. Governments have usually stepped in to remedy this metaphysical 'oversight'. Again, freedom and altruism are opposed.

Of course, if making people well off was the goal, the altruist should preach rational self-interest to everyone else. Instead, the focus is on self-sacrificial action. The extent to which you help someone is not the extent to which an action is morally praiseworthy. The degree to which you sacrifice is. A poor man who gives every cent to charity is a better than a billionaire who gives twice that (but still just a fraction of his wealth).

So this justification through prosperity is not really supported by altruism. What's really important under altruism is that people sacrifice themselves for others. It's the means that are important, not the ends.

This brings us to the second possible justification for freedom under altruism. Morality requires choice. Freedom is a necessary requirement for real moral action. Does this hold up to scrutiny? Is it a solid defense against invasions of liberty? The answer is no. Although it may be true that you need freedom to act morally, there is no reason others should respect your rights under a system of altruism. If they believe violating your rights will help you or others, they have no moral reason to not violate your rights.

Altruism fails to support liberty in another respect. Since altruism is a code of action that is judged entirely by the result of other people, your own individual rights are unprotected. If someone want to initiate force against you, how can you justify using defensive force to protect yourself? Your own well-being is secondary to everyone else. Even if you recognized that you have rights, it would call for you to sacrifice them for the benefit of others. A system where people can't morally assert their rights can hardly be considered a system of secure individual rights.

Along these lines, if the violence against you is in the name of helping someone else, you're doubly disarmed. In an example of a man mugging you for his relatives, your defensive actions would not only hurt the thug attacking you, but whoever he is intending to share the loot with. This would be considered an appropriate use of force within an altruistic society. Once again, altruism is opposed to liberty.

The conclusion is that altruism is not a firm foundation for liberty. The support for freedom is at best partial and tenuous. In addition, it is compatible with violations of rights if done to benefit someone else. In fact, because it starts with the premise that others must be helped, it easily comes to oppose freedom directly. Further, your own rights cannot be asserted or defended on moral grounds.

It should be obvious that we need a moral revolution if we're ever going to have a lasting political revolution.

...........................................................................................................................................

Response by Eva Matthews

>>>>Politics is a branch of ethics. It is defined by the ethical system at its root<<<<

Only if you stretch 'ethics' to include an exotic, pragmatic means version of Utlitarianism. In other words, I can easily define the US Constitution to mean , "Because the ends of life are incommensurate, all we can do is to devise, politically speaking, a useful, user-friendly format upon which citizens might peacefully debate and decide which ends serve them best".

In this document, no ethical 'good' is prioritized as an end. All we can hope for is a usable "means".

The 'system' is moral to the extent that it allows full expression of divergent ends that its citizens clearly possess.

In passing, those who desire to find an ethical end within the constitution are normally found on the usual Founding Father easter-egg hunt, thereby uncovering such nuggets of profundity as 'Govern best=govern least!!" Or, 'We love liberty! 'Self-evident truths!"

Governing least means leaving our slave prop-tee alone, we love our own liberty, we were just kidding about equal creation.

>>>Altruism is the ethical system that holds the well-being of others as the standard of good.<<<

I've never heard of altruism being called a 'system'. Rather, it's a personal ethical reflection that says we should help the needy. How this might get morphed into a 'system' is beyond my comprehension because it's never happened, anywhere, at any time. Is this some sort of a straw dog?

So thank you, Michael, for having pointed out the Kantian observation that we are hard-wired for altuism, based upon an innate empathy. So I suppose this is why he was called a 'witch-doctor?

That being the psychological case, I would suggest that it would give bullshit a bad name to argue out philosophical principles that are not grounded in what we know of human behavior and motivation. In other words, philosophy must reconcile itself with pysychology.

Kant, for his part, would have returned the witchdoctor barb of Rand by simply labeling her a sociopath. In the Critique of Practical Reason, he makes it clear as to why we are all innately altruistic--hence,, the basis of obligation to others as categorical. then, there are the exceptions....

For his part, 'Harry', another Randian acolyte, is capable as well of complete misunderstanding of psy 101. After all , as I noted on OL, he totally fucked up 'perception' and sensation'. So expect anything from someone who can't even get the psychobabble right. My point here,of course, is that fundamental ignorance of human psychology seems retrofitted into a dogmatic understanding of rand.

Of course to say we're hard-wired for altruism doesn't exclude that we're wired for greed, too. This, I suppose, it what permits us to fight it out and assess 'merit' and 'deserving' of assistance--in other words, the truly needy by whatever standard.

In this sense, the political system of need is really a negotiated middle--ostensibly not the struggle of opposites because each of us has two sides to begin with. So no, you can't realistically say that you're against altruism, because it's a part of who you are.

The best outcome, then, is to understand that others will employ your altruistic side against your own self-interest.

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I could list quite a few items that are "hard-wired" into us- AND give a pleasurable kick- that are not quite so 'nice'. But the categorical imperative might be to select only the one, not the others, I'm guessing.
Is that the trick? How, or by what standards, is another matter.


But I feel this all skims the surface of 'altruism'. It deals with the consequences of it. The freedom from 'charity without choice', as I sort of consider it, is of course crucial to freedom. But as long as the true meaning of "self-sacrifice" is only perceived as sacrifice of the *products* of the mind, by force or even choice, in the political and social arena, it seems to me we miss the mark.

What precedes that, what makes the rest possible, is sacrifice of the mind. SELF sacrifice.
If not made clear, it's too easy for Rand's naysayers to claim she (or Objectivism) was heartless and inhuman - or descriptions to that effect. Straw man, deluxe.

Her words on altruism (which can't be repeated enough):

"Altruism is ...abnegation of the mind..."

and,

"The true opposite and enemy of altruism is not selfishness, it is independence."

Some might prefer the warm feeling of doing good for others and pretending it's virtuous, to impress themselves and the world.
I would prefer "independent minds", the original-thinking men and women all around me, those who also -though secondarily- benefit me and everyone else by their existence and activity - and -- who know the real meaning of helping their neighbor, too.

"Who we are" is plenty more than psychology and hard wiring - and no Objectivist that I've heard denies those either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's great that you want to discuss this topic, Eva, but I, for one, will publicly say that I don't appreciate the manner in which you introduced it. The tone and direction of RoR is quite different from OL, that's true. That's a good thing, though, as it means that we have options for where we hang our objectivish hats. However, just as there are people here who should be respected, there are also people there who should be respected. You are not respecting any of us by bringing your bitter feelings from there over here and spreading them around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have my differences with Rowlands, and I don't use the approach he installed there because I don't like it, but RoR is a forum where freedom values are promoted (without the lunacy and bloodlust of Perigo's operation), and some very good people I like post there, so I think it is a good thing RoR exists.

Eva's pissed because she got restricted to the dissent forum.

If it is any consolation to Eva, I, too, am restricted to the dissent forum over there. This happened a long time ago, and I no longer participate in that distinguished venue, but Ms. Eva and I are in the same RoR boat.

Ain't that sumpin'?

They say rejection hurts...

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have my differences with Rowlands, and I don't use the approach he installed there because I don't like it, but RoR is a forum where freedom values are promoted (without the lunacy and bloodlust of Perigo's operation), and some very good people I like post there, so I think it is a good thing RoR exists.

Eva's pissed because she got restricted to the dissent forum.

If it is any consolation to Eva, I, too, am restricted to the dissent forum over there. This happened a long time ago, and I no longer participate in that distinguished venue, but Ms. Eva and I are in the same RoR boat.

Ain't that sumpin'?

They say rejection hurts...

:smile:

Michael

Kindly note, Michael, that I began posting on your forum at the same time that i was active over at SoR. My choice is to post with you because the people here are intelligent, sensible, and tolerate disagreement. They are not. A former member of SoR called them a bunch of 'fissiles'..

In short, i was not aware that I had been kicked over to 'dissent', nor do I care. I would assume, moreover, that I was placed in dissent because I had chosen to post at OL, instead.

Re Rowlands: in short, he's nothing but a hopeless randite regurgitator of banal dogma-- as my reply indicates. He's moreover precisely the type who would even have a 'dissent' posting category to begin with.

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's great that you want to discuss this topic, Eva, but I, for one, will publicly say that I don't appreciate the manner in which you introduced it. The tone and direction of RoR is quite different from OL, that's true. That's a good thing, though, as it means that we have options for where we hang our objectivish hats. However, just as there are people here who should be respected, there are also people there who should be respected. You are not respecting any of us by bringing your bitter feelings from there over here and spreading them around.

We can safely say that you object to my sobriquet, 'Stillbirth of Reason', yes?

But no, it's not a 'good thing' to have a 'tone and direction' that resembles nothing more than testosterone freaks fishing with their hands. Or rather, do you seriously think that comparing high taxes to gang rape is indicative of anything othe than that? Perhaps you're blind to this-- offering them quid pro quo sympathy because of political sympathys?

I stayed over there 'till i found you.guys. Kindly, therefore, offer me names of 'respected' people to whom I might apologize. I can name one: Machan.

He's free to write; I'll sincerelly tell him that he, of all people should not associate whith such low-lifes. Otherwise, yes, i adore his stuff...

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I detect butthurt. You were very much aware of being sent to dissent as you were incessantly posting and attacking everyone at RoR that engaged you. So to feign ignorance of that fact I would have to call BULLSHIT. You started posting here AFTER Baratheon suggested you go here. (Baratheon btw was told in a polite way to STOP slamming MSK for being banned here and rightly so.)

I enjoy both places.

Signed: Fissile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could list quite a few items that are "hard-wired" into us- AND give a pleasurable kick- that are not quite so 'nice'. But the categorical imperative might be to select only the one, not the others, I'm guessing.

Is that the trick? How, or by what standards, is another matter.

But I feel this all skims the surface of 'altruism'. It deals with the consequences of it. The freedom from 'charity without choice', as I sort of consider it, is of course crucial to freedom. But as long as the true meaning of "self-sacrifice" is only perceived as sacrifice of the *products* of the mind, by force or choice, in the political and social arena, it seems to me we miss the mark.

What precedes that, what makes the rest possible, is sacrifice of the mind. SELF sacrifice.

If not made clear, it's too easy for Rand's naysayers to claim she (or Objectivism) was heartless and inhuman - or descriptions to that effect. Straw man, deluxe.

Her words on altruism (which can't be repeated enough):

"Altruism is ...abnegation of the mind..."

and,

"The true opposite and enemy of altruism is not selfishness, it is independence."

Some might prefer the warm feeling of doing good for others and pretending it's virtuous, to impress themselves and the world.

I would prefer "independent minds", the original-thinking men and women all around me, those who also -though secondarily- benefit me and everyone else by their existence and activity - and -- who know the real meaning of helping their neighbor, too.

"Who we are" is plenty more than psychology and hard wiring - and no Objectivist that I've heard denies those either.

I could list quite a few items that are "hard-wired" into us- AND give a pleasurable kick- that are not quite so 'nice'. But the categorical imperative might be to select only the one, not the others, I'm guessing.

Is that the trick? How, or by what standards, is another matter.

But I feel this all skims the surface of 'altruism'. It deals with the consequences of it. The freedom from 'charity without choice', as I sort of consider it, is of course crucial to freedom. But as long as the true meaning of "self-sacrifice" is only perceived as sacrifice of the *products* of the mind, by force or choice, in the political and social arena, it seems to me we miss the mark.

What precedes that, what makes the rest possible, is sacrifice of the mind. SELF sacrifice.

If not made clear, it's too easy for Rand's naysayers to claim she (or Objectivism) was heartless and inhuman - or descriptions to that effect. Straw man, deluxe.

Her words on altruism (which can't be repeated enough):

"Altruism is ...abnegation of the mind..."

and,

"The true opposite and enemy of altruism is not selfishness, it is independence."

Some might prefer the warm feeling of doing good for others and pretending it's virtuous, to impress themselves and the world.

I would prefer "independent minds", the original-thinking men and women all around me, those who also -though secondarily- benefit me and everyone else by their existence and activity - and -- who know the real meaning of helping their neighbor, too.

"Who we are" is plenty more than psychology and hard wiring - and no Objectivist that I've heard denies those either.

The orthodox randian position says that religion is the cause of altruism through its teachings. Otherwise, humans would express their natural self-interest.To this extent, religion is said to work against reason.

OTH, the socio-anthropological position states that all religions ultimately refer back to a larger belief -system of a particular culture. Religion just expressews the altruism that's codified into 'correct; behavior. In other words, we're generally altruistic in ways that correspond to what society expects of us..

Yet Rowlands, perhaps following Rand, claims altruism to be an 'ethical system' --as if a person actually had to choose helping others or helping themself.on a 'philosophical' basis! Surely, the incoherence of this position would give any philosophy so claiming a reputation for infantalist reducto ad absurdam...

But how would Rowlands possibly know that? after all, he goes on to describe an altruistic 'system'....say what? Well, again, within any society, there are ways to be altruistic, and ways to be individualistic, both ostensibly meeting with approval. No society has ever been 'systemically' one or the other.

My hard-wire point is that altruism is simply part of who we are, at least for the most part..Yet certain crazies who were known to verbally abuse a taciturn Hayek in public might want to convince others that altruism is only a 'non-objective' falsehood, because that's who she was. By consequence, she spawned groups who behaved in the same manner.

So if altruism is hard-wired (and not trivialized into an items list), we would say that it must be a part of any ethical system. Our personal ethical system is how we adjudicate the personal and the public on a scalar: what we feel that we owe others to what we owe ourselves?

Rand & Rowlands devise an either/or scenario that cannot possibly correspond to real life senatrios and decisions. In other words, to sane, reasonable people, the issue of studying or helping an old lady cross the street is not a philosphica l questions of absolutes. Rather, an existential decison upon which we might later ask, Did I do the right thing?

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an example of altruism gone into overdrive.

The standard view of Nazism is that the root of the Nazi atrocities was an excess of certainty and selfishness, which gave the Nazis the confidence to impose their interests by force. In reality, even a cursory examination of Nazi propaganda shows us the opposite. Rather than advocating of rational certainty, the Nazis were dogmatic subjectivists--Hermann Goering famously declared that "two plus two makes five if the Fuhrer wills it" -- which inspired their hatred of the mind and their worship of brute force. (An Italian Fascist would declare that "when I hear the word 'culture,' I release the safety catch on my revolver.") And as for self-interest, the Nazis were thoroughgoing collectivists, who held that the interests of the individual must be ruthlessly sacrificed to the interests of the race. Hitler declared "Du bist nichts, dein Volk ist alles" -- "you are nothing, your race is everything."

Full article is here.

http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.ca/2005/11/kristallnacht-of-altruist-nazis.html?m=1

While I do not necessarily agree with the multicultural aspects he is correct about the Nazi altruist mentality. It was their DUTY to sacrifice their own desires no matter what the cost in service to the fatherland...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>Altruism is the ethical system that holds the well-being of others as the standard of good.<<<

I've never heard of altruism being called a 'system'. Rather, it's a personal ethical reflection that says we should help the needy. How this might get morphed into a 'system' is beyond my comprehension because it's never happened, anywhere, at any time. Is this some sort of a straw dog?

[snip]

Of course to say we're hard-wired for altruism doesn't exclude that we're wired for greed, too. This, I suppose, it what permits us to fight it out and assess 'merit' and 'deserving' of assistance--in other words, the truly needy by whatever standard.

In this sense, the political system of need is really a negotiated middle--ostensibly not the struggle of opposites because each of us has two sides to begin with. So no, you can't realistically say that you're against altruism, because it's a part of who you are.

A better word than system would be doctrine, but Rowland's using system is not unprecedented -- link. Indeed, Rowlands, like Rand, used altruism to mean what Auguste Comte, who coined the word, did. So it is not a straw dog and your meaning of altruism above is beside the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>Altruism is the ethical system that holds the well-being of others as the standard of good.<<<

I've never heard of altruism being called a 'system'. Rather, it's a personal ethical reflection that says we should help the needy. How this might get morphed into a 'system' is beyond my comprehension because it's never happened, anywhere, at any time. Is this some sort of a straw dog?

[snip]

Of course to say we're hard-wired for altruism doesn't exclude that we're wired for greed, too. This, I suppose, it what permits us to fight it out and assess 'merit' and 'deserving' of assistance--in other words, the truly needy by whatever standard.

In this sense, the political system of need is really a negotiated middle--ostensibly not the struggle of opposites because each of us has two sides to begin with. So no, you can't realistically say that you're against altruism, because it's a part of who you are.

A better word than system would be doctrine, but Rowland's using system is not unprecedented -- link. Indeed, Rowlands, like Rand, used altruism to mean what Auguste Comte, who coined the word, did. So it is not a straw dog and your meaning of altruism above is beside the point.

If the SoR capo can't get his words right that's not my problem. A system is not a doctrine; doctrine isn't a 'better word'. My disgust with you peeple, in any case, is that words over there mean exactly what you want them to mean at the time that you say them.

OTH, to Rand's credit, she always sought clarity. My personal feeling is that while she'd have argued with me in public (and I back to her!), behind your backs she'd be calling you a bunch of useful flunkeys.

So if you and i agree that, historically speaking, Comte wrote of the doctrine of altruism as the glue that holds society together, we're still at odds with the meaning of Rowlands, who sniffs up the bitche's tail. Rand clearly wrote that societies can hold only one ethical system, which involves choosing selfishness or altruism.

My point is that to accept the observation of Comte drives a stake into the heart of the egoist bloodsucker. According to him, we cannot possibly reap the benefits of a society without a 'doctrine' that involves mutual support. That I agree is simply a matter of common-sense.

In other words, working societies are not either-or affairs. Rather, they've found the practical solution of combining elements of both alturism and self-interest. Conjuring up an either-or 'philosophy' that says that on a metaphysical level one must choose between the two is doing nothing but giving bullshit a bad name.

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before anyone goes soft on Comte, remember he's the guy who wrote that each infant born, is born into 'service'. As it is right and proper that he should be.

How altruism ever gained its connotation of 'the good' is beyond me. Not knowing its origin, bad premises, bad thinking - and selective, subjective thinking- is my estimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before anyone goes soft on Comte, remember he's the guy who wrote that each infant born, is born into 'service'. As it is right and proper that he should be.

How altruism ever gained its connotation of 'the good' is beyond me. Not knowing its origin, bad premises, bad thinking - and selective, subjective thinking- is my estimate.

Comte was just writing like the father-figure of modern sociology that he was. The 'service' of which he speaks is the network of obligations that envelop him/her from the day of birth.

Born Hungarian or Greek, etc, the neonate will learn how to speak, act and understand greek-ness, hunrarian-ness, etc. As part of the regimen, he/she wil also learn how to be altruistic (when its proper to give), and what behavoral space is permitted for individual growth.

Rand is interesting because she stressed the importance of personal growth, or the becomming of an individual. Her fall-down is to have given an apriori assertion that the individual is 'primary', which clearly isn't the case (That she tosses in 'axiom' belabors the point).

Babies don't raise themselves, and it's absurd to speak of a philosophy that cuts against the grain of what we clearly understand to be reality. Even Hume's fork and Kant's transcendent speak of 'ought' as tangental to reality. Rand's does not because she has no idea of the reality of the social 'is' to begin with.

Making this fundamental error seem otherwise by gussying it up with philosophical-sounding prose is like putting lipstick on a pig.

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony wrote:

How altruism ever gained its connotation of 'the good' is beyond me. Not knowing its origin, bad premises, bad thinking - and selective, subjective thinking- is my estimate.

end quote

It may have started because of evolutionary reasons. I was just in a doctor’s office and read one of his health magazines, (since I started using anti snore tech at night I look younger according to the doc and my BP is 117 / 76, I never get sleepy during the day, and I have no blockage of the carotid artery though I am past retirement age.) In the article it mentioned a small study of 15 women with no children and 15 women with children. After being hooked up, ALL the women subjects were given an article of clothing worn by a two day old infant to SMELL. ALL 30 women’s endorphins rose dramatically making them feel good.

Eva wrote:

My hard-wire point is that altruism is simply part of who we are, at least for the most part.

end quote

My conclusion from that is: in older, evolutionarily active, times a clan’s members or tribe’s members were given a primitive version of “rights” by the elders, including the women. If babies are a value then family is a value, and extending that truism out, then the clan is of value and that may be the basis for *evolutionary altruism* which should probably be given a different name. Let’s reserve *altruism* for the philosophic and poorly thought out motivations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eva wrote:

In other words, to sane, reasonable people, the issue of studying or helping an old lady cross the street is not a philosophical questions of absolutes. Rather, an existential decision upon which we might later ask, Did I do the right thing?

end quote

Excellent thinking. Are compliments OK? I just got scolded for one. As I grow older I am more introspective, though not like in my earlier after pubescent years (why did I say that? Was she laughing at me? Oh no!) Rather I now think in a more, mostly rational way, about my past behavior and thinking. This may also have survival and evolutionary value if I teach my wisdom to the next generation.

I truly think Evolutionary Biology is objective, because it tackles “social issues” with the blinders off. ( I found the following and I think I wrote it.) I think of what we are talking about as Evolutionary Causality. Why are you here and not someone else? When a mother’s child is at risk of dying, but the child is saved, who does she bless? The person who saves her child. “Bless you for doing the right thing.”

Extended through the millennia forward, and extrapolated from hunter - gatherer epochs, until today, “Who is worthy? Who should feel self worth? Who should feel self-esteem?” The genome and the intellect, profoundly say, “Thanks!” to those forgotten heroes who saved my child. The intellect prays and honors, “Thank you, different human, off-kilter version of me, thank you. Because of you, I live on in my children.” My lineage lives on, simply because of you. I owe you my existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once crassly asked an Evolutionary Psychologist something, and had the following, remembered exchange, if gay people do not pass on their genes, why do they keep showing up . . . you know, why are they continually born? He answered, “Because they give humans an evolutionary advantage. Gay-ness is passed on because it is an advantage.”

An advantage? Bullshit! How? Are they smarter? Is just one of them so much smarter that it matters? But if they don’t pass on their genes, their “smartness” would only be an advantage for one or two generations. Right?

“Yes,” he replied. “There may be a higher incidence of genius in gays. Or not. Or their genius expressed in human society may mean more to the society. The advantage they pass on to humanity, is that they help take care of children in a primitive society, without being a competitor for mates.”

So they take care of the kids?

“More or less,” he said. “They may be hunters or scholars, but they gave an evolutionary advantage to the clan to which they belong. More kids survive when they are around.”

Jeez. Thanks, Man. Let me think about it. I think I understand.

end of old remembrance.

That is cool. They do not procreate but their genes are passed on by their brothers and sisters. This advantage is cleary JUST for conceptually thinking humans and not the reason for homosexual behavior and genetic longevity in the lower animal kingdoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The orthodox randian position says that religion is the cause of altruism through its teachings. Otherwise, humans would express their natural self-interest.To this extent, religion is said to work against reason.

OTH, the socio-anthropological position states that all religions ultimately refer back to a larger belief -system of a particular culture. Religion just expressews the altruism that's codified into 'correct; behavior. In other words, we're generally altruistic in ways that correspond to what society expects of us..

Yet Rowlands, perhaps following Rand, claims altruism to be an 'ethical system' --as if a person actually had to choose helping others or helping themself.on a 'philosophical' basis! Surely, the incoherence of this position would give any philosophy so claiming a reputation for infantalist reducto ad absurdam...

But how would Rowlands possibly know that? after all, he goes on to describe an altruistic 'system'....say what? Well, again, within any society, there are ways to be altruistic, and ways to be individualistic, both ostensibly meeting with approval. No society has ever been 'systemically' one or the other.

My hard-wire point is that altruism is simply part of who we are, at least for the most part..Yet certain crazies who were known to verbally abuse a taciturn Hayek in public might want to convince others that altruism is only a 'non-objective' falsehood, because that's who she was. By consequence, she spawned groups who behaved in the same manner.

So if altruism is hard-wired (and not trivialized into an items list), we would say that it must be a part of any ethical system. Our personal ethical system is how we adjudicate the personal and the public on a scalar: what we feel that we owe others to what we owe ourselves?

Rand & Rowlands devise an either/or scenario that cannot possibly correspond to real life senatrios and decisions. In other words, to sane, reasonable people, the issue of studying or helping an old lady cross the street is not a philosphica l questions of absolutes. Rather, an existential decison upon which we might later ask, Did I do the right thing?

EM

"...we're generally altruistic in ways that correspond to what society expects of us". [EM]

Who is "society"? What does he/she/it/them "expect of us"? What will be returned to us?

No matter: more importantly you have put your finger exactly on the independent mind, or rather its lack - in the doctrine of altruism. Your mind cannot be your own, iow(as the fore-runner or consequence of altruism).

So, the "either/or" (by Rand or Rowlands) is non-negotiable, and a true dichotomy: either it is one's own sovereign mind - or its partially owned by anyone and everyone else. Which will it be? Think about it.

The real false dichotomy lies somewhere else. With no mind/body duality acceptable in O'ism, nothing in man's nature (instincts, emotions - to rationality and convictions)should ever be in conflict with the remainder. The whole range of rational animal should be in accord with itself. It's for this, that man is hierarchical - by his concept-formation, as well as in each individual's value structure. Lose his hierarchical consciousness, and each man is adrift at the behest of all other men.

The "ethical system" you put forward as "simply part of who we are" appears biologically, socio-anthropologically and psychologically-based. That's the case of the tail wagging the dog. Science (generally) is informed by philosophy and ethics, not the reverse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eva said in #14

Born Hungarian or Greek, etc, the neonate will learn how to speak, act and understand greek-ness, hunrarian-ness, etc. As part of the regimen, he/she wil also learn how to be altruistic (when its proper to give), and what behavoral space is permitted for individual growth.

Modern Family( a show set in contemporary America, for those who do not watch tv) is a great show, wonderful writing and acting. One of the characters questioned whether or not it was cruel to have named an adoptee that was born in Vietnam "Lilly", the implication obviously being she may not be able to pronounce her own name correctly. They have openly gay characters , so they are alllowed to use use humor aimed at all stereotypes with impunity. Born Greek or learn to be Greek? Is culture hard wired or learned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tmj wrote:

Is culture hard wired or learned?

end quote

Obviously, you are answering your own question since, culture is not a genetic trait. I remember the controversy over one author’s calling the first humans “killer apes.” Since the first humans are generally considered to be Africans the phrase “killer apes” (of which he was fully aware) had racial overtones linked to the homeland of gorillas, from the low and highlands of Africa, and the darker skin and tropical noses of blacks made them look more like apes. And that leads to the supposition that racially black people may be more violent than other races, not just in public but within their families. Unfortunately, as a statistic that may also be true, unless cultural and economic influences are disregarded.

My wife and I had a shiver and a chuckle over a Progressive Insurance commercial in which a black lady comes barging in demanding to know: “Where is Flo. Are you Flo?” Look out Flo, she may have a knife! And then the commercial segues to her husband demanding a chainsaw from a performing street artist. “Give it to me! Come on!”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony wrote:

The real false dichotomy lies somewhere else. With no mind/body duality acceptable in O'ism, nothing in man's nature (instincts, emotions - to rationality and convictions) should ever be in conflict with the remainder.

end quote

I have a list of innate human traits somewhere and it is more extensive than Ayn Rand may have realized back in “her day.” But I agree, that conceptual thinking and rationality WILL, to a significant degree, overturn innate or culturally learned behaviors. In primitive, overcrowded areas with higher infant mortality and shorter times for procreation, evolution may be working at a faster pace, than in richer societies that provide a safety net.

That reminds me of one of Rand’s truly false dichotomies: a woman’s right to her own body means no human exists inside her – until it is born. I won’t dig into the issue but Rand was placing political rights as negating the facts of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before anyone goes soft on Comte, remember he's the guy who wrote that each infant born, is born into 'service'. As it is right and proper that he should be.

How altruism ever gained its connotation of 'the good' is beyond me. Not knowing its origin, bad premises, bad thinking - and selective, subjective thinking- is my estimate.

Comte was just writing like the father-figure of modern sociology that he was. The 'service' of which he speaks is the network of obligations that envelop him/her from the day of birth.

EM

Eva, This is unworthy of your undoubted intellect. A "network of obligations": to whom?

To his/her parents, sure- to some point or degree in the future.

From the extracts I've read of his, I think you are making the same error A.Comte made. i.e.

"See all this? Well, other people built it! To fit in, you must pay it back to the past, forwards to the future, and to anyone who 'needs' it presently."

It's the old story of the metaphysical 'given' and the man-made. In many ways they coincide or overlap.

A child born in New York City realises as he grows that it was all the doing of man -as individuals and voluntary groupings of individuals. But for all intents and purposes, NYC was then, and is still, a metaphysical 'given' to him as much as a mountain range.

As with his culture and language and so on.

Millions of individuals in concert or alone have 'given' to what we have today. To the ones we know of and value, is owed no more than our admiration and respect. Mostly, they're anonymous (as I for one will be one day).

However, I think it's their selfishness and independent minds to be most thanked:

Can you really believe they did it all for you or I?

Whether personally or in the abstract?

What network of obligations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following video shows the power of prewired empathy in the human brain. It's hard not to tear up when you watch it. The mirror neurons, sense of fairness, a feeling of saying no to suffering, wonder at the sheer decency of a man in a bad spot, and so on are firing on all levels in the brain. I know I teared up, but I'm a wuss about stuff like this.

It's a mistake to think this is what Rand meant by altruism.

But it's also a mistake to think this should be a higher value than productive heroism--which is what Rand's point is all about. When she says altruism, she means an ethics that promotes things like that video as the highest level of goodness mankind should aspire to, with productive achievement and concern with one's own life as incidental, if not a necessary evil.

When you believe that, when you think strong appeals to empathy (and/or biological altruism) are the more important side, that's where the bad guys grab you and manipulate you. And what they do has nothing to do with what nabbed you. It's sweet poison. You nibble at feel-good vibes, then get hooked into someone's power game (then get eaten).

Both empathy and productive achievement are important to human life (in my world, at least), but rational ethics helps keep them in a proper hierarchy so the bad guys can't use powerful feelings and rationalizations (and word games) to entrap victims with bait and switch.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now