Settling the debate on Altruism


Christopher

Recommended Posts

What would "UNnatural selection" entail that would make it different from natural selection? I disagree about intelligence being different with respect to it being the trait a species has to adapt to. By this I mean that any trait a species has might be in conflict with its ability to survive and flourish -- not just intelligence. For instance, it's probably likely that the first organisms that excreted oxygen were making their environment, in the long run, poisonous to themselves. The conventional story I've heard is these organisms evolved and for a long time the oxygen they gave off had a neglible effect, but as they flourish and as more oxygen built up in the oceans and eventually the atmosphere, they likely poisoned themselves and brought up a global cooling event which further made their environment inhospitable to them. This doesn't appear to be the sort of thing one needs more than natural selection and the usual neo-Darwinian "tool kit" to explain.

So what would you call it if an organism was polluting it's environment and gradually making it more hostile and it knew it was doing it and still continued doing it? I'm not saying mankind is doing this but the possibility presents itself.

It would be maladaptive in terms of survival -- if the long term trend were to make the species go under. But one must be careful here. After all, plants give off oxygen, an extremely toxic chemical. In some ways, it can viewed as a pollutant and certainly, for plants, when oxygen is in really high concentrations, the risk of fire is much, much higher. So, what's adaptive or maladaptive (or neutral) depends on context.

With pollution, too, we're entering the realm of politics and it gets harder to spot a maladaption. After all, having electricity is very helpful to human survival. So it makes the environment far less hostile for humans. This must balanced against that almost any form of electric generation, distribution, and use is going to involve degraded part of the environment -- in terms of making it less hospitable for humans. Where's the balance here? It seems to me on the less hostile side at this time. That doesn't mean there's no room to improve electric generation, distribution, and use to be more efficient and less polluting, but I wouldn't be so quick to see this as a completely unmitigated bad thing that's going to destroy the species. If anything, all else remaning equal, getting rid of electric generation, distribution, and use would likely lead to much smaller population and a lowered chance of species (or descendant species as humans might eventual split into several species) survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If anything, all else remaning equal, getting rid of electric generation, distribution, and use would likely lead to much smaller population and a lowered chance of species (or descendant species as humans might eventual split into several species) survival.

You are making an inference here that a smaller population implies less chance of survival. How do you come to that conclusion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would "UNnatural selection" entail that would make it different from natural selection? I disagree about intelligence being different with respect to it being the trait a species has to adapt to. By this I mean that any trait a species has might be in conflict with its ability to survive and flourish -- not just intelligence. For instance, it's probably likely that the first organisms that excreted oxygen were making their environment, in the long run, poisonous to themselves. The conventional story I've heard is these organisms evolved and for a long time the oxygen they gave off had a neglible effect, but as they flourish and as more oxygen built up in the oceans and eventually the atmosphere, they likely poisoned themselves and brought up a global cooling event which further made their environment inhospitable to them. This doesn't appear to be the sort of thing one needs more than natural selection and the usual neo-Darwinian "tool kit" to explain.

So what would you call it if an organism was polluting it's environment and gradually making it more hostile and it knew it was doing it and still continued doing it? I'm not saying mankind is doing this but the possibility presents itself.

GS:

I just finished State of Fear, by Michael Creighton. It is a remarkable novel which has so many actual data, charts and a concept of where we are as a culture and society that makes it a great book.

It also would answer the question that you just posed.

Very scientific approach to the issue.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything, all else remaning equal, getting rid of electric generation, distribution, and use would likely lead to much smaller population and a lowered chance of species (or descendant species as humans might eventual split into several species) survival.

You are making an inference here that a smaller population implies less chance of survival. How do you come to that conclusion?

All else remaining the same, there'd be, on the whole, more chances for species extinction with cladogenesis (meaning no new species arising from humans) the smaller the population. Think of it this way, fewer organisms for a given species usually means lower odds of that species surviving -- save under extreme circumstances.

Of course, things might not remain the same -- as I'm guessing you believe humans might overload their environment and collapse -- in which case, more humans might lead to extinction as they exhaust their support system. This, however, doesn't appear to be the case now and doing too many radical things to curb what's seem as environmental damage might actually do much more harm to humans. (This doesn't mean I feel there's no problem and humans can start dumping all their waste in the streets or rivers. But a lot of the solutions or improvements here need not involve lower populations. I'd like to see, e.g., more humans living off world. Right now there are none or just a few temporarily. That and not the green movement. as well intended its members might be, would likely do much more for improving the chances of humans and other known life not dying out.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the definition of altruism inside biology -- though it's not too far from Rand's view of it.

Regarding evolutionary theory, I was talking more specifically about evolutionary psychology. What I've seen in that field is much more heat than light. And the view that science self-corrects is not necessarily true. Incorrect theories sometimes have staying power. In fact, to me, from my studies, much evolutionary psychology just looks like warmed over sociobiology. Of course, the jury's still out.

I think that Rand's definition of altruism and biology's are sufficiently similar that we can meaningfully examine her ideas in a evolutionary light.

I understand your point about evolutionaly psychology, but I wanted to point out one think that people lose sight of sometimes when discussing evolution.

Evolution is not all about reproduction and survival of the individual. The individual is subordinate to his genes in very important ways. It's the gene perspective that is most meaniningful. Evolution is gene-centric. Therefore we would expect to see a general pattern of behaviour that would demonstrate a relationship between the strength of altruistic tendencies and kinship, this could include sacrificing one's life. Of course, this is indeed what happens, and is very well explained in his context. We don't need any separate "ethics of emergencies".

Bob

I believe their definitions are similar enough to make people want to compare them, but different enough to make for confusion if one just presumes they're either identical or close enough not to matter. After all, as you mention, it seems most evolutionary biologists believe the altruism has to be looked at from the perspective of the gene -- whereas Rand would only being looking at the level of the organism (and maybe groups of organisms) and then only of when the organism is the locus of choice and value.

In my view, too, I would distinguish between evolution -- what happens -- and its mechanisms -- as I've asserted elsewhere. From the perspective of one mechanism -- natural selection -- putative altruist acts nedd to be explained. Other mechanisms -- e.g., neutral selection -- might not have that same problem. (Which mechanism is in play in any given instance, in my mind, depends on the details and this is partly why I wrote my "Testing Evolutionary Hypotheses." You know, that the chicken could have crossed the road merely to get to the feed on other side is a hypothesis, but maybe, if we look deeper, we find the chicken was being chased by the fox or that the road was sloping and the chicken couldn't do otherwise but fall over to the other side, etc.)

Also, regarding the "ethics of emergencies," as I've written earlier, I don't buy it for other reasons. I don't think, too, Rand was using it to explain human behavior. (This might be the problem here. Rand was not so much describing in ethics. Yes, she tells us her ethics are based on reality, but she's obviously telling people what's the right thing to do -- which presumes they might do otherwise. Hence her defining, if my memory's correct, ethics as a code of conduct to guide action -- not as a description of what people do but a guide to what they should do.) I also don't think charity and generosity fall under "ethics of emergencies" for Rand. (I might be wrong, but I think "ethics of emergencies" tend to mean for her actual lifeboat situations and I think she was thinking about things like when is it okay for me to steal or even get my place on the lifeboat. I think real world emergency situations tend to be a lot more complicated that I wouldn't reduce most of them to the textbook lifeboat ones. (And, of course, the media tend to tell all the stories of people risking life and limb to help others, but what about the other 6 billion or so people who did absolutely nothing during the emergency? Of course, this leaves the realm of ethics as a normative science and enters that of describing how people actually behave.))

Finally, if you really want to test Objectivist ethics, we need to define it more clearly first and then make sure the comparison doesn't leave something out. Yes, mean, nasty people who never do anything for anyone else seem to not leave many descendants (is this true? I'm only guessing), but mean, nasty people who never do anything for anyone else are not necessarily practicing Objectist virtues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding buying the hat, in my understanding of Rand's view, one already has to have an objective view of values and self-interest before coming to the scenario. Without it, there is nothing to be said, especially if one adopts the vacuous definition of self-interest. With it, one would then have to ask, is buying the hat more or less objectively valuable or in his self-interest to the person than helping his child? One would not start with what the person does -- because this is what's to be judged. And, yes, the hat would likely have some place in his hierarchy of values, though my guess is Rand would believe it should be lower than his child in that hierarchy. Let's say I'm right about her view of objective value, self-interest, and the relative values of the person's hat and child. Then, obviously, buying the hat over helping his child would, even if he does it and does it fully consciously (in context as some might argue that one would have to fake reality on some level -- thereby reducing consciousness? -- to pull this off), would be going against his self-interest. Don't you agree?

This is a nice observation. This observation is one of the most fundamental to Objectivism, yet so many people chronically misinterpret the fact that self-interest cannot be reduced simply to what "one wants." It's the same thing with self-sacrifice. Conscious experience of an event is not a definitive representation of what that event is from a metaphysical perspective. Maybe if we continue to repeat this enough, it will start to sink in for others :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All else remaining the same, there'd be, on the whole, more chances for species extinction with cladogenesis (meaning no new species arising from humans) the smaller the population. Think of it this way, fewer organisms for a given species usually means lower odds of that species surviving -- save under extreme circumstances.

I don't really see this as applying to humans. Again I think this is applying principles from lower life forms to higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All else remaining the same, there'd be, on the whole, more chances for species extinction with cladogenesis (meaning no new species arising from humans) the smaller the population. Think of it this way, fewer organisms for a given species usually means lower odds of that species surviving -- save under extreme circumstances.

I don't really see this as applying to humans. Again I think this is applying principles from lower life forms to higher.

Well, "all else remaining the same" I believe it applies. Granted, it all else might not remain the same... I did acknowledge this in the paragraph you left out:

"Of course, things might not remain the same -- as I'm guessing you believe humans might overload their environment and collapse -- in which case, more humans might lead to extinction as they exhaust their support system. This, however, doesn't appear to be the case now and doing too many radical things to curb what's seem as environmental damage might actually do much more harm to humans. (This doesn't mean I feel there's no problem and humans can start dumping all their waste in the streets or rivers. But a lot of the solutions or improvements here need not involve lower populations. I'd like to see, e.g., more humans living off world. Right now there are none or just a few temporarily. That and not the green movement. as well intended its members might be, would likely do much more for improving the chances of humans and other known life not dying out.)"

Also, humans can use technology to, perhaps, conserve themselves as a species. At the radical extreme, it's possible that technology will make all this moot. But that's not the case now and it's a speculation at this point -- one that might not come true. (I can imagine storing the human genome for the long term and then reviving it after some catastrophe. This can be done, as well, with other life forms. I can also imagine some extreme form of nanotechnology -- assuming, of course, that life can simply be built at the molecular level -- where one could build any life form, including humans, on demand. In which case, human survival as a species would depend on merely storing and retrieving the information necessary to construct humans.)

Would you share why you believe the idea -- I wouldn't call it a "principle" -- doesn't apply to humans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you share why you believe the idea -- I wouldn't call it a "principle" -- doesn't apply to humans?

Well, humans have the ability to survive in extremely harsh environments using science and technology and this doesn't require dense populations, per se. Our long term survival depends on our science and technology but also on our ability to work together to use it. You mentioned living off planet and that might be possible but it would take a concerted effort of the entire human race to achieve most likely. The biggest thing holding us back now is our inability to cooperate. IMO, some humans are further evolved than others in the sense that they use their brains (in particular, their cerebral cortex) better than others. This part of the brain is required for cooperation while it is not for animalistic competition. Maybe when the majority of humans can do this we will start making real progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you share why you believe the idea -- I wouldn't call it a "principle" -- doesn't apply to humans?

Well, humans have the ability to survive in extremely harsh environments using science and technology and this doesn't require dense populations, per se. Our long term survival depends on our science and technology but also on our ability to work together to use it. You mentioned living off planet and that might be possible but it would take a concerted effort of the entire human race to achieve most likely. The biggest thing holding us back now is our inability to cooperate. IMO, some humans are further evolved than others in the sense that they use their brains (in particular, their cerebral cortex) better than others. This part of the brain is required for cooperation while it is not for animalistic competition. Maybe when the majority of humans can do this we will start making real progress.

GS:

"...real progress..."

I believe that statement is so unclear as to be quite useless.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All else remaining the same, there'd be, on the whole, more chances for species extinction with cladogenesis (meaning no new species arising from humans) the smaller the population. Think of it this way, fewer organisms for a given species usually means lower odds of that species surviving -- save under extreme circumstances.

Such a relation holds only to a certain point, above which it will be subject to the law of diminishing returns and ultimately of negative returns. I think the human population has long ago passed that point. For example it seems likely to me that 10 times less humans on Earth will not diminish their odds of survival, and will probably just improve them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such a relation holds only to a certain point, above which it will be subject to the law of diminishing returns and ultimately of negative returns. I think the human population has long ago passed that point. For example it seems likely to me that 10 times less humans on Earth will not diminish their odds of survival, and will probably just improve them.

I agree with this statement. So long as man is contained within one environment (the planet), putting more demand on that environment reduces species' survival probability. To ensure we all survive, there becomes more and more demand on technology to balance what would otherwise be lack of homeostasis between organism and place. Now if we had colonies on other planets, that would be a different story...

I've been reading short-fiction by Poul Anderson recently, and right now I'm reading through a series of stories called "The Pscyhotechnique League," a post-WWIII society structured to pull out of chaos. Very interesting take on the future, but what I find most striking and relevant to this post is that our entire civilized system is balanced quite precariously. We think everything is smooth and solid, but if a nuclear war breaks out and governments lose power, our structure will collapse overnight. We depend on organization, and a jolt of chaos could smash the cardhouse to bits in a blink. Without organization, the system will return to "natural" homeostasis, and that is probably a lot less than 6 billion people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All else remaining the same, there'd be, on the whole, more chances for species extinction with cladogenesis (meaning no new species arising from humans) the smaller the population. Think of it this way, fewer organisms for a given species usually means lower odds of that species surviving -- save under extreme circumstances.

Such a relation holds only to a certain point, above which it will be subject to the law of diminishing returns and ultimately of negative returns. I think the human population has long ago passed that point. For example it seems likely to me that 10 times less humans on Earth will not diminish their odds of survival, and will probably just improve them.

I don't have evidence either way, but why do you think that -- I mean that humans have "long ago passed" the point of diminishing returns? My view is it looks like humans have not and there seems to be good evidence that it's a moving target -- dependent on technology and social arrangements more than some fixed carrying capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, Altruism doesn't have anything to do with generosity. First of all Altruism means submission of one's mind to others,(government, society, race, class, god etc...) rejection of one's autonomy, self-reliance and self-sustainability. In other words Altruism means second-handiness. Therefore everybody who makes his existence depended on others is an altruist, be it a beggar on the street corner or ruthless dictator, a slave or slave-driver. Such a situation unavoidable involves sacrifice of one own mind, creativity, free will to the minds and wills of others. Progress, as Ayn Rand mentioned, is a process of setting man free from men.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, Altruism doesn't have anything to do with generosity. First of all Altruism means submission of one's mind to others,(government, society, race, class, god etc...) rejection of one's autonomy, self-reliance and self-sustainability. In other words Altruism means second-handiness. Therefore everybody who makes his existence depended on others is an altruist, be it a beggar on the street corner or ruthless dictator, a slave or slave-driver. Such a situation unavoidable involves sacrifice of one own mind, creativity, free will to the minds and wills of others. Progress, as Ayn Rand mentioned, is a process of setting man free from men.

Leonid:

Out of curiosity, can you discuss "altruism" as defined in non-Randian terms. I ask this as someone who has employed her ideas for almost five (5) decades, in my personal life, business life and political life.

I ask this as someone who walked down to the Empire State Building, when I left work at the Animal Medical Center, [York and 61st Street], in the mid 1960's to hear Ayn, Nathanial, Barbara and others speak about this new philosophy called objectivism. I was 17 years old.

I have never been sorry about the commitment that I have to her ideas.

However, to see you just spout out Ayn's contextual definition of altruism as an answer in a discussion is reflective of that rigidity which is completely contradictory to the philosophy's origin.

For example, "...altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward..."

Does this equal "second handedness"?

Finally, if validated scientific or human experience finds that Ayn's set in stone definition of altruism is not valid in her narrow context, should we adapt the philosophy to the truth, or cover the truth and submit to the philosophy as originally uttered by Ayn?

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually wasn't too bothered by leonid's post, but Adam - wow, that was beautifully said. I feel great respect right now for your perspective on Objectivist philosophy in a real world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually wasn't too bothered by leonid's post, but Adam - wow, that was beautifully said. I feel great respect right now for your perspective on Objectivist philosophy in a real world.

Thank you Chris.

I would probably blush, but that would be so not big "O"bjectivism.

Brant really put perspective on the movement for me when he said it takes several generations for ideas to really impact.

I expected things to happen immediately...lol.

Hell, we were right.

Thank you again Chris.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can be no "settling the debate" on the Objectivist meaning of altruism vs the common or garden meaning of the term.

This is because Objectivists have chosen to use the arcane meaning of the term, which hardly anyone else uses, although it is the original meaning*. As there is no all-powerful authority that proclaims and enforces and thus settles the True Meanings of Words, it seems to me that they are perfectly able to do so - like Humpty Dumpty, they can use words to mean whatever they like. However in doing so it leaves them open to the criticism that they will simply confuse people, and end up talking at cross-purposes and/or indulging in a good deal of hairsplitting ("Oh no, X isn't really an example of altruism, X is really generosity..." etc). The only way of "settling" a debate over the meaning of terms is by mutual agreement, and Objectivists reject the mutually agreed version of the word as represented by the dictionary, so there you have it.

I tend to agree with Robert Bass that this ends up as a version of bait-and-switch. (Bass did seriously blunder in that he overlooked Comte, as Robert Campbell points out, but AFAICS Bass has the wider point, as the net effect of confusing public debate is the same). However, I would say the much clearer example of Rand baiting-and-switching is over the term "selfishness", where she introduces what she claims is the "exact meaning and dictionary definition". Yet it appears her version is a fabrication, as typical dictionary definitions of the term make some reference to excessive or exclusive concern with one's own interests, a distinction Rand elides. AFAIK Rand was never able to produce an actual dictionary containing her version hence it seems reasonable to conclude she fabricated it to bolster her argument and hoped nobody would notice.

*The fact that "altruism"'s original meaning, from Comte, is close to what Rand means is doesn't amount to much in and of itself. For example, if a someone recommended you go on a blind date with Susan because she's pretty, but they actually meant the archaic meaning of "pretty", which is cunning, you may find this date doesn't amount to much either.

Edited by Daniel Barnes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Danial:

Your beating the dead horse of arbitrary definitions and Objectivism elides the essential truths that Ayn recognized.

Additionally, your judging a person by their facade or mask or prettiness as you meant it establishes your shallowness.

But you at least mentioned Comte which does enter into this thread.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Danial:

Your beating the dead horse of arbitrary definitions and Objectivism elides the essential truths that Ayn recognized.

Additionally, your judging a person by their facade or mask or prettiness as you meant it establishes your shallowness.

But you at least mentioned Comte which does enter into this thread.

So: When you point out the arbitrary nature of definitions you are providing a valuable perspective on Objectivist philosophy in the real world. When I do so, I'm beating a dead horse.

I'm glad we've got that straightened out then....;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Danial:

Your beating the dead horse of arbitrary definitions and Objectivism elides the essential truths that Ayn recognized.

Additionally, your judging a person by their facade or mask or prettiness as you meant it establishes your shallowness.

But you at least mentioned Comte which does enter into this thread.

So: When you point out the arbitrary nature of definitions you are providing a valuable perspective on Objectivist philosophy in the real world. When I do so, I'm beating a dead horse.

I'm glad we've got that straightened out then....;-)

Ahh...that is what you were doing...got it...yes we got that straitened out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For my own comprehension I early on adopted the word 'other-ism' as the essential meaning of altruism. It is the direct translation after all, and I think the classic meaning that Rand had in mind.

Anyway, it substitutes perfectly in every mention of altruism she made.

As long as the definition of the word is quibbled over ad nauseum (Rand's meaning vs. the accepted meaning) we are going to miss the point. One just has to accept the identification that Rand made, that 'other-ism' contains the means to extreme evil, and the rest follows.

A few points:

Altruism on the one-off, doing something for an other person level, has drawn much too much fire on O'ist forums. This has tended to stifle volition and benevolence, while the real culprit gets off.

The real culprit imo, is the Advocacy of altruism - in all public and personal areas. That one's life must and should be dedicated to some unidentified Other - full time.

Also, I believe it's important to establish the black and white of morality, and only then to seek out the greys. Egoism is the white, altruism the black, imo, and it could be argued that everything that is not egoism, is 'other-ism'. (And then to add degrees of measurement).

By this method, altruism becomes a far wider concept (that, yes, can contain 'second-handedness'), and is not merely carrying out an occasional act of kindness and charity.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One aspect of Objectivism I've never understood is how conscious and nonconscious values interact. Are nonconscious values even acknowledged?

Regarding values in Objectivism, values per se need not be conscious. According to Rand, if I understand her correctly, all living things have values, but not all values are chosen.

Her definition is, if my memory's correct, that a "value is that which one acts to gain or keep." Now here I don't think she was using "act" in the Misesean sense and, given her other comments on value, that this would be applied to all behavior and would applied to non-human living things as well, including bacteria, plants, fungi, and the like.) Also, she has a view of objective values -- which, in the case of humans, must be discovered, selected, and acted upon.

Of course, the kind of values implied in behavior -- such as a tree's sending out roots to obtain water -- are not exactly the same as consciously selected values, but they're still values -- they are pursued, in a manner of speaking, or something the organism in question is trying to gain or keep -- such as getting water in my tree example.

Rand's definition of value is clear as a bell:

“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible. (Rand)

This very definition rules out plants capable of pursuing values by e.g. sending out roots since a plant can't choose not to act as it does. There exists no alternative for a plant,

Trees/funghi/bacteria/stomachs etc. are no entities capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative.

Rand contradicts herself often, and her stating in another passage of her work that plants "seek values" is an example of such contradiction, which collapases her own definition of the term.

One of the biggest fallacies in AR's thinking is the claim of an 'ought to from an is' by using nature as example.

For there exists no ought to from is in nature.

If you want to survive, it is not "you ought to" take in nourishment - you must.

So you can't 'choose' to survive without ingesting food. No choice, hence no value involved. We have Rand's own words on that.

This leaves all those "ought to's" in morality without biological foundation.

Dragonfly: Daniel may seem to be beating a dead horse, but the truth is that the horse unfortunately is not dead, but rearing its ugly head again and again, as in Leonid's post #364.

Indeed, that horse is still pretty alive and kicking sand in people's eyes.

The root problem here is that terms like "selfishness" and "selflessness" are connotative only, implying value judgements, and Rand belieiving that her subjective association/interpretation of those terms terms qualified as objective definition. She confused denotation with connotation.

WhyNot: For my own comprehension I early on adopted the word 'other-ism' as the essential meaning of altruism. It is the direct translation after all, and I think the classic meaning that Rand had in mind.

Anyway, it substitutes perfectly in every mention of altruism she made.

As long as the definition of the word is quibbled over ad nauseum (Rand's meaning vs. the accepted meaning) we are going to miss the point. One just has to accept the identification that Rand made, that 'other-ism' contains the means to extreme evil, and the rest follows.

"Other" is the English translation of the Latin "alter", and the quibble is not so much about definition than about the individual connotations people have with terms like "altruism", "selfishness", etc. For those terms are so connotatively loaded that using them creates more confusion than clarity. Imo your creating a new word 'other-ism' reflects a desire for clarity here.

WhyNot: Also, I believe it's important to establish the black and white of morality, and only then to seek out the greys. Egoism is the white, altruism the black, imo, and it could be argued that everything that is not egoism, is 'other-ism'. (And then to add degrees of measurement).

By this method, altruism becomes a far wider concept (that, yes, can contain 'second-handedness'), and is not merely carrying out an occasional act of kindness and charity.

Again, this raises the question: Which standard is chosen to establish the "black and white of morality"?

We've had a lot of discussions on that on here, for example:

View PostXray, on 28 July 2009 - 05:10 PM, said:

As to what sentient human beings can discover - they can discover by doing comparisons that universal morals don't exist. So, given the wide gamut of moral values - how is "a" moral life supposed to look like?

View PostDragonfly, on 28 July 2009 - 06:09 PM, said:

The only thing you can discover is that there is no such thing as universal morals and that you can choose morals different from those you grew up with if they appeal to you.

This is my position as well.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WhyNot: I know this hasn't become a 'what if' scenario (yet!), but to supply just one emotional factor/for instance - I think I would find value in rescuing a stranger from a river.

On two counts - human empathy, and not wanting to face myself later for not rising (diving) to the situation.

(Though if it were the Zambezi in torrent, I'd weigh the odds, likely hold back, and just have to live with the decision.)

The reason I raise this is to illustrate that 1. this doesn't necessarily constitute self-sacrifice (unless I die in the attempt), and is actually motivated by self-interest 2. more importantly, I don't think a SINGLE ACTION represents altruism... or egoism, for that matter.

Excellent example Tony to demonstrate how we are in a constant process of weighing the pros and cons of our actions and then decide in favor of what we value most at the moment of the decision. And what we value most is what suits our self-interest best, even if it means risking our life in some cases. (I don't have any negative connotation with the term self-interest, I'm using it neutrally).

Self-interest and serving others are not mutually exclusive. For people can derive a sense of fulfillment and joy from so-called "altruistic" acts, something Rand did not take into account enough imo.

BobMac: We cannot take the alcoholic's word for it that he wants to stop drinking more than anything else when he cracks open another beer and chugs it. Regardless of what he says, it's his ACTION that tells us that he prefers to drink. See, this helps us understand on a more precise level that although he might VALUE sobriety and understands his destructive behaviour, he doesn't value sobriety enough to put up with the discomfort of getting there. In other words, the price is too high - at least right now. Now perhaps you can see the connection to Economics. Anyway, emotion or not is irrelevant, all we are doing is ordinally ranking a series of values as determined by ACTION, not words, not emotion, not psychology. Why the action was chosen is very deliberately NOT addressed. What it tells us is that A is valued over B if A was chosen, nothing more. Emotion, psychology, whatever can analyze further, but you cannot say that B is more valuable if when given the choice, you don't choose it.

Another illustrative example to demonstrate the hierarchy of our values directing our actions.

For indeed, no matter how much an alcoholic may value the thought of not needing the substance, of regaining his health, once he decides to open that bottle those other values take a backseat since the kick of the drug is valued higher.

Edited by Xray
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