Settling the debate on Altruism

[anthony]

Merlin, Ian, Bob,

Did I just waste a few hundred words? Your minds are already made up it seems.

My mind is made up about what?

I tried to show that altruism is the disease; that egoism, PLUS respect and good-will is the cure, and I did not succeed.

The way Ayn Rand used the word "altruism", it is a disease. That does not imply that altruism is a disease when anybody else uses the word. Another way to say this is that Ayn Rand used a stipulative definition of "altruism", and it is an uncommon definition. (See here.)

Suppose by "altruism" somebody else means simply to do something to benefit another person, including one's spouse or one's children or parents. Is such act a "disease"? You might insist on calling it "benevolent" or "good will" and refuse to call it "altruistic". But there is no law that says everybody else has to do likewise.

The dichotomy between the two exists, and can't be wished away.

Nor can the dichotomy be dictated for everybody simply by you, or Ayn Rand, stipulating it.

Fair points, and nicely articulated, Merlin, and I know that this is well-covered territory.

Apart from there not being another word that Rand could have used, I've considered sometimes that she used 'altruism' as a shock tactic - to force readers to reappraise their premises.

Tony

[Daniel Barnes]

The meaning of this observation is that although standard of value is absolute, value itself is relative.

Oh really? This looks more like a contradiction in terms than your earlier attempt. Please demonstrate with an actual example of how this is supposed to work.

The relativity of values makes profitable exchange possible. If trader (1) willingly exchanges "X" for "Y" with trader (2) it means that (1) values "Y" more than "X" and (2) values "X" more than "Y". The result of free and fair trade could be only mutual gain. Therefore sacrifice is incompatible with such a trade.

Complete nonsense. "Sacrifice" does not preclude gain. On the contrary, it is usually done precisely for this purpose. You seem to be bizarrely clinging to the notion that sacrifice does preclude gain, even though the definition you yourself provided doesn't support it.

Perhaps that is why you keep claiming, weirdly, that the ordinary meaning of the term is "self-contradictory" when it clearly isn't.

(Sacrifice in chess is a technical term which actually describes the way to win a game and not used in this sense anywhere outside chess).

More complete nonsense. A "technical term" indeed. Here's the definition of a chess sacrifice. Readers will note it is completely compatible with the definition Leonid cited! Leonid, I have to ask you: do you have English as a second language? Or are you just making this stuff up as you go along?

Edited March 24, 2010 by Daniel Barnes

[anthony]

Again the issue is 'accepted, and/or dictionary definitions, versus the Randian concept'.

My dictionary supplies:

"Sacrifice" 1a. Act of giving up, surrendering, foregoing, something precious...as for the benefit of a person or cause.

(Neutral)

1b. Act of parting with, selling, disposing of, something at a price below its supposed value.

(Greater, for lesser)

2a. To give up,surrender,suffer to be injured,destroyed....in order that something else may be gained or improved..

(Lesser, for greater.)

So here's the cause of confusion, conflicting definitions (between 1. and 2.) in the same dictionary.

When we get to Rand, there is no such equivocation (of course ). This is clarified in the AR Lexicon, which begins:

"Sacrifice" is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one, or a nonvalue."

Which, by Rand's definition, and 2a of the dictionary definition, bears out Leonid's claim that the Chess Sacrifice, and the Soldiers in War Sacrifice, involve lesser values in favour of higher values - and are not sacrifices at all.

Tony

[bmacwilliam]

When we get to Rand, there is no such equivocation (of course ). This is clarified in the AR Lexicon, which begins:

"Sacrifice" is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one, or a nonvalue."

Which, by Rand's definition, and 2a of the dictionary definition, bears out Leonid's claim that the Chess Sacrifice, and the Soldiers in War Sacrifice, involve lesser values in favour of higher values - and are not sacrifices at all.

Tony

And of course, not being clear which definition you're using leads to confusion and allows you to conclude absolutely anything you want.

Realistically though it makes no sense to even discuss sacrifice or altruism at all if you adopt the approach described in your final paragraph (which is a perversion of the definition) because sacrifice is impossible, because if you actually choose an option, it is clearly more valuable to you. So as long as you choose, sacrifice can't happen. For Pete's sake, doesn't it seem tremendously nonsensical to have a self-contradictory definition, then try to apply it?

So if Rand adopts this view, anything she says about it is nonsense.

Isn't it so much simpler to say that we value others and helping others (especially those close to us) AND we value ourselves and therefore sometimes we'll help others and sometime we'll help ourselves and sometimes we'll be unsure of what to do?

Rand's idea has her helping others because she values her own life highest, and values others in her life because of what it adds to her life, and so helping others is OK sometimes, but is based on her OWN life's value. Complete crap.

I buy life insurance because I value my wife and children's life and happiness and security specifically WITHOUT me in it.

This also explains behaviour like emergencies and other "sacrifices".

Bob

[imurray]

Again the issue is 'accepted, and/or dictionary definitions, versus the Randian concept'.

My dictionary supplies:

"Sacrifice" 1a. Act of giving up, surrendering, foregoing, something precious...as for the benefit of a person or cause.

(Neutral)

1b. Act of parting with, selling, disposing of, something at a price below its supposed value.

(Greater, for lesser)

2a. To give up,surrender,suffer to be injured,destroyed....in order that something else may be gained or improved..

(Lesser, for greater.)

So here's the cause of confusion, conflicting definitions (between 1. and 2.) in the same dictionary.

When we get to Rand, there is no such equivocation (of course ). This is clarified in the AR Lexicon, which begins:

"Sacrifice" is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one, or a nonvalue."

Which, by Rand's definition, and 2a of the dictionary definition, bears out Leonid's claim that the Chess Sacrifice, and the Soldiers in War Sacrifice, involve lesser values in favour of higher values - and are not sacrifices at all.

Tony

Tony,

Thanks for your earlier, thoughtful, response.

As I come to understand Rand's definitions vs. colloquial definitions I am getting a better sense of what she meant and a lot of the confusion is falling away. For instance, after reading some Comte, who coined the term altruism, I now have a better understanding of what Rand means by altruism and I think it's safe to say she was more or less 'true' to his conception of the word. I know that some people aren't fond of the way she "co-opted" so-called "common" terms, but I've yet to read a philosopher who didn't have to create some kind of novel vocabulary to explain their theory (I think of Foucault's use of "archaeology, langue, and parole; Heidegger's "equipment" or "being"; Dewey's "consummatory moment"; Bergson's "elan vital"; Wittgenstein's "grammar"; not to mention the many philosophic definitions of "reality", "knowledge", etc.). Learning the unique vernacular of a philosophical treatise is all part of the game.

The real issue is not the word itself or its definition, but whether or not the philosophy leaves out or fails to adequately explain certain phenomena. It also becomes an issue if the word, along with its definition, is used inconsistently within the context of a particular philosophy. Remember that words are just signifiers.

If Rand is using common words as some kind of rhetorical trope to cause confusion then that's an issue. For example, if she left the definition of "altruism" ambiguous so that it might also include colloquial definitions, then we should be able to find inconsistencies in the way she used it or phenomena she includes or excludes in particular examples. She can't have her cake and eat it too.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Panoptic

[Leonid]

The meaning of this observation is that although standard of value is absolute, value itself is relative.

Oh really? This looks more like a contradiction in terms than your earlier attempt. Please demonstrate with an actual example of how this is supposed to work.

The relativity of values makes profitable exchange possible. If trader (1) willingly exchanges "X" for "Y" with trader (2) it means that (1) values "Y" more than "X" and (2) values "X" more than "Y". The result of free and fair trade could be only mutual gain. Therefore sacrifice is incompatible with such a trade.

Complete nonsense. "Sacrifice" does not preclude gain. On the contrary, it is usually done precisely for this purpose. You seem to be bizarrely clinging to the notion that sacrifice does preclude gain, even though the definition you yourself provided doesn't support it.

Perhaps that is why you keep claiming, weirdly, that the ordinary meaning of the term is "self-contradictory" when it clearly isn't.

(Sacrifice in chess is a technical term which actually describes the way to win a game and not used in this sense anywhere outside chess).

More complete nonsense. A "technical term" indeed. Here's the definition of a chess sacrifice. Readers will note it is completely compatible with the definition Leonid cited! Leonid, I have to ask you: do you have English as a second language? Or are you just making this stuff up as you go along?

1. Standard of value is life which is absolute. But different people have different needs in order to sustain and benefit their life. For example if one is paraplegic then bicycle has no value to him. He will gladly exchange it for wheel chair. The same thing applies to an athlete who happened to own wheel chair. Another example: in economy based on labor division people produce goods not for their own use, therefore without any relative value to them. They do it specifically in order to exchange them for others, more valuable goods to them.

2. Sacrifice means surrender of value and therefore loss by any definition. If you call exchange of a lesser value to a greater one a "sacrifice" (like in chess) then you define gain as loss. This is contradiction in terms.

[tjohnson]

Tony,

Thanks for your earlier, thoughtful, response.

As I come to understand Rand's definitions vs. colloquial definitions I am getting a better sense of what she meant and a lot of the confusion is falling away. For instance, after reading some Comte, who coined the term altruism, I now have a better understanding of what Rand means by altruism and I think it's safe to say she was more or less 'true' to his conception of the word. I know that some people aren't fond of the way she "co-opted" so-called "common" terms, but I've yet to read a philosopher who didn't have to create some kind of novel vocabulary to explain their theory (I think of Foucault's use of "archaeology, langue, and parole; Heidegger's "equipment" or "being"; Dewey's "consummatory moment"; Bergson's "elan vital"; Wittgenstein's "grammar"; not to mention the many philosophic definitions of "reality", "knowledge", etc.). Learning the unique vernacular of a philosophical treatise is all part of the game.

The real issue is not the word itself or its definition, but whether or not the philosophy leaves out or fails to adequately explain certain phenomena. It also becomes an issue if the word, along with its definition, is used inconsistently within the context of a particular philosophy. Remember that words are just signifiers.

If Rand is using common words as some kind of rhetorical trope to cause confusion then that's an issue. For example, if she left the definition of "altruism" ambiguous so that it might also include colloquial definitions, then we should be able to find inconsistencies in the way she used it or phenomena she includes or excludes in particular examples. She can't have her cake and eat it too.

I concur. Also I would like to reiterate - there are no absolutely "right" and "wrong" definitions but, as Ian points out, within a given system there may be inconsistencies in the use of a term. Another thing is that in Philosophy there have been so many "systems" involving the same terms like 'existence', 'truth', 'moral', etc. that these terms have become more or less useless for scientific purposes.

[Leonid]

Bob_Mac "What about instead of "unfailingly", we substitute "every once in a while"? Is free will abnegated? Is it such a problem to recognize that we all have altruistic and egoistic tendencies? Science says our nature is a mix. Rand says no, our own life is the standard of value. Science says she's wrong, evolution says she's wrong.

What is the logic that demands we must exist at either extreme? What if being altruistic "sometimes" and egoistic "most of the time" is really what "qua man" is?

I'll tell you what happens - Many of Rand's ideas collapse including her ethics and politics. Also, we no longer need ethics of emergency situations or anything other of Rand's square pegs pounded in round holes."

What if you, most of the time a honest guy, will occasionally rob bank? What would happen to your integrity and self-esteem if you have to live by contradictory premises? I'll tell you what would happen-you'll become a useless wreck, since nobody can live by contradictions. There is no such a thing as temporary suicide. The logic which disavows contradictions is the logic of Identity Law.

Nobody can practice morality of altruism, that is, self-abnegation; surrender of mind and value, but everybody knows that, in accordance to Judeo-Christian morality and modern dominant philosophy, this is the right thing to do. People who found themselves in this moral guilt trap alleviate their conscience by giving charity. But this is not altruism. "Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.” (“Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” Philosophy: Who Needs It," 61)

Altruist, by definition is a person who forfeits his self for sake of others. As such he cannot act out of sympathy or empathy but only out of duty. Only rational egoist could be genuine benevolent person.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Leonid

[Leonid]

GS "there are no absolutely "right" and "wrong" definitions but, as Ian points out, within a given system there may be inconsistencies in the use of a term."

Let take for example the definition of man.

1. Man is rational animal

2. Man is featherless biped.

If definitions are relative than these two definitions are interchangeable and choice of definition depends on a given system, in other words it's arbitrary. But this is obviously an absurd. Nobody defines man as (2) in spite the fact that (2) describes true features of man . Definition is an identity of concept, its essence which differentiates it from all other species of the genus. As such it pertains to reality, and therefore absolute. There is no system in which definition "X" can define "A" and "Non-A" the same time and in same respect. If the use of the term creates inconsistencies and contradictions then the use is wrong

Edited March 24, 2010 by Leonid

[bmacwilliam]

What if you, most of the time a honest guy, will occasionally rob bank? What would happen to your integrity and self-esteem if you have to live by contradictory premises? I'll tell you what would happen-you'll become a useless wreck, since nobody can live by contradictions. There is no such a thing as temporary suicide. The logic which disavows contradictions is the logic of Identity Law.

Nobody can practice morality of altruism, that is, self-abnegation; surrender of mind and value, but everybody knows that, in accordance to Judeo-Christian morality and modern dominant philosophy, this is the right thing to do. People who found themselves in this moral guilt trap alleviate their conscience by giving charity. But this is not altruism. "Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.” (“Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” Philosophy: Who Needs It," 61)

Altruist, by definition is a person who forfeits his self for sake of others. As such he cannot act out of sympathy or empathy but only out of duty. Only rational egoist could be genuine benevolent person.

The logic is fine, but the argument is fatally flawed.

Here's where you're right - there can only be one thing at the top of our value hierarchy at one time. It cannot be both ourselves AND others simultaneously. So, one of the two we must pick right? It can't be "others", it must be "us" - egoism.

But wait, guess what? There's another possibility... Can you guess what it is?

The third choice is the one that's rooted in reality. The third choice is the one that's rooted in a little thing we call evidence. The better choice, the third choice, recognizes not only what man is, but indeed how he came to be. That choice is the only logically and scientifically defendable choice we have currently.

It's a little thing called a "Gene". It explains very well our generalized pattern of altruistic strength strongly related to kin distance, but also, with more recent developments also can explain a more generalized partially altruistic streak. One, but only one, of the best ways to act gene-centric is to preserve and improve our own lives. But sacrifice for family and kin is easily explained - as is tribal based behaviour because our tribe is more likely to share our genes than other tribes. A high percentage of parents would give their life for their child's if they had to make the choice and I suspect the percentage would rise if they had to choose between their own life and that of multiple children.

A Gene-centric perspective says that children and especially multiple children are often more valuable than our own lives, especially if we are past procreation - we don't need nonsensical emergency exceptions. Spouses are valuable because a spouse is the other spouse's gene replicating mechanism.

We have selfish tendencies because the gene is selfish. We have altruistic tendencies because our genes are copied in others to varying degrees.

To say that only a rational egoist can be benevolent is nonsense. Explain how a rational egoist would ever buy life insurance.

Logic and rationality are dangerous things when combined with false premises. Just because humans don't have a quick intuitive understanding of what a gene is as compared to the easy "me vs others" distinction doesn't matter. This is indeed the driving force that built us.

Just "pretend" if you will, that this is the case, then rebuild based on that premise - just as an exercise. You'll be surprised how well it explains so many things.

Bob

Edited March 24, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[imurray]

GS "there are no absolutely "right" and "wrong" definitions but, as Ian points out, within a given system there may be inconsistencies in the use of a term."

Let take for example the definition of man.

1. Man is rational animal

2. Man is featherless biped.

If definitions are relative than these two definitions are interchangeable and choice of definition depends on a given system, in other words it's arbitrary. But this is obviously an absurd. Nobody defines man as (2) in spite the fact that (2) describes true features of man . Definition is an identity of concept, its essence which differentiates it from all other species of the genus. As such it pertains to reality, and therefore absolute. There is no system in which definition "X" can define "A" and "Non-A" the same time and in same respect. If the use of the term creates inconsistencies and contradictions then the use is wrong

Leonid,

If you wanted to write a story with a character named Ellsworth Toohey who happened to be the model of rugged individualism, capitalism, and objective reasoning could you do that or would it be wrong because that's not the 'essence' of the the particular arrangement of letters that form the words Ellsworth Toohey?

What your discussing is purely Platonic - that there is some kind of form or essence hiding behind each word.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Panoptic

[Leonid]

Bob_ Mac "It's a little thing called a "Gene".

Evolutionary psychology (PE) is a pseudoscience. It has so many philosophical and scientific flaws that I don't really have time or desire to discuss all of them. However I have to mention at least one objection to PE which relates to our topic.

We're talking ethics here. Ethics or morals are code of values accepted by choice. Biological or gene determinism effectively eliminates Free Will, mind and therefore morals as such. The organisms which their only purpose is to transfer genes don't need any ethics. Animals do just fine without to define "good" and "bad". So if you view people as procreating living machines, don't bother yourself with ethical problems.

[tjohnson]

The logic which disavows contradictions is the logic of Identity Law.

It's too bad that there is no such thing as "identity" in nature. Orienting yourself by a "Law of Identity" when there is no such thing is bound to lead to problems.

[Leonid]

Panoptic "If you wanted to write a story with a character named Ellsworth Toohey who happened to be the model of rugged individualism, capitalism, and objective reasoning could you do that or would it be wrong because that's not the 'essence' of the the particular arrangement of letters that form the words Ellsworth Toohey?"

Proper names don't designate any concepts. They are pure arbitrary labels. There is not a problem as long as one doesn't confuse them with the words which denote concepts as you do in your example.

Panoptic "What your discussing is purely Platonic - that there is some kind of form or essence hiding behind each word."

No, this is pure Objectivism. For Plato concepts exist independently of man in the World of Forms. For Objectivist concepts are results of non-contradictory integration of percepts volitionally performed by human mind. "The process of forming a concept is not complete until its constituent units have been integrated into a single mental unit by means of a specific word...Learning to speak does not consist of memorizing sounds—that is the process by which a parrot learns to “speak.” Learning consists of grasping meanings, i.e., of grasping the referents of words, the kinds of existents that words denote in reality...Words transform concepts into (mental) entities; definitions provide them with identity. (Introduction to Psycho-Epistemology).

[tjohnson]

There is no system in which definition "X" can define "A" and "Non-A" the same time and in same respect.

On this I agree with you but there is no reason why you cannot have 2 different systems such that in one X is defined as A, and in the other X is defined as B.

[Leonid]

The logic which disavows contradictions is the logic of Identity Law.

It's too bad that there is no such thing as "identity" in nature. Orienting yourself by a "Law of Identity" when there is no such thing is bound to lead to problems.

You mean, I have no means to distinguish good from bad, altruism from egoism and you from Barak Hussein Obama. What is then non-your reason to take no-part in this no-discussion ?!&

[Leonid]

There is no system in which definition "X" can define "A" and "Non-A" the same time and in same respect.

On this I agree with you but there is no reason why you cannot have 2 different systems such that in one X is defined as A, and in the other X is defined as B.

Sure you can. It called context. The word "bank" in system "a" means financial institution and in system "b" a slope etc... Taken out of context and without a definition the word by itself is meaningless. If you confuse "a" with "b" you could run into inconsistent use. But that would be always a subsequence of any violation of Identity Law. Multiple systems presuppose multiple definitions. However one cannot use definition of system "a" in system "b".

Edited March 24, 2010 by Leonid

[tjohnson]

However one cannot use definition of system "a" in system "b".

Again I agree, but what is to stop me from using "a featherless biped" as my definition of a human in my system? It may not be particularly useful but it is perfectly legitimate. I might also define him as "an animal with a soul" if I wish. The definition "a rational animal" is by no means the only definition possible of man nor is it, IMO, the best one I have heard. I prefer Korzybski's which refers to humans as "a time-binding class of life" which I think does a much better job of differentiating humans from animals. Of course one would need to familiarize oneself with the formulation 'time-binding' to understand this definition.

[Leonid]

GS "Again I agree, but what is to stop me from using "a featherless biped" as my definition of a human in my system?”

If you do that how you would say a difference between man and plucked chicken?

What is "time-binding"?

"Such a definition was given in my Manhood of Humanity to the effect that man differs from the animals in the capacity of each human generation to begin where the former generation left off. This capacity I called the time-binding function. (S&S, 539)"-in other words humans able to learn and to teach, meaning they are rational animals.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Leonid

[imurray]

Panoptic "If you wanted to write a story with a character named Ellsworth Toohey who happened to be the model of rugged individualism, capitalism, and objective reasoning could you do that or would it be wrong because that's not the 'essence' of the the particular arrangement of letters that form the words Ellsworth Toohey?"

Proper names don't designate any concepts. They are pure arbitrary labels. There is not a problem as long as one doesn't confuse them with the words which denote concepts as you do in your example.

Panoptic "What your discussing is purely Platonic - that there is some kind of form or essence hiding behind each word."

No, this is pure Objectivism. For Plato concepts exist independently of man in the World of Forms. For Objectivist concepts are results of non-contradictory integration of percepts volitionally performed by human mind. "The process of forming a concept is not complete until its constituent units have been integrated into a single mental unit by means of a specific word...Learning to speak does not consist of memorizing sounds—that is the process by which a parrot learns to “speak.” Learning consists of grasping meanings, i.e., of grasping the referents of words, the kinds of existents that words denote in reality...Words transform concepts into (mental) entities; definitions provide them with identity. (Introduction to Psycho-Epistemology).

Leonid,

I think we are saying the same thing, but if that's the case one of your comments has to be wrong.

You can't say:

If definitions are relative than these two definitions are interchangeable and choice of definition depends on a given system, in other words it's arbitrary. But this is obviously an absurd. Nobody defines man as (2) in spite the fact that (2) describes true features of man . Definition is an identity of concept, its essence which differentiates it from all other species of the genus. As such it pertains to reality, and therefore absolute. There is no system in which definition "X" can define "A" and "Non-A" the same time and in same respect. If the use of the term creates inconsistencies and contradictions then the use is wrong

and then say:

Sure you can [have 2 different systems such that in one X is defined as A, and in the other X is defined as B]. It called context. The word "bank" in system "a" means financial institution and in system "b" a slope etc... Taken out of context and without a definition the word by itself is meaningless. If you confuse "a" with "b" you could run into inconsistent use. But that would be always a subsequence of any violation of Identity Law. Multiple systems presuppose multiple definitions.

Why can "bank" mean different things in different systems, but "man" cannot? You were arguing that the word "man" has an absolute essence in reality, which is why I said your argument was Platonic, i.e., you're arguing that the word "man" has only one absolute "true" meaning. Whenever you enter the realm of absolute truth you're treading on Plato.

I also disagree with you about the words "Ellsworth Toohey" - can't these arrangements of letters refer to a concept in Rand's book? If they don't refer to a concept what do they refer to, since in this case it can't refer to flesh and bones because it's a fictional character?

Here's a test for you: think of the words "Ayn Rand" if the only thing that pops into your head is "proper name" then maybe you're on to something. If however you think "author", "philosopher", "woman", etc. are you still certain that "Ayn Rand" refers to nothing but "proper name" or do you think it might also refer to your conception of who or what "Ayn Rand" is?

Edited March 24, 2010 by Panoptic

[psychoanaleesis]

To Leonid (first): Your response in post#483 is confusing. I could not fully discern which are Rand's words and which are yours.

Bob:

You said, "We have selfish tendencies because the gene is selfish. We have altruistic tendencies because our genes are copied in others to varying degrees."

Those two only came from the premise of a "selfish gene". No altruistic tendencies can be inferred there. If you did something for gain e.g. "genes are copied to varying degrees." then it stands to reason one does it for its own benefit and therefore cannot be truly called altruistic.

I do believe that altruism, as demonstrated by even our basic biological components, can not be fully achieved. However, due to our nature, even basing from the premise of a "selfish" gene, consistent egoism can. Therefore, I ask, "Why preach something that cannot be achieved and more so, pass it as an ideal state proper to man?" The only logical conclusion would be because those who preach it, are spiritual perverts who enjoys seeing their fellow trying to fight their nature while they perpetuate it for they want to rise up using others to get a "better" view of the tumult they have wreaked.

These are the men who knew but betrayed that knowledge and intentionally preached that they "know" the way to fulfill the desires of men - by giving it up. Oh, they feast, they demonstrated their power alright. They fulfilled their own desires only by using others as a means to get it. I cannot say I could point out what made them do it for their motives are as varied as mine. I rely on my fellow's honesty as I rely on mine to the best that I could since even when I do lie, I make no illusions about it. It haunts me so that even before I can get to Dr Freud's couch, I'd be spitting slips here and there which tells me that I acknowledge the guilt and I can be corrected.

I can assume they come from the same premise which is egoism but that's where it stops for they do not recognize the facts before them. They are cowards. Peeping Toms that scurry like rats at the first sign that someone notices their activities. When you try to accuse them, they evade the issue and spews out concepts which you cannot even comprehend. When you ask as to what they are referring to in actuality, they'll tell you to find it out for yourself. "Guess what they mean" is the name of their game and lo - they are very skilled at it. They are masters alright, masters who can only see slavery as the proper relationship between men.

What do you think of people who knows that something is of a certain quality but do not recognize it as such? Even more terrifying, they say it does not actually exist, that somehow, their eyes deceive them. Think, if your own senses deceive you truly then where can you place your trust? They have the answer: Other people. But you ask, "How do they know?" They answer: They have special abilities which you lack. and then you'll feel ashamed and at that moment you'll feel indebted to whatever these "special ones" give you - whether it be wisdom or trash - it does not matter, you do not know and cannot know anyway.

To do evil out of ignorance is bad enough for facts will stand as facts against you. How much more to recognize evil as it is and attempt its execution and *Son of a!* teach it to others as if it was the natural thing to pursue!

I admit I digress. However, the aforementioned is to illustrate what kind of people who fancies themselves as teachers of the common good or altruism or like the boogeyman that is told in your childhood or the devil they teach you in your church to scare you out of your wits, they come in many names. Many indeed. They are legion which denotes a collective mass of entities.

You said, "To say that only a rational egoist can be benevolent is nonsense. Explain how a rational egoist would ever buy life insurance." (emphasis mine)

This may hold true, but then again, they hold no illusion and if you ask for their motive they strive for which maybe a lot of things (they may even lie) but you are safe in the knowledge that they surely do not work for your good but rather their own and whatever good that is done to you is a bonus, an added value to which he recognizes and likes as a creature of trade. A "rational egoist" does not go around with a tag that says, "I am rational egoist: I do not work for your sake." because that would be an insult to every man who wish to acquire their competencies but have yet to find out if a trade or bargain is possible.

The above comes from the same premise (to what is considered an etiquette) that you do not shout at the top of your lungs the money in your bank account. That would be equivalent to saying, "You cannot afford me!" or it could also be, "I am very cheap!" and then of course, everyone will believe you and no one will offer to trade with your competency for either they will be appalled by your thinking that you are higher than them or be doubtful if you can deliver the goods which you advertise. This is also where the saying, "As good as your money can buy" comes from.

Let your transaction be discreet. You'll find it most comfortable for you and your potential clientele.

As to address your next sentence, a "rational egoist", precisely because he is rational, he uses the present facts to speculate about the future. He buys insurance not for the fear that his life is in constant danger but for the preparation to and acknowledging the fact of "accidents". It is because he is an egoist, he has confidence in his ability to sustain his life but he acknowledges the finitude of his bodily constitution and that he will desist from physical exertions - for his own sake - someday.

Let me make my opinion of you Bob. Since you asked the audience here to try and explain for you which I did, this is my payment: You have valid points (although their strength is arguable) but you rely on us to cater to your needs. Why not try to explain how a "rational egoist" can or cannot buy insurance in your view and then judge both with the same treatment?

Let's move on. You said, "Logic and rationality are dangerous things when combined with false premises..."

That is very true Bob. However, it is better to start with a false premise and leave yourself open to be corrected rather than be cautious of every single variable that crosses your mind. What image does the word "cautious" invoke in your mind? I can think and name two: Shifty eyes and fetal positions in a dank corner. Since you are a being of limited awareness, you can only trust what is in front of you and make an inference, an estimate or a hypothesis from it and proceed. But my good man, do your honest best.

Going back to altruism as a "possible way of life" (I do not wish to confuse my audience but this is the way I write and should you ask for clarification on certain points, I shall be glad to respond and identify what I mean).

Bob, you said, "But sacrifice for family and kin is easily explained - as is tribal based behaviour because our tribe is more likely to share our genes than other tribes."

That "easily explained" is what makes the whole idea dubious, because such a complex behavior as to giving up one person's life for another could be rationalized by just biological "levers and strings" which then could cancel out that claim. Also, there is that "drive to survive" which an area of science also claims due to our "biology". Surely, having your serotonin decreased substantially would cause depression and conversely, elevation of it mania. But, is that all there is to it?

Are you claiming, this gene is a "cure-all"? And that's all there is to your volition, choices and life? Can you see any alternatives that would successfully integrate free-will to heredity thereby making the systems complementary?

I can. Those pre-dispositions which you have are only a spark, an impetus if you will, that dictates "how much must and could be filled" as with a gas tank, but you decide "how much should be filled and what type of fuel/energy do you run on". The first humanoids or apes worked on trial and error and the correct choices were passed on via culture or religion (or some claim was encoded in our genes itself) which proved to be working.

However, the sin of these systems is that they stagnated as if they forgot why it exists. Further down the line, men, a few men, decided to depart from it and kept the correct again but this time re-evaluated premises and that is where logic started which proved to be a system does not only examine the present but can also infer and direct future trends based on how well one can identify the nature of the objects which they seek to manipulate. This is where I believe our current thinking abilities are from. You may argue that there is something better than logic and I could agree with you on that but unless you identify it using the present terms, a translation if you will and demonstrate it to us, then you are off on your own and based on your system, we will be wiped out. But know this for a fact: We take responsibility for it.

You mention that the theory is based on tribal behavior, do you mean to say that a tribe is an entity in itself? or is it a concept which can be broken down by "individual behaviors"? I choose the latter, how about you?

You say, "A high percentage of parents would give their life for their child's if they had to make the choice and I suspect the percentage would rise if they had to choose between their own life and that of multiple children."

Do you always look at the bleak side of figures? This "percentage" which you speak of may have come up due to lack of better words by the subjects - or was it from the statement of the scientists *gasp*. It would be better if they'd given a sentence completion test. If I may restate it, "A high percentage of parents would kill for their child as they have a choice and I speculate (based on the trend inferred) that the percentage would rise further if they had multiple children to protect." Same quasi-statistics, different interpretations. It would appear you obediently swallowed the pill the doctor asked you to.

I can't thoroughly discern why you enclose in quotation the word pretend. But with your challenge, I never pretended to play around and pit the value of my life in relation to my fellows but this lies in the assumption that they do not attempt to pit their lives against me. I seek to trade both implicitly and explicitly if necessary just as contracts are made with both parties bearing witness and bargaining with each others' requisites before engaging to "business proper". If you could, spar with my ideas with the same benevolence and veracity that I approached your challenge.

In closing, egoism does not invoke, "My life is of higher value than yours..." banality. Instead, recognizes that each human life is equal and each must let his fellow decide on his own on what to do with his life. You want his commitment or use his talents for a certain period? You ask for his price. If he deems it's too little a job for you to pay him an excessive amount, know that he is honest and do not be insulted. Instead, give him what he asks for and do not forget to add a word of your recognition which is: "Thank you."

Altruism on the other hand tells you that "Not only you should serve your fellow." but you must also deny yourself the gratitude he offers and which you deserve as a token for demonstrating your talents. This self-abdicating or self-effacing attitude is a worse insult to me than having my fellow saying, "Fuck you!" although I prefer also not to hear it as it still is an insult.

Again, if I deal with competent men, I praise them and remind them how much they deserve my gratitude and as a physical manifestation of it, I give them money as a standard of exchange between men of not equal talent but equal in the spirit of ability to produce on his own. When I see men like such with so much potential trying to live under the lie of "altruism" by not accepting my money, I well up with contempt - to a point. However, if I do meet a person who refuse to even accept my thanks and tout their smallness or humility, I'd attempt to return their product or "favor" in the same condition and medium as was given and walk away. This should be the same treatment if they refuse to acknowledge the goodness which they ask and got from me. Take at least the money or if I become really ill, destroy which I have created and walk away.

*I attempted to re-phrase Rand's ideas (from the Fountainhead - one of Toohey's speech I think) using my own words (see par.5) and for which, I call the experts in copyright here to assess and advise me on how to proceed as to avoid accusations of plagiarism should there be any problem. Thank you.

Edited March 24, 2010 by David Lee

[Dragonfly]

2. Sacrifice means surrender of value and therefore loss by any definition. If you call exchange of a lesser value to a greater one a "sacrifice" (like in chess) then you define gain as loss. This is contradiction in terms.

You deliberately ignore what all the dictionaries say. So for example the first meaning of "sacrifice" in Collins English Dictionary:

"A surrender of something of value as a means of gaining something more desirable"

The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary:

"The surrender of something valued or desired, esp. one's life, for the sake of something regarded as more important or worthy"

In The Free Dictionary: "Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim"

The sacrifice in chess is perfectly in agreement with these definitions, so there isn't any contradiction in terms.

[bmacwilliam]

Bob_ Mac "It's a little thing called a "Gene".

Evolutionary psychology (PE) is a pseudoscience. It has so many philosophical and scientific flaws that I don't really have time or desire to discuss all of them. However I have to mention at least one objection to PE which relates to our topic.

We're talking ethics here. Ethics or morals are code of values accepted by choice. Biological or gene determinism effectively eliminates Free Will, mind and therefore morals as such. The organisms which their only purpose is to transfer genes don't need any ethics. Animals do just fine without to define "good" and "bad". So if you view people as procreating living machines, don't bother yourself with ethical problems.

Just because there are some questionable and speculative EP ideas doesn't mean that gene-centric behaviour is questionable. These ideas (the ones I speak of) are mainstream evolutionary thought, hardly fringe. Your response only serves to clarify your profound ignorance of science. I have no problem with the criticism of specific ideas, but for a so-called "rational" person to believe that our behavioral traits didn't evolve right along with our physical ones is beyond my comprehension.

"It has so many philosophical and scientific flaws "

I always find it amusing that when evidence suggests a philosophical premise error, then the science that found it must have a philosophical flaw.

"The organisms which their only purpose is to transfer genes don't need any ethics."

Wrong again. What if ethics in our cognitive niche is advantageous to the reproduction and survival of our genes?

"So if you view people as procreating living machines, don't bother yourself with ethical problems."

If you believe otherwise, don't bother yourself with reality.

Bob

[tjohnson]

GS "Again I agree, but what is to stop me from using "a featherless biped" as my definition of a human in my system?"

If you do that how you would say a difference between man and plucked chicken?

You couldn't and that's why I said it wasn't a very useful definition.

Edited March 24, 2010 by general semanticist

[bmacwilliam]

Bob:

You said, "We have selfish tendencies because the gene is selfish. We have altruistic tendencies because our genes are copied in others to varying degrees."

Those two only came from the premise of a "selfish gene". No altruistic tendencies can be inferred there. If you did something for gain e.g. "genes are copied to varying degrees." then it stands to reason one does it for its own benefit and therefore cannot be truly called altruistic.

The selfish gene premise I cannot say is perfect BUT it's a helluva lot better than the alternative. But to address your point. Taking the gene's perspective, to maximize it's survival/reproduction the individual often acts to help others, especially kin - at a survival disadvantage to itself - ie one "instance" of the gene copy. This makes sense from the gene perspective - any one instance is expendable. You confer a survival advantage to another individual at a survival cost to yourself. I call this altruistic behaviour. You can call it what you like.

I do believe that altruism, as demonstrated by even our basic biological components, can be achieved. However, due to our nature, even basing from the premise of a "selfish" gene, consistent egoism can. Therefore, I ask, "Why preach something that cannot be achieved and more so, pass it as an ideal state proper to man?" The only logical conclusion would be because those who preach it, are spiritual perverts who enjoys seeing their fellow trying to fight their nature while they perpetuate it for they want to rise up using others and get a "better" view of the tumult they have wreaked.

These are the men who knew but betrayed that knowledge and intentionally preached that they "know" the way to fulfill the desires of men - by giving it up. Oh, they feast, they demonstrated their power alright. They fulfilled their own desires only by using others as a means to get it. I cannot say I could point out what made them do it for their motives are as varied as mine. I rely on my fellow's honesty as I rely on mine to the best that I could since even when I do lie, I make no illusions about it. It haunts me so that even before I can get to Dr Freud's couch, I'd be spitting slips here and there which tells me that I acknowledge the guilt and I can be corrected.

Holy moly, but just let me say this... I AGREE that preaching altruism as the sole ideal is destructive. This DOES NOT mean that we cannot indeed expect a degree of altruism from everyone. We can indeed say there is a moral imperative to be partially altruistic, based even on Rand's logic, but with a better premise.

Both extremes do not make ethical sense.

What do you think of people who knows that something is of a certain quality but do not recognize it as such?

Like Rand?

You said, "To say that only a rational egoist can be benevolent is nonsense. Explain how a rational egoist would ever buy life insurance." (emphasis mine)

This may hold true, but then again, they hold no illusion and if you ask for their motive they strive for which maybe a lot of things (they may even lie) but you are safe in the knowledge that they surely do not work for your good but rather their own and whatever good that is done to you is a bonus, an added value to which he recognizes and likes as a creature of trade. A "rational egoist" does not go around with a tag that says, "I am rational egoist: I do not work for your sake." because that would be an insult to every man who wish to acquire their competencies but have yet to find out if a trade or bargain is possible.

The above comes from the same premise (to what is considered an etiquette) that you do not shout at the top of your lungs the money in your bank account. That would be equivalent to saying, "You cannot afford me!" or it could also be, "I am very cheap!" and then of course, everyone will believe you and no one will offer to trade with your competency for either they will be appalled by your thinking that you are higher than them or be doubtful if you can deliver the goods which you advertise. This is also where the saying, "As good as your money can buy" comes from.

Let your transaction be discreet. You'll find it most comfortable for you and your potential clientele.

As to address your next sentence, a "rational egoist", precisely because he is rational, he uses the present facts to speculate about the future. He buys insurance not for the fear that his life is in constant danger but for the preparation to and acknowledging the fact of "accidents". It is because he is an egoist, he has confidence in his ability to sustain his life but he acknowledges the finitude of his bodily constitution and that he will desist from physical exertions - for his own sake - someday.

Let me make my opinion of you Bob. Since you asked the audience here to try and explain for you which I did, this is my payment: You have valid points (although their strength is arguable) but you rely on us to cater to your needs. Why not try to explain how a "rational egoist" can or cannot buy insurance in your view and then judge both with the same treatment?

You missed the point entirely. Insurance makes good sense for a rational egoist, but LIFE insurance does not and you haven't explained that. Life insurance not only benefits others, it benefits others ONLY when you die. You can never enjoy the benefits of your life insurance. Sure you twist all over the place and try to rationalize that the security that your family enjoys because you did this makes you happy, but that's weak. I'd definitely buy life insurance for my family's sake even if for some hypothetical reason I couldn't tell them - This MUST be immoral to an egoist.

Let's move on. You said, "Logic and rationality are dangerous things when combined with false premises..."

That is very true Bob. However, it is better to start with a false premise and leave yourself open to be corrected rather than be cautious of every single variable that crosses your mind. What image does the word "cautious" invoke in your mind? I can think and name two: Shifty eyes and fetal positions in a dank corner. Since you are a being of limited awareness, you can only trust what is in front of you and make an inference, an estimate or a hypothesis from it and proceed. But my good man, do your honest best.

Going back to altruism as a "possible way of life" (I do not wish to confuse my audience but this is the way I write and should you ask for clarification on certain points, I shall be glad to respond and identify what I mean).

Bob, you said, "But sacrifice for family and kin is easily explained - as is tribal based behaviour because our tribe is more likely to share our genes than other tribes."

That "easily explained" is what makes the whole idea dubious, because such a complex behavior as to giving up one person's life for another could be rationalized by just biological "levers and strings" which then could cancel out that claim. Also, there is that "drive to survive" which an area of science also claims due to our "biology". Surely, having your serotonin decreased substantially would cause depression and conversely, elevation of it mania. But, is that all there is to it?

Not dubious at all. Just ask the question - What would be the most likely/beneficial course of action from the gene's point of view? Sure there's grey areas, risk calculations, incomplete knowledge sure. But taking substantial risk and cost for kin is much more easily explained this way.

Are you claiming, this gene is a "cure-all"? And that's all there is to your volition, choices and life? Can you see any alternatives that would successfully integrate free-will to heredity thereby making the systems complementary?

I can. Those pre-dispositions which you have are only a spark, an impetus if you will, that dictates "how much must and could be filled" as with a gas tank, but you decide "how much should be filled and what type of fuel/energy do you run on". The first humanoids or apes worked on trial and error and the correct choices were passed on via culture or religion (or some claim was encoded in our genes itself) which proved to be working.

However, the sin of these systems is that they stagnated as if they forgot why it exists. Further down the line, men, a few men, decided to depart from it and kept the correct again but this time re-evaluated premises and that is where logic started which proved to be a system does not only examine the present but can also infer and direct future trends based on how well one can identify the nature of the objects which they seek to manipulate. This is where I believe our current thinking abilities are from. You may argue that there is something better than logic and I could agree with you on that but unless you identify it using the present terms, a translation if you will and demonstrate it to us, then you are off on your own and based on your system, we will be wiped out. But know this for a fact: We take responsibility for it.

I find the above cryptic, so I'm not even sure I disagree at all.

You mention that the theory is based on tribal behavior, do you mean to say that a tribe is an entity in itself? or is it a concept which can be broken down by "individual behaviors"? I choose the latter, how about you?

All I'm saying is tribal affinities, cohesive and altruistic behaviours, and by extension extra-tribal animosities etc., and even racism fit in the gene-centric behaviour model.

You say, "A high percentage of parents would give their life for their child's if they had to make the choice and I suspect the percentage would rise if they had to choose between their own life and that of multiple children."

Do you always look at the bleak side of figures? This "percentage" which you speak of may have come up due to lack of better words by the subjects - or was it from the statement of the scientists *gasp*. It would be better if they'd given a sentence completion test. If I may restate it, "A high percentage of parents would kill for their child as they have a choice and I speculate (based on the trend inferred) that the percentage would rise further if they had multiple children to protect." Same quasi-statistics, different interpretations. It would appear you obediently swallowed the pill the doctor asked you to.

Not making sense to me... Die, kill, take your pick - whatever. The point is we are genetically programmed to take large risks and sacrifices for kin. We can choose not to, but the urge will always be there because that's how we were "built" via evolution.

None of this has any implications re free will btw.

In closing, egoism does not invoke, "My life is of higher value than yours..." banality. Instead, recognizes that each human life is equal and each must let his fellow decide on his own on what to do with his life. You want his commitment or use his talents for a certain period? You ask for his price. If he deems it's too little a favor for you to pay him an excessive amount, know that he is honest and do not be insulted. Instead, give him a word of your recognition which is: "Thank you"

Interesting. In fact I think that the gene-centric approach indeed says your life is less valuable than mine. Life gets generally more valuable with kin proximity, and there's certainly some cases where my life is less valuable - but never less valuable than yours :-)

Altruism on the other hand tell you that "Not only you should serve your fellow." but you must also deny yourself the gratitude he offers and which you deserve as a token for demonstrating your talents. This self-abdicating or self-effacing attitude is a worse insult to me than having my fellow saying, "Fuck you!" although I prefer also not to hear it as it still is an insult.

Again, if I deal with competent men, I praise them and remind them how much they deserve my gratitude and as a physical manifestation of it, I give them money as a standard of exchange between men of not equal talent but equal in the spirit of ability to produce on his own. When I see men like such with so much potential trying to live under the lie of "altruism" by not accepting my money, I well up with contempt - to a point. However, if I do meet a person who refuse to even accept my thanks and tout their smallness or humility, I'd attempt to return their product or "favor" in the same condition and medium as was given and walk away. This should be the same treatment if they refuse to acknowledge the goodness which they ask and got from me. Take at least the money or if I become really ill, destroy which I have created and walk away.

No, my altruism tells me I should serve others sometimes. I live in hell :-)

Bob