Altruism

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

On a side issue, but one germane to our discussion, you stated somewhere that you don't think there is a consistent theory of human nature.

In Objectivism there is: reason. I find that very consistent. It works every time. But I also find it incomplete.

Incidentally, there are many standards that can be used as a basis for rights and the concept can be consistent to that standard. Off the top of my head, how about the divine rights of kings? Once one accepts the premise that God gives a king more power than other human beings, it is easy to keep the consistency.

So consistency is merely a methodological problem, not one of choosing the premises. (The method for identifying premises, however, has its own consistency issues if you go all the way down to the nitty-gritty.)

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

Hopefully this is a misunderstanding. Lets giver 'er a shot.

Very possibly it is a misunderstanding.

However as to your saying that "[you] had no clue that [ I] had changed gears[, that I] simply started talking about something else"...

there was a clue which you might easily have missed, since it was the last paragraph of a long reply to Wolf:

(Briefly sketching my own view: I think that every human society has some notion of "rights," by which I mean -- extending on a defintion I gave earlier -- legitimately enforceable paired sets of obligations/freedoms. I think that such paired sets evolutionarily well antedate the human lineage, that they go far back in the vertebrate lineage, even to the fish stage of territorial mutual behaviors. The classic theory of natural rights, which Rand adopted (with some alteration) I see as the attempt to specify and logically defend the best set of such pairs for forming a peacefully cooperative society.)

There was then (multiple posts down the heavy-traffic thread) an important post which I think you didn't miss since your comment "Before we can have a consistent rights theory, we have to have a consistent human nature theory" (which starts your post #400) appears to have been in response to this:

[my emphasis]

Just answer your own statements as to children having rights, what those rights are, and what that means to others.

Michael,

I think that Ethan put his finger on the key issue in the words I've emphasized: "what that means to others." Surely no one here is unaware that children too young to acquire food on their own have to have food provided by others if they're to survive. If you believe -- which near as I can tell you do believe -- that children have a right to have food provided by whomever (according to the chain of responsibility you've previously outlined) until children are old enough to acquire food on their own, implementing this right on behalf of a child might require initiating force against those who aren't in a legal guardianship relationship to that child and who aren't willing to provide for that child. On what basis would you justify this initiation of force? Wouldn't justification require a rationale for infringing the rights of non-guardian, non-willing adults? Wouldn't you have a contradiction if you nonetheless claimed that rights entail freedom from initiation of force?

The crucial point is that one person's right entails a corresponding obligation on the part of other persons. If you claim for young children a right to action on the part of non-guardian and non-willing providers, this would impose an obligation on those providers which they didn't choose to accept. How would you justify doing this? An answer to that question is a requisite if you want a consistent rights theory.

Ellen

___

The above was the context in which I then said that it's "an error in your thinking" to claim that one can't have a consistent rights theory without having a consistent theory of human nature.

I was not saying either that it's a mistake "to try to derive rights from human nature [or] that the concept of rights in Objectivism does not derive from human nature."

As to your criticisms of Objectivism's theory of rights over the course of many threads, sorry, but I'm still not seeing them as intelligible critiques. As near as I understand what you're driving at, you think that the nature of children is left out of account in the Objectivist theory of rights. I don't see that it is and thus far your explanations of why you think it is haven't yet made sense to me. Maybe they will eventually, but so far they haven't.

Ellen

___

[Xray]

This article has some interesting research on 'hard-wired' "altruistic" behavior, as the author calls it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16513986

It is certainly important in that context to study evolutionary questions as well, like researching how a certain kind of behavior evolved.

But is the use of the term "altruism" in the article apt at all? I don't think so, because altruism has become such a fudge word that people tend to project their subjective associations into it, which causes more confusion than clarity.

Imo nothing in the article contradicts the natural law as pertains to human individual with self-interest an inherent characteristic not subject to dismissal or alteration.

From article:

"Human infants as young as 14 to 18 months of age help others attain their goals, for example, by helping them to fetch out-of-reach objects or opening cabinets for them."(end quote)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19063815?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

But where's the "altruism" in that? Opening cabinets or trying to get to objects out of reach is something children of that age enjoy a lot, which I think everyone who has dealt with children of that age will confirm this.

Imo the activity as such is intriguing for them, the doing itself is the reward.

"People often act on behalf of others. They do so without immediate personal gain, at cost to themselves, and even toward unfamiliar individuals. Many researchers have claimed that such altruism emanates from a species-unique psychology not found in humans' closest living evolutionary relatives, such as the chimpanzee. In favor of this view, the few experimental studies on altruism in chimpanzees have produced mostly negative results. In contrast, we report experimental evidence that chimpanzees perform basic forms of helping in the absence of rewards spontaneously and repeatedly toward humans and conspecifics. In two comparative studies, semi-free ranging chimpanzees helped an unfamiliar human to the same degree as did human infants, irrespective of being rewarded (experiment 1) or whether the helping was costly (experiment 2). In a third study, chimpanzees helped an unrelated conspecific gain access to food in a novel situation that required subjects to use a newly acquired skill on behalf of another individual. These results indicate that chimpanzees share crucial aspects of altruism with humans, suggesting that the roots of human altruism may go deeper than previous experimental evidence suggested." (from article)

Imo when one takes a closer look at the "acting on behalf of others" (allegedly pointing to altruism), what is left out of the equation is that the act itself very often produces satisfaction in the benefactor and THIS is the self-interest aspect factoring in - whether it is chimpanzees 'grooming' each other, whether it is my colleague inviting me to a cup of coffee at lunchtime, whether it is me helping an old person across the street, or my kindergartners voluntarily sharing their toys with each other.

Rewards are not always immediate, nor always tangible. To offer assistance to a "stranger" is in keeping with the self- interest of preferring a friendly social atmosphere encouraged by the helping. Personal valuations are unlimited. There could be any number of self-interest motivations.

Also, as 'group animals', it is biologically hardwired in us that we as individuals can't survive without the group, therefore the ability to show empathy, to groom each other etc. does not contradict the natural law of self-interest as the driving force behind human action. For how can we as individuals survive without some cooperation?

Approval by the group also makes people feel more secure, and being rejected is feared since it evokes the danger of being abandoned, helpless, left to perish - all things which humans HAVE experienced during evolution. For our ancestors were far from sqeamish when it came to getting rid of the sick, the disabled, the old, unwanted children, or of dissenters not toeing the line.

Fear of rejection is also the reason why group pressure is often so successful. Manipulators know how use that fear.

As stated above, it also narrows the field to too much to see the "immediate personal gain" only as something material. For the gain aspect may be immaterial, and focusing only on the material aspect ("at cost to themselves") ignores that giving away can be done in exchange of a value subjectively held higher by the giver's emotional and mental mindset. Values are subjective, a value the result of personal preference, and there exists no personal preference without self-interest factoring in, whether it is preferring apples to oranges or preferring to give one's life for one's personal values.

A captain not leaving the sinking ship as long as there are still passengers on it does this because his preferred sense of self can't bear to conceive of himself as a person abandoning those entrusted to him. Therefore self-interest can very well involve giving one's life away; for example, the self-interest of a person committing suicide is to free self from the burden of living.

The higher developed brain of humans allows them to make more complex decisions in that field, but I have yet to see one where self-interest is not the motor. I don't use the term 'self-interest' with any negative connotation, just to state a natural law fact.

The picture is not complete without listing the one case where e. g. a person, without thinking for a moment, jumps down on train tracks to save a complete stranger. Imo at that moment they identified themselves so much with the person as if it were they themselves who had fallen down. So they did for the stranger what they would want others to do for them, had this happened to them. I believe this circuit in the brain runs so fast that the rescuer is not consciously aware of what is going on in his/her mind at that moment.

Imo it is important to differentiate empathy from "altruism". As opposed to "altruism", empathy does exist.

Imo "Altruism" exists as an ideology only where it says that people "ought to" serve others; even that is coupled with a promised reward, for example an afterlife in heaven, or recognition and praise (like the Old Roman saying "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori", which tried to present dying on the battlefield as "a virtue").

I am moved to add, contrary to popular opinion, "altruism" is not about "serving others".

It's about being served. Those propagating that others "ought to" be altruistic often have a vested self-interest in saying so, wanting to profit from the gifts received. The history of the catholic church is just one drastic example.

Now as for Rand, she rages against the ideology of altruism from the opposite direction: by arbitrarily judging "serving others" as despicable.

But imo she poured out the baby with the bathwater; I often got the impression that her attacking altruism despised empathy as well.

Roark's lack of empathy ("I'm not thinking of you") is presented as if it were a virtue, the same goes for Rearden's "ruthlessness", to name just two examples.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

I commend Xray for her clarity in post #503. However, that has a flipside. It is easier to see that her entire analysis reduces to her (subjectively) preferred word usage and highlights one of her word games.

I am moved to add, contrary to popular opinion, "altruism" is not about "serving others".

It's about being served. Those propagating that others "ought to" be altruistic often have a vested self-interest in saying so, wanting to profit from the gifts received. The history of the catholic church is just one drastic example.

I will risk venturing into Xray-speak. In other words so-called "serving others" simplifies, or is equivalent, to "being served" or "serving self". They do go together in trading for mutual benefit, but far from always. Per Xray "serving others" doesn't substantively exist provided the server has an iota of self-interest in the action. Also, Xray will "find" the iota in any example, even that of a suicide-bomber or the soldier who falls on a grenade to spare the lives of others. That is the gist of a word game that she has often invited others to play on OL.

Yet the above is incoherent with what Xray wrote here saying: "Children want to be cared for and taught, which I am happy to do. Therefore, the children's and my self-interest complement each other."

Complement does not mean "is equivalent to."

Contrast (1) X making a meal only for herself and then eating it, and (2) X making a meal only for Y and then Y eating it. I'm no expert at Xray-speak, but as I understand her:

- there is no substantive difference of motive between #1 and #2

- if X had no self-interest in doing #2, then X would not do #2

- thus different concepts/words are not needed for #1 and #2.

That contrast is merely one of many possible examples for distinguishing between serving one's self and serving others, be it motive or action.

Now as for Rand, she rages against the ideology of altruism from the opposite direction: by arbitrarily judging "serving others" as despicable.

That is crude and distorted. Rand did not forbid others to "serve others". Indeed, she championed mutual self-interest and her trader principle. What would Dagny Taggart, Hank Rearden, and Ellis Wyatt be without customers? She admonished individuals to not be a slave or servant of others at the expense of one's own self-interest as preached by long-standing, dominant, religion-based morality and by politicians.

[jeffrey smith]

I commend Xray for her clarity in post #503. However, that has a flipside. It is easier to see that her entire analysis reduces to her (subjectively) preferred word usage and highlights one of her word games.

I am moved to add, contrary to popular opinion, "altruism" is not about "serving others".

It's about being served. Those propagating that others "ought to" be altruistic often have a vested self-interest in saying so, wanting to profit from the gifts received. The history of the catholic church is just one drastic example.

I will risk venturing into Xray-speak. In other words so-called "serving others" simplifies, or is equivalent, to "being served" or "serving self". They do go together in trading for mutual benefit, but far from always. Per Xray "serving others" doesn't substantively exist provided the server has an iota of self-interest in the action. Also, Xray will "find" the iota in any example, even that of a suicide-bomber or the soldier who falls on a grenade to spare the lives of others. That is the gist of a word game that she has often invited others to play on OL.

Yet the above is incoherent with what Xray wrote here saying: "Children want to be cared for and taught, which I am happy to do. Therefore, the children's and my self-interest complement each other."

Complement does not mean "is equivalent to."

Contrast (1) X making a meal only for herself and then eating it, and (2) X making a meal only for Y and then Y eating it. I'm no expert at Xray-speak, but as I understand her:

- there is no substantive difference of motive between #1 and #2

- if X had no self-interest in doing #2, then X would not do #2

- thus different concepts/words are not needed for #1 and #2.

That contrast is merely one of many possible examples for distinguishing between serving one's self and serving others, be it motive or action.

Now as for Rand, she rages against the ideology of altruism from the opposite direction: by arbitrarily judging "serving others" as despicable.

That is crude and distorted. Rand did not forbid others to "serve others". Indeed, she championed mutual self-interest and her trader principle. What would Dagny Taggart, Hank Rearden, and Ellis Wyatt be without customers? She admonished individuals to not be a slave or servant of others at the expense of one's own self-interest as preached by long-standing, dominant, religion-based morality and by politicians.

You've caught on to how she has massaged "self-interest" into a word without meaning, since in Xray-thought, every human action is done out of self interest, even when it is not.

But her choice of words in using "complement" and "serve" is not so blemished. Complement does not mean equivalent, but rather in harmony or in parallel with. Thus, when you buy something at a local business, your desire to purchase the item complements the businessman's desire to sell you that item. In fact, any equal trade is based on complementary self interest.

And I think "serve" is not usually taken to have the meaning you give it, but a more limited meaning (connotes, as Xray would have it) in which the service is given without receiving anything in exchange. "The slave shall serve", as the Liber AL puts it. So it's not customer service such as a business gives its customers (or should give) but service as a servant gives to a master. And in that more limited sense, Xray does present Rand's position fairly accurately--and in fact, at least according to Xray, Xray actually agrees with Rand. (Whether in fact Xray actually agrees with Rand remains a point beyond our ability to decide at this point, given that it's not possible to decide what Xray actually thinks about most things.)

Jeffrey S.

[Xray]

I will risk venturing into Xray-speak. In other words so-called "serving others" simplifies, or is equivalent, to "being served" or "serving self". They do go together in trading for mutual benefit, but far from always. Per Xray "serving others" doesn't substantively exist provided the server has an iota of self-interest in the action. Also, Xray will "find" the iota in any example, even that of a suicide-bomber or the soldier who falls on a grenade to spare the lives of others. That is the gist of a word game that she has often invited others to play on OL.

Where is the word game? Indeed the suicide bomber is motivated by self-interest. Very often in suicide bombings, the promise is a reward in afterlife, or being considered a "hero". As for a soldier falling onto a grenade to spare the live of others, his preferred sense of self goes to giving his life for his comrades if necessary.

Others may well profit (be served) from an action. This does not exclude self-interest by the "giver".

Yet the above is incoherent with what Xray wrote here saying: "Children want to be cared for and taught, which I am happy to do. Therefore, the children's and my self-interest complement each other."

Complement does not mean "is equivalent to."

I'll quote from Jeffrey Smith's post which brought it to the point:

JS: Complement does not mean equivalent, but rather in harmony or in parallel with. Thus, when you buy something at a local business, your desire to purchase the item complements the businessman's desire to sell you that item. In fact, any equal trade is based on complementary self interest.

Contrast (1) X making a meal only for herself and then eating it, and (2) X making a meal only for Y and then Y eating it. I'm no expert at Xray-speak, but as I understand her:

- there is no substantive difference of motive between #1 and #2

Self-interest plays a role in both #1 and #2, yes. (If that is what you mean).

- thus different concepts/words are not needed for #1 and #2.

Correct.

- if X had no self-interest in doing #2, then X would not do #2

Correct.

That contrast is merely one of many possible examples for distinguishing between serving one's self and serving others, be it motive or action.

Would you explain this - what contrast exactly?

Edited December 17, 2009 by Xray

[anthony]

Ayn Rand said somewhere "I am not so much against altruism, as I am for egoism",--- but I'm having to trust my memory here, and I don't know if I got the quote exactly right, or where I found it.

Anyone know? It most likely came from an interview.

Still, I know that it put everything into perspective for me, and confirmed my own conclusions.

Tony

[jeffrey smith]

Ayn Rand said somewhere "I am not so much against altruism, as I am for egoism",--- but I'm having to trust my memory here, and I don't know if I got the quote exactly right, or where I found it.

Anyone know? It most likely came from an interview.

Still, I know that it put everything into perspective for me, and confirmed my own conclusions.

Tony

I suspect Rand may have meant something parallel to "I am not so much against ignorance, as I am for education" or "I am not so much against vegetarianism as I am for eating meat"--that is, wanting to focus on the positive aspect of her message (the virtues of egoism) as opposed to the negative (the evils of what she called altruism).

It's also true that what she termed altruism and what most people term altruism are not the same thing. To her altruism was the idea that one is morally obligated to put the interests of others ahead of one's own--and for her the real danger lay in what hypocrites would make of that. For most people, altruism is finding value (or at least benefit) in helping others: in which case one is being altruistic because it expresses one's own values and/or benefits oneself. I think Objectivists refer to this as "benevolence". (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) Even if it's not, I'm fairly certain that she would have no problem with such an attitude. There is also the more religious version, which links one's own self interest and happiness directly with that of others. It would be more accurate to call this compassion, remembering the Latin origin of the word ("feel with")

Jeffrey S.

Edited December 17, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Xray]

And similarly with the example you gave of people leaping into freezing water to save those who were drowning. Altruism would consist of doing so even if you knew that the people drowning were terrørists headed for New York. But if you are a good swimmer, you could very well weigh some risk to yourself against the horror pf certain death for others. Human life is a value, and short of knowing that the people drowning were killers or the equivalent, you would be right to consider the preservation of innocent lives to be a value.

Rational self-interest is not solopsism, it is not indifference to human suffering, it is not the absence of fellow-feeling. It consists of the pursuit of values -- and of taking action to preserve those values.

Trying to base the notion of rational self-interest (in Rand's terms the negation of altruism) on the condition of pursuing values will lead to an empty tautology, as any action can be described in terms of the pursuit of values. Suppose someone is giving away all his money and possessions to save starving children in Africa. I'm fairly sure Rand would condemn such an action and would call it altruism, not rational self-interest. But to that person helping those starving children is a greater value than his own comfort or even his own life. Saying that this is not in his self-interest is begging the question, who are we to say that saving his own children at any cost is in his self-interest but saving the lives of other children is not? That our priorities would be different is not relevant, values are subjective, not objective. Therefore Rand's theory of altruism vs. egoism is not objective, but reduces to the sum of her personal views (like the notion that "kneeling buses" are an example of altruism).

Excellent points, DF.

[anthony]

Ayn Rand said somewhere "I am not so much against altruism, as I am for egoism",--- but I'm having to trust my memory here, and I don't know if I got the quote exactly right, or where I found it.

Anyone know? It most likely came from an interview.

Still, I know that it put everything into perspective for me, and confirmed my own conclusions.

Tony

I suspect Rand may have meant something parallel to "I am not so much against ignorance, as I am for education" or "I am not so much against vegetarianism as I am for eating meat"--that is, wanting to focus on the positive aspect of her message (the virtues of egoism) as opposed to the negative (the evils of what she called altruism).

It's also true that what she termed altruism and what most people term altruism are not the same thing. To her altruism was the idea that one is morally obligated to put the interests of others ahead of one's own--and for her the real danger lay in what hypocrites would make of that. For most people, altruism is finding value (or at least benefit) in helping others: in which case one is being altruistic because it expresses one's own values and/or benefits oneself. I think Objectivists refer to this as "benevolence". (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) Even if it's not, I'm fairly certain that she would have no problem with such an attitude. There is also the more religious version, which links one's own self interest and happiness directly with that of others. It would be more accurate to call this compassion, remembering the Latin origin of the word ("feel with")

Jeffrey S.

Your appraisal matches my own EXACTLY, Jeffrey. When I was first absorbing the egoist/altruist premise, I adjusted my view of the definitions to those it seemed obvious that Rand meant: the classic ones; ie, 'alter' = other. So I still think of it as 'other -ism'.

Your most significant point imo is the "morally obligated" one. This is the 'culture' that Rand so clearly saw all around her, altruism - or its hypocritical pretence - in religion, society, economics, and politics, and this she identified as the greatest enemy of the independent mind, and therefore, of reason.

(Seeing we're in Quotes, here's another one I like: "I am not primarily an advocate of Capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of Reason.")

The lady sure kept her ducks in a row.

Tony

[merjet]

Self-interest plays a role in both #1 and #2, yes. (If that is what you mean).

It isn't what I meant, as if that weren't obvious. There is a substantive difference between #1 and #2. More generally, there is a substantive difference between doing something for oneself and doing something for others (although they may occur together). They merit different concepts. So you err, Xray.

- thus different concepts/words are not needed for #1 and #2.

Correct.

Moreover, your word game tries to obliterate the difference, or more specifically, doing for others. (That also obliterates doing for others under coercion or threat.) On the other hand, you say teaching serves your self-interest and that of others, your students. You haven't try to obliterate the latter. So you are inconsistent, which is no surprise since you say categories are arbitrary.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Xray]

Self-interest plays a role in both #1 and #2, yes. (If that is what you mean).

It isn't what I meant, as if that weren't obvious. There is a substantive difference between #1 and #2. More generally, there is a substantive difference between doing something for oneself and doing something for others (although they may occur together). They merit different concepts. So you err, Xray.

Don't err from the focus of the discussion, Merlin. Which was about self-interest playing a role in every action.

So to get back to your example:

"Contrast (1) X making a meal only for herself and then eating it, and (2) X making a meal only for Y and then Y eating it" (Merlin)

Self-interest is involved in both. Whether it is a cook preparing a meal in restaurat, a mother feeding her child, me slicing apples for my kids (my interest being in them getting healthy nutrition), etc.

Can you name a situation where you think X's self-interest is not involved in "X making a meal only for Y and then Y eating it".

Moreover, your word game tries to obliterate the difference, or more specifically, doing for others.

It looks to me like "word game" is the label you use each time I direct the attention to something not in sync with your opinion.

My position is that self-interest 100 per cent biologically hardwired in humans. This fact does not exclude serving others.

If you find error in this, then feel free to refute it.

(That also obliterates doing for others under coercion or threat.)

No, it doesn't. For example, suppose a robber holds me at gunpoint demanding my wallet, I will hand him the wallet because my self-interest is to survive. I'll trade the value I hold lower (money) for the value I hold higher (my life).

This does not mean everyone would do the same in this situation. For people can choose to resist despite being coerced.

On the other hand, you say teaching serves your self-interest and that of others, your students. You haven't try to obliterate the latter. So you are inconsistent, which is no surprise since you say categories are arbitrary.

Isn't it you who is inconsistent here? For where does it say that pointing out my self-interest does not take into account the self-interest of my students?

Edited December 19, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

Don't err from the focus of the discussion, Merlin. Which was about self-interest playing a role in every action.

Don't order me what to do. I'm not one of your kiddies or your servant. When you say "the focus", that is your subjective valuation. And I am not interested in hearing you preach the same dogma for the umpteenth time.

My position is that self-interest 100 per cent biologically hardwired in humans.

Please tell us how a soldier falling on a grenade to save others is "100 per cent biologically hardwired", as if the soldier has no volition.

Isn't it you who is inconsistent here?

No, it's you.

[Xray]

And I am not interested in hearing you preach the same dogma for the umpteenth time.

Stating a truth is not 'preaching a dogma'. Could labeling it as 'preaching a dogma' be a defense mechanism employed to push a truth away?

Merlin

(quoting Xray): "My position is that self-interest 100 per cent biologically hardwired in humans" (Xray)

Please tell us how a soldier falling on a grenade to save others is "100 per cent biologically hardwired", as if the soldier has no volition.

I spoke about self-interest being 100 per cent biologically hardwired. The same goes for volition.

Humans are volitional, goal-seeking entities attributing value to this or that.

Merlin

(Quoting Xray): "Isn't it you who is inconsistent here?" (Xray)

No, it's you.

Your answer is a mere denial without addressing what I asked you.

The complete quote is:

"Isn't it you who is inconsistent here? For where does it say that pointing out my self-interest does not take into account the self-interest of my students?" (Xray)

Edited December 19, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

Self-interest plays a role in both #1 and #2, yes. (If that is what you mean).

It isn't what I meant, as if that weren't obvious. There is a substantive difference between #1 and #2. More generally, there is a substantive difference between doing something for oneself and doing something for others (although they may occur together). They merit different concepts. So you err, Xray.

Don't err from the focus of the discussion, Merlin. Which was about self-interest playing a role in every action.

So to get back to your example:

"Contrast (1) X making a meal only for herself and then eating it, and (2) X making a meal only for Y and then Y eating it" (Merlin)

Self-interest is involved in both. Whether it is a cook preparing a meal in restaurat, a mother feeding her child, me slicing apples for my kids (my interest being in them getting healthy nutrition), etc.

Can you name a situation where you think X's self-interest is not involved in "X making a meal only for Y and then Y eating it".

Moreover, your word game tries to obliterate the difference, or more specifically, doing for others.

It looks to me like "word game" is the label you use each time I direct the attention to something not in sync with your opinion.

My position is that self-interest 100 per cent biologically hardwired in humans. This fact does not exclude serving others.

If you find error in this, then feel free to refute it.

(That also obliterates doing for others under coercion or threat.)

No, it doesn't. For example, suppose a robber holds me at gunpoint demanding my wallet, I will hand him the wallet because my self-interest is to survive. I'll trade the value I hold lower (money) for the value I hold higher (my life).

This does not mean everyone would do the same in this situation. For people can choose to resist despite being coerced.

On the other hand, you say teaching serves your self-interest and that of others, your students. You haven't try to obliterate the latter. So you are inconsistent, which is no surprise since you say categories are arbitrary.

Isn't it you who is inconsistent here? For where does it say that pointing out my self-interest does not take into account the self-interest of my students?

Notice that Xray's position is tenable only if you define "self interest" in an abnormal manner--using the term in the way most people use makes it nonsense. Or more precisely, Xray's dogma (because that is what it is) is makes nonsense of the concept of "self interest". But this intentional distortion of a word's definition is precisely one of the things Xray keeps complaining about in reference to Rand. (So do I, but I don't proceed to idiosyncratically redefine words for the sake of supporting an anthropological dogma.)

Jeffrey S.

[Xray]

Notice that Xray's position is tenable only if you define "self interest" in an abnormal manner--using the term in the way most people use makes it nonsense. Or more precisely, Xray's dogma (because that is what it is) is makes nonsense of the concept of "self interest". But this intentional distortion of a word's definition is precisely one of the things Xray keeps complaining about in reference to Rand. (So do I, but I don't proceed to idiosyncratically redefine words for the sake of supporting an anthropological dogma.)

Jeffrey S.

What people individually connote with a term is no definition of the term, and subject to variation. Dictionary entries often list actual definitions side by side with connotative interpretations of a term.

Self-interest defined simply means "concerned with one's own interests". It is the term which imo in the English language comes closest to label the fact that being "concerned with one's own interests" is biologically hardwired in human beings because we could not survive without it. If you know of a term labeling this fact more aptly, feel free to suggest one.

Claiming that I "make nonsense of the concept of self-interest" without you presenting this "concept of self interest" here makes no sense.

Or more precisely, Xray's dogma (because that is what it is)

What is dogmatic about stating a fact? If you don't think it is a fact, try to refute it.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

Notice that Xray's position is tenable only if you define "self interest" in an abnormal manner--using the term in the way most people use makes it nonsense. Or more precisely, Xray's dogma (because that is what it is) is makes nonsense of the concept of "self interest". But this intentional distortion of a word's definition is precisely one of the things Xray keeps complaining about in reference to Rand. (So do I, but I don't proceed to idiosyncratically redefine words for the sake of supporting an anthropological dogma.)

Jeffrey S.

Well said, Jeffrey.

In Xray speak "self-interest" is anything a person does or tries to do with no bounds whatever. Even destroying oneself (including suicide with no prospective gain) is one's "self-interest" in Xray speak.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[merjet]

Stating a truth is not 'preaching a dogma'. Could labeling it as 'preaching a dogma' be a defense mechanism employed to push a truth away?

Hogwash. Your dogma is an extreme version of psychological egoism.

I spoke about self-interest being 100 per cent biologically hardwired. The same goes for volition.

Humans are volitional, goal-seeking entities attributing value to this or that.

You side-stepped the issue. Is the soldier's decision to fall on the grenade "100 per cent biologically hardwired"? Is every decision a person ever makes "100 per cent biologically hardwired"?

Your answer is a mere denial without addressing what I asked you.

The complete quote is:

"Isn't it you who is inconsistent here? For where does it say that pointing out my self-interest does not take into account the self-interest of my students?" (Xray)

Your question missed the point, which I made in post #511 and you have not refuted.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Selene]

Ms. Xray's "absolutes" are more absolute than all other absolutes!

[Xray]

Stating a truth is not 'preaching a dogma'. Could labeling it as 'preaching a dogma' be a defense mechanism employed to push a truth away?

Hogwash. Your dogma is an extreme version of psychological egoism.

Hardly have I read an article doing such a tap dance around a simple truth.

The so-called "psychological egoists'" explanation why a soldier decides to fall on a grenade is completely inane.

Xray: I spoke about self-interest being 100 per cent biologically hardwired. The same goes for volition.

Humans are volitional, goal-seeking entities attributing value to this or that.

You side-stepped the issue. Is the soldier's decision to fall on the grenade "100 per cent biologically hardwired"?

I refer you to a prior post where I addressed this:

Xray: The higher developed brain of humans allows them to make more complex decisions in that field, but I have yet to see one where self-interest is not the motor. I don't use the term 'self-interest' with any negative connotation, just to state a natural law fact.

The picture is not complete without listing the one case where e. g. a person, without thinking for a moment, jumps down on train tracks to save a complete stranger. Imo at that moment they identified themselves so much with the person as if it were they themselves who had fallen down. So they did for the stranger what they would want others to do for them, had this happened to them. I believe this circuit in the brain runs so fast that the rescuer is not consciously aware of what is going on in his/her mind at that moment.

Imo it is important to differentiate empathy from "altruism". As opposed to "altruism", empathy does exist.

Imo "Altruism" exists as an ideology only where it says that people "ought to" serve others; even that is coupled with a promised reward, for example an afterlife in heaven, or recognition and praise (like the Old Roman saying "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori", which tried to present dying on the battlefield as "a virtue").

Also from a prior post, another perspective which can play a role:

Xray: As for a soldier falling onto a grenade to spare the live of others, his preferred sense of self goes to giving his life for his comrades if necessary.

Why didn't you address the arguments made in these posts?

In the case of the soldier, I lean more toward the explanation in the second quote. For finding himself and his comrades in a life-threatening situation is something a soldier will 'expect' more than a passer-by who suddenly sees a person fall on train tracks.

Xray: Your answer is a mere denial without addressing what I asked you.

The complete quote is:

"Isn't it you who is inconsistent here? For where does it say that pointing out my self-interest does not take into account the self-interest of my students?"

MJ: Your question missed the point, which I made in post #511 and you have not refuted.

Imo I explained the issue sufficiently enough in # 512. If there is still anything unclear to you, would you please quote it and elaborate.

MJ: Is every decision a person ever makes "100 per cent biologically hardwired"?

It is volition which is biologically hardwired. A decision is the result of a volitional being's action.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Xray

[Alfonso Jones]

Stating a truth is not 'preaching a dogma'. Could labeling it as 'preaching a dogma' be a defense mechanism employed to push a truth away?

Hogwash. Your dogma is an extreme version of psychological egoism.

Merlin -

Well put, and on target. She's just taking her definition of selfishness and pretending that it is the one used by Rand. A simple reading of The Ethics of Objectivism would make this clear.

As long as she plays the silly game of:

1) "Ayn Rand used the word selfishness."

2) "I want 'selfishness' to mean XXX and will ignore what Rand said about what she meant by the word."

3) "When I use this meaning, then what Rand said doesn't make sense and leads to contradictions."

4) "Therefore, Rand goofed on this."

then she will continue to be involved in the same nonsense, and attempt to entangle you and others in these interminable discussions. But the problem is not in the details of examples. It is at the very beginning - she has attempted to use a different meaning for "selfishness" than Rand did, and then pretends Rand meant what results from substituting the different meaning in for selfishness.

The only thing accomplished by the extended discussion is the demonstration that the person with whom you are discussing is either unable or unwilling to engage in a serious and respectful discussion with you. That point has been well and thoroughly made. We can see through her (some pun intended).

Bill P

[william.scherk]

Revisiting this great and interesting thread started by Barbara Branden (one of several I have been re-reading on the subject of altruism, of which there are really good examples of thought and argument**).

Topical today, perhaps. Here's a Rebirth Of Reason habitué with a telling quote. It is from a fresh thread called Why Wouldn't You Save A Drowning Child?:

The child you save may need to drown instead.

The Priest Who Saved A Four-Year-old Hitler From Death In An Icy River

Today the international media is reproducing photographs of a three-year old Syrian boy who drowned when the boat taking him from Turkey to Greece capsized. He and a brother washed ashore at Bodrum. Sad and horrible to contemplate for many folks (especially on Twitter), but in another sense just another number to add to the dire statistics of merciless war in Syria. Or just another example of Over There, Not Here.

Another set of media stories concerns the actions of Hungarian authorities who prevented train passengers from taking a journey through Hungary to possible asylum in Austria and Germany. Germany is prepared to offer asylum to everyone who makes it there -- an estimated 800.000 for this year. (this while Iraq, Jordan and Turkey have taken in almost four million, and while six million are 'internally displaced').

If you guessed that the amount of refugees accepted from the Syrian war in Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia amounts to zero, you would be right. The three countries have had a hand in the warfare, but cannot accept anyone driven from their homes by either Assad or ISIS or general destruction ... it's the worst refugee crisis in Europe since WWII.

I miss Barbara.

Here's a happier photo of a Syrian child meeting a welcoming policeman in Munich.

_

___________________

** See Have your fiance tested for the 'ruthlessness' gene and Richard Dawkins on the evolutionary origins of altruism

Edited September 3, 2015 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

Regarding that unnamed habitué over yonder, back when the starving baby in the woods scandal erupted on the forums, the sheer weirdness and hostility of the entire discussion caused me to announce that I would write a short story about it to dramatize the emotions. My intention was to use traits of the "unnamed" as part of a person who actually finds a baby in the woods. He was to be challenged and conflicted when his declarations got confronted by reality.

After all these years, I'm finally getting the damn thing into shape. My biggest problem was trying to make such a person appear real to the audience. It would be easy to do that if such callousness were in a villain (bad guys are sadists almost by definition), but the character in my story is a good guy who is seriously conflicted. I wanted to take him from that callous but morally sanctimonious state to a more integrated one.

But for the life of me, when thinking about normal readers outside of O-Land, I simply could not create that initial state appear realistic. I mean, we all see indifference around us, even in ourselves, but that level wedded to moral authority is not a universal experience people can relate to. Also, I didn't want the character to be autistic, which would be believable. I wanted him to be normal.

I think I have finally worked it out, but it's been a bitch. Up to now, I could not figure out how to give my character this callousness mixed with other elements that readers could bond with so they would go into a story trance, thus on the character's emotional journey.

Think about it. Who can resonate with a person who feels moral satisfaction--with relish at that--in being indifferent to the death and suffering of children?

Yet there he is.

The truth is that reality is stranger than fiction ever could be. (That's a hard lesson to learn for an author with a vivid imagination. )

btw - Here's a teaser. I don't know when I will finish, but I do see the light in the distance. My story is called "Melody's Edge." Melody is the name of the child.

(I miss Barbara, too.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

"Challenged and conflicted"?

Here we go again.

Rand broke this down to value choice and sacrifice. She did not throw a baby into the mix. We're really talking about abortion and when it came to abortion she concentrated on the first tri-mester and did not reduce it to value conflict and choice except abstractly. You want to do what Rand did not do, remove an occupied womb from the equation. For Rand the baby in the woods would have the unambiguous right to life. That is not the right to be rescued. Maybe rescuing that baby would mean someone else would die. This is reduced to ethics of emergencies or lifeboat contingency. What we are not really talking about is someone taking a walk and finding a baby in the woods and saying, "I can't be bothered. I can't be bothered because I want to hop, skip and jump and listen to the birds chirp and finish my walk without dealing with this unexpected, crying thing, aka a baby. My philosophy says I don't have to be bothered--so there!" I'm sure there are stupid aspies who might entertain us with such abstracted nonsense in the name of lucidity and consistency respecting a philosophy (Objectivism?), but it's crap until there is a real baby involved. Let's say there is a real baby involved and I'm walking in the woods with someone not an aspie--I can't believe anybody would really do this who wasn't a moral monster so aspies are off the hook--and there is a baby. My companion insists we leave the baby. It's my companion who might get left in the woods, not the baby, if he tries to stop me from rescuing the kid. But of course, this would never happen. This is for illustrative purposes only.

--Brant

[Mikee]

It says everything you need to know about a persons "sense of life" regarding humanity that when talking about a three or four year old they jump immediately to "could become a Hitler". Undeniably true. You just walk away slowly...

I think it's nature and nurture. Nice to see you William.