Settling the debate on Altruism

[tjohnson]

Sacrifice means:

1.The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person. A victim offered in this way.

2.Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim. Something so forfeited.

3.Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed value. Something so relinquished. A loss so sustained.

American Heritage dictionary.

Note that (2) is self-contradictory since it's actually means gain , not loss. The use of the word in this sense causes great deal of confusion on this thread.

Er, Leonid, (2) is not self-contradictory. It might, but by no means necessarily, be interpreted to contradict (3).

Do you need the definition of "self-contradictory"?

Yes, an example of (2) would be like during D-Day when the Commanders of the Allied forces sacrificed many men, which they valued highly, in exchange for something they valued higher - gaining a foothold in France.

[Brendan Hutching]

So nobody can accept Rand's version of 'altruism'? Fine, call it by another label. Let's say, um, 'autrisme'.

Imagine for one second that she discovered a brand new cover-all ideology that no other philosopher had fully identified ever before.

After a couple of thousand years, 'autrisme' had become so prevalent, so invidious and insidious, that it affected everything social, personal, religious, economic, and political. In short, it had become woven into the deepest fabric of Man's life. So much, that a completely independent ego has rarely survived past childhood.

The 'autriste', has lost any realization of his personal authority and autonomy. He seeks the sanction of others, just to exist, and they seek his.

Can we start from here? By examining this brand new concept? Playing round with meanings and definitions and relative moralism gets kind of dull. (And with no settlement in sight.)

Yes, forgetting about the label and examining the facts that are claimed to support this new concept would be the way to go. But your above claims are very far-reaching and ambitious and I think you’d have your work cut out supporting them.

[merjet]

Every sacrifice is a trade, but not every trade is a sacrifice. We talk about a sacrifice when that what you give up is of considerable value to you and what you hope to gain is not always immediately visible, for example while it's something to be gained later (like a sacrifice in chess, or some financial investment based on an insider tip) or is a psychological gain that is not obvious to an outsider. When you buy a CD for $10 it's not a sacrifice because losing $10 is not a great loss and the value of obtaining that CD to you is quite obvious. Well, except if you are very poor and you desperately need those ten dollars for other things, like food. In that case it is a sacrifice, as giving up those $10 will hurt you, even if you think that possessing that CD is still more important to you.

Supposing for the moment this is accurate, then how is the line drawn between trades that aren't sacrifices and trades that are. It seems a very fuzzy one. You say it's not a sacrifice if I pay $10 for it, since it's not a great loss. You say if a poor person pays $10 and deprives him/herself of food, it is. Where do you draw the line? Would it be sacrifice for me if I paid $25 for it? $50? Would it be sacrifice for the poor person to pay $1 for it? 10 cents?

I believe the claim that every sacrifice is a trade is way off target. Consider a prototype trade, such as my buying a CD for $10. I give my $10 to the store for its CD. The store gives its CD to get my $10.

Compare that to Galileo's choice. He gave up his freedom to advocate his physical theories under threat by the church. How is that like the CD example? Galileo's freedom was not something the church wants like the store wants my $10. There was nothing Galileo had that the church wanted. There was nothing the church had that Galileo wanted; he simply wanted the church to not censor or kill him. And what is the church ceding -- its authority to burn Galileo at the stake like it did Giordano Bruno? To liken Galileo's choice to a trade of $10 for a CD is highly suspect, indeed, in my opinion absurd.

Secondly, all that separates sacrifice from a prototypical trade in Dragonfly's (and Xray's) schema seems to be how highly the person values what is ceded or foregone. Since he makes no mention of coercion or threat, I can only conclude he thinks they are irrelevant, like Xray does.

[Dragonfly]

Supposing for the moment this is accurate, then how is the line drawn between trades that aren't sacrifices and trades that are. It seems a very fuzzy one. You say it's not a sacrifice if I pay $10 for it, since it's not a great loss. You say if a poor person pays $10 and deprives him/herself of food, it is. Where do you draw the line? Would it be sacrifice for me if I paid $25 for it? $50? Would it be sacrifice for the poor person to pay $1 for it? 10 cents?

Of course it is a very fuzzy line, depending on individual circumstances and psychologies (how do you quantify "hurt")? So what? Many things just cannot be defined exactly. Where do you for example draw the line where someone becomes rich?

Compare that to Galileo's choice. He gave up his freedom to advocate his physical theories under threat by the church. How is that like the CD example? Galileo's freedom was not something the church wants like the store wants my $10. There was nothing Galileo had that the church wanted. There was nothing the church had that Galileo wanted; he simply wanted the church to not censor or kill him. And what is the church ceding -- its authority to burn Galileo at the stake like it did Giordano Bruno? To liken Galileo's choice to a trade of $10 for a CD is highly suspect, indeed, in my opinion absurd.

Not at all. The value for the church is silencing Galileo, because his ideas are threatening the authority of the church. To Galileo his life and physical liberty were of more value than the freedom to advocate his theories, so he sacrificed the latter to gain the first.

Secondly, all that separates sacrifice from a prototypical trade in Dragonfly's (and Xray's) schema seems to be how highly the person values what is ceded or foregone. Since he makes no mention of coercion or threat, I can only conclude he thinks they are irrelevant, like Xray does.

Indeed these are not relevant, they just belong to a subset of possible sacrifices. When someone holds a gun against your head and asks for your money or else, then most people prefer to sacrifice their money to gain the continuance of their life. That's also why most people pay taxes, even if they don't like it. Their freedom is to them a larger value than the money they lose.

[merjet]

Not at all. The value for the church is silencing Galileo, because his ideas are threatening the authority of the church. To Galileo his life and physical liberty were of more value than the freedom to advocate his theories, so he sacrificed the latter to gain the first.

You missed the point. Galileo did not trade his freedom such that the church had his freedom afterward. The church might have allowed his freedom, but it could not have it by its nature. If I buy a CD for $10, the store has the $10 afterward. Equating Galileo's case with buying a CD is like equating apples and oranges. Also and again, there was coercion with the former and not with the latter.

[tjohnson]

I'm going to agree with Merlin. The presence of coercion, force, etc. is an important factor that changes things. If you voluntarily pay a certain amount of money for something that's one thing but if you are forced to buy something whether you want it or not - that's totally different. This is the fundamental issue in all this "altruism" discussion, I think. To what extent should one be forced to comply with "rules" or "laws" in one's society in the name of benefiting others?

[imurray]

I'm going to agree with Merlin. The presence of coercion, force, etc. is an important factor that changes things. If you voluntarily pay a certain amount of money for something that's one thing but if you are forced to buy something whether you want it or not - that's totally different. This is the fundamental issue in all this "altruism" discussion, I think. To what extent should one be forced to comply with "rules" or "laws" in one's society in the name of benefiting others?

Things do appear to get murky when you introduce the idea of force. One could follow the rules of society based on their perception that it is a sacrifice for the "greater good" or sacrifice their values for the perceived benefit of not incurring fines or being detained. Alternately one may choose not follow the rules and sacrifice freedom or money for the the perceived benefit of staying true to one's values or in the hope that the act will lead to change for the "greater good". While I can see how one could make an argument that these are all examples of trading a lower value for a higher value one could also argue from the point of view of GS and Merlin and say that because situations like these force people to choose, what they might regard as, the "lesser of two evils" there really is no freedom to choose for oneself. Another argument could be made that all choices are conditionally or contextually constrained by forces out of our control. In that case it would be valid to ask what constitutes force or coercion as implied by GS and Merlin and how do they differ from conditional or contextual forces? Are we ever free to choose from all imaginable possibilities (perhaps the very idea that we can't know every possibility precludes the following question) or are we always "forced" to choose from a finite and constrained set of available options? Put another way, what's the difference between explicit and implicit forces?

Edited March 21, 2010 by Panoptic

[anthony]

WhyNot "So nobody can accept Rand's version of 'altruism'?"

Observe that Ayn Rand doesn't provide any definition of Altruism of her own. . "The basic principle of altruism" she explains- "is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good." (Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,”Philosophy: Who Needs It, 61.)

For Rand words aren't labels, they designate concepts, that is-facts of reality integrated by mind. By analyzing the concept of altruism she concludes that this concept renders the concept of morals null and void.

Leon,

Spot on. Ayn Rand didn't provide a definition, she DESCRIBED altruism; she painted us a picture of it. Here:

"Do not confuse altruism with kindness...These are... consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible."

I've never read 'Who needs It', and this is a valuable reference for me.

On some other thread I'd described how life-time altruists are the most unfeeling, cold-hearted people, I've known.

(As a by the way, I'm remembering two women I was involved with who's modus operandi was all about reward and punishment - you do something "right", a sacrifice of course, and you get something in return - maybe; you aren't dutiful enough - god help you! They knew all the words of caring and emotion, but one sensed they could not feel them, apart from envy, guilt and resentment. No values, no mind, no true feelings. That's an altruist.)

As you say: "this concept renders the concept of morals null and void."

Tony

[Dragonfly]

You missed the point. Galileo did not trade his freedom such that the church had his freedom afterward. The church might have allowed his freedom, but it could not have it by its nature.

The case of Galileo vs. the church is complex, and I'm not quite sure to what phase you're referring. At first Galileo sacrificed the defense of his theory to avoid punishment by the church, i.e. his physical liberty was a greater value to him. The church gained the silencing of Galileo which was valuable to them as it threatened the authority of the church. Later Galileo tried to put his theory forward in a more indirect way, by presenting it as a hypothetical situation. Possibly he thought he could get away with that, that he was safe from persecution, so it wouldn't have been a sacrifice on his part. Nevertheless the church had a different opinion, the diluted version of Galileo's ideas was still dangerous to the church and in a process Galileo had to sacrifice again the defense of his theory by denying it under oath, gaining the relatively mild punishment of a house arrest (instead of a more severe punishment). The church gained again Galileo's silence. That is what was important for them to get. Galileo had to pay for his physical well-being by denying his theory. So the parallel with buying the CD is: CD ~ Galileo's physical well-being; 10$ ~ Galileo's disavowal of his theory. Galileo pays his $10 and buys the CD and the church gets its $10.

[merjet]

You missed the point. Galileo did not trade his freedom such that the church had his freedom afterward. The church might have allowed his freedom, but it could not have it by its nature.

The case of Galileo vs. the church is complex, and I'm not quite sure to what phase you're referring.

I believe it's pretty clear in my two sentences you quoted. Nevertheless, I will try again. Was Galileo's freedom something he could give to the church and the church then use it similar to how the store can use the $10 it gets for selling me the CD? One's freedom is not a transferable thing like $10 or a CD.

[Dragonfly]

I believe it's pretty clear in my two sentences you quoted. Nevertheless, I will try again. Was Galileo's freedom something he could give to the church and the church then use it similar to how the store can use the $10 it gets for selling me the CD? One's freedom is not a transferable thing like $10 or a CD.

First, as I already mentioned in my previous post, Galileo didn't give his freedom to the church, he gave the disavowal of his theory. Second, a trade doesn't necessarily involve money, barter is also a form of trade. A barber can give a window cleaner a haircut in exchange for the cleaning of his windows. Neither of these services is a transferable thing like $10 or a CD.

[Xray]

You missed the point. Galileo did not trade his freedom such that the church had his freedom afterward. The church might have allowed his freedom, but it could not have it by its nature.

The case of Galileo vs. the church is complex, and I'm not quite sure to what phase you're referring. At first Galileo sacrificed the defense of his theory to avoid punishment by the church, i.e. his physical liberty was a greater value to him. The church gained the silencing of Galileo which was valuable to them as it threatened the authority of the church. Later Galileo tried to put his theory forward in a more indirect way, by presenting it as a hypothetical situation. Possibly he thought he could get away with that, that he was safe from persecution, so it wouldn't have been a sacrifice on his part. Nevertheless the church had a different opinion, the diluted version of Galileo's ideas was still dangerous to the church and in a process Galileo had to sacrifice again the defense of his theory by denying it under oath, gaining the relatively mild punishment of a house arrest (instead of a more severe punishment). The church gained again Galileo's silence. That is what was important for them to get. Galileo had to pay for his physical well-being by denying his theory. So the parallel with buying the CD is: CD ~ Galileo's physical well-being; 10$ ~ Galileo's disavowal of his theory. Galileo pays his $10 and buys the CD and the church gets its $10.

MJ: I believe it's pretty clear in my two sentences you quoted. Nevertheless, I will try again. Was Galileo's freedom something he could give to the church and the church then use it similar to how the store can use the $10 it gets for selling me the CD? One's freedom is not a transferable thing like $10 or a CD.

What the receiver does with your money is irrelevant for the discussion of the principle of trade = you give X (10 dollars) to get Y (CD) because you value Y more than X.

Galileo valued Y (staying alive) over X (standing up against the church authorities for the sake of truth).

Bruno valued Y (standing up against the church authorities for the sake of truth) over X (staying alive).

No trade or sacrifice is performed because the giver wants what he/she thinks is the lower value. It is always the (subjectively judged) higher value the trader has in mind which directs his/her action.

In view of this principle operating without exception, imo the idea of any "objective" value existing out there, subject to objective discovery, can't stand up to scrutiny.

(from post # 433):

"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible." (Rand)

Kindness is a "consequence"? Consequence of what? What is she talking about?

Edited March 21, 2010 by Xray

[imurray]

Kindness is a "consequence"? Consequence of what? What is she talking about?

I'm no expert, but it seems easy enough: kindness is a consequence of acting 'selfishly'. In other words you don't choose to act kindly - you choose to act 'selfishly' and kindness may be a byproduct of that. It's really the only option as I understand her theory (as others have outlined here); choosing to act kindly would be altruistic and therefore it couldn't result in kindness.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Panoptic

[merjet]

First, as I already mentioned in my previous post, Galileo didn't give his freedom to the church, he gave the disavowal of his theory. Second, a trade doesn't necessarily involve money, barter is also a form of trade. A barber can give a window cleaner a haircut in exchange for the cleaning of his windows. Neither of these services is a transferable thing like $10 or a CD.

I didn't say a trade necessarily involves money. I used buying the CD as a protoypical instance of a trade.

There is still the other big difference. Galileo was coerced to disavow his theory. Your barter (presumably) doesn't involve coercion and neither party would consider it a sacrifice. At best you have a very weak analogy.

No trade or sacrifice is performed because the giver wants what he/she thinks is the lower value. It is always the (subjectively assessed) higher value in the mind of the trader (or sacrificer, for every sacrifice is a trade as well) which directs his/her action.

I've already rebutted this multiple times. Moreover, we already know you have nothing new to add and your only defense is to repeat yourself (over and over and over and over and over and over ...).

[imurray]

Merlin,

See my comment above regarding "force". I'd like to read your opinion if you're inclined to respond.

[anthony]

Kindness is a "consequence"? Consequence of what? What is she talking about?

I'm no expert, but it seems easy enough: kindness is a consequence of acting 'selfishly'. In other words you don't choose to act kindly - you choose to act 'selfishly' and kindness may be a byproduct of that. It's really the only option as I understand her theory (as others have outlined here); choosing to act kindly would be altruistic and therefore it couldn't result in kindness.

Yes, I think that's well put.

Xray, who would you prefer to accept an act of essential kindness from - an altruist who's professed 'business' is predominantly about duty and obligation to others; or a rational individualist, who reserves the right to be benevolent when he chooses so?

(A clue: the latter is acting out of volition, the first by force.)

Ultimately, only an egoist can be benevolent.

Or put another way: There is none so kind as he who isn't forced to be.

Tony

[merjet]

Merlin,

See my comment above regarding "force". I'd like to read your opinion if you're inclined to respond.

I guess you mean post 432. I have used "coercion" (or a cognate) because it has a much narrower meaning than "force". In this discussion my concern has been choices made by person X when coerced by person Y. Person X being "forced by nature" is not my concern.

[imurray]

Merlin,

See my comment above regarding "force". I'd like to read your opinion if you're inclined to respond.

I guess you mean post 432. I have used "coercion" (or a cognate) because it has a much narrower meaning than "force". In this discussion my concern has been choices made by person X when coerced by person Y. Person X being "forced by nature" is not my concern.

Thanks Merlin. I understand what you're saying, but I still think it leaves room to argue that almost every choice is constrained by some force outside of oneself be it natural, social, interpersonal, etc. I'm not sure saying that one force comes from a person, called coercion, and another from something else is enough to exclude the latter from this discussion. For example:

I am coerced to build a home that is earthquake resistant because the insurance companies will not offer coverage and it will not meet the requirements of local codes for new structures if I do not.

I am forced to build a home that is earthquake resistant because if I don't there's a good chance it will collapse and someone will be hurt.

Keep in mind, I personally think that your argument is the stronger argument as I don't like to carry things out to what I consider ridiculous extremes as I have done in my previous post and here. Being more of a pragmatist, I'm okay with "ignoring" natural forces because it muddles things up and doesn't help resolve the issue (as virtually anything in philosophy can be carried out in this manner to no end) - I just get the feeling that many people here don't share my pragmatic outlook.

That being said - I'm not trying to put you on the spot or argue for the sake of argument. In the spirit of this particular debate, I'm merely throwing another wrench!

Respectfully,

Ian

Edited March 22, 2010 by Panoptic

[bmacwilliam]

No trade or sacrifice is performed because the giver wants what he/she thinks is the lower value. It is always the (subjectively judged) higher value the trader has in mind which directs his/her action.

In view of this principle operating without exception, imo the idea of any "objective" value existing out there, subject to objective discovery, can't stand up to scrutiny.

Back to the Austrian Economists again. There is benefit to adopting your stance, and also room for confusion too. I agree, that if the person has a choice, it's clear that whatever they chose is clearly their preference and by extension more valuable - to them. This is true.

Here's the problem: The exchange still results in benefit or loss (although sometimes it's not clear) to the actor. A simple example is giving a dollar to the homeless. The giver acts in self interest, he prefers to give rather than walk by, he gains some good "feelings" etc. Yes, this is all true. However, the act is sacrificial in the only measurement we have (because "feelings" are a black box) and that's economic. The giver got NOTHING in return - and knew this ahead of time. Feelings don't count because we can't measure them - stick to the measurable and observable - Action, Money in this case. Otherwise, sacrifice/altruism is defined into meaninglessness - which you can do if you want, but it then becomes pointless to argue.

"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible." (Rand) Kindness is a "consequence"? Consequence of what? What is she talking about?

Because I think her thought is that you can't value others life at all without your own life as your standard. So kindness is a result, a consequence of self-love, self-valuing. I do not agree with this BTW. This is weak rationalization.

Bob

[imurray]

Kindness is a "consequence"? Consequence of what? What is she talking about?

I'm no expert, but it seems easy enough: kindness is a consequence of acting 'selfishly'. In other words you don't choose to act kindly - you choose to act 'selfishly' and kindness may be a byproduct of that. It's really the only option as I understand her theory (as others have outlined here); choosing to act kindly would be altruistic and therefore it couldn't result in kindness.

Yes, I think that's well put.

Xray, who would you prefer to accept an act of essential kindness from - an altruist who's professed 'business' is predominantly about duty and obligation to others; or a rational individualist, who reserves the right to be benevolent when he chooses so?

(A clue: the latter is acting out of volition, the first by force.)

Ultimately, only an egoist can be benevolent.

Or put another way: There is none so kind as he who isn't forced to be.

Tony

Tony,

I think you actually cleared something up that I missed. An act performed "altruistically" may be perceived as kindness by the benefactor of that action, however, it would not be regarded as an act of "essential kindness" (as you put it).

Does that make sense?

I guess I'd like to know more about this: If two actions, one said to be egoistic and one said to be altruistic, achieve the same end from the perspective of the benefactor how would that be treated? Would it be said that both were actually egoistic acts, but one was wrongfully said to be altruistic? Would it be said that the egoistic act was the only act of essential kindness because the motives behind the altruistic act preclude it from being an act of essential kindness? Or...something else? I'm truly curious. I think it has been touched on earlier, but I'm trying to understand and I hope this way of positing it gets me a more direct answer..

[Dragonfly]

Here's the problem: The exchange still results in benefit or loss (although sometimes it's not clear) to the actor. A simple example is giving a dollar to the homeless. The giver acts in self interest, he prefers to give rather than walk by, he gains some good "feelings" etc. Yes, this is all true. However, the act is sacrificial in the only measurement we have (because "feelings" are a black box) and that's economic. The giver got NOTHING in return - and knew this ahead of time. Feelings don't count because we can't measure them - stick to the measurable and observable - Action, Money in this case.

But that doesn't work. If one of the variables cannot be measured you cannot say that the other one is more important, the only conclusion is that you cannot compare those two variables numerically. Think instead of giving a dollar to the homeless, of giving money to your adult child, of whom you know that he can use it to save his life. I think it's not very useful to say then that you get "nothing" in return because feelings are not measurable.

Otherwise, sacrifice/altruism is defined into meaninglessness - which you can do if you want, but it then becomes pointless to argue.

The term sacrifice is not meaningless, only rather vague. For altruism the situation is different: with the definition based on intent, it doesn't exist, but you can use the biological definition, which is based on comparing survival probabilities. Then it does exist and is also part of human nature.

[bmacwilliam]

I guess I'd like to know more about this: If two actions, one said to be egoistic and one said to be altruistic, achieve the same end from the perspective of the benefactor how would that be treated? Would it be said that both were actually egoistic acts, but one was wrongfully said to be altruistic? Would it be said that the egoistic act was the only act of essential kindness because the motives behind the altruistic act preclude it from being an act of essential kindness? Or...something else? I'm truly curious. I think it has been touched on earlier, but I'm trying to understand and I hope this way of positing it gets me a more direct answer..

Personally, I think this muddies the waters again. I think it's pretty clear, self-evident almost, that when given a CHOICE, the selection/action taken is ALWAYS in the self-interest of the actor - by definition. The ACTION shines a clear light on the value heirarchy - full stop. The question of "WHY" is important perhaps, but we cannot ever say the person's choice is "wrong" or "illogical" without substituting some other value system - I digress.

However, if the person gets no tangible value in return, the act is altruistic because it can be measured objectively, just like the person's preferences and values are revealed by ACTION. The action confers a measureable benefit to the recipient at a measureable cost to the donor, therefore altruistic. Anything else is just pointless argumentation IMHO. Not pointless I guess, but it's just psychological speculation about something that cannot be measured.

Perhaps the person's intention is not altruistic, and perhaps his induction is faulty, that's fine too. We can discuss intention too, but the ACT and the outcome as far as it is measureable, stands on it's own.

Buying my children food or giving them money is plain and simple altruism. Rand would disagree I think and say that I value my life with my child in it so therefore I value their life, so I won't let them starve. This is a self-serving and I believe disengenuious. It's altruistic because your work (money) buys food and gives a survival benefit to someone else. Your "value" of your children is a given (because of your choice) but to say this isn't altruism, is, in my opinion a deception - and one needed by Rand for political and not philophical purposes.

Bob

[tjohnson]

Thanks Merlin. I understand what you're saying, but I still think it leaves room to argue that almost every choice is constrained by some force outside of oneself be it natural, social, interpersonal, etc. I'm not sure saying that one force comes from a person, called coercion, and another from something else is enough to exclude the latter from this discussion. For example:

I am coerced to build a home that is earthquake resistant because the insurance companies will not offer coverage and it will not meet the requirements of local codes for new structures if I do not.

I am forced to build a home that is earthquake resistant because if I don't there's a good chance it will collapse and someone will be hurt.

Keep in mind, I personally think that you're argument is the stronger argument as I don't like to carry things out to what I consider ridiculous extremes as I have done in my previous post and here. Being more of a pragmatist, I'm okay with "ignoring" natural forces because it muddles things up and doesn't help resolve the issue (as virtually anything in philosophy can be carried out in this manner to no end) - I just get the feeling that many people here don't share my pragmatic outlook.

That being said - I'm not trying to put you on the spot or argue for the sake of argument. In the spirit of this particular debate, I'm merely throwing another wrench!

Respectfully,

Ian

I like your perspectives, Ian I was reading recently how one of the first signs of advancing civilization is the completion of large public works projects like roads, sewers, infrastructure, etc. and when these things are accomplished there will always be disagreements. So in the end you are forced to pay for something you don't want - I'm sure this applies to everyone at one time or another.

[bmacwilliam]

But that doesn't work. If one of the variables cannot be measured you cannot say that the other one is more important, the only conclusion is that you cannot compare those two variables numerically. Think instead of giving a dollar to the homeless, of giving money to your adult child, of whom you know that he can use it to save his life. I think it's not very useful to say then that you get "nothing" in return because feelings are not measurable.

A person compares all variables (to the extent that is humanly possible) when choosing (and choosing to ignore is also a choice) so the the outcome of any person's choice (action) clearly demonstrates what's more important to the person. So, I'm not quite sure what you mean?

[bmacwilliam]

The term sacrifice is not meaningless, only rather vague. For altruism the situation is different: with the definition based on intent, it doesn't exist, but you can use the biological definition, which is based on comparing survival probabilities. Then it does exist and is also part of human nature.

What I was objecting to was the claim that there is NO sacrifice possible because we always act in our self-interest. That makes the discussion, if not the term, rather useless.

Bob