»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Leggo my Egoism
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Leggo my Egoism |
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA 
|
I was reading about Ayn Rand's philosophy called objectivism ... in particular about her view on ethics. Basically her explanation of ethics is what she calls rational self interest. This was not entirely original, since "egoism", as a philosophical view of ethics, came before Rand. But while reading, I saw some potential problems. Here is a quote from the Ayn Rand website to explain what "rational self interest" means: "Man — every man — is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.” Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism — the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society." And another quote about social morality: "The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force — i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use." The question I have is, if we take the first statement to be true, about self-interest being supreme, how can we conclude the second statement about social morality to also be true? If every man is an "end in himself", why should I consider seeking values from others by physical force to be unethical? Especially if I can, as many do, justify it in my own mind as harmonious with self interest? This is where egoism seems to me most dubious ... when certain moral principles are taught as obligatory, while at the same time the achievement of self-happiness is taught to be the highest moral goal. From within this paradigm, what can be said persuasively to those who will agree enough that self-interest is King, but will deny any moral imperatives concerning their behavior toward others? It seems to me that placing Self interest at the hub of every action might just be a fallacy, and a gross oversimplification of motive. As David Hume put it, "The love of simplicity has been the source of much false reasoning in philosophy." Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-07-2003 06:32 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2003 Stephen Douglas Jones - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Black_Knight Junior Member
since 2003-09-04
Posts 23England |
Ah, but there's the rub. The first quote is on something that is taken as a 'natural law' kind of thing. The second is an adopted principle, a principle social rule. We adopt social rules as a form of Mutual Non-aggression Pact. We each sacrifice a little of our freedoms to explore some self-interests in return for having protection from the negative (from our own perspective) self-interests of others with whom we have made pact. All societies work on this principle, effectively. Freedom is not an absolute. For one person to be free to speak, another is no longer free to enjoy silence.  The question you have posed here is rather like saying, "Okay, the objective of war is to win, to use deadly and overwhelming force to attain goals, so why does the Geneva Convention exist, which limits the ability to win a war through methods that could cost far less lives?" |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
'We're all just cannibals -- who haven't eaten each other. Yet. Because, there's plenty of food.' -- Dr. Will Miller |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Black Knight: "The question you have posed here is rather like saying, "Okay, the objective of war is to win, to use deadly and overwhelming force to attain goals, so why does the Geneva Convention exist, which limits the ability to win a war through methods that could cost far less lives?"" That's a bit simplistic... This whole question runs a bit deeper, peering into the actual motives of winning and attaining goals. egoism would demand us think that every act of agression in history has been for totally selfish advantage with no admixture of principles or sense of duty. And though a strong case might be made that most wars have been fought for selfish political ends, it would be less convincing to say that all were fought those reasons alone ... and even less convincing to say that no war could possibly be fought from a motive higher than selfish ambition. The Geneva Convention is not a statement made merely to reduce the numbers of lost lives in our camps. It also has to do with ethical treatment of prisoners of war, even dying prisoners of war. So while self interest is involved, I do not consider the GC to be based totally upon self interest, but also upon ethical considerations ... in reaction to atrocities of war that have occured. Also you picked a tricky example ... it's hard for me indeed to make war look just. As it is a hard thing to justify such a bloody means of accomplishing something. Therefore, if I can't somehow convincingly show war to be just, it appears that I haven't addressed your question. But that is a separate matter. And the whole example is quite different, even diametrically opposite of the quotes of Ayn Rand. According to what I cited ... deadly force and weapons should NOT be used to obtain goals, unless they are defensive. Your example actually makes my question more poignant by providing the contrast. Why shouldn't deadly force and weapons be used, if self interest is the highest consideration? There are nations who have used Militia in the name of self interest, trampled weaker powers, and have fared pretty well (according to their own judgements). My point is, how can an incumbent social ethic be employed, when self interest is stated to be the only motive of action, and altruism or "living for society" is specifically rejected? As a deviant, I could always argue that my own non-altruistic social policy is better geared toward my self interest, than that proposed by Rand ... and actually more in line with her teaching of what ethics are really about. There are people in this world who devour the widows and orphans, trample the weak, and get rich walking up other's backs. According to egoism, aren't they just acting from self interest, with the exact same motive as everyone else? Is there anything in egoism which might provide compelling reasons for someone to behave altruisticly, other than trying to show that the results of socially reprehensible actions are less profitable to them? And what if they simply disagree? It seems that no one would have moral ground to say, "But it's less profitible to me!" Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-08-2003 02:17 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: But would such justifications qualify as rational self-interest? You'll actually find three different adjectives frequently used in Objectivism, and they're pretty much used interchangeably. There's rational self-interest, as in the passage you quoted. There's also enlightened self-interest, and much less frequently but I think more accurately, long-term self-interest. Whichever adjective you use, the initiation of force, physical or otherwise, is NEVER in one's best self-interest. The rational man, looking past the immediate moment, recognizes that harm to another inevitably returns full circle. All who live by the sword, shall die by the sword. Truth is truth, Stephen, whether you find it in Mathew or in Atlas Shrugged. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"But would such justifications qualify as rational self-interest?" Ron, I agree with you that truth is truth wherever it may be found. And I also agree with objectivism when it says that we shouldn't be aggressors. And I know that, generally speaking, whatever is sown will be reaped. And to unleash ill will toward others will not be in one's self interest. But this is not always evident ... and according to my worldview, much of it is not evident until the world to come. Remember those ancient poems that mused on how the good perished, and the evil flourished? But the ultimate outcome of behavior is always debatable. If self interest is king, and altruism is presented as a falsity, then the dice are really thrown as to which method is most profitable. Judging something rational or irrational, when self interest is arbiter, depends on how it all turns out. If your campaign is successful in War, who is to say that this was not in your self interest? In fact if it is only self we are concerned with, the only true concern should be that the spoils last for your lifetime. As long as there is prosperity (even though it is bought with the blood of others) within your 80 years, why should you care? A good example are those who agree that self interest is paramount, but deny social concern, or any "irrational" aspect to agression. What about the "Will to Power" of Nietzsche? The cruelest acts, in the egoist view, become mere wrong estimations, rather than willful, deplorable, immoral actions. Should the Holocaust be placed on the same level as a man who simply miscounted his marbles? I can pity such a man, but not despise his actions. That's why egoism can only offer descriptive ethics in hindsight, not prescriptive ethics beforehand. It all depends on the marbles left over. To me, a cruel act in this context is only irrational if there are other principles than self interest in the mix. I guess I would lend more toward mutualism than either complete altruism or egoism, because granted, self is always somewhere in the equation. It just doesn't have to always be the answer. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-08-2003 05:59 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
How can "long term self interest" be applied beyond someone's lifetime? "If I can make it work for me", I hear some say, "while I'm on this planet, why should I care for posterity"? Is there any response from egoism for this? I know there is a good response on your tongue, but it most likely doesn't come from the reductionism of egoism in my opinion. Stephen. |
||
|
Black_Knight Junior Member
since 2003-09-04
Posts 23England |
quote: Ah, there is the key, Stephanos, for you are listing 'ethical considerations' as if outside of, or beyond, self interest, while the whole foundation of this philosophy is that there is nothing, nothing at all, that doesn't have self-interest at heart. Its a cold view, but that is perhaps its appeal to some. According to the hard-liners of this philosophy, ethics are primarily something we create to make us feel superior (there's the self interest). Ego massage is very much 'self interest' according to Egoism. Naturally I picked war as a tricky example. It is one that is always hard to rationalise in any philosophy. Even though Jesus preached that we should turn the other cheek, never did he speak against his father for the slaughter at Jericho... That is hard for many to rationalise. The true motives for war are never selfless or altruistic. There is no altruism in killing other human beings with whom you have no direct grudge, and the soldiers of another country are rarely any part of the 'ethical differences' that wars are sometimes justified with. I am only aware of one 'ethical' war in history, and it was waged by Mahatma Ghandi. In pre-history, one can perhaps include the Christian Martyrs and their battle of sacrifice that eventually won them the Roman Empire. The word of God is pretty clear: Thou shalt not kill. There's really not much room for interpretation there. There's no exception, no excuse, no small-print. If we are to believe the Bible, it comes from the only set of things written directly by the hand of God, rather than by a human under his guidance. If any christian kills, or aids in killing, or simply supports those who kill or will kill, then he really has a lot more ethical considerations to worry about already than whether or not self-interest is involved... no? War is hard to rationalise in any philosophy. Egoism is one of the few that does it almost right. But to understand it, we have to understand our own motives and self-interest more deeply. The very fact that all rational men know they are mortal, and that while they cannot choose whether to die, they can choose how and when to risk it, and in what cause, certainly comes into play. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"Ah, there is the key, Stephanos, for you are listing 'ethical considerations' as if outside of, or beyond, self interest, while the whole foundation of this philosophy is that there is nothing, nothing at all, that doesn't have self-interest at heart." That's just restating what egoism says. It is the reductionism of all human motives to selfishness that I find untenable. "According to the hard-liners of this philosophy, ethics are primarily something we create to make us feel superior (there's the self interest). Ego massage is very much 'self interest' according to Egoism." Again, this is restating the same assertion, not giving any reason to accept it. If I am to believe this, then I must believe that actions which appear the most humble and self forgetful, are actually done to feel "superior". So the humblest deeds are really the least humble of them all. Quite a conundrum. How have we got it backward all of this time? Why do we continually refer to those who are inordinately selfish, as "those with big egos". It must be those who appear the most altruistc who have the big "egos". This seems counter-intuitive. "The true motives for war are never selfless or altruistic." I'm not convinced that a war could never be waged to protect a weaker, innocent people who have become an object of unethical aggression. I'm not saying that many have been fought with such motives. But "never" is a strong word for you to use. "War is hard to rationalise in any philosophy. Egoism is one of the few that does it almost right." On War in general ... I'm not attempting to justify it. You brought it up. The problems I raise with egoism do not hinge on the ethics of war. That might be a separate thread though. (actually I think we've been over that a few times before in Philosophy). Actually where I think egoism fails, is in attempting to offer a persuasive reason (from within it's own philsophical assertions) of why War cannot be aggressively used against someone else to achieve a personal goal. If it's about self interest alone, then why not? For example, objectivists teach War only in self defense ... and I think this is more harmonious with peace and truth than many other philosophies. I just don't think egoism has any explanatory power to support this prescriptive ethical rule. Do you think it does? If so, explain. " . . . we have to understand our own motives and self-interest more deeply." I totally agree. I just think there to be more motives than self interest alone. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-09-2003 12:42 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Altruism: A common mask of long-term self-interest, often spurred by short-term self-interest. "The suffering of others can never be divorced from the world in which I live. My life and the way I live it is very much dependent on that world, and the only sure way to improve or protect my own long-term interests is to make the world a better place. Besides, it makes me feel good to help others." Ethics: Guidelines for effective self-interest. "I should always do what is in my best long-term self-interest. Sometimes, though, that's not always easy to rationally determine because of the many unknowns I face. Ethics provides a framework upon which to base my decisions. When I don't know what to do, I can fall back on a set of 'rules' that have proven to work far more often than not." War: The irrational and short-sighted notion that value can be purchased with force. "I believe I am strong enough today to win something of value. Were I to look a little farther ahead, I might realize that tomorrow someone else will likely be the strongest." Religion: The ultimate testament to the pervasive power of self-interest. "Do this, this, and that, and you will be eternally rewarded. Fail to do this, this, and that, and you will be punished." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, All these "definitions" only restate the claims of egoism. It seems you've only redefined these words through the lens of egoist philosophy. And the power of your words reside in the truth that self interest is never absent. And I've never denied that. But a "never absent" consideration, and the "sole" consideration are surely two different things. And that last sentence might describe an elementary aspect of religion as to law ... but even you have pointed out, it's got end up as more than that. If you describe Love to God (or even people) as mere self interest, I think you're missing something. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-09-2003 11:25 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
""I believe I am strong enough today to win something of value. Were I to look a little farther ahead, I might realize that tomorrow someone else will likely be the strongest."" I asked this earlier, but it has not been addressed yet. I'll ask again. Taking the egoist assertion to be true, If I can be strong enough merely until I die, then why would it matter if someone else is strongest after my funeral? How can long term self interest be prescribed beyond one's day of death? Surely empires built on the blood of others, have rarely fallen in just a lifetime. Remember, it is each individual who is an "end in himself". What in egoism can the ethic of caring for posterity rest upon? What can be said to someone who is pretty confident they can procure power and benefit, at least while they are alive? (And by the way, many have done it). According to egoism, this person ought to be a success? But only if you attach ethics somehow to something beyond self interest, can you say that posterity is important. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-09-2003 11:23 AM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Stephan- I really don't see what the problem is here. If I'm not allowed to hit my classmate just because I feel like it, then, theoretically, she can't do the same to me. It's simply a self-interested interpretation of the golden rule. "If I don't hit her, she probably won't hit me." Obviously, that only works if everyone follows the rules... which they won't. That's why I'm allowed to defend myself if need be. That being said, objectivism prizes human ability... the ability to produce, to create... not to destroy. If I take away someone's ability to be productive... like by hitting my classmate while she's working on a paper, it's naturally counter-intuitive to objectivism. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush: "It's simply a self-interested interpretation of the golden rule. "If I don't hit her, she probably won't hit me." But what about situations when she can't hit you back? What about when the strong wants to oppress the weak, or the rich wants to exploit the poor? There is a vast number of situations where this self interest policy won't provide any rational reason for someone not to inflict harm upon others. There are so many individuals or groups that I can do wrong to, who can't hit back. Believe you me, I think it's wrong to hurt those weaker than you, but I'm afraid egoism doesn't provide a basis for that belief. There has to be a moral principle higher than self to recommend this. "objectivism prizes human ability... the ability to produce, to create... not to destroy. If I take away someone's ability to be productive... like by hitting my classmate while she's working on a paper, it's naturally counter-intuitive to objectivism." When I look at the teachings of objectivism, I wonder, "human ability to do what? ... to produce what? ... not to destroy what?" According to objectivism each individual is "an end in himself". So all objectivism really supports are abilities, production, and creativity toward one end ... self. Your example is only counter-intuitive to objectivism if hitting your class-mate would hinder you in some way. Chances are, if you are in the same class and the teacher is watching, it will affect you profoundly. I'm not so sure that her grade would suffer as much as yours would! But there are other examples where the self interest might not be so compelling, as to discourage a mean act. Somewhere down the line, someone should be able to say, "You shouldn't hit others even when you CAN get away with it." This is what egoism does not seem to really provide for. Objectivism does attach the clause "Don't be mean to your neighbors", but this is a free-floating directive, only grounded in the philosophy of egoism where it can be shown to cause self harm. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-09-2003 02:51 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
What is selfinterest though and where does it come from? Perhaps we should consider the prefix "inter"(between and among) and the root "esse" (to be) . If one is inter(between and among)ested (being?) how may he just be of or for himself ? [This message has been edited by Essorant (09-09-2003 03:43 PM).] |
||
|
Legion Member
since 2003-07-20
Posts 54 |
What is selfinterest though and where does it come from? According to Richard Dawkins self interest is the best bet for individual survival and that it all starts with your genes. Strange as it may seem he also asserts that altruistic behaviour is a by-product of self-interest in a social environment. [This message has been edited by Legion (09-09-2003 04:47 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Yet there is more than one selfinterest though-- myselfinterest, yourselfinterest, ourselfinterest. Which one is most important? If one of us is going to say everything is "myselfinterest" isn't that a solipsism? [This message has been edited by Essorant (09-09-2003 09:00 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, You're right. I never thought of that. If there are other "selves", how can it be plausibly said that all motives are based upon self-interest alone? It would only make sense if you yourself were the only real entity there is. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think selves are candles that become bigger candles when they touch each other... |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I just happened upon this quote while looking into what Lincoln said about slavery. It may be inconsequential, but I thought it was interesting that this issue was alive when the abolition of slavery was at hand. " I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world,—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites; causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty,—criticising the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest." - Abraham Lincoln. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-11-2003 08:48 AM).] |
||
|
Black_Knight Junior Member
since 2003-09-04
Posts 23England |
quote: Well of course you cannot take the stance of one philosophy and translate it into your own. If you are unprepared to accept the basic tenet of a philosophy because it is untenable to your personal views, you'll naturally never be able to accept the philosophy. No, the better test is to go with the precept for a while and find out not whether it will fit within your existing philosophy, but more importantly, will your existing philosophy fit within the new one? Are you afraid to test whether your need to reject self-interest as the root of all motives, is in fact due to the self-interest of believing yourself to be better and more ethical than that? Would it harm your self-identity to try accepting, even just to see from that vantage point, that you were essentially selfish? If so, there is your motive, and it is one of self-interest, and your very denial, may be the proof you seek. quote: Is the fact that something may be counter-intuitive a reason to dismiss it? Just over 2,000 years ago, a man was born to a virgin, was killed, and came back from the dead, only to leave again. He was a Jew, preached to Jews, based on their faith as Jews, but his followers reject Judaism. Is any of that anything but counter-intuitive? However, what we are discussing is not counter-intuitive at all. People lie to themselves about their true motives all the time. Self-deception is in fact totally intuitive, and quite instinctive too. We all like to believe we are funnier, more intelligent, nicer, and all-around better than we truly are. quote: Uh-huh. You don't think that maybe forcing your subjective views and subjective judgements upon others by violence is inherently selfish? "I'll hit anyone who uses violence!" - Talk about counter-intuitive. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Black Knight: "Well of course you cannot take the stance of one philosophy and translate it into your own. If you are unprepared to accept the basic tenet of a philosophy because it is untenable to your personal views, you'll naturally never be able to accept the philosophy." I'm not trying to "translate" another philosophy into my own. Rather, I'm holding basic assumptions which I myself, and others have made for ages . . . namely, that there are human actions based upon selfishness, healthy self-interest, but also upon the interests of others. When someone comes along and denies the possibility of acting upon any motive other than self-interest, I am forced to examine the claim. When I go to examine the claim, I actually do let go (loosely) of my basic assumptions, because I must find out where the antithetical assumptions lead. When I have done so, I have found that the claims are internally incoherent. In other words, there are many points of dialectical tension that cannot be resolved in the egoist claim. I have mentioned some, and even asked some questions above which haven't yet been answered. If you really want to me to see it this way, then help me resolve the problems I have brought up. "No, the better test is to go with the precept for a while and find out not whether it will fit within your existing philosophy, but more importantly, will your existing philosophy fit within the new one?" I've actually done that, and I've gone a step beyond. I already know these two "philosophies" do not fit together at points. They are antithetical to each other. The next test is to find out which one fits best with reality, logic, and intuition. Which one is the more integrated view. I have tried above to show why I think egoism is internally incoherent. I'm ready to talk those if you wish. "Are you afraid to test whether your need to reject self-interest as the root of all motives, is in fact due to the self-interest of believing yourself to be better and more ethical than that? Would it harm your self-identity to try accepting, even just to see from that vantage point, that you were essentially selfish? If so, there is your motive, and it is one of self-interest, and your very denial, may be the proof you seek. " Nice try. So my denial is simply the proof you offer? You are asking me to accept a tenet of a philosophy without honestly believing it to be true. Then you are saying that my holding out might be a baser thing to do than just blindly accepting something. Even if my motive for believing what I do could be shown to come from self interest, it does not follow that the belief that ALL actions come from self-interest is true. My example, is not a hard one for you to pin self-interest on. But I never said that things couldn't be done from the motive of self interest. What I reject is that self interest is the ONLY motive. Altruism presents you with a much more sticky problem than my actions here. (however I think you may even have a problem with my own actions here, because I believe that I would be a much more self-centered person than I am, and less inclined to help others, if I adopted a philosophy such as egoism. Therefore the concern for others is somewhere present in my actions too.) "Just over 2,000 years ago, a man was born to a virgin, was killed, and came back from the dead, only to leave again. He was a Jew, preached to Jews, based on their faith as Jews, but his followers reject Judaism. Is any of that anything but counter-intuitive?" If you think it is counter-intuitive, read the story. Think about the radical message and claims and actions of Jesus. Was it surprising that a wedge occurred between Christianity and Judaism? Not counter intuitive to me. We could discuss that in another thread if you wish. "However, what we are discussing is not counter-intuitive at all. People lie to themselves about their true motives all the time. Self-deception is in fact totally intuitive, and quite instinctive too. We all like to believe we are funnier, more intelligent, nicer, and all-around better than we truly are." You're belaboring a point that we already agree on. Yes, people are often selfish. Yes, people are often hypocritical. Yes, people are often self deceptive. How does it follow then that EVERY action can be reduced to self interest? This is not a logical deduction. Where I said Egoism is counter intuitive, is in the area of judgements we make. We tend to praise people who give more and sacrifice more for others. We tend to think well of those who are the humblest and kindest. We tend to honor those who don't parade themselves. But in actuality, these are the most hypocritical if Egoism is true. Not only do these act in self interest, but they do so in a deceptive way. They make it appear as if they are not. Now which is the easiest to believe, that people actually can (by God's grace) forget themselves a bit, or that there is this master plot going on to only appear as if they are? Very counter intuitive. You may counter by saying that true self interest isn't really unethical, so these people are doing what is right by being good. They are doing right by themselves, you say. But then you have to explain the fundamental difference between someone who chooses to exercise their self interest in a "selfish" way, and someone who chooses to do so in a "selfless" way. Why do we chide one, and praise the other as unethical? This is simply a matter of choice, but the motive is exactly the same according to egoists. What makes this counter intuitive is the moral indignation we feel for someone who is selfish. What an irrational feeling, if the motive is the exact same thing as for someone who is kind. "Uh-huh. You don't think that maybe forcing your subjective views and subjective judgements upon others by violence is inherently selfish?" Are you trying again to box me in, by getting me to undertake the difficult task of justifying war? I hate war, so it's kind of hard for you to do. My beliefs are simply this. Though Vioence may be wrong, I don't think defending someone else, is necessarily a move of self interest. Ever wanted to jump on the Bully at School for picking on the little guy? We usually DIDN'T jump on Butch because of self interest. To jump on Butch to defend Eugene can be done out of a motive of principle, and would usually get you pounded. But it can be based upon the conviction that it is unethical to pick on little guys for no good reason. We could go on and on. But I do concede that very few wars have been fought from motives of ethcial priniciple. There again ... You have your most formidable difficulty with examples of self sacrifical altruism, not with things like War. The most typically selfish acts of mankind present a kind of straw-man for you in this debate. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-15-2003 07:42 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Stephen, you seem to be accepting definitions without questioning them. What you call selfless altruism, I would call enlightened self-interest. And, yes, people should be praised for that. What you call selfish, I call short-term thinking. And, yep, people should be condemned for that. The effects are the same, no matter what you call it, but that doesn't mean that what you call it is meaningless. On the contrary, in fact, because there is absolutely NOTHING you can do to encourage selfless altruism. On the other hand, I have a pretty good idea what needs to be done to encourage enlightened self-interest. It's obviously difficult to prove an absolute beyond a preponderance of evidence. I can point at several billion examples of self-interest at work, which offers evidence of a pretty significant trend, but I have still failed to conclusively prove the absolute. I categorically state that every single human act in all of history is and always has been motivated by self-interest. All you have to do to prove that premise wrong is produce just ONE instance that is clearly, unequivocally not attributable to self-interest. I don't think you can do it. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, Where your view finds it's power of persuasion, is in the truth that self interest is never absent. I do not deny this. You are trying to pin me by showing the absurdity of complete altruism. But in reality, I don't believe such a position is possible either. If you're at a pole, you can't hurl things at the opposite pole if I'm in the middle. Are you saying that every single act in History has been motivated by self interest Alone? If you are, then I have some questions for you, which you haven't answered. 1) According to Egoism, how can concern for posterity be recommended as long term self-interest since it only comes after one's own life is through? In other words, what if I feel pretty confident that by stepping on the backs of others (discriminately of course) I can procure a comfortable and enjoyable life for myself until the day I die. Why shouldn't I do so? Why should long-term self interest extend past my dying day, seeing that I (presumably) do not extend past my dying day? And before you respond that this is a non-realistic request ... remember people have and DO think this way. 2) Is there a fundamental difference between "self forgetful" acts, and "selfish" acts if the motive is the same thing, other than a mere miscalculation of profit? Example ... A man who snatches a purse of an elderly woman compared to a man who gives money to a poor woman ... Why do we have a moral problem with the purse snatcher and not the gift-giver, seeing they both make decisions out of the same exact motivation? 3) Is love cheapened to find that it was only based upon self interest? Then how is love fundamentally different than patronising friendliness, or even hatred? Because there is no doubt that approaches other than love can be circumstantially thought of as profitable. In my opinion the thing that is lacking in this view is any prescriptive ability for moral behavior. If you are going to peddle moral behavior as the most "profitable" to self, in every case, then you are being dishonest. You place qualifiers like "long term" and "rational" in front of self interest. But it holds no power beyond someone's death. And there are endless disagreements about what is "rational". You only pit profits against profits. If someone can be confident that in this present life, they will fare better living what you would call irrationally self interested, you have nothing within your egoist framework to dissuade them. In fact, if they end up right, if they die tearing down their barns and building bigger ones for themselves, not caring for the little men of the world, then egoism must laud them as a success. They, as Frank Sinatra put it, did it their way. And Ron, I wonder, as a Christian, do you believe in a complete anthropocentric view of things? I have to ask how you reconcile the teaching of Jesus which said, "Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow me" with a philosophy which says "live for self alone". Whether you think Jesus' words describe a complete altruism or not, (I don't think they do) it seems you might have some difficulty explaining these words in the context of a philosphy which teaches self interest as the ONLY motivation for life. "I categorically state that every single human act in all of history is and always has been motivated by self-interest. All you have to do to prove that premise wrong is produce just ONE instance that is clearly, unequivocally not attributable to self-interest." I can't produce one that takes no self interest into account .. because, like you, I believe it is always present. But here is an example that I think qualifies, and that will be hard to explain as rational self interest, in terms of egoist philosophy: Dying to save someone else ... Allowing someone else to take the rescuer's rope, knowingly just before a fatal explosion. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-16-2003 02:42 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"Stephen, you seem to be accepting definitions without questioning them. What you call selfless altruism, I would call enlightened self-interest. And, yes, people should be praised for that. What you call selfish, I call short-term thinking. And, yep, people should be condemned for that." A more fundamental question... WHY should "enlightened self seekers" be praised? Or WHY should "short term thinkers" be condemned? Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: One's self-interest isn't simply a matter of survival, nor does self-interest concern itself only with the tangibles of life. Indeed, the most potentially valuable thing any person ever possesses is their own very intangible self-image. That self-image, in a very real way, defines the boundaries of one's life. A concern for posterity is nothing more than a reflection of that self-image. It is both how we see ourselves, and how we want to see ourselves. That interweaving of self-image and posterity is perhaps the single most defining factor in something we often call the "innocence of youth." At eighteen, someone with a healthy self-image honestly feels ready to challenge and change the entire world in the name of posterity. For most, every year that passes seems to carve a small chunk out of our "innocence," seems to slice off a piece of our dreams. The day we stop believing we can change the world is the day we lose the power to change the world. How could it not be in our best self-interest to delay that day as long as possible? Besides, enlightened self-interest isn't just about life and death. It's about the quality of one's life, and yes, it's also about the quality of one's death. It is very normal, very human self-interest that we should want a part of ourselves to survive our death. Whether that is a book that touches countless lives, or children who will also, in time, touch countless lives, we want to be remembered and loved. That's a normal desire, and self-interest is fueled by just such desires. The maintenance of self-image, Stephen, is a cornerstone to understanding human motivations. I would guess that not one person in a hundred thousand would perform what you'd call an altruistic act without some acknowledgement of the act from others. They want their self-image bolstered by the affirmation of other people. That is NOT enlightened self-interest. It's just tit for tat, and most spend their entire life negotiating how much tit they can get for as little tat as possible. How about that one person in a hundred thousand who is willing to perform an altruistic act in utter, complete secrecy? The only real difference lies in that individual's concept of self-image and their need for approval. Often, they believe secrecy is a vital part of the formula, that only in secrecy is true altruism possible. In short, their self-image depends on NOT taking credit for their action. More importantly, though, that individual already has a strong enough self-image to realize the only approval that matters is their own. They do it because it makes them feel good. There's nothing wrong with that, but it still is NOT necessarily enlightened self-interest. Empathy and Guilt are different seats on the same teeter-totter, and together form the complimentary side to doing something just to feel good. After all, doing something to avoid feeling bad is very little different. Enlightened self-interest requires rational thought, not just an exchange of good feelings. Giving a hungry man on the streets of L.A. ten bucks might make me feel good about myself, but it rarely qualifies as rational. Chances are, the money won't be spent on food and the hungry man will remain hungry. On the other hand, ignoring the hungry man is neither rational nor in my best long-term self-interest. Hungry men tend to very easily become angry, desperate men, and a whole lot of desperate men have historically been known to change the course of world events. Any human being deprived of their basic needs is a threat to MY status quo. A failure to recognize that is not rational, and a failure to rectify that is not in my own self-interest. And protecting my status quo is really only one of many very self-centered reasons to feed the hungry. Not incidentally, enlightened self-interest rarely requires or even WANTS to hide in the darkness of altruistic secrecy. I can't feed the world's poor. But I can feed a few hungry people and hope that my example will help feed a few more. Enlightened self-interest is fueled by rational thought, but paradoxically feeds on hope. quote: Absolutely. We do not need to encourage people to be selfish, any more than we need to encourage gravity to hold us to the Earth. We do, however, very much need to encourage people to be rational. Self-interest defined in five-minute increments isn't rational self-interest. quote: LOL. That's a whole other thread, Stephen. Maybe a whole book? There are too many different kinds of love, too many different shades of love, to give any all-encompassing answer. In large part, my answer could be inferred from this poem written nearly five years ago. But setting aside a definition of what you mean by love, I suspect I can still give a shorthand answer that isn't too far astray of what I believe. Love is cheapened not by self-interest, but by which self-interest is dominant. quote: ... which just happens to include the only rule about enlightened self-interest anyone ever needs. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I don't believe that an attempt to better understand Man is at odds with a faith that God created Man. On the contrary, our own nature likely offers us the best insight into the nature of our Creator. If we paint human nature with a defective brush, in discordant and false colors, we cannot avoid doing the same to God. quote: In a nutshell, because most of the long-term goals of the rational, enlightened man can never be reached alone. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If a group of knights assay a quest as individuals bent but with interests to protect and glory most of all their own person's honour individually in ends, then that vacates all thier knighthood, vacates all their honour and vacates the quest as well. A knight shall serve his own honour and glory but must serve and protect even more the honours and grace of others, gallantly-disposed. If the knight has deviating interests he may not just on whim change change the traditional interests of knighthood so that they are all-accomodating to his own. He may perhaps speak to his fellows, do deeds, and influence them who may share his interests. But knighthood is knighthood by all knights that have been, are and will be, not just one knight. As well I think a priest must be given more to other peoples interests most of the time. If a priests has a pulsing interest to have sex and he acts on that, he is simply no longer a priest. Or if he if he decides he shall marry. Or if he decides the habit of a priest ought to be poke-a-dotted? Or that services should include showgirls? I don't think so We are not all decided to be so strict as those cases but we all may in our own daily "services" to life put peoples interests more in our own self-interests, and in return our own interests in other peoples interests--sharing of interests. But then interests are one thing and sometimes toys compared to obligations and needs. When a need calls we must put aside our toys and serve it. We have responsibilities and need to do things for others and other things beyond our self-sphere because those deserve and need us, not just because we wish for or need them. Let me enjoy the earth no less Because the all-enacting Might That fashioned forth its loveliness Had other aims than my delight. -Thomas Hardy [This message has been edited by Essorant (09-16-2003 04:44 PM).] |
||
|
Legion Member
since 2003-07-20
Posts 54 |
Tit-for-tat has proved to be a pretty resilient evolutionary stable strategy – at least as far as game theory goes. http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/tittat/story.htm |
||
|
Black_Knight Junior Member
since 2003-09-04
Posts 23England |
quote: That is exactly my point, Stephen, because in cultures where people are derided and not praised for sacrificing themselves, where the humblest and kindest are downtrodden and thought fools, where those who attain honor are those seen to earn it, well, in such cultures you don't tend to see much altruism. Cultural and social pressures teach altruism. It is not for certain a natural state. If self-sacrifice for ideals is so much better than looking after one's own, doesn't that raise some very awkward notions about the genuinely zealous people (by their cultural standards) who gave their lives to attack the World Trade Center, as the only way for them to actually strike back at America, a country they 'know' to be causing deaths and suffering in their homeland, and that must be discouraged somehow from causing millions more deaths? It is very tricky territory, because one has to take perspectives into account. But from their perspective, they are the altruistic heroes, fighting against the tyranny and unwarranted aggression of a hostile power so large, so well defended, so powerful, that no fighter or bomber plane could have even gotten close to their land. To them, they were Han Solo and Luke Skywalker flying a ship against the Death Star of the evil Empire. I always think that that is the saddest irony of all life and all history. We do lie to ourselves, by refusing to see from any perspective but our own. And so we make inhuman villains of all too human people. We neglect that sane people rarely (if ever) truly regard themselves as evil, even for a moment. By making demons and monsters of people, we fail to see that real people, ordinary people, human beings, were somehow able to excuse these acts, to rationalise and justify them somehow. And so we never learn to address the things that pushed them that way. So another human being is bound to make the same justifications and rationalisations, knowing it can't lead the way of others, because they weren't human, they were monsters, so humans don't have to worry about falling into the same trap... Right now, hundreds of good honest family-men, seeing their families downtrodden, shot, abused, starved, by a nation backed by America, or by sanctions backed by America, are being driven to hatred. As they watch family members starve or die of sickness, children, wives, parents, they see all they live for taken away. They have hatred and nothing to live for. You can see it happening. The birth of another thousand suicide bombers is happening every year. These people are altruists by their view. As you identified earlier, they will be viewed as heroes by their people. Martyrs and saviours. Does that make it so, or does that simply show us that human perceptions are all too limited, and that there is a very good reason why the Lord says vengeance and judgement are his alone. Why there is an absolute edict: Thou shalt not kill. There's no small print that says killing even Saddam hussain, or his children, is okay. Is there real altruism in those actions, or is it really just arrogance that forces us to act somehow. To impose our views and beliefs upon the world. To make judgements we are not entitled to. As for self-sacrifice ... well isn't suicide one of the most fundamentally selfish acts of all? Far harder to live and make the sacrifice of others worthwhile. You ask about altruistic acts and selfless acts ... by whose judgement. I give away a lot, but I do it because it feels right to me. It makes me feel good about myself, and helping the less fortunate stops me feeling guilty that maybe I don't deserve to not be one of them. Show me an altruistic act, a selfless act that I can't say that of. [This message has been edited by Black_Knight (09-20-2003 02:11 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Good points, indeed, Ammon. Even altruism is a subjective term. |
||
|
Legion Member
since 2003-07-20
Posts 54 |
I have to agree, good point indeed but isn’t there ground here for removing the reference of altruist behaviour entirely? If all acts are based solely on reasons of self-interest and altruism is relegated to a subjective judgement of the results of those acts, dependant on your point of view. Why acknowledge altruism as anything more than an illusionary by-product based upon perspective? Why do we worship at the false altar of altruism, raising such acts while denigrating and degrading acts of selfishness if self-interest is the root cause of both? My own view is that there is another interest at work here – that of the group. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
quote: That is the most hilarious definition of self-interested behavior I've ever read. LOL. Thanks for the thread, it's a very interesting read. And as we sit here debating/discussing the semantics, most, if not all of the world's 'have not' population continues to dream/scheme about how to take what we have away from us, or at least, find ways to get their share. Can anyone blame them for any using any available methods? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Yea, but for someone named Legion, self-interest IS group-interest. Not what you meant? Okay, then, stop teasing and tell us more. quote: Yes, because "any available methods" will NOT always be in their best long-term self-interest. Too many are reacting emotionally, not rationally, and that is a far cry from enlightened self-interest. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
Exactly, Ron. But many people don't live/act with anything remotely close to 'enlightened' self-interest. Perhaps if we all did think and act as enlightened beings, war would never be an option? |
||
|
Legion Member
since 2003-07-20
Posts 54 |
Ron, I was hoping someone else would jump in at that point with a clearer explanation than I think I’m capable of. But I’ll give it a go. Every individual in society is a member of three major sets or groups, the first has only one member – the individual – the second is a set dictated by kinship or relatedness and the third is society as a whole. The first two are easily recognised, the last one, the societal group, is not so easy it tends to splinter into all kinds of smaller sets. Country begets county and county begets town and town begets district..etc though this isn’t restricted to geographical location ideology, religious preference, hobbies even internet Forum membership all create sets to which individuals belong. All individuals who belong to a group alter their natural tendency for self-interest to maintain the group – if you need evidence of this you only need to accept that the groups exist and that they can only exist as long as the interest of the individual members in the group is sustained. The very existence of groups attests to the fact that they are maintained by individual self-interest. The interaction between the individual and the group creates seemingly altruistic behaviour but that behaviour can be traced back directly to an individuals selfish tendencies. At first this interaction seems to be a paradox, if an individual always acts out of self-interest why would he/she suddenly break that rule by acting in the groups interest? The answer is to see the argument as fundamentally circular – acting in the interest of the group is acting in the individuals self-interest because he/she is a member of the set that constitutes the group. As in almost everything this is a simplified model, in reality evolutionary stable strategies of interactions between individuals and groups rarely runs to plan. Concentrating solely on self-interest is a short term but profitable strategy that can be successfully maintained by an individual in a societal model that contains sufficient numbers of people working for the good of the whole. There is also the possibility of an overloading of priorities from the individual to the sets he/she belongs to. In the model of sets the individual should never be self-destructive, the suicide bombers Ammon mentioned fall neatly into this category. Why would an individual driven by self-interest even contemplate an act that is diametrically opposite the fundamental rule of self-interest? I believe the answer is that the survival of the group becomes so important with regard to the survival of the individual that in some extreme cases it can seem that there is no viable alternative option. It’s another circular argument – I must survive and the best chance of that is if the group survives but for that to happen I must sacrifice myself but I must survive and the best.... [This message has been edited by Legion (09-21-2003 06:24 AM).] |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
quote: Yes, but this is where SELF-INTEREST concepts always get sticky. Think about the times when an individual behaves 'out-of-character', does something inconsistent with his/her normal pattern of action in order to remain a member of the group, clique, or social subset. Most people do whatever they need to do to stay in the dominant/popular group. It's usually more comfortable to do so, and re-enforces a survival instinct. Look at group dynamics in a school classroom or on the bus, for instance. I've seen many instances where a normally gentle, soft-spoken, kind, compassionate child will gang up on a weaker child, just to maintain his/her position in the 'power' group. Definitely a short-term self-interest approach, but SELF is still the operative word. A group becomes a new collective SELF. It's always bothered me that some don't see there is a different dynamic here. What I won't do as an individual, I might do as a 'groupie' (pun intended  )How do we separate out the maze of underlying motives and intent? I don't know. The group becomes a new complex SELF. That's what gangs and teams and nations really are....very complex extensions of SELF. Unfortunatley, there is also almost always a leader or group of leaders who represent the collective selves, and these individuals project their SELF on the rest of the group, and do not always act in the self-interest of the individuals, as happens in political institutions. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: "The day we stop believing we can change the world is the day we lose the power to change the world. How could it not be in our best self-interest to delay that day as long as possible?" That's right. But caring for the well-being of one's posterity cannot be equated with "power to change the world". Caring for one's posterity is usually seen as a traditional moral precept, and as obligatory. You can talk about how it helps our self image, and how it lends to more peace and happiness for the individual ... and I will agree. But that is no more than saying that to adhere to moral principles is to be more happy ... a subjective judgement call. Your problem doesn't arise with someone like myself who agrees with your statement that in the final analysis, (the life to come being taken into consideration also), to care for others is better for the individual. Your problem comes with those who firmly disagree with you, and all in the name of self-interest. From egoism, you have nothing obligatory to recommend any virtue ... not even the "rationality" you speak of. Many have prospered themselves by being cruel and hard and lording over others. Your response surely is that these suffer a lessened self image. But if each individual is an end unto himself ... then each man determines the value of the self image he creates. My point I guess, is that your talk about changing the world doesn't really cut to the issue. Infamy can equally be thought of as "changing the world", and can also be relished by those who seek it. Power trips can be intoxicating even exhilarating to those who ride the wave. Have you forgotten that Nietzsche was fundamentally an egoist? He would likely say that your attempt to project an "enlightened", or "rational" aspect upon self interest, is nothing more than sneaking inferior traditional morality in, under a different name. And, though I reject his conclusions about how to live and about what is inferior, I would agree with his general observations of self interest, if we insist that it be the arbiter of all actions. The problem is, from the stand point of self interest alone, you have little compelling to say to the likes of Nietzsche. " . . . ignoring the hungry man is neither rational nor in my best long-term self-interest. Hungry men tend to very easily become angry, desperate men, and a whole lot of desperate men have historically been known to change the course of world events. Any human being deprived of their basic needs is a threat to MY status quo. A failure to recognize that is not rational," Rationality takes truth into consideration. If it is TRUE that I am an end unto myself, then the estimation that sheer power may prevent the back-lash of the poor oppressed, can only be shown to be irrational if I CANNOT hold them at bay to my satisfaction during the years of my life. Rationality is dependent upon variables for it's answers. If there is no interest other than self at work, then there can be nothing absolute to base actions upon. It's a marble-count in the end. Your seeming suggestion that being nice always obviously benefits self, and that being a dirty rat always obviously harms self, is a highly debateable one in the realm of reason. The fact that many intelligent men have taken both extremes, tells me this whole question is not an intellectual one, but a moral one. I think that if there are more selves than just you, who also have feelings and interests, then it is irrational that self interest should be the sole principle of action. If self interest, however, is allowed to be the sole motive for all of life, then it is irrational to call someone else's choices unenlightened .... since they are an end unto themselves, and are the arbiters of what their "interests" are. How can you say someone didn't act in their best self interest, if they themselves determine their interests? In fact if self interest is YOUR only motive, you really have no say in their self interest do you? How can you, except when it is relative to your own? This makes it quite impossible to judge anyone's actions as irrational. "Self-interest defined in five-minute increments isn't rational self-interest." No, but selfishness has yielded dainties much more lasting than 5 minues. Consider the Roman Emperors who made people worship them as gods. Your statement is itself only rational if selfish ideologies are always obviously and quickly counter productive to self interest. Your mention of five-minute gratification is only a minimilization which is not a true picture of reality. Many have been able to procure personal prosperity at least during THEIR lifetimes. "Love is cheapened not by self-interest, but by which self-interest is dominant." If the master "self interest" is fundamentally the same except for a miscalculation of returns involved, then I don't see how love is not degenerated. Mind you, I do believe self interest is always involved with love ... but cannot be the sole principle. Marriages, for example, that gravitate toward self interest alone, usually end up in divorce and separation. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Is your interpretation of this ... to do unto others so that they will do the same unto you? I see another principle here ... Recognize that there are other "selves" by considering your own. Then your own self, as a point of reference, may allow you to grow beyond it. "I don't believe that an attempt to better understand Man is at odds with a faith that God created Man. On the contrary, our own nature likely offers us the best insight into the nature of our Creator." I am not objecting to "better understanding man". But if man's self interest is the sole moving force, then "serving God" is a euphemism for serving self. God becomes a tool to gratify self. You would say that serving God is best serving self, and I would agree (looking at things ultimately). But that's not exactly the same thing as saying my self interest is the foundation of all action. Stephen: "A more fundamental question... WHY should "enlightened self seekers" be praised? Or WHY should "short term thinkers" be condemned?" Ron: "In a nutshell, because most of the long-term goals of the rational, enlightened man can never be reached alone." Neither can many of the goals of short-term thinkers be reached alone. Robbers often have a common purse. Armies need to be big to ravage nations. I think you missed what I was asking. Assuming outcomes and results to be individually judged, and mostly by the individuals who choose their courses of action, how can "selfish" men be rightly condemned, and "enlightened" men be praised? The only fundamental difference (according to egoism) is the number of gamepieces left on the floor. My point is that there can be no moral distinction if self interest is the king. For one to act cruelly, or kindly, becomes merely a utilitarian choice to reach the most profit. But a man who judges that wielding a heavy hand is the way to the most profits ... how can we ethically condemn him? Or a man who is kind merely to get the most out of the bargain ... how can we ethically claim his deeds to be virtuous? They are reduced to the same basic principle ... even if you wanted to arbitrarily call one mistaken. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-22-2003 10:42 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Legion "... If all acts are based solely on reasons of self-interest and altruism is relegated to a subjective judgement of the results of those acts, dependant on your point of view" You want to remove the idea of altruism based on this? But apply the same standard to your evaluation of "rational" versus "irrational" self interest. Yours is surely based upon "a subjective judgment of the results of those acts, dependent on your point of view". And you forget, that there are many who deem "Don't be selfish", and "Be altruistic" to be universal moral principles, not merely subjective judgements. You may disagree. But even so, you can't even begin to say that a "self interest" with every individual being an end unto himself, provides a base for more than subjective judgement. Each microcosmic individual being "an end" wholly relegates this philosophy to the subjective. It's chained there, by it's own terms. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-22-2003 10:51 AM).] |
||
|
Legion Member
since 2003-07-20
Posts 54 |
Stephen, That quote may have lost it’s original intent due to your choice concerning the point at which you eviscerated it. I was questioning whether self-interest short or long term was viable when judged in isolation from other possible interests (the group), the clue was contained in the bit you failed to quote: quote: |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Self Interest" is often just greedy self-appetite in disguise. If we go for what fills our selfish appetites and delights most this world will be a hedonistic wasteland of filth and spilth. Interests are not reliable; they are but things to help move us, but should not govern us. REASON and NEEDS I believe should govern us. Instinct after it is understood and educated well by reason will spring more safely for needs and bettering than self-interests that just want to do delight to the self and too often results in decadence. With reason we may bridle ourselves so that we serve needs better. If we judge things how they serve reason and need more we will be safer. There may always be room for self-interest (self-appetite) but it should be bridled because we are present to and attend the needs of all. That is just my observation. [This message has been edited by Essorant (09-22-2003 03:59 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Craig, you raise some good points, which are probably worth considering in their own light and for different reasons, but I honestly think set theory and group dynamics is at best a needless complication, and at worst a smokescreen. It just isn't a necessary consideration for predicting human behavior. I believe a social group is important to an individual only so long it is perceived to fulfill self-interest and will NEVER supersede the interests of the individual. Case in point? Convince those suicide bombers they will lose all respect and spend an eternity burning in hell, and I suspect they'll see their sacrifice in a somewhat different light. Kacy, I think what you are describing in terms of mob behavior goes back to what I was talking about earlier regarding self-image. Our survival is NOT always or even usually our first priority. The people you describe, not satisfied with their own self-image, are willing to adopt the image of the group. In one sense, separating motives and intent is actually simplified, not made more difficult, because the group-image is typically more easily decipherable than any individual's self-image. Whether this is sufficient depends on whether you want to change the behavior of the group, which is easy, or of the individual, which is much harder. Stephen, I'm not even sure where to begin. You are doggedly retaining multiple issues that are either mistaken or just plain irrelevant, and without addressing those, any reference to your conclusions is beyond any possible reach. Let's see if I can hit a few highlights? Caring for one's posterity is usually seen as a traditional moral precept .. I know. And we both know that perceptions, especially of the usual kind, are often wrong. From egoism, you have nothing obligatory to recommend any virtue ... not even the "rationality" you speak of. This sounds strikingly close to your usual argument against Naturalism, and in my opinion, is mistaken in both instances. God didn't tell me that 2 + 2 = 4, but rather gave me the tools to discover that truth for myself (and, even, to discover when it might no longer hold true). I can safely recommend 2 + 2 = 4 as a virtue based on nothing more than the reality that IT WORKS. With one important exception not relevant to this discussion, every single truth in the Bible is both discoverable and empirical. We don't need the Bible to teach morality, because God already created a whole Universe that teaches that lesson. Many have prospered themselves by being cruel and hard and lording over others. You keep saying that, Stephen, but I ain't buying it. I doubt you could offer even an isolated example, but even if you could, it would still fall under my Russian Roulette analogy. No matter how lucky you are, sooner or later the chamber is going be loaded. The problem is, from the stand point of self interest alone, you have little compelling to say to the likes of Nietzsche. I think I have the most compelling argument of all, Stephen. Unlike Nietzsche, I didn't die insane and catatonic at the age of forty-five. Let him beat that one. If there is no interest other than self at work, then there can be nothing absolute to base actions upon. Underlying many of your points, Stephen, including this one, is the biggest single fallacy I think you need to escape. Rational, long-term self-interest does NOT exist in a vacuum. On the contrary, it ties each of us to every single man, woman, and child on the planet. I cannot meet my most important goals unless I am willing to help you meet yours. Going back to an earlier point, Love is best defined by the commingling of self-interest. Two people who use each other to fulfill their separate short-term goals can, indeed, cheapen love, and in my opinion, only suffer and never benefit. Instead, imagine a situation where nothing gives you more pleasure than to give her pleasure? And vice versa? Now take that beyond the merely sensual level, to a place where your self-interest depends on her self-interest, her self-interest depends on yours, and the result will be a lasting love that satisfies and benefits both. Extend that thought, now, to include everyone in the whole world. THAT is enlightened self-interest. Sound hokey? Maybe, but the basic conclusions aren't rocket science. Any time a person in this world suffers, their reaction and the reactions of those around them, will place my long-term self-interest at risk. Contention and rivalry between people is always based on short-term goals. The moral implications are unnecessary, if not irrelevant, because the pragmatic reality is inescapable. |
||
|
Legion Member
since 2003-07-20
Posts 54 |
But Ron, how do you get from this: I believe a social group is important to an individual only so long it is perceived to fulfill self-interest and will NEVER supersede the interests of the individual. To this: Rational, long-term self-interest does NOT exist in a vacuum. On the contrary, it ties each of us to every single man, woman, and child on the planet. I cannot meet my most important goals unless I am willing to help you meet yours. Without looking at group dynamics and set theory, and just to season the pot we may as well add a pinch of game theory and human heirachical tendency while we're there? They may at least define the “is” and shed a little light on the “could be”. (Maybe).  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
They're certainly not unrelated. The first passage you cite concentrates on conflicting interests, i.e., short-term interests, while the second supposes the intertwining of long-term interests. Whether you're talking a small social group or all of society, the enlightened individual will never willingly accept something not in their best self-interest. NOR should they. Sacrifice is either in your self-interest, in which case it's not sacrifice, or someone is taking something away from you against your will. The problem with game theory, I think, is that it's very nature is a statistical one. That's cool, but being ultimately selfish, I'm more interested in the individual. Both game theory and evolution concentrate on the success of the organism. That can help me to better understand society, but it tells me very little about my next door neighbor. I'm guessing my neighbor isn't an "average" man, based solely on the fact I've yet to meet one. The human hierarchical tendency, if I understand your meanings, CAN potentially tell us more about the individual. Where we place ourselves and, in particular, who we choose as group leaders, is a reflection of our self-image. This is so true it has almost become a cliché in fiction. Would Han Solo be the same sympathetic character if he didn't hang with the good guys? The danger, however, is that our self-image is a lie we tell ourselves in far too many instances, often revealing what we "think" we should want, rather than what we really want. While our actions can also be a lie, I think they are rarely (if ever) as convincing when taken as a pattern. What we do, over time, reveals who we are by shedding light on what we want. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"Why do we worship at the false altar of altruism, raising such acts while denigrating and degrading acts of selfishness if self-interest is the root cause of both? My own view is that there is another interest at work here – that of the group." So is this a concession? Are you admitting the possibility of an interest beyond self being in the mix? If so, you are right, I rashly took your point out of context. My whole point was aimed at an ideology which minimizes all motives to self interst alone. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"All individuals who belong to a group alter their natural tendency for self-interest to maintain the group – if you need evidence of this you only need to accept that the groups exist and that they can only exist as long as the interest of the individual members in the group is sustained. The very existence of groups attests to the fact that they are maintained by individual self-interest." What exactly do you mean by "alter"? Do you mean to begin to act upon motives other than self interest, or do you mean simply to form a more socially acceptable self interest in order to protect your own interests? Does the fact that groups are maintained by meeting the needs of other "selves", suggest that all motives must come from self interest? This same observation can be used to argue the other side as well. The fact that groups can only be maintained by recognizing interests of others, to my mind shows that motives must be built on more than just self interest. The reductionism is what I am not seeing as rational. IF there are other selves, how can it be rationally suggested that self-interest is the only motive from which we act? It seems the very existence of other "selves" would automatically bring in the possibility of someone acting upon another's interest. A lot of this is semantics. But I think mainly egoism is a psychological reductionism. It's an assertion that all motives come only one way. Dividing actions into "rational" and "irrational" self interest does not take into account the moral responsibility we have toward others. All it does is present a pragmatic assertion that to be nice yields more goodies. If this world history is not evidence of the uncertainty of that premise, then I don't know what is. This is where Ron and I get lock-horned. He can not prove that the life of a Nietzsche is irrational, any more than I can prove that some men are quite satisfied with results of selfishness. There are always varying examples which can be interpreted differently. And such evidential claims will never win the argument between us, but neither can it win the argument between rational and irrational self interest it seems. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"Stephen, I'm not even sure where to begin. You are doggedly retaining multiple issues that are either mistaken or just plain irrelevant, and without addressing those, any reference to your conclusions is beyond any possible reach." Ron ... Let me say something. I think it is self evident from the sheer fact of the debate, that we both consider each other's points often as "mistaken or just plain irrelevant". Why belabor that totally obvious point? Regardless of our antithesis, I still think I can learn a few things from you. "Caring for one's posterity is usually seen as a traditional moral precept .. I know. And we both know that perceptions, especially of the usual kind, are often wrong." And we both know that "often wrong", doesn't mean always wrong. Sometimes ideas have staying power because they are right too. I still assert that the moral directive of caring for the interests of others can't be upheld by egoism. If you base everything on statistical averages and tell people that gambling is unwise because you usually lose, you still have nothing to say to the jackpot winner who surprises everyone. Your averages mean nothing to him. Alternately, If you are going to try and present a more ambitious argument for the universal unprofitableness of shady selfish behavior, then you have a formidable if not impossible task before you. "I can safely recommend 2 + 2 = 4 as a virtue based on nothing more than the reality that IT WORKS" I would say that math works because it is true, not the other way around. But are you suggesting that the results of moral/ immoral behavior are as immediately obvious as the laws of mathematics? How come then when I argue about universal moral law, you turn the tables and argue the other direction? It's then that you say that morality is more like poetry than math. May I use your own method on you? What WORKS is not the same for everyone if self is King and arbitrarily decides what goals are worked toward."We don't need the Bible to teach morality, because God already created a whole Universe that teaches that lesson." From one Christian to another, may I ask an extremely naive question ... Why did God put so many moral teachings in the Bible then? He doesn't seem to agree with you that a fallen corrupted creation was enough to communicate his moral truth. Think about the horrific suggestions of social Darwinism. That's more like what nature, on her own, will yield. Looking at evolutionary theory (not that I accept it uncritically) reveals that what you claim to be so evident, was not the principle at work in nature. " I think I have the most compelling argument of all, Stephen. Unlike Nietzsche, I didn't die insane and catatonic at the age of forty-five" People who feel differently than Nietzsche die insane too right? Many feel that his insanity was brought about by Syphillis. Gee ... some would reason that he only needed more "protection". A failed battle does not give compelling reason to abandon the war. And the war is fought to this very day. "Underlying many of your points, Stephen, including this one, is the biggest single fallacy I think you need to escape. Rational, long-term self-interest does NOT exist in a vacuum. On the contrary, it ties each of us to every single man, woman, and child on the planet. I cannot meet my most important goals unless I am willing to help you meet yours." But egoism says that it ties me to every single man, woman, and child for MY benefit alone. And in reality, it only ties me to those whom I choose to have contact with, if I am crafty enough. Money and power can shift people around like sand. If I have the resources, I don't have to be connected really, in my experiences, to the oppressed. You may say the man is a fool who thinks so, and I would emphatically agree. But from my standpoint, he is a fool even if he achieves his wishes. From your philosophic position, I don't see how you could offer reproof if he mostly beats the odds until he dies. And not everyone sees the moral connectedness of every person like you do. It is not self evident. Nor is it more "rational". Rationality depends on goals and outcomes. Philosophers never have solved the dialectical tension between atomism and monism ... between particulars and universals. If someone wants to focus on the particular of their self to the exclusion of others, then you cannot with sheer reason prove this to be untenable. It is not rationality versus irrationality at all. It is preferential in nature ... that is unless you can support moral "oughtness". And egoism just can't do it. "Now take that beyond the merely sensual level, to a place where your self-interest depends on her self-interest, her self-interest depends on yours, and the result will be a lasting love that satisfies and benefits both. Extend that thought, now, to include everyone in the whole world. THAT is enlightened self-interest." Ron, I can buy into "enlightened self interest". I think it is in one's self interest to consider the interests of others. Most of your premise is absolutely right ... it's the conclusion that the monad of self-interest is humanity's sole motivation that is not proven by your premise. I am a mutualist regarding these things, and what you described as "commingling of self interest" describes mutualism quite well. Commingling means, I do not act from self interest alone. There is the possibility of mixture. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-23-2003 08:37 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Black Knight: "in cultures where people are derided and not praised for sacrificing themselves, where the humblest and kindest are downtrodden and thought fools, where those who attain honor are those seen to earn it, well, in such cultures you don't tend to see much altruism. Cultural and social pressures teach altruism. It is not for certain a natural state. This is exactly what I am trying to communicate to Ron. The rational/ irrational distinction of "self interest" is an artificial one if self interest is the sole motive of action. Societies and individuals are determining for themselves what is in their best interest. This distinction can be based on little more than sheer results ... certainly not principles ... so it is necessarily descriptive, not prescriptive as objectivists try to make it. Remember it is the Objectivist who would also condemn the felling of the Twin Towers ... and call it "short term" or "unenlightened" self interest. " By making demons and monsters of people, we fail to see that real people, ordinary people, human beings, were somehow able to excuse these acts, to rationalise and justify them somehow. And so we never learn to address the things that pushed them that way. So another human being is bound to make the same justifications and rationalisations, knowing it can't lead the way of others, because they weren't human, they were monsters, so humans don't have to worry about falling into the same trap... " I totally agree. Just because I believe in right and wrong as absolutes doesn't mean that I'm not critical of my own actions, or the actions of the nation/ community I live in. When in this post have I even hinted at trying to defend any of America's aggressive acts? I merely stated the possiblity (not the frequency) of aggression coming from more than self interest ... theoretically speaking. And that was said simply to take your darkest example of human behavior, and show that even there, more than self interest is possible. I was going there, to the worst case scenario, for the sake of argument. I agree that War is generally despicable. And I haven't tried to defend any particular examples of it ... have I? "As for self-sacrifice ... well isn't suicide one of the most fundamentally selfish acts of all? Far harder to live and make the sacrifice of others worthwhile." Are you equating self sacrifice with suicide? These are two totally different things. Just think of how they are different for a moment. Otherwise, I agree. Suicide is extremely selfish. And neither is self sacrifice limited to death. " I give away a lot, but I do it because it feels right to me. It makes me feel good about myself, and helping the less fortunate stops me feeling guilty that maybe I don't deserve to not be one of them. Show me an altruistic act, a selfless act that I can't say that of." My position has never been for pure altruism ... it doesn't exist. Self is always in the mix, because you are forever yourself. But does that mean self interest is the absolute reduction of all your choices? Is your own self interest the monad from which every motive must come with no possibility of mixture? Pure egoism doesn't exist any more than pure altruism. It's not a bad thing to give away things with the benefit in mind that it will make you feel better. But I would ask you is this the sole reason? Don't you give things away with any real concern for the welfare of the person you are giving to? If not, then you shouldn't feel better ... because there is absolutely nothing meritorious in what you do. Don't misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that it is without merit to care about yourself. There is merit in caring for yourself too. But if you do things in pretense, just for your own feelings, you are decieving yourself. A dream or hallucination would serve the same purpose ... or perhaps a drug that merely produces the feeling. I guess, I really don't believe you when you say that you do it only to feel better. My argument would be that there is some genuine consideration of another's interest which in turn makes you feel better. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-24-2003 12:34 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
http://seanchoi.freeyellow.com/ethical_egoism.html http://www.hazlitt.org/e-texts/morality/ch13.html I found these two articles about egoism. One is better written than the other. But they were both interesting and thought provoking. Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'm bumping this 'cause I consider it interesting and pretty relevant to the times. (I wanted to be able to find it more easily later as well.) And because I am kind of tired right now, forgive me if there was someone who addressed this already in the thread--but when Ron challenged Stephanos: " I categorically state that every single human act in all of history is and always has been motivated by self-interest. All you have to do to prove that premise wrong is produce just ONE instance that is clearly, unequivocally not attributable to self-interest. I don't think you can do it." I thought of something I had seen on, (sighing now) yes, Oprah. (Laugh if you wanna, I can't hear you.) But among other guests on the Oprah show that day, there was a woman who had thrown herself over a small boy being attacked by vicious pitbull dogs. She took the brunt of the attack herself, thereby sparing him further injury and possibly even saving his life. I'm not sure where heroics fits into all of this, as it doesn't quite seem to be enlightened self-interest, as in some moments of heroism there is the adrenaline rush and place of "no thought". (Forgive my lack of clarity on that, er, speaking of no thought.) But I'd be interested to hear what everyone thinks about that, Ron most especially, as I for the most part agree with all you've said, but true heroics threw a wrench in the mechanism for me. (I'll go nap. When I come back, I hope to read more thoroughly, and a nice analogy with those itty bitty words would be convenient too.) thanks in advance? OH. And? On the flip side of heroics, how does passive aggressive behaviors fit into this? Is that simply a more polite method of war? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Thanks Karen, I've been trying to get someone to answer that one for quite some time. If you recall, I answered Ron's challenge. He didn't answer me back. Extreme heroism does put egoism to the test. Because Egoism doesn't claim to be something that is applied to some things and not to others. It is a philosophical presupposition about our motives, period. Namely it claims that they ALL center around self consideration. But so many things we believe and know, show that to be counter-intuitive. Even our Language! If you talk to a true egoist, they will squirm when you use words like "selfish". But we all know what selfishness is, without the input of Ayn Rand. The point I've been trying to make is that self interest is never absent, but that doesn't mean that it is the ONLY motive of all actions. This less extreme view allows for actions of predominate self-interest. But it also makes extreme heroism possible, and any action in between these two extremes. Egoism, being much more narrowly defined, is an "All or nothing" philosophical statement. My view ... I gues you would call it "mutualism" or something like that ... is more moderate and allows for the variety and mixture of motives within us. This is after all what we see in the real world? An Egoist might say Heroism is rare, and therefore hardly relevant. But that's not the point. The Martyr is only brought up to show that egoism's universal claim doesn't make sense in light of such actions. It's just practically impossible to explain a purely altruistic act, in purely egoistic terms. I'll be waiting with you on this one, to see what is said. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I've said this before, and honestly I don't mean to be flippant, but you're both right. Is a Pavlovian reaction a form of heroism? What follows from describing all actions as self-interested by definition? Do reason and reaction interact? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: That really depends Brad. Do you think it is instinctual for people to be cowardly or to be altruistically brave? I understand fight or flight. But I've never heard the Martyr put in that context. I personally think selfless heroism might be a virtue which has been acted upon and assumed (in countless smaller ways) for such a long time, that when a crisis moment comes, it has already been reasoned out. In short, it overrides the mere animal tendency to save one's own skin at all costs. quote: That your motive for description would be for self interest, rather than for arriving at the unbiased truth? Thanks, Brad. I had never thought of that one, until you asked that question. That's rather Socratic I think. quote: Yes. But to what degree I'm not sure. Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'm confused again. Stephanos, you say, " I understand fight or flight. But I've never heard the Martyr put in that context. I personally think selfless heroism might be a virtue which has been acted upon and assumed (in countless smaller ways) for such a long time, that when a crisis moment comes, it has already been reasoned out. In short, it overrides the mere animal tendency to save one's own skin at all costs." Using this line of reasoning, could you also say that crimes of passion might be a character flaw which as been acted upon and assumed (nod, in countless smaller ways) for such a long time, that when a crisis moment comes, it has already been reasoned out? (and forgive me Steven, I still haven't read the entire thread, but tsk, this time I've really got the flu--it's not a hangover.  )Also: as you can obviously see by my reasoning, it's not something of which I have already formed an opinion--this thread had caught my eye some time ago, and yep, ya'll know me, I tend to bumblebee-graze. Maybe that accounts for the buzzing in my ears, huh? I go sleep, and try to read again tomorrow. Nite guys. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen: quote: Well, now that you mention it ... Yes. If a crime of passion involves an outburst of anger or jealousy that cannot be controlled, I wonder how many smaller scenarios there were when these vices were allowed to grow, instead of gaining mastery over them. If there are these kinds of tests in our lives, even hindsight of failure would be "a time of reasoning" before the next time the opportunity comes 'round. I was reading William Barclay once who quoted someone else ... "Sow an act, reap a habit. Sow a habit, reap a character. Sow a character, reap a destiny." But to bring this back to the issue of egoism ... Even a heroic act can be without the element of immediacy ... It is conceivable that such an act might be well considered beforehand. So the whole attempt to describe heroic actions as Pavlovian knee-jerks, and to thereby cast doubt upon their virtue, is faulty in my opinion. So let's take everything away which can be assailed on other grounds, such as immediacy and reaction, and say that there was time for the heroic deed to be adequately thought out, and determinately chosen. Let's use the hardest example, so that the egoist must face the fact that unless egoism (by it's own admission and standards) can account for ALL actions, and not one less, it is false. Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Well, that's where I ran into my problem to begin with though. I rather agreed with Ron's point that a premeditated heroic act most probably reveals self-interest at the point of purpose, even if it's to avoid the burden of guilt upon the conscience. Now here is another example (yet again from The Oprah Winfrey Show --and sorry Ron, but hey, at least it ain't Judge Judy )but it's an which I thought quite aptly demonstrated the quandary.There was a married couple on the show who had survived the catastrophic Tsunami. The woman had been knocked unconscious, and it took all of her husband's resolve and determination to hold on to her--and he obviously had succeeded in his promise that "no matter what happened, he would not let go of her." He confessed his great burden of guilt however, as he lives knowing that he could have saved the lives of several others had he not been driven by what he himself termed "selfish motivation", as he tearfully acknowledged that he was not ready to say goodbye to her. Remember too, that she was knocked unconscious, so he had no idea if this act of love and loyalty would result in her survival. My heart went out to him as he acknowledged that he was in a situation which would leave him with grief and guilt with either decision. So you see, that is what triggered my confusion regarding this issue. And smiling, I'm still hoping for some enlightment, as not even my beloved Oprah had an answer for him. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen: quote: Karen, Sorry it took me so long to get around to this. First of all, I've never denied that "self interest" is involved "at the point of purpose". What I have said is that it doesn't make sense to say that's the only interest that exists or can exist at that central point. But that's what egoism dogmatically claims. If a heroic act and a cowardly act, are BOTH the result of self-interest, why the guilt in the first place? The guilt itself should be a clue to the doubtfulness of egoism. If either course of action is based upon "self interest", then guilt itself is irrational. If you've saved someone, merely so that YOU won't feel guilty, you've done nothing virtuous that would reasonably assuage guilt. And conversely, if saving someone else from harm is something done only to avoid guilt, then why the guilt assoicated with neglecting to do so? Guilt becomes irrational. Now is there such a thing as "false guilt", or "irrational guilt"? Yes. But we also know that there is such a thing as real guilt. That's why I am more inclined to doubt egoistic philosophy, than to doubt the reality and basis of moral guilt (moral oughtness). The difficulty with egoism is that it can support neither moral oughtness, nor moral guilt, and therefore must explain them cogently, or explain them away. In my opinion, it has only tended to explain them away. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Oh and Karen. I do have some thoughts about the dilemma of the man you mentioned on Oprah. I'll get back to that. I'm outta time right now. Later, Stephen. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
