| | And how does he know that the Koch brothers do not sincerely believe in libertarianism but support it merely because they see economic benefit from it?
Keep in mind the hidden premise in your friend's argument -- i.e., that it is wrong to "benefit"; that what it is that is to be considered "good" is to be divorced from what it is that "benefits" individuals. The good is that which does not benefit you (i.e., that which is anti-life). The bad is that which benefits you.
Folks like that likely see the world through a primacy of consciousness prism wherein folks must always be at each others' throats (perpetually-conflicted interests). Because there is no primacy of existence, no one single reality to look to in order to be a final arbiter of disagreement, folks are set up impugning dastardly motives onto others who disagree. Think about the opposite.
Assume you're stuck inside of a primacy of consciousness paradigm.
Now, you are going to have beliefs and those beliefs are going to be different from some of the other people in the world. When you discover that fact, you will be put into a position to evaluate someone's motives. Remember what primacy of consciousness means, it means motives -- it means reality is something wished or whimmed (something "chosen").
Either you have arrived at your beliefs due to terrible motives, or your intellectual opponent has done so. 999 times out of a thousand, the response from you will be to impugn dastardly motives on someone else (rather than on yourself). Partly because you feel you know your history and your character better than you know their history and their character, and partly out of simple avoidance of the pain of possibly admitting you're wrong.
Ed
p.s. I would categorize your friend's ethics as Humean, noncognitive emotivism, even though it sounds so much more like Kantian, self-sacrificial deontology. Most of the altruism one finds nowadays is really an unanalyzed, noncognitive emotivism. Few folks go so far as to try to rationally argue for Kantian self-abasement.
p.s.s. I realize the irony of what I just did. I impugned your friend's motives. For me, the holding of the capitalist position can be understood in reference to the holding of the facts, but the holding of the socialist position -- because it is counterfactual -- is something which can only be understood in reference to psychological/philosophical limitations present; in the same way and for the same reason that the holding of a position that 'round squares exist' must be treated (in order to be understood by a third party).
So, according to my logic, I have just immunized myself (rather: immunized the capitalist position) against any necessary 'motive impugnment' -- i.e., necessary for a third party understanding (of the capitalist position). It's not necessary to impugn poor motives in order to understand why someone holds the capitalist view, but this isn't always true for someone holding the socialist view. Sometimes, the only way to understand why someone continues to hold that position -- in the face of exhibited and contradictory facts -- is by 'psychologizing' them.
Rand lamented (in a Donahue interview) that her ideological opponents were all dishonest. I don't go that far. I merely say that they are illogical or irrational or ignorant or that they lack a sufficient understanding about what it means to be human.
:-)
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/10, 8:35pm)
|
|
