About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 2:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Have you found (through your life) that men are more concerned with justice then women, and that women are more concerned with welfare than men? I don't think its just this one study."

No, I haven't, in my experience. However, I do tend to hang out with individualistic independent types (barring maybe a few instances) so most people I've met have differing ranges of concern and don't usually do the woman-empathetic or man-justice polarity.

Google Scholar came up with articles on "evolution selfishness altruism"



Post 21

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 5:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rand defined altruism as living for others and placing others above self.

In so doing, she was being true to intentions of Auguste Comte (1798-1857), who invented the word.

As Robert Malcom noted, it literally means "otherism."  According to Comte, the essence of altruisme is Vivre pour autrui (living for others).  Comte was a thoroughgoing collectivist who wanted to "repress personality" and submerge individuals within "the Great Being, Humanity."  Needless to say, he had no patience with notions of individual rights.

What is now regarded as the mainstream spectrum of meanings for altruism developed within a couple of generations after Comte, as various moral philosophers sought to distance themselves from Comte's views without coming right out and saying that altruism was a bad idea.

In evolutionary psychology, altruism has been trivialized to the point where peaceful cooperation with non-kin, or the mildest forms of aid to people with whom the giver does not share genes, are said to be altruistic.  Unfortunately, Herbert Spencer is partly to blame for these practices.

So it isn't just ordinary folks who (often) aren't sure what altruism is about.  Academics are all over the map regarding it.  The lack of clarity is bad; the sliding around that some do, from innocuous notions of benevolence all the way to "Love thy neighbor--do not love thyself," is much worse.

Robert Campbell



 




Post 22

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 7:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sometimes I think it would behoove those in or dealing with science and technology to not use morally connotative language-- yet I have a hard time coming up with non-moral language (does it exist?) when it occurs to me to want to be descriptive. Hmm....

Post 23

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 7:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How about "benevolence" or "empathy"? These terms are morally neutral, aren't they? I mean that don't contain any built-in ethical mandates, do they?

- Bill

Post 24

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 7:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If this is true and there is an inherent atruistic instinct in humans we wouldn't want this motivational force expended on trying to get powerful people to steal money off others and waste it on non-set-and-forget spending programs.

We want this sort of instinct to be harnessed positively. Adopting children. Or working to build viable local communities (in a non-coercive way) or if on a national level to reduce the footprint of government as well as making whatever residual government there is more effective.

There is the potential of course to exploit such and instinct. For example so many lads wanting to sign up to fight those Middle Eastern fascists. Of course here we might be thankful for this instinct if it is helping motivate such people. But we shouldn't be exploiting this with a military strategy that puts our guys (or YOUR guys. Since I'm not an American) at higher then necessary risk. No matter how gung-ho they are.

You destroy large military targets from the sky. And you back factions to destroy regimes. Then back factions to bring about peace. With the quid pro quo that your assistance comes at the price of more discriminating and targeted killing.

Where is the need to put Americans in the front lines?

Americans, in the field, amongst civilians, waiting to be blown up. When it gets that far into bad craziness then that part of altruism that could be benevolent has taken on a warped and macarbe streak. As is so often does as Rand showed us.

In summary I would say that Altruism and Benevolence can be seen as intersecting sets in a Venn diagram. And we have to work hard that whatever instincts are motivating the situation only the intersecting region is being expressed. And the entire instinctual motivation is being channelled in that direction.



Post 25

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 8:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Graeme Bird,

I think by "Altruism" people mean "Willfully accepting the purposes that are dictated to oneself by others and living for those purposes instead of choosing one's own purposes and living for your own purposes." To me "Altruism" implies that the person accepted the "Its good to live for the sake of others and evil to live for your own sake (and implied that its evil for you to question this argument)" argument from intimidation.

I'm pretty confident that no purposes were built in to me-- except the purpose to live. Built in by evolution of course. : )

Post 26

Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 7:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah you can define it that way. And with the heirachy of values. So that if you value the country you will follow orders and walk into the cess-pit of Fallujah to get shot up. Well if you sign up you'd have to do it I guess. But you might do it with some actual relish.

But you've got to be pretty strict with those definitions to make that bird fly. And I'm not saying you can't do it like that. But non-Objectivists might find it hard to see just what you are driving at.

I tend to work with the analogy of Venn diagrams and lessons of multi-valence (aka fuzzy) logic as my guide. Rather then primarily the analogy of traditional/bivalence/deductive logic.

I'm not saying that you can't do the same job with the different tools. But seeing whatever the colloquial understanding of the words being used are by the people you happen to be talking to, I think having these extra models (on top of the other rules) in my mind can make me adjust more easily to the other guys understanding of terms and make basically the same arguments.

The same arguments but with a lot less splitting hairs over definitions.

Motivations are pretty murky things and hard to quantify. Since to me they seem more like a sound board in a mixing studio. All the motivations might be there all the time but some faders are up and some are down and some are to different degrees up and down in correspondence to whatever mood you happen to be in. Or at least that would be my working model.

And how do you know that some of those faders that others would say are part of the altruist set are not some of the faders that an objectivist would say are part of the values-based motivational set?

I would think they'd overlap or at least non-objectivists would more easily understand it that way.

So this is by no means an attempt to refute what you are saying. I just find it easier to look at these things through a slightly different lens.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.