| | Sharon,
I posted about your collectivist/altruistic position, and you haven't responded.
When I discuss a topic, I seek clarity. One way to do that is to discuss the topic in fundamentals, and not get distracted by other topics. The "perpetuation of the species" is fundamental, because you have suggested it is the main goal in life, which makes it the standard of your morality. All other questions of values and choices hinge on this. You now want to talk about empathy, but that's a derivative issue and a distraction. How can we discuss the merits of empathy when we can't even agree with what the purpose is? We can't.
Let me provide an example. You say "the ability to feel empathy with others is a key human attribute". The ability to feel it is a human attribute. Is it key? That implies it's very important, perhaps critical. But important for what end? As an Objectivist, I can explain how empathy is useful to our own lives. I can say that a generalized benevolence towards people makes it easier to create opportunities for positive interaction, whether financial, romantic, or any other. I can show how thinking about the motivations of others can help each of us strengthen the harmony of interests amongst our friends and associates by making sure both sides benefit substantially. I can show how this understanding of their emotions and motivations can let us understand and appreciate them better, and how we can learn about ourselves in the process.
But these are all aimed at showing how empathy improves my own life, not the species. It's not some blanket position that says we should feel empathy. It says empathy can be a value because, under certain circumstances, it promotes that individual's life. And that also puts limitations on it.
But when "the species" is the goal, none of those values are necessary. An Objectivists has to make it worth the while of others to trade with him and give him the values he desires. But a collectivist can use the brutal power of government to force those values. An Objectivist has to provide a romantic partner with values. If promotion of the species is the standard, love has nothing to do with it.
That's why the standard of morality is a fundamental issue. We can't discuss the value or merit of anything without it.
You did ask "Setting Objectivism aside for a moment, why are altruism, mysticism and collectivism the axis of evil?".
I feel no need to set aside Objectivism, nor would I want to. These aren't evil because Rand declared them to be. They're evil because of their nature.
Collectivism is the annihilation of the individual. It tells each person that they are nothing outside of the collective, and they live to serve the collective. And if the collective benefits from their death, they die for it. He's nothing by himself, and has to justify his every action, and even his life, by the "needs" of the collective.
Altruism is the morality of self-sacrifice. While it claims to be about helping others, in practice it is measured by the harm you do yourself. It's a philosophy that asked you to destroy yourself so others don't have to. It asks for the slaves and human sacrifices to be voluntary.
Mysticism is the destruction of reason and man's mind. It says that it's proper to not think, and instead just believe or feel. It claims reason is a trap or an illusion, and upholds irrationality as the true way of grasping "reality", whatever that is.
And together, they reinforce each other. Mysticism is the epistemological justification for the other two. It's the "proof". Collectivism upholds a standard where the group (i.e., others) is the proper recipient of moral actions. Altruism is the ethical byproduct of collectivism, and preaches how you should act in order to further the collective.
We're not dealing with simply a diminished life, or giving unearned gifts. We're dealing with the justification of living. When the individual's life is a means to the interests of others, the question is not whether he should be sacrificed or not, but under what conditions should that sacrifice be made.
We're not dealing with arrested intellectual growth, and the possibility of not living a fully realized life. We're dealing with death and carnage on a global scale, with hundreds of millions of people slaughtered in the last century alone.
|
|
