| | Michael,
Heeey, did you know that that "Talal" person copy-&-pasted my sentence:
... seemed to argue for individualism by utilizing pragmatic utilitarianism, instead of on purely moral grounds.
... on 14 July 2012?
Now, I don't know whether to feel flattered or miffed about that. They say that imitation is the highest form of flattery, so I guess I should feel flattered. Well, at least I'm contributing to some culture-advancing memes, even if I am not currently "officially" receiving all of the requisite credit. You got to spread the credit around, you know.
Heeey, wait just a cotton-picking minute. I am starting to sound like Barack H. Obama:
[I]f you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. Source:
http://rebirthofreason.com/Spirit/News/2978.shtml
I've got to learn how to stop doing that (to stop sounding like Barack H. Obama). Anyway, I don't want to be duped into being some unsuspecting Wizard of Oz -- having someone come here, see my writing, and then take it back there to argue it -- man-behind-the-curtain, but I can't help myself ... I can't refrain from comment on what this Joe L had to say. On 15 July 2012, Joe L said:
Is the case for individualism so weak in your mind that there is only one possible way to argue in favor of it, the purely moral grounds? I think expanding the argument to include the likely benefits to society is a good idea that will convince far more people ... Petitio principii (begging-the-question). A case isn't weak or strong based on the number (the quantity) of arguments for it, it is weak or strong based on the quality of argument for it. If Joe L's reasoning was valid, then 2 bad arguments would be better than 1 good one -- but that is not the case. Rand warned against basing an argument for individualism/capitalism on the likely benefits to society. She reminded us that that is the only way it has been defended, and of the terrible consequences of basing a defense on utilitarian grounds -- a point that is stated well by "Talal" in a post on 15 July 2012.
Holy crap! Is this a joke? That "Talal" person just quoted a whole argument by me -- word-for-word!:
Altruism is a moral code, real altruism isn’t just behavior that just so happened to have been helpful to others (in retrospect, or whatever), instead, it’s chosen behavior that was chosen precisely because it meets 2 qualifications:
1) it purportedly helps others
2) it doesn’t help oneself
Now, here’s the kicker:
Of these 2 qualifications, you — as a moral actor who is attempting to perform an altruistic act — you can really only ever be completely sure about one of them. You can’t ever be completely sure that the precise action that you take is that very action that maximizes, or that even merely produces, benefit to the recipient of your actions. But what you can be sure of — pretty much completely sure of — is that it doesn’t help you.
So, in the real world, when we are trying to be altruistic creatures, there is one bedrock principle on which we can base our action in order to do our best to become certain that we are, indeed, practicing altruism — and that principle is:
Self-sacrifice.
Alright, now I'm miffed (unless it's part of an as-yet-to-be-understood joke).
Talal, if you are reading this, then please "fess up." And please refrain from quoting me, word-for-word, in other forums -- without reference or citation. You're making me feel plagiarized.
Ed
|
|
