RoR: Forum

Well I maintain your definition of altruism which you plucked from wikipedia is not correct and has little meaning.

Little meaning? Can you see no difference between doing something solely for yourself versus doing something for yourself and another person (P2)? And flipping it, can you see no difference between P2 doing something solely for himself/herself versus doing something for himself/herself and you, too?

And the definitions of selfish that define it to be caring for oneself despite the welfare of others is a perversion of the word.

Have you considered that altruism to mean self-sacrificial is a perversion of a word? The Latin root is 'alter', which means simply 'the other'.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 3/17, 7:58am)

Post 61

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 4:56pm

Merlin:

"Well I maintain your definition of altruism which you plucked from wikipedia is not correct and has little meaning."

Little meaning? Can you see no difference between doing something solely for yourself versus doing something for yourself and another person (P2)?

It has very little meaning in an ethical context because doing something solely for oneself does not properly define whether that action hurts others or not or the motivation for helping others. While it is true that certain actions like helping others means you are helping yourself, the primary motive for helping others is still to help yourself. Helping others becomes an ancillary effect from the primary motivation for your action, which is to help yourself. Rational egoism is probably the best term to use which describes doing things for your own self-interests which would not include hurting others, but may as a corollary effect help others as well.

If however we are talking about doing something for yourself at the expense of others, the proper word for this is a sociopath. And doing something at the expense of others doesn't help your self-interests anyways, it only serves to hurt you in the long-run. So here selfish is a poor word to use for someone who is a sociopath.

And the definitions of selfish that define it to be caring for oneself despite the welfare of others is a perversion of the word.

Have you considered that altruism to mean self-sacrificial is a perversion of a word? The Latin root is 'alter', which means simply 'the other'.

No it is not a perversion, because again defining altruism to just be "the other" has very little meaning in any philosophical context since one wouldn't understand if helping others is borne out of a motivation for self-interests as opposed to a sacrifice to your own well-being. If it's just "to help others" there is nothing that can meaningfully distinguish it from "selfish" since being selfish can also mean "helping others". If you are not prepared to make philosophical distinctions between opposing concepts, there is no reason to even bother having a discussion on ethics. Thus you would be giving these terms very little meaning since we can't meaningfully distinguish between the two.
(Edited by John Armaos on 3/17, 5:05pm)

Post 62

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - 9:58pm

Merlin,

I agreed with you before but I don't know what happened. It seems the debate has made you draw lines in the sand with which I wouldn't agree. For instance:

Have you considered that altruism to mean self-sacrificial is a perversion of a word? The Latin root is 'alter', which means simply 'the other'.

Have you considered that the 'alter' is the traditional place where sacrifices are made?

Ed

Post 63

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 4:28am

Very good one, Ed. I gave you points. However, that word is "altar." The Latin root is altare (link).
(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 3/18, 5:09am)

Post 64

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 4:37am

I wrote: "Little meaning? Can you see no difference between doing something solely for yourself versus doing something for yourself and another person (P2)?"

John A. replied:

It has very little meaning in an ethical context because doing something solely for oneself does not properly define whether that action hurts others or not or the motivation for helping others.

The way you used "selfish" in post 59 does not either:

Self-ish. What does the suffix 'ish'imply here? That one is concerned with self. It should not imply any more meaning than that and it is wrong to add the part of the definition that says "regardless of others".

Did you forget that already? You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Also, look at my diagram in post 58. The left-most area says "sacrifice others".

You and Steve stress motivation over action. I stress action over motivation. I believe Ayn Rand did too. She wrote, "Philosophy is concerned with man as a conscious being; it is for conscious beings that it prescribes certain principles of action, i.e., a moral code" (my bold). I stress action because I believe it's more important in general. When you go shopping do you think the store owner is primarily concerned with your motivation or your action of buying? You say you are a hotel and restaurant owner. Do you care more about your customers' motivation or their action of patronizing your business?

Here is an old idiom with one word change: Sticks and stones may break my bones but motivations will never hurt me. :-)

No it is not a perversion, because again defining altruism to just be "the other" has very little meaning in any philosophical context since one wouldn't understand if helping others is borne out of a motivation for self-interests as opposed to a sacrifice to your own well-being.

It is a perversion by Auguste Comte and others. I did not define "altruism" to mean simply "the other"? I said its root "alter" means "the other". Observe the way I have used it consistently in this thread -- benefit to another person. The last half of your sentence doesn't make sense.

I would be content to use the clumsier benefit-to-self and benefit-to-another if it did not light your short fuse, but I doubt it would work very well. :-)

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 3/18, 4:58am)

Post 65

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 5:21am

MJ: Have you considered that altruism to mean self-sacrificial is a perversion of a word? The Latin root is 'alter', which means simply 'the other'.

Back to that again... Look, the word was invented in the 19th century by Auguste Comte. It is a recent word. It had an intended meaning. Read Comte. He wanted a "priesthood of positivism" that would make India and China admit Europe into their club. He called the time since the Middle Ages "anarchy" -- a word he used repeatedly to mean the disorder that comes from freedom.

I agree that many (English-speaking) people use the word "altruism" differently today. Dictionaries reflect that. They do not give the "real" meaning of a word, but only what the editors believe that everyone else means by the word. Some words -- such as "fast" -- have several ranges of meanings. Altruism is not like that. Neither is socialism. Just because "most" people claim to think that "socialism" represents a "middle ground" between capitalism and communism does not change the nature of socialism.

So, too, with altruism. If you want to use it to mean "being nice to other people" you are free to do so -- and to use the word "pear" to mean "scissors." Just remind us every now and then that you are asserting your semantic independence.

Post 66

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 5:39am

MEM,

I am aware of all the meanings of altruism to which you refer.

So, too, with altruism. If you want to use it to mean "being nice to other people" you are free to do so -- and to use the word "pear" to mean "scissors." Just remind us every now and then that you are asserting your semantic independence.

I think I have been quite clear about that, and I didn't mean "being nice to other people", "pear", or "scissors."

Post 67

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 11:08am

Merlin:

I wrote: "Little meaning? Can you see no difference between doing something solely for yourself versus doing something for yourself and another person (P2)?"

John A. replied:

It has very little meaning in an ethical context because doing something solely for oneself does not properly define whether that action hurts others or not or the motivation for helping others.

The way you used "selfish" in post 59 does not either:

Self-ish. What does the suffix 'ish'imply here? That one is concerned with self. It should not imply any more meaning than that and it is wrong to add the part of the definition that says "regardless of others".

Did you forget that already? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

No Merlin I didn't forget, but I guess you can't be bothered with understanding what I wrote since you are the one that wants his cake and eat it too by vaguely defining altruism in a way that cannot be meaningfully distinguished from selfishness. Because I was trying to convey to you that if you want to define altruism to just helping others, you wouldn't be able to distinguish it from being "selfish" since helping others does not rule out one being "selfish". So here you are, defining an altruist in a way where he can also be someone who is selfish, thereby you have completely muddled any hopes of a meaningful discussion on ethics.

You and Steve stress motivation over action. I stress action over motivation. I believe Ayn Rand did too

You are making a false dichotomy. I am not making any kind of dichotomy between "motivation" and "action" in my arguments and I don't believe Rand does either. Actions are the result of a motivation, thus an "ought" (as in I ought to help others to help myself) becomes an "is" (I am helping others and they are helping me). So in that sense all actions are the result of a motivation. A conscious being thinks what action to take, and then acts. So you can't simply dismiss a motivation for an action especially if you want to have a philosophical discussion on ethics.

She wrote, "Philosophy is concerned with man as a conscious being; it is for conscious beings that it prescribes certain principles of action, i.e., a moral code" (my bold).

This quote does not make any kind of dichotomous distinction between an action and the motivation for that action! In fact it melds the two by describing a being as having a "conscious" which implies this being requires "thought" before "taking action". You can't possibly have a "moral code" without first prescribing why one should have a particular "moral code". You are trying to reduce the philosophy of ethics into an irreducible primary of thoughtless actions.

You say you are a hotel and restaurant owner. Do you care more about your customers' motivation or their action of patronizing your business?

The question is improper since the motivation of my customer is to patronize my business and thus, he patronizes my business. The thought becomes an action, and the action is purely motivated by the thought. In an ethical discussion dealing with these abstracts they are inseparable. The actions are the result of thoughts.

No it is not a perversion, because again defining altruism to just be "the other" has very little meaning in any philosophical context since one wouldn't understand if helping others is borne out of a motivation for self-interests as opposed to a sacrifice to your own well-being.

It is a perversion by Auguste Comte and others.

How can he pervert a word he invented!

I would be content to use the clumsier benefit-to-self and benefit-to-another if it did not light your short fuse

I'm sorry I don't understand this metaphor. What are you trying to say? What does lighting my short fuse mean?

(Edited by John Armaos on 3/18, 2:49pm)

Post 68

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 1:20pm

Being a devotee to the principle of "define your terms," I'd like to quote here an excerpt from Durant's The Story of Philosophy on the subject, and then put up the O.E.D. definition of "altruism," and comments from a third source. I know some readers are quite familiar with some or all of this.

Durant, pg. 59 of pb. copy:

He is talking about Aristotle, and the importance of logic:
"There was a hint of this new science in Socrates' maddening insistence on definitions, and in Plato's constant refining of every concept. Aristotle's little treatise on Definitions shows how his logic found nourishment at this source. "If you wish to converse with me," said Voltaire, "define your terms." How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task."

{Personal comment: I adore this quote.}

The O.E.D. recognizes what has been already pointed out, that Comte invented the term. It's definition there is, "Devotion to the welfare of others; regard for others, as a principle of action; opposed to egoism or selfishness."

In three other philosophical reference works, the relevant topic is titled, "Egoism vs. Altruism."

Beyond an appropriate regard for valid authority, the consensus on the issue shows us that there is a polar, mutually-exclusive pair of concepts involved in an ethical dispute of interest to people and philosophers from Comte to the present.

In order to carry on discussion on that dispute, mutually-exclusive concepts are required. History has made those terms "egoism" and "altruism." To alter their meanings would lose us the logical ability to discuss what has proven to be an important ethical issue.

The more detailed categories being discussed in this thread are of great interest to me, especially the question of when, if ever, another person's self or property may be taken or used to promote or save one's own life. What we need is a further set of categories, such as Merlin and Steve have invented and discussed. How these categories fall under the larger concepts of egoism and altruism has to remain consistent with the polar-opposite meanings of those terms.

Post 69

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 2:45pm

Durant's point is a good one, but I never heard of anything by Aristotle named Definitions. He talks here and there in his writings about what makes for a good definition, but this treatise is news to me.

Post 70

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 3:52pm

John A. wrote:

No Merlin I didn't forget, but I guess you can't be bothered with understanding what I wrote since you are the one that wants his cake and eat it too by vaguely defining altruism in a way that cannot be meaningfully distinguished from selfishness.

This is patently false, and proven false by my diagram in post 58. A large part of the 'egoistic action' circle is outside the 'altruistic action' circle and vice-versa.

Because I was trying to convey to you that if you want to define altruism to just helping others, you wouldn't be able to distinguish it from being "selfish" since helping others does not rule out one being "selfish". So here you are, defining an altruist in a way where he can also be someone who is selfish, thereby you have completely muddled any hopes of a meaningful discussion on ethics.

Au contraire. Look at my diagram in post 58. The lines sharply distinguish between (a) benefit to self only, (b) benefit to another only and (c) benefit to both self and another. When you do not carefully distinguish between (a) and (c), that is muddling.

You are trying to reduce the philosophy of ethics into an irreducible primary of thoughtless actions.

Wrong. I agree with your statement: "The actions are the result of thoughts." Emphasizing action is not the same as eliminating thought. "Emphasize" does not mean "eliminate." Using that kind of argument, you are trying to reduce the philosophy of ethics into an irreducible primary of actionless thought.

How can he pervert a word he invented!

Comte perverted the Latin root word 'alter'. It's similar to your saying the word "selfish" is a perversion of "self."

Post 71

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 3:59pm

Mindy wrote:

In three other philosophical reference works, the relevant topic is titled, "Egoism vs. Altruism."
Beyond an appropriate regard for valid authority, the consensus on the issue shows us that there is a polar, mutually-exclusive pair of concepts involved in an ethical dispute of interest to people and philosophers from Comte to the present.
In order to carry on discussion on that dispute, mutually-exclusive concepts are required. History has made those terms "egoism" and "altruism." To alter their meanings would lose us the logical ability to discuss what has proven to be an important ethical issue.
The more detailed categories being discussed in this thread are of great interest to me, especially the question of when, if ever, another person's self or property may be taken or used to promote or save one's own life. What we need is a further set of categories, such as Merlin and Steve have invented and discussed. How these categories fall under the larger concepts of egoism and altruism has to remain consistent with the polar-opposite meanings of those terms.

Two mutually exclusive properties are ones that cannot both be true -- at the same time and in the same respect. The last part is crucial and is also part of the law of non-contradiction. "It is impossible for the same thing at the same time to belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect" (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1005b12-20). If a Venn diagram depicts two properties as two completely separate, non-intersecting circles, then obviously both properties cannot both be true -- at the same time and in the same respect. On the other hand, if the two circles are depicted as overlapping, then both properties can both be true. In addition, one may be true and the other false. Both these are possible in my Venn diagram in post 58. If an action fits in the egoistic actions circle minus its intersecting part, then it is an egoistic action but not an altruistic one. In other words, an action in the non-overlapping part of the circle excludes it being an altruistic action. The similar but reverse situation holds if an action fits in the altruistic actions circle minus its intersecting part.

Is it possible to have actions of both sorts? Yes. Consider a wife who prepares food both for herself and her husband. Whatever part of the food the wife eats excludes her husband from eating the same part, and vice-versa. But they can both eat from the same dish. Thus one Venn diagram can handle both types of cases -- (1) actions which are mutually exclusive, or "polar-opposite" using Mindy's phrase, and (2) actions which are not mutually exclusive, or not "polar-opposite."

Post 72

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 4:56pm

Peter, I think it is part of Aristotle's Topica.
About the Venn diagrams: I looked back, and verified that both Merlin and Steve have egoism and altruism partly overlapping. If the particulars being circumscribed by the diagrams are non-trivial, deliberate actions, there shouldn't be any overlap between egoist and altruist circles.

(Edited by Mindy Newton on 3/18, 5:07pm)

Post 73

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 7:00pm

Mindy, in my Venn diagram the only overlaps are of items to small to be bothered with (trivial) and with borderline issues that might prove difficult to parse (confused motivation and no way to divine from the acts which theories they should be assigned to).

I agree with the position you stated. Rational egoism and Altruism are mutually-exclusive ethical theories.

Post 74

Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 3:41am

Mindy wrote:

About the Venn diagrams: I looked back, and verified that both Merlin and Steve have egoism and altruism partly overlapping. If the particulars being circumscribed by the diagrams are non-trivial, deliberate actions, there shouldn't be any overlap between egoist and altruist circles.

Why? Because you believe they should be "polar opposites" in order to keep the historical dispute on the same track? Consider the following analogy with a less controversial set of properties -- carnivorous, herbivorous, omnivorous. Carnivorous has two opposites: (1) herbivorous and (2) herbivorous or omnivorous. Picking herbivorous as the "polar opposite" does not make omnivorous nonexistent. There are two ways to accommodate herbivorous with a Venn diagram. One is to make three mutually exclusive circles. The other is to draw carnivorous and herbivorous circles that intersect.

Returning to the egoist and altruist circles, there is no overlap between the purely egoist area (circle minus intersecting part) and the purely altruist area (circle minus intersecting part).

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 3/19, 6:22am)

Post 75

Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 5:13pm

Yes, Merlin. We want to be able to understand, and participate in that debate. It is an important part of the philosophy of ethics. It would be injurious to muddy the waters by changing the meanings of the key terms.

Post 76

Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 5:20pm

That last analogy sucks - is like comparing apples, not with oranges, but with potatoes...

action with benevolence is not being altruistic... and that, in the mother getting groceries, is all that comes to... 'selfism' and 'otherism' are indeed mutually exclusive, even if some selfistic actions appear as if altruistic...

(Edited by robert malcom on 3/19, 5:25pm)

Post 77

Friday, March 20, 2009 - 5:01am