I thought I would leave a couple of potentially provocative posts, as I will be tied up for awhile. I choose you because I presume you will more or less agree with me, and will be able to carry the ball forward if you log on.
A common fallacy is to note that regardless of the object of our affection, it is still the case that we react to an inner prompting, and thus to label all motivation as self- interested. The issue is not, however, whether or not we are affected, but whether we care only about what happens to us, or care also about others, and therefore there remains a meaningful distinction between selfishness and disinterested regard for others.
Now, the fallacy with altruism is to make the moral worth of an action hang on whether or not it is done for others, as if we do not count too. Selfishness is not acting on our own behalf, it is doing so in an imbalanced way, to the neglect of the claims of others. As a reaction against altruism, the idea that selfishness, or egoism, is moral, because one refuses to be a victim, but stands up proudly for one's inner values, is also deficient, since we are not the only actors on life's stage, nor even the lead in many scenes, and there is no reason to suppose that we count that much more than others.
If the idea behind morality is to regulate behavior according to a recognizable principle, then the dignity of the individual, not only oneself, but others, not only others, but oneself, is a good place to start. If we have a claim on others, it can only be in terms of mutual respect, in recognition of their claim on us. |
