I am sorry if I misunderstood you, Neo.
But do bear in mind (no offense intended) that other posters are not likely to go back and consult previous posts you have made if they are confused about something you've written. They are going to respond to the post in front of them, and then move on, thoughtless flibberty-gibbets that they are! <g>
Anyway, the opening sentences of your last post to me were something less than clear:
The affirmation of the principle is my main focus. Both selfishness and altruism negate the principle. I am using the coined term for a reason, and calling it bad, not good.
What principle? What coined term?
Going back to your immediately preceding post to me, I find the answer to the first question:
The principle of respecting the dignity of the
individual, balancing one's own interests against the various claims others may make on our time and resources, provides a guideline for one's behavior in society........
Well, now I know, sort of. (Those dying-fall dots don't help, btw. They make me start seeing spots everywhere........<g>)
No explanation for the "coined term," but the context does make it reasonably clear that you have in mind "altruism." But the fact is that it would be just as hard to strip "altruism" of its positive connotations as it would be to strip "selfishness" of its negative ones. That is why I suggested using fresh new terms. (Otherwise, we will get into the same conceptual mess I believe we are now in with "conservatism" and "liberalism.")
You also write something I find puzzling:
As far as I know, I am not being particularly innovative, merely clarifying common, traditional ethics.
Clarifying? Or revising? You know very well that altruism is generally viewed positively in "common, traditional ethics." Are you really not a conservative, but a Nietzschean-Randian revolutionary? (For the record, I was once a Nietzsche Freak myself, although never a Randian. For one thing, her prose was too bad.)
And speaking of traditional ethics, you did not respond to my remarks about Adam Smith's treatment of altruism.
As for Comte & his system, he/it is dead as a doornail, while Nietzsche, Rand, et al. are still kicking, as "non-traditional" as they are.
It is only if one is a die-hard Comtean (and who is, these days?) that one could even understand this characterization of "altruism":
Altruism is insufficient because it allows others a "blank check" to make arbitrary demands on you, as if your
destiny is irrelevant.
?????? If I engage in a charitable act, it is not because anyone is making arbitrary demands on me, but because I feel like doing it. Most of us get pleasure from doing something "nice" (and I am sure you are no exception). Those who don't, don't do it -- although they will still have to pay taxes, some of which may go for causes they don't approve of. But even that is no "blank check": your elected representatives have agreed to sign the check.
True, you also characterize "selfishness" negatively:
Selfishness is inadequate because it is makes arbitrary demands on others.
So: Altruism makes arbitrary demands on the individual ("you" or "me"), while selfishness makes arbitrary demands on society in general ("Others or "us"). If that is not an antithesis, I don't know what is. You say no, that you seek a "synthesis of the two"? And how are you going to "synthesize" the two, with the aid of your "principle"? In your latest post to me, you write that both altruism and selfishness "negate the principle."
Normally, if you combine two "bad" things, you will get something worse, no matter what yoke you try to tie them together with. If you know your Hegel, you know you can only get a higher synthesis out of a thesis and an antithesis, both of which, subsumed, are capable of developing further (in the positive sense). <g>
Aw, forget Hegel. Just tell me, why, oh, why, in this country, where the proudest boast has generally been "I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps," do you think it necessary to "emphasize" that " transcending one's circumstances to make a better life for oneself is praiseworthy"? Coals to Newcastle, IMO.
I would continue, but it's late, and I've already spent well over an hour poring over your posts, and composing a "considered" response.
Let's give this one a rest, o.k.? |
