Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (86677)	8/29/2000 7:59:30 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I am happy enough to give it a rest, in the sense that you need not respond, but I have to respond myself. I am sorry that I have expected the posts to have a cumulative impact, instead of starting fresh each time. I can see that treating a thread discussion, with great breaks between posts, as a regular discussion might be too much. I had articulated the principle (respecting the dignity of the individual) from the start, and therefore assumed I could allude to it without spelling it out. I had recently explained that I was using altruism in the sense of the ethical system that viewed only "other- directed" acts as morally valuable, not to refer to acts of generosity, which is why I thought the reference to the coined term would suffice. I was mistaken. For a number of people, altruism does not have a positive connotation. Regardless, since I had explained earlier that I was using it merely in a quasi- technical sense, I had thought that was a sufficient alert. Earlier, I noted that the principle I have articulated is roughly the same as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", or the Kantian "never treat another rational being merely as a means, but as an end also". I also noted, in passing, a concern with one's own fate was not foreign to Christianity, as when it is viewed as bad to have wasted one's opportunities in the parable of the talents, or of the prodigal son. Acts of generosity, kindness, and charity are viewed positively in common, traditional ethics. They are viewed positively by me. Altruism is a term coined by Comte, and it is has confusedly been used to refer to these acts. From the beginning of the discussion, I said that I was distinguishing between acts of generosity and the general orientation that attributed moral value ONLY to other directed acts. I think there are insights in Nietzsche, but I am not approaching the question through that route in this case, and Rand is involved only insofar as I am sensitive to her influence on libertarians, and therefore trying to explain a more comprehensive vision, in part, to them. Perhaps you have noticed the hostility from average joe and sidney to what I have said? I am sorry if I broke off a point by point commentary. Perhaps I will go back to Smith. I wanted to clarify the misconceptions about what I was saying. Comte is not dead as a doornail, as is evident by your inability to put aside the positive connotations of altruism. His doctrine has become a nebulous orientation of "idealism". Someone who thinks that he is only doing good when he is doing things for others can easily think that he is doing bad when he refuses, and I have met plenty of people who did not especially want to do something, but did it to avoid guilt, and let the demands of others ruin their lives because they could not even conceive of a balance. The point is to bring the claims of self and of others under a principle that can afford an opportunity to balance various claims, to move from the arbitrary to the rational. That is the synthesis referred to. I do not know what is wrong with mentioning that personal achievement is praiseworthy. I am conscious that libertarians are reading what I write, and trying to make clear that in recommending charity to others, I do not mean to slight helping oneself. I am sorry that things did not work out.

To: jbe who wrote (86677)	8/29/2000 8:39:02 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

BTW, when I spoke of the praiseworthiness of transcending one's circumstances, I had in mind as my prime example Frederick Douglas. I was thinking of all of those who went through Ellis Island to begin a new life, like my ancestors. I was thinking of those freedmen who sought an education and learned a trade, or saved until they could own their own farms. I was thinking of the kid from the projects who avoids getting sucked into gangs, drugs, and petty criminality, studies hard, and goes to college. These are things worth celebrating.......