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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (10307)	4/4/2001 11:32:54 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

No, actually I always end in doubt that you are following the argument. On the other, I should have made explicit: "the point of view among theists". I want to avoid a long disquisition, so I will summarize: In the view that the order in the universe betokens something akin to intelligence and intentionality in its formation, one infers that God had purposes to the order established. From looking at human nature situated in the world, one can descry some general points about this intention, and make inferences about the best course of action to fulfill the purpose inherent in nature. Mankind being rational and social, rules are established to conduce to the orderly pursuit of human interests, which amount to the fulfillment of our faculties and inclinations, such as the amassing of knowledge, the beautification and ennoblement of our environment, and the promotion of friendship and family affection. What you ask at the end is not strictly related, but I will say something about it in awhile......

To: Solon who wrote (10307)	4/4/2001 11:40:40 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

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.

To: Solon who wrote (10307)	4/4/2001 11:43:18 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

When I mention altruism I do not primarily mean sentiments of generosity or solidarity or sympathy, I mean the ethical doctrine first articulated by Auguste Comte that the moral worth of an action is determined by its selflessness. Nor am I much interested in the mechanics of learning to appreciate the situation of others, although I agree that one has to develop qualities of imagination and sympathy, because what is important is the underlying principle. Selfishness is inadequate because it is makes arbitrary demands on others. Altruism is insufficient because it allows others a "blank check" to make arbitrary demands on you, as if your destiny is irrelevant. 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........

To: Solon who wrote (10307)	4/4/2001 11:44:34 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

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. It is praiseworthy to transcend one's circumstances and succeed against odds, just as it is praiseworthy to lend a helping hand to others. It is censurable to waste one's gifts (the parable of the talents?, the prodigal son?), just as it is censurable to turn a blind eye to a suffering stranger. In my scheme, a deed which improves the lot of someone else and happens to do one some good is even better than a purely selfless act, so there is no problem with charity that is supposed to benefit one spiritually, as long as the principle that the other person counts too is honored.

To: Solon who wrote (10307)	4/4/2001 11:51:18 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

I am less interested in the difficulty of untangling motivation than in the general idea that we care about others as well as ourselves. Sometimes we are enthusiastic about acknowledging their due, or succoring their need, and sometimes we are grudging, but in each case we recognize that we are upholding the dignity of the individual, and thus "objectivizing" our value as well as theirs, that is, treating claims of value and respect as universal, so that we give recognition even as we ask for it. I am content, for the moment, to lay aside whether it is in fact objective. Right at the moment, I merely want to suggest that we, as social creatures, have an interest in articulating rules to govern social intercourse, and that this is the most fundamental rule that we can generate.