Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:35:46 -0330 (NST) From: Walter Okshevsky <wokshevs-AT-morgan.ucs.mun.ca> Subject: Re: PLC: Arguing for Altruism Chris -- A very thoughtful and well-written account. Thank you. Bestest, W Walter C. Okshevsky Memorial University ======================================================================== On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Chris Jenyns wrote: > > Regretfully, I did not keep one the responses to my query on altruism > and so I shall have to paraphrase (apologies to whomever it concerns). > The two points made were (and here's the test): > > 1. The relationship between egoism and altruism may be viewed much > like one views hot and cold. Accurately speaking, any temperature is > a degree of warmth - no matter how cold we feel it to be; but that > doesn't undermine the concept of hot and cold. So to with altruism, > why else would we have a word for it? > > 2. Egoism and altruism do not necessarily have absolute meanings > (something about being value laden?), we use them to describe certain > actions as distinct from others (a point made by S.N. also I > believe). When we admire someone for being altruistic we do admire > them for something, but this couldn't be the case if we thought > everything to be purely egoistic. > > While I understand that these are very practical answers, there is > something about them that seems to take the fizz out of the whole > issue. Essentially it says "okay, so we're ultimately selfish but > who cares as long as someone else benefits occasionally" which is > fine, I recognise that a very good solution would be to redefine > altruism as: feeling good about doing good for someone else. > > In a way, it sounds like an objective account of altruism. That is, > an action in which the cost to an individual is physicaly unrepaid. > To an observer, so long as you're not a skeptical egoist (but damn > it that's the point), this is all that matters. Unfortunately, I take > it personally. When someone says "you can't act altruistically" they > are making an accusation against the genuine nature of my motives. > Subjectively then, to say that I have suffered more than I gained > isn't enough. On that point, concerning the relative amounts of cost > and gain, surely we run into another problem of defining what is and > isn't altruistic. Something is hot or cold depending on how hot or > cold you feel and then there's warm, but there's no such word for > altruistic-cum-egoistic (nice?). However, if we could firmly > establish that altruism was possible we might easily say "that is why > I did it, therefore it was altruistic". > > Besides, it doesn't sit well with a few things I'd like to be able > to believe. The egoist claim makes a stake on human freedom, > admittedly it needn't hinder us much (since the explanation is > *supposed* to fit existing behaviour) but as far as my self > perception (that's right, my ego) is concerned I don't like it. I like > to think that we are as much rationally capable as we are emotionally > and if the egoist is right, we are rational in a limited capacity. > Not only are our criteria very biased to begin with, but it would > seem that certain conclusions are impossible to make. Rationality > serves us little if answers reached through it must be scrapped for > being incompatible with our own selfishness (there's an argument > against rationalising in there somewhere). Perhaps my notion of > rationality is muddled but it would be nice to think that (we in a > society of judges and politicians) are capable of making a genuinely > "right" decision and emotive concerns blur that possibility. > > Egoism also makes the odd suggestion that we should feel good about > acting altruistically, or at least expect to feel good. This goes > against my intuitions because self sacrifice can be at a high price > and even with a view to inevitable failure. I would suggest that it > can also be made with no such expectation (which is why I drew on > instinctive behaviour). > > But all this is just talk. What is needed, now filled with a desire > to do away with this egoist domination, is just one clear cut > example or explanation that allows us to justify a claim to altruism.. > > Stirling Newberry: > > > Anything is egotistically justified, even acts which don't > > seem so, because convincing others that you are not acting out of > > self interest is a benefit of itself. Any attempt, therefore, to > > convince oneself of altruism is therefore merley self-deception > > which you are pursuing because ti makes you feel bad to think of > > yourself as egotistical. > > This holds up only while altruism is forced out of the picture. If > there was even just one tiny case of genuine altruism then the whole > egoistic picture breaks up. This is because egoism holds that > altruism is just not possible, if it were, and provably so, then that > possiblity would at least make actions questionable. That is, if > altruism were possible then any evaluation of an action would be > speculation only, for the testimony of the agent is the total > evidence open to scrutiny. > > Stirling Newberry: > > > The egoists argument against altruism: > > > > 1. All acts are done from self-interest. > > > > 2. Acts which are done in self-interest are rewarded. > > > > 3. If an act is done that is perceived to be altruistic then there > > is some covert gain which overcomes the perceived loss from the > > altruism. > > I would like at this point to attempt a metaphor using sex (there > you've been warned). Essentially, this is just a reiteration of my > point about the motivation behind a given act. It seems to me that it > is quite possible to have sex just for sex's sake (I hope there's no > one with a lisp reading this), that is, we do not necessarily have > sex for the sake of the inevitable outcome of children. The accident > children in this analogy are the emotions, the result leading on from > sex which may be in no way anticipated (or even desired). If only > there was a condom handy to block egoistic arguments.. > > The problem is that this is just a metaphor so arguing on it won't > yeild the same success as a tight analogy. I might like to take > one possible objection though, the evolutionary claim that we only > desire to have sex because we need to propagate our particular gene > string. This objection leads me to ask a pertitent question: could we > act genuinely altruistically if we had no concept of what altruism > is? In terms of the metaphorical example, does someone genuinely > desire sex for sex's sake if they are ignorant of the hidden motive > that is propagating one's genes? > > Walter Okshevsky: > > > > let's stay with the hard case. Would the following example work? Example: > > > > Mine > > is already trained on Hitler. I squeeze the trigger. (No, I didn't > > forget to load it.) Hitler falls dead to the ground. The next > > morning, The Daily Blab reads: "PURE ACT OF ALTRUISM PERFORMED IN > > MUNICH." Is the headline false? > > In thinking about this example and the halfway solution mentioned > above (altruism is about feeling good doing good for other people) I > realised that there is one more question we need to ask. Why is > altruism a good thing? Why, if egoism is all there is, do we not feel > good about egoism? Perhaps its a point about social conditioning but > I think there's more to it. > > If we choose a value and act on it instinctively regardless of the > consequences, it might be said that we have not acted > altruistically because we have chosen that value for egoistic > reasons. However, to choose that value we must first decide that a > given value is "right" must we not? The only other possible > alternative is that that value is "right" because it feels good but > if this were true then ethics would never have varied from the "do > what feels good" line of thought. The fact that someone said "just > because it feels good doesn't mean its right" means that somewhere > along the way someone decided that "I'm going to do what's right" and > hence felt good about it. In other words, deciding to act > altruistically is a genuine decision which instills its own criterion > for feeling good. > > If I am right then even though we may act altruistically because we > feel good, the fact is that it feels good because we decided it > should. That makes altruism a little bit more acceptable doesn't it? > > > > <><>><><><><><><<>><><<>><<><><><><><><>><<>><><<><>><><<><>><<><>><> > > Chris J. > Monash University > <cjen2-AT-student.monash.edu.au> > > > --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005