Egoism is commonly matched with relativism because it recognizes that people are motivated by their own desires, self-aware or not, and that those desires are of the individual and not of the collective. If everyone had the same desires, then it would be a universal constant. If a person can have desires that are not the same as everyone else, then Relativism generally follows. It doesn't have to be conceit, or "blind" egoism. This forum is a perfect example of Relativism in action. Even with fairly similar backgrounds, we regularly take extermemly different views on how things fundamentally work. The existence of wildly disparate cultures and religions is another perfect example.
I have a problem with the "Golden Rule" approach of Utilitarianism and more so of Univeralism. As Deanna so eloquently put it to me one day when we were having a discussion of interpersonal office stuff, not everyone wants or needs to be treated the same way. We all have different wants and needs. If I treat you as I want to be treated, that may very likely NOT be how you want to be treated. (The smoking debate comes to mind.) Basically, while the Golden Rule is well intentioned, it leads to the very collectivist situation you seem to dislike. Communism looks to be just an application of it in an economic situation. You mentioned that you won't use mysticism to make an arugument, but when you say that altrusim may be possible, you use the example of religion preaching self-sacrifice. In my opinion this practice isn't an example of altruism so much as psychological coersion. That self sacrifice that is presented by religion is always tied to some later reward, whether it is Heaven, Shamballa, or just not coming back as a rat on the Wheel. That's not to say that it is bad to introduce that coersion, as it is a way to appeal to the person's self-interests. Again, not altruism. Not bad, just not _entirely_ selfless. I don't know what philosophy I really adhere to. I spent a while as a philosophy major, and doing that I spent a lot of na�ve time bouncing from one nifty idea to another. I even had a friend who started an Objectivist group. It seemed interesting, but I noticed that while I liked much of it, IMO it takes individualism to an extreme of not just egoism, but low-grade sociopathy that if really followed would be detrimental to the larger society. A simple observation of how the world works made clear to me that there needed to be some compromise. And that's the rub. Compromises need to be made to accommodate the different goals of individuals to each other and all of them to society. I see a difference between a study of philosophy to understand how things work, and an adherence to a "pure" philosophy that is little more than a blind belief in a way we _want_ things to work. Objectivism feels to me like a "pure" philosophy. I'm not trying to tear down your world view or belief in Objectivism. I'm just pointing out that we see things differently. Relativism. I'm not a Democrat. I guess I'm an Independent and I suppose a Secular Humanist. Deanna and others tell me I'm a Liberal. I don't honestly know what a Liberal is. I don't think of myself as one but do I feel that when society works better, I'm generally better off, and that how we treat others reflects upon ourselves. And I think that holds true for individuals _and_ society. Geez, I think I need a cappuccino, hornrims and a goatee. -Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: Heald, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 1:51 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Altruism (was RE: US threatens Caribbean Countries) > > > I hold myself to the same standards I hold others. At lunch > today a friend got a fortune that had the golden rule, do > unto others..... His comment, very appropriate I thought, was > prepare to judge and be judged. > > I do not feel that altruism is impossible. Self-sacrifice > has been preached and practiced on this planet as long as > there has been organized religion. While there may be buried > ulterior motives involved, for all purposes the act is real > and takes precedence over the hidden motive. > > Ok, Egoist, yes, now why this should make me a relativist is > beyond me. Is it most common, sure, to those that are > completely blind to their egoism, the conceited and so forth. > However for those that are self aware, the self-interest is > their primary motivation, and they expect the same of others, > not expect to step on others, these people expect to truly be > treated in the same manner that they treat others. This > doesn't mean that I will sacrifice for you, it means I will > expect you to do what's in your self interest. > > Mill's and Bentham's writing on utilitarianism claim that > when you work for yourself and your own happiness, your truly > working for "society" or the community. I disagree however. > I think that in many ways (guns, drugs, property laws and so > on) that what is good for a society is not always what is > good for the individual. As an individualist vs. a > collectivist, I say that the individual, your means of > production and innovation, this is the motive force in > society, and as such should be paramount. > > I claim only one philosophy, objectivist. The theory that > the objective reality is the only reality. That we must deal > with that reality on it's own terms or it will defeat us. I > will not use mysticism in anyway to make an argument, or to > claim something from another person, this has been one of the > major causes of death and destruction in our history. I > refuse to use guilt or "love" or family in order to make > another individual do that which is not in their own > interest. You cannot live a lie, or you will eventually be > called to task. > > Do not mistake my service as altruism, it certainly was no > such thing. It was my responsibility, as others do it for my > family, I had to take my turn doing it for others. This was > self interest. I understand the idea of "enlightened > self-interest". It disgust me if the truth be told. I have > heard the very argument here. Wouldn't it be better to give > the family welfare than to have them in the street, stealing. > I say no. It would be better if they were punished to the > full extent for their crimes the first time. It would be > better if people were responsible for their actions. Each of > us makes decisions in life, some good some bad. At some > point that welfare mother, or strung out junkie, made choices > to put themselves in their current predicament. I think we > are being soft, we are not dealing with reality, when we > soften the blow that they are sure to receive. > > I know I have gone far afield of the original conversation, > but there are some many different issues contained in the > words you used. These individual words are used to sum up > philosophies that people have been discussing and debating > for thousands of years now. I am surprised that you are > truly an egoist, yet are a democrat, or at least come across > liberal at times (I may be getting confused, I think Dana and > Larry are the only ones that I really have pegged at this > point.). I would assume that someone who was truly self > interested would be an individualist, and a universalist. One > guiding moral reality for all people making your life better. > > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 1:40 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Altruism (was RE: US threatens Caribbean Countries) > > > No it's not. Altruism vs. Egoism is an ongoing debate in > philosophy with most modern ethicists that I've read giving > the nod to Egoism. Tomas Hobbes in the early 17th Century > basically said that Altruism doesn't exist. > > "For Hobbes, we all participate in a social contract to bring > society into existence for the benefits thereof. This is a > thoroughly egoistic enterprise. Hobbes would not claim that > social protections make altruism possible because altruism is > never possible. (Hobbes here on the Golden Rule!). What looks > like altruism and benevolence is always, in one way or > another, disguised self-interest. When that self-interest > breaks into the open, the result is total social war. The > fear of such war leads to doing things for others from purely > self-interested motives. (The example of the beggar and the > clergyman.) This story reduces the problem of the > relationship of altruism and egoism to a single issue: if > human nature is essentially self-interested and competitive, > how can altruism and benevolence be considered virtues?" > http://www.siue.edu/~whamric/Hobbes.html > > Plenty of others have provided varying perspectives on the > ebb and flow of apparently altruistic motivations in people, > but most generally come down on the side of altruism being a > false presumption. > > I wouldn't call Altruism evil, because I personally don't > feel that it even exists. Tim, as someone who served in the > military, was willing to die for others but that doesn't mean > that it was an altruistic motivation. What I personally find > interesting is that while Egosim usually goes hand in hand > with Relativism, or at least Utilitarianism, Tim seems > comfortable with Universalist principles for society while > holding an Egoist stance for himself. (That's not a criticism > Tim, just an observation.) > > -Kevin > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 10:54 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: US threatens Caribbean Countries > > > > > > I think that speaks for itself. It's right up there with > > "let's invade Iraq because they play with goat heads in Pakistan." > > > > Dana > > > > Heald, Tim writes: > > > > > Altruism is evil. > > > > > > Timothy Heald > > > Information Systems Specialist > > > Overseas Security Advisory Council > > > U.S. Department of State > > > 571.345.2235 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 10:20 PM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: RE: US threatens Caribbean Countries > > > > > > > > > *GASP!* > > > > > > You...you mean the US isn't the altruistic..benevolent world ruler > > > that it makes itself out to be? > > > > > > You mean...you mean if it isn't in the US 'National Interest' then > > > nothing will be done regardless of how many innocent people are > > > slaughtered or if there is systematic genocide taking place?? > > > > > > 0_0 > > > > > > Oh I can feel my little America The Saviour bubble breaking... > > > Yesh...yesh I really can... > > > > > > *Pop* > > > > > > Oh there...its gone. > > > *sigh* > > > 0_0 > > > Whatever are we going to do??? > > > > > > -Gel > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Kevin Schmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Dana, > > > > > > Liberia is in the middle of a civil war. Why should we intervene? > > > Should we have intervened in Somalia? I don't think so. I don't > > > think we should intervene in Liberia either. > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
