that is the underlying motive behind the sham of "altruism".

Since it seems that all actions are fundamentally in self interest, why should some individuals' goals take precedence over others?

Altruism is not a sham.

There was a time when I resisted the idea that everything everybody does is motivated by self-interest. Maybe some, I thought, but not all. My views have changed.

I realized my objection is that I thought of self-interest as bad and putting the self aside for others as good. It's not that simple. I'm willing to accept that at the root of every individual, they are acting for self-interest.

BUT, one factor that motivates the self is loneliness (and other similar motivations). Loneliness causes us to ask others for companionship. Those others won't give it without trust and commitment. So, in a sense, we bind with other people. Once bound to them, our "self-interest" is no longer toward the individual, but toward the group to which we are bound. It is out of this that altruism grows.

It is why people shy away from those whose self-interest is truly motivated by individual needs only. It demonstrates a lack of ability to provide companionship, to support and promote the group. In fact, such extreme individualism is often harmful.

This is all speaking from the head. Unless you've been a spouse, parent, brother/sister, or son/daughter - not in the physical sense, but in the emotional sense - you probably won't understand what I'm saying.

Now you're talking about authority. If you're not living in a society, you can ask that question. I doubt few people in this forum are truly independent (though they may like to think they are), so it seems like a somewhat arrogant question: why am I not allowed to take from society without giving back to it?

So we agree that every action an individual executes is fundamentally one of self interest. Wouldn't this make "Altruism", by definition, a meaningless term, while simultaneously making Egoism ubiquitous?

The group is a fabrication of the individuals which compose it. A "spook" as Stirner would say.

This passage is loaded with your personal values statements. Not all people shy away from the self-centered. How is extreme individualism harmful? To who? Why?

Well despite the conflict with your aesthetic and moral values, why aren't I allowed?

So, the reason all of hexhammer's goals are not realized is due to the world's population using commodities and services within a system of exchange, production, and investment in which individuals have the ability to decide who, what, where, when, why, and how they use their resources? I'm not sure I see how that follows.

Of course, if you have followed this post so far, you will know that I think that the motivation for any action is always the same: self interest. So what, then, is the difference between your goals and the goals of a capitalist? Differing aesthetics, that is all.

You seem to be conflating "selfishness" with "self-interest." I hope I am wrong about your making this egregious mistake. They are two different concepts. The College Text manual explains how.they differ.

Upon investigation it turns out that every "self-made man" had enormous help from public utilities;, from government agencies; and (sometimes hidden) subsidies from the public till;, and from mentors; and/or from resources which society graciously provided them.
"Better" means: richer in meaning; more valuable. "Value " is very-carefully defined, with precision, in Chapter 2 of the College Course manual. A link to that is offered in the Preface of the essay below, entitled Ethical Adventures. "Valuing" and "liking" are two different concepts and do not necessarily correlate. Surely you're notignorant of all this?? Say "Not so !"

Is that a value judgement on my part - that one killing another is harmful? Yes it is. Why is that value judgement wrong? What judgement have you used to say that removing all value judgements would be superior to leaving them in place? If you can't see the circularity of such things, I don't think I can lead you to it.

The point is this: yes, I make value judgements and I don't try to pretend that I'm not. IMO, the rational person is the one who admits nothing can be done without a judgement of some form. It is not rational to think otherwise.

I don't see a need to provide any other reason. If you and I are going to live in the same society, you will have to deal with my values, just as I must deal with yours. If there is someone to whom that is not acceptable, they can make the choice to leave - but they should not stay, demanding satisfaction while refusing to obey. That is why we have jails - to remove people who take that position.

The "self" is not easily defined. Self-interest may include an intense love for others. Here's a tricky question. Is it selfish to make others happy, if making them happy makes you happy? If this is also "selfish," then the word may have too wide a meaning to be of much use.

recon

You seem to be conflating "selfishness" with "self-interest." I hope I am wrong about your making this egregious mistake. They are two different concepts. The College Text manual explains how.they differ.

Some people live spontaneously and do not calculate: what's in it for me? Instead - if they ask anything - they ask: What's in it for us? ...they talk as if they care for others, and they "walk the talk." (Those who cannot feel caring toward others are known as 'psychopaths.')

Upon investigation it turns out that every "self-made man" had enormous help from public utilities;, from government agencies; and (sometimes hidden) subsidies from the public till;, and from mentors; and/or from resources which society graciously provided them.

"Better" means: richer in meaning; more valuable. "Value " is very-carefully defined, with precision, in Chapter 2 of the College Course manual. A link to that is offered in the Preface of the essay below, entitled Ethical Adventures. "Valuing" and "liking" are two different concepts and do not necessarily correlate. Surely you're notignorant of all this?? Say "Not so !"

Hello apehead. I must say that I agree on most of your points.

The error here and the reason as to why I made this point in the original thread is that these commodities/money, is NOT as you suggested in the hands of the world's population, but only the minority which is the giant corporations.

I do not think I should need to outline the obvious damaging problems of this but I will make a quick point of it anyway. As I am sure you are well aware, these corporations have vast amounts of money, there are literally countless men who have billions of dollars, there are many state of affairs around the world that could benefit from such money, e.g there are brothers in the same planet, right next door in third world countries, children are literally starving to death, but in these mens opinions the money is better made use of sitting in the bank.

So you see while these objective and logical philosophies are correct and would apply great to robots, we are humans, as such, we apply and hold great values to what is also my answer to most of your argument, and that is ethics and morals.

If I give money to a beggar knowingly that I never see him again, where lies my selfinterest?

If I provide a machine that use 1:100th energy of current electric generating machines, that 3rd world countries can use, and I have absolutely no gain hereof ..where lies my gain ..where is my self interest?

You accuse me of such selfness, with such unprofound harsh and unforgiving words, instead of jumping to conclusions, you should instead ask and gain knowledge, without causing such stirr.

That's up to you. Was philanthropy on your daily checklist? Does it just make you feel good? Is it part of your religion to tithe? I can't answer why you acted, but you must believe said action advanced you towards your goals(whatever they may be), otherwise you would not have acted.

That action would satisfy one of your goals, would it not?

I'm sorry if you consider my words harsh and unforgiving, I am merely pointing out the inhierent hypocrisy in altruism, and the sense of righteousness that may accompany such "altruistic" actions. As for your advice, it is another example of values loaded, externally applied normative. To me, it reads something like this:

"I want you ask and gain knowledge, without causing stir."

And my response is,

"Why shouldn't I question directives?"

I act upon logic, if a person is drowning, I would swim out and help, or trhow a rope ..or whatever, it satisfy nothing, it has no deeper motivation. If I wouldn't react I would be psycotic and without any empathy.

..and just what goal should that be? If you have the guts to accuse me, you should be able to explain youself, which you can't. You can only blame, which anyone can do, I begin to see this as harrasment.

If you can't prove your claim, but only smere me with your empty accusations, then don't, it leads to no good. On the other hand it seems you only attack me with a great selfinterest in feeling selfrighterous.

In psycology, there's this concept of skitzophrenia, of "seeing" things there are not, I find it being the case of your accusations, wanting to see "self interest" when there are indeed no self interest, because my intend lies out of your "scope of plausible reasoning".

--
That is ultimately my point. I feel it is a false dichotomy to lump some actions as pejoratively "selfish", while others are acclaimed as "unselfish". Although it seems that I might not be using these words in the spirit of their "commonly understood" meanings, instead opting for the "actual definition".------ Post added 06-07-2010 at 08:55 AM ----------
"Selfish - devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others."

"Self-Interest - regard for one's own interest or advantage, esp. with disregard for others."

These were the definitions I am working off of..

-In any event, they are still acting to satisfy themselves. Have you ever heard some local news hero saying something to the effect of "I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't try to help"? ...
...I don't remember implying that they were the same. Although I'm afraid I am ignorant of your particular "Ethics Manual"....

In making a philosophical analysis with a view to clarify matters, we can disregard the "especially part of your so-call "actual" definition. [It is wise on your part to put that word "actual" in quotes. Another authoritative dictionary has left out that phrase after the word 'advantage.'

I also did that in my discussion within my coherent theory of ethics. {I would rather have it incomplete and coherent; than have it complete and incoherent. Goedel showed how it had to be one or the other.} See Chapter 4 in Living the Good Life, pp. 21-28, for a detailed discussion and analysis of the theme proposed by apehead in the original post of this thread. A link to it is in the Preface to Ethical Adventures.

You are employing a theory of value that has long since been discarrded (due to all the holed in it) by philosophers in-the-know, namely Pritfchard's ethics; or Ayet's; or C. L. Stevenson's. Shame on you for being so far behind the times. {For example, see Mary Mothersill's critique of their views.}

Yes, by "objectivity" I mean "inter-subjectivity." I have said so several times in my writings -- which you (deliberately?) ignore. How can there be any other meaning of the term, since it is human beings who ultimatately are doing the conceiving, perceiving and experiencing of same datum (say, for example, the circumference of the Earth; or whether Napoleum ever lived; etc., etc.) Where human beings are involved we can't get away from subjectivity ....but so what?! Does that mean that nothing is objective? Of course not.

You may have put your finger on the crux of the whole problem - at the end there. You then go on to make a comparison of my systematic set of models with the Bible - which, as I note in my writings, was the old way of teaching people ethics, but - agreeing with you - is an inadequate way.
Isn't that why we need to focus on some theories that are, or may be, superior?! If one method is not doing a good job, isn't it rational to seek another method that has promise to do a more effective job?

At the outset of the passage just quoted, you write: "they are still acting to satisfy themselves..." There is nothing wrong with that, provided it is - as Adam Smith, and Buddha, and many others since have observed - an enlightened self-interest !!

By that I mean one that is aware that 'What helps you, if it really does, also helps me; and vice versa.'

In addition a person who knows his Social Ethics is aware that 'We are alll better off if everyone is better off.' The latter may be interpreted in an economic sense as meaning, if most every individual on Eath had a minimum level of financial comfort - say, what the Middle Class in the USA had when there still was a middle class - then there would be a lot less turmoil and danger for us in this world, for there would not be billions of others out there ready to "give us a hotfoot." Less desperation and misery, less needless (violent-type) conflict. Enlightened people know this.

My point, which seems to have been missed, is that 'individualism' is worth far less than 'individuality,' and why settle for less than the best. And this judgment has nothing to do with preference, but is a result of an axio-logical analysis, and thus somewhat objective. It was arrived at both by induction, abduction, and deduction - which is more than I can say about most propositions which are uttered.

[I wish that analysis were original with me; but then it's very hard to be original in the 21st Century !]

Martha Nussbaum, a better philosopher than most of us here will ever be, confirms my views - or I confirm hers - since she is working for a decent society, one with capability, civility, equal opportunity, and more compassion. Such a society she argues would have a good, solid, social safety net. Is there anyone here who does not support such a goal?

If so, you have no vision and I truly feel sorry for such an individual. He or she has what axiologists describe as 'Moral astigmatism.' That's an inability to Intrinsically value, an insensitivity. It is a handicap. It is unethical to be judgmental about it ...nor about any other perceived defect for that matter. Let's not be moralists. Let's be rational.

We deaden our lives. Why not LIVE !! Let each individual flourish !! Aristotle learned that from the Tao te Ching.

We are all in this together.
Let us seek harmony.
Recent philosophy learned this from Confucious. ....Very ancient wisdom.
[I learned both these facts in the history of ideas from Stephen Prothero, whose recent book is God is Not One.]

Prof. Nussbaum says that a philosopher ought to be "a lawyer for humanity." She argues convincingly that the philosopher's mission is to be an advocate for a better world.

She is joined in that view by a long, long line of big names in Philosophy, such as Aristotle, Kant, Mill, Foucault, Putnam, Rawls, Singer, etc., etc.

When we do this we are truly looking out for our Self-Interest.

.... Something as seemingly cut and dry as a word ... is still subject to individual interpretation.

Quote:

Yes, when it is vague and ambiguous, as the words in a dictionary are. But in formal logic, you won't find this phenomenon so much.

apehead;174705 wrote:

Haven't read any of your stuff yet.

So there is an objective method for determining value?

Quote:

Yes, there is. That's why it is important to do your homework. Start with the College Course. iAs you will note, its shortcomings are corrected in the later writings.

apehead;174705 wrote:

"Objective - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased"

Quote:

I think we both agree that nothing is objective in that sense, by that definition of the word. The closest we come to it is with symbolic logic.

apehead;174705 wrote:

.Now how are these the same, and how does objectivity as an abstract concept automatically make the word meaningless?

Quote:

I never claimed the word "objectivity" was meaningless. See Chapter 8 of ETHICS: A College Course where the topic is discussed and explained.

apehead;174705 wrote:

... [H]ow is a majority opinion necessarily more representative of reality than a minority opinion?

... determine which ethical theories are "superior" to others? How? What is the meter against which to measure them?

Quote:

These are all excellent questions and you will come closer to acquiring answers to them, if you really want to, when you read my papers, and earlier posts here.
In the Metaphysics Forum, here, I offered a formal definition of the concept, "reality" and analyzed its relation to the concepts "essence" and "existence." The post provoked a fine discussion which some consider to be a first-class dialog.


You write: "Since ..., it is impossible for a human, or group of humans to determine,totally and with complete certainty, what the outcome of any action will be. Therefore, there is no way for mortal agents to complete the task which you assign them in the preceding passage. "

However, I never assigned anyone such a task. My theory is not oriented around the concept "action." This rejoinder of yours is wide off the mark.


You write: "Define "turmoil" and "danger". Define "middle-class""
The first two are excellent projects for a good theory of ethics. The latter has already been adequately defined by Dinesh D'Sousa in his latest book, The Virtue of Prosperity. There he builds upon, and updates what Sociologists have already done..

When you ask: "Why is the US not getting attacked considered a goal worth pursuing? To who (obviously not the potential attackers)? Why is this goal, and your proposed means to be considered enlightened?" you show complete and utter moral nihilism, and make a joke out of ethics: for you succeed in giving the impression that to you 'wrong' equals 'right'; 'bad' is just as valid as 'good'; all behavior is morally equivalent: atrocity equals kindness, etc.
Such a nihilism is not helpful. We have urgent problems to solve if the human species is not to cause its own extinction.
Apathy, indifference, avoidance will not solve any problems.

However, when another personality emerged, and after I wrote these words: :

"We are all in this together.
Let us seek harmony.
Recent philosophy learned this from Confucious. ....Very ancient wisdom.
[I learned both these facts in the history of ideas from Stephen Prothero, whose recent book is God is Not One.]

Prof. Nussbaum says that a philosopher ought to be "a lawyer for humanity." She argues convincingly that the philosopher's mission is to be an advocate for a better world.

She is joined in that view by a long, long line of big names in Philosophy, such as Aristotle, Kant, Mill, Foucault, Putnam, Rawls, Singer, etc., etc.

When we do this we are truly looking out for our Self-Interest."

responding, you then said:

apehead;174705 wrote:

Amen.

Quote:

I'm glad you concur with the above statements. In doing so, you have joined the ranks of a growing majority.

There is some hope that you too may achieve the fine quality of piety some day soon. I don't know if I have it yet. Let's work on it together.:whistling:

Is it akin to holiness? (...another vague word....).:perplexed:

apehead;174705 wrote:

in formal logic, you won't find this phenomenon so much.

Because the meaning of the representative symbols are completely understood and agreed upon by the parties involved. I'm with you so far.

deepthot;174952 wrote:

Yes, there is. That's why it is important to do your homework. Start with the College Course. iAs you will note, its shortcomings are corrected in the later writings.

I'll check it out, but forgive me for being a bit skeptical.

deepthot;174952 wrote:

I think we both agree that nothing is objective in that sense, by that definition of the word. The closest we come to it is with symbolic logic.

I'm not sure if there are objective phenomena or not, simply because I'm unable to observe them if they do, in fact, exist.

deepthot;174952 wrote:

I never claimed the word "objectivity" was meaningless. See Chapter 8 of ETHICS: A College Course where the topic is discussed and explained.

If the above is the opinion you hold, then I'm not sure I understand this quote from your previous post:

deepthot;174952 wrote:

Yes, by "objectivity" I mean "inter-subjectivity." How can there be any other meaning of the term, since it is human beings who ultimately are doing the conceiving, perceiving and experiencing of same datum (say, for example, the circumference of the Earth; or whether Napoleon ever lived; etc., etc.) Where human beings are involved we can't get away from subjectivity ....but so what?! Does that mean that nothing is objective? Of course not.

So, instead of making the word "objective" devoid of its own definition (i.e. meaningless) and contorting it into an exact synonym of "intersubjective", you have now decided to accept the definition of "objective" I previously proposed, and claim it is non-existent (after admitting your uncertainty in the above quote)?:perplexed:

deepthot;174952 wrote:

These are all excellent questions and you will come closer to acquiring answers to them, if you really want to, when you read my papers, and earlier posts here.
In the Metaphysics Forum, here, I offered a formal definition of the concept, "reality" and analyzed its relation to the concepts "essence" and "existence." The post provoked a fine discussion which some consider to be a first-class dialog.

I'll have to check it out.

deepthot;174952 wrote:

However, I never assigned anyone such a task. My theory is not oriented around the concept "action." This rejoinder of yours is wide off the mark.

Let's analyze you prior statement,

deepthot;174952 wrote:

There is nothing wrong with... [acting in self-interest], provided it is... an enlightened self-interest !! By that I mean one that is aware that 'What helps you, if it really does, also helps me; and vice versa.'

Let's get rid of a few of the value-laden terms in the above:

"It does not offend my sensibilities to act in self-interest, provided I feel that the act is in accordance with what I consider to be "enlightened self-interest". I consider "enlightened self-interest" to be when the acting party only acts when they are assured that the consequence of said action will advance not only themselves, but myself (or perhaps some unnamed third party) towards our respective goals."

The above statement deals almost exclusively with action. If that is the case, I believe my response was appropriate. I'll re-state it in an "If-Then" format:

If humans are incapable of perfect knowledge, then it is impossible to know what the goals of another are, and if the action in question would achieve their goals, or the goals of another. Therefore, the task you charge to humans (determining whether actions will actually advance them towards their goals, and the goals of another) is impossible. QED

deepthot;174952 wrote:

The first two are excellent projects for a good theory of ethics. The latter has already been adequately defined by Dinesh D'Sousa in his latest book, The Virtue of Prosperity. There he builds upon, and updates what Sociologists have already done..

Can't say that I've read it, but I'm sure there are still differing opinions out there...

deepthot;174952 wrote:

you show complete and utter moral nihilism, and make a joke out of ethics: for you succeed in giving the impression that to you 'wrong' equals 'right'; 'bad' is just as valid as 'good'; all behavior is morally equivalent: atrocity equals kindness, etc.

I guess I should be relieved, since being a moral nihilist, my words stay true to my beliefs!

Although, I don't claim it a fact, or truth, that all actions are morally equivalent, I just haven't yet been convinced by any of the evidence to the contrary that I've considered.

deepthot;174952 wrote:

Such a nihilism is not helpful. We have urgent problems to solve if the human species is not to cause its own extinction.
Apathy, indifference, avoidance will not solve any problems.

Avoiding extinction is not necessarily "good" or "bad". It just happens to be a goal you hold. You would do well to provide some reason why it is a goal I should hold as well.

[QUOTE=deepthot;174952]I'm glad you concur with the above statements. In doing so, you have joined the ranks of a growing majority.

There is some hope that you too may achieve the fine quality of piety some day soon. I don't know if I have it yet. Let's work on it together.

Is it akin to holiness? (...another vague word....).