[MD] Altruism

[Ham Priday]

Hi Ben --


> [Ben]
> I was quite surprised to see someone self-identify as a moral relativist
and
> then appear to speak favorably of Ayn Rand.  Isn't the whole point of
> objectivism that morality is not subjective/relative?  I thought Rand's
> critique of moral relativist/existentialist thinking was the best part of
> Atlas.

I am a great admirer of Ayn Rand as an advocate for Individualism and Free
Enterprise.  However, Rand is no metaphysicist, and her energies didn't run
in that direction.

The best piece I've seen on moral relativism is by a Unitarian minister
named Steve Edington.  He says, "I'd like to make the case, the positive
case, for moral relativism today, with my underlying point being that it is
really the only kind of morality there is.  A related point is that it is
the reality of moral relativism that calls us, as human beings, to moral
responsibility and moral decision making."

When you think about it, you'll see he's right.  Man was put on earth to
sense values -- to decide what is good and what is bad.  If goodness and
evil were absolutes, the standards would be fixed, and there would be no
point in having discrimination.  Existence is a self-sustaining and ordered
system, but everything in it is differentiated and variable.  This affords
the opportunity for each of us to work out our own values and act on them.
Historically, man is the 'choicemaker' of his world; but from a holistic
perspective he is the 'appreciator' of Value, and that links him to the
primary source.  I have an intuitive feeling that this view of Essence "from
the outside" somehow "refreshes" or affirms a Sensibility greater than our
own.

But these are my concepts, not Edington's.  He doesn't get into metaphysics
in his sermon, but his position on morality is to me the only one that makes
sense.  I got his permission to publish it in one of my Values Page columns.
I think youlll find it quite persuasive.  You can check it out on my website
at www.essentialism.net/confessions.htm.

[Ben]:
> Either selfishness is always moral or selfishness is not
> always immoral.  If it's the first, I'd use murder as an
> obvious counter example.  If it's the second, I'd agree,
> but it's a pretty weak statement.

Selfishness is neither moral nor immoral.  It is innate in all creatures,
and as natural as the will to survive and flourish.  Murder is not normally
a selfish act unless it is in self-defense.  Murder committed in the course
of a robbery or the killing of one's spouse is generally regarded as
criminal behavior rather than selfishness.

> [Ham, repeated by Platt]:
> 2. Altruism implies paternalism -- the assumption that the individual
knows
> the interests of others better than they do themselves.  This fosters
> dependence on the part of others and works against the altruist's natural
> self-interest.
>
> [Platt]
> It's always amazed me that someone could be so egoistic as to think she
> knows what would be good for somebody else.
>
> [Ben]
> Your argument seems to read that any attempt to make someone else's life
> better will actually make it worse.  While I agree that some such cases
> occured, such as the Inquisition, I think the evidence strongly points
> against your prediction.  Or are you saying that no one should give to
> charity?  I oppose most "altruistic" public policy not because I oppose
the
> altruism behind it, but because most of these policies just aren't
efficient
> ways to accomplish what they're trying to do.

Helping make someone's life better is not altruism but compassion.
Contributing to a charity of your choice is an act of generosity.  But
taxation to pay for the welfare of a class of people without your approval
is forced altruism (otherwise known as extortion.)

> [Ham, repeated by Platt]
> 3. As applied to society, altruism establishes an artificial morality
which
> reduces individual motivation, minimizes the value of his contributions,
and
> stifles development of his sense of moral goodness.
>
> [Ben]
> There are altruistic policies that do indeed reduce the incentive to be
> productive.  There are also altruistic policies that help provide the
> education required to become productive.

Beware of the education your altruistic policies get you.  "Free" public
education in the US has not achieved results comparable with other developed
nations, nor has it equipped students who go on to graduate school for the
skills needed in our technological age.  The next generation of scientists,
engineers, and technologists will very likely consist mainly of foreign
imports.

> 4. Man is a self-determinate creature with the freedom to choose the
values
> by which he lives.  Since morality is contingent upon related conditions,
a
> "fixed" behavior-based morality system thwarts individual freedom.
>
> [Ben]
> Does fixed just mean static?  I'm assuming you're advocating a non-fixed
> morality system and not no morality system.  I agree that flexibility is
an
> important part of any system of morality.  But I'm not sure altruism is
all
> that inflexible.

Fixed means standardized (i.e., systemized) in terms of "acceptable"
behavior.  I'm not an advocate of morality systems per se.  I believe in a
meritocracy where people are rewarded for excellence and where "goodness" is
not reduced to a nominal level of acceptance.  As the leader of the Western
World we must do better than this if we don't want to surrender our
leadership to China, India, or Japan.

Best regards,
Ham

 _________________________________________________________________
> Be seen and heard with Windows Live Messenger and Microsoft LifeCams
>
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/digitalcommunication/default.mspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/