[MD] Altruism

[Horse]

Hi Platt

pholden at davtv.com wrote:
> Quoting Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net>:
> 
>> Hi Platt
>>
>> Just a couple of points:
>>
>> On 27 Sep 2006 at 17:31, Platt Holden wrote:
>>
>>>> [Platt previously]
>>>> It's always amazed me that someone could be so egoistic as to think she
>>>> knows what would be good for somebody else.

[Horse]
>> A doctor kills a germ and saves a patient.
>> A parent makes their child eat healthy food.
>>
>> Why would you be amazed at either of the above?
> 
[Platt]
> I wouldn't. A doctor invests a lifetime in learning how not to harm another and 
> follows the principle of "First, do no harm." A parent and a child have a special
> relationship beyond the context of my assertion. The assumption underlying debate
> here is that we're talking about adult behavior. 

[Horse]
Yes and adults behave according to their experiences and what they learn 
from those experiences, as in the case of the doctor. Mind you, in the 
case of the doctor sometimes they have to do harm in order to prevent 
greater harm.
So what about if you or I see someone on the street suffering from an 
epileptic fit or is diabetic and going hypo. Do we ignore them or do 
what's best for them.

What you and Ham have done here is to confuse and conflate paternalism 
and altruism and the two are completely different. The examples I gave 
above are of altruism not paternalism:

 From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Altruism:
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to 
itself but that benefits others of its species

Paternalism:
1 : a system under which an authority undertakes to supply needs or 
regulate conduct of those under its control in matters affecting them as 
individuals as well as in their relations to authority and to each other
2 : a policy or practice based on or characteristic of paternalism

and as the theme of the debate is altruism.....


[Platt previously]
>>> Yes, I should have qualified my statement. Charity is OK by me in the 
>>> case of natural disaster to help people get back on their feet. But, 
>>> there is overwhelming evidence that long-term public altruism creates 
>>> dependency and anti-social behavior like out-of-wedlock pregnancies.  

[Horse]
>> Out-of-wedlock pregnancies are anti-social?? Which century are we talking about
>> here? Anti-
>> social behaviour is behaviour that harms society. Societies need people,  people
>> are created 
>> through pregnancy. In or out of wedlock is irrelevant.
> 
[Platt]
> Craig had a good response to this. Wish I had thought of it.

[Horse]
Oh c'mon Platt, Craig's response had more holes in it than a string vest:

[Craig previously]
A') Society needs good people.
B') Good people tend to come from in-wedlock pregnancies rather than 
out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
C') :. Society tends to need in-wedlock pregnancies rather than 
out-of-weflock pregnancies.

I'm OK with A' but premiss B' is nothing more than a statement of 
Craig's prejudices, subsequently the conclusion, C' is false.

> 
> Great to hear from you!
>
And you Platt.

Cheers


Horse