[MD] Altruism

[ian glendinning]

Brilliant Ben,

I failed to get Platt past "every man for himself" / "each to his own" here.
You have illustrated beautifully, that in reallity what we have is a
cost / benefit analysis.

Which doesn't in itself solve the problem because it rests on the
question, on both sides of the cost / benefit equation, what you
"value" economically (not just monetarily) or otherwise.

Loads of other issues too.
Is the penny more valuable to the pauper than the dollar to the donor.
The collective aspects of value (beyond individual rights) if any.
The basis of values.

Of course capitalism is "generally" good, creating value, but as part
of a mixed economy with appropriate checks and balances that limit
total freedoms. If the checks and balances ever reach the same
proportions as the value created, then we have a failing system.

(And there could of course be a further interminable debate, on
precisely what gets counted as capital, but let's not go looking for a
definition beyond "general" agreement.)

Ian

On 9/29/06, Ben Golden <theplaidninja at hotmail.com> wrote:
> First off, Platt, I owe you an apology.  That link you sent about Randian
> selfishness--I didn't read it thoroughtly enough, assumed I remembered what
> it was all about and wasted both our time.  Reading it again, I think I have
> a much better understanding of what we're disagreeing about.
>
> It's unfortunate that Rand chose to use the word 'selfish' to mean something
> different that its usual definition (which doesn't say anything about
> respecting others' property rights).  The dictionary definition you give for
> altruism is dependent on the meaning of the word selfish, which adds extra
> confusion.  Hilariously, the whole point in my bringing up altruism was to
> point out a problem with the word morality.
>
> I'd like to separate the language into different terms, so as to clarify
> what I mean when I use selfish or altruistic.
> Dictionary selfishness is behavior for the benefit of oneself, without
> regard for how it affects anyone else.
> Randian selfishness is self-respecting, self-supporting behavior, wherein a
> person neither sacrifices others to himself nor sacrifices himself to others
> (basically, do whatever you want, but don't violate property rights)
> Dictionary altruism (labeled because it uses the dictionary definitions of
> altruism AND selfishness) is behavior that is devoted to the welfare of
> others but not dictionary selfish.
> Economic altruism is what I've been advocating, which is similar but not
> identical to dictionary altruism.  Economic altruism involves acting a way
> that is indifferent between the welfare of oneself and of others.
> Economically altruistic actions are those that help the group more than they
> hurt the group.
> Randian altruism is behavior devoted to the welfare of others that
> necessarily involves a violation of property rights.
>
> I think that by these definitions, I can explain all the disagreements we've
> been having.  A robber is dictionary selfish but not Randian selfish.
> Giving to charity is dictionary altruistic and generally economically
> altruistic but not Randian altruistic.
>
> I don't have a particularly big problem with Randian selfishness; I think
> it's actually much closer to economic altruism than to dictionary
> selfishness, since it prohibits behavior that imposes costs on
> others--something economic altruists care about but dictionary selfish
> people do not.
>
> A couple examples:
>
> 1)  John is wealthy.  A government worker, Tom, takes 100$ from John,
> claiming to be acting altruistically.  Tom keeps 40$ as his salary, wastes
> 30$ and divides the remaining 30$ amongst poor people.
>
> 2)  John is wealthy.  A government worker, Tom, takes 100$ from John,
> claiming to be acting altruistically.  Tom keeps 2$ as his salary, wastes 2$
> and divides the remaining 96$ amongst poor people.
>
> In 1, John is acting Randian altruistically, since he violates John's
> property rights in order to benefit others.  Whether he's dictionary
> altruistic is debatable, since he attains a sizable benefit.  What's clear
> is that he's not economically altruistic, since costs exceed benefits.  In
> 2, John is still Randian altruistic and more likely dictionary altruistic.
> I'd say he's now economically altruistic and I'd support this behavior.  I
> can offer a mathematical argument for why 2 is economically altruistic while
> 1 is not, but allow me to ask a question first.  As an objectivist, is there
> any difference in the morality of 1 and 2?  They seem to violate Randian
> selfishness equally, so if they're not morally equivalent, what's the
> principle by which you distinguish them?
>
> In summary, I generally support an economically altruistic government.  I
> think that capitalism generally supports economic altruism.  I generally
> oppose "altruistic" policies, as I find them to fall into category 1 and not
> category 2.  However, there are some policies, such as school vouchers,
> health care vouchers or a negative income tax that I'd place in category
> 2--so long as they're kept pretty small--and thus support.
>
> Ben
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Share your special moments by uploading 500 photos per month to Windows Live
> Spaces
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.get.live.com/spaces/features
>
> 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/
>