[quote]lixy wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
do you know what the word ‘altruism’ means? perhaps you should look it up.
Great! Now we’ll have to listen to one more installment of HH’s trademark Rand rants.[/quote]
I haven’t the slightest clue what you mean. I was only pointing out that HH was mistaken in equating wealth redistribution with altruism.
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
do you know what the word ‘altruism’ means? perhaps you should look it up. [/quote]
Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness
Now, what if I don’t care at all about the plight of the poor or homeless? Our people were tricked into creating a government that will be ‘selfless’ for them, mostly by debasing the currency and high taxes. The productive are forced to help those who don’t want to be bothered. End result — chaos and suffering for all.
[quote]lixy wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
do you know what the word ‘altruism’ means? perhaps you should look it up.
Great! Now we’ll have to listen to one more installment of HH’s trademark Rand rants.[/quote]
Off topic: who’s your favorite philosopher, Lixy?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Off topic: who’s your favorite philosopher, Lixy?
[/quote]
I’ll have to go with Voltaire.
And yes, I’ve read his “Fanaticism, or Mahomet” play.
I agree.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Off topic: who’s your favorite philosopher, Lixy?
I’ll have to go with Voltaire.
And yes, I’ve read his “Fanaticism, or Mahomet” play.[/quote]
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
do you know what the word ‘altruism’ means? perhaps you should look it up.
Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness
Now, what if I don’t care at all about the plight of the poor or homeless? Our people were tricked into creating a government that will be ‘selfless’ for them, mostly by debasing the currency and high taxes. The productive are forced to help those who don’t want to be bothered. End result — chaos and suffering for all.
[/quote]
exactly, if YOU don’t care then it isn’t altruism–its forced wealth redistribution (and/or whatever other socialistic practices you want to talk about). The redistribution of YOUR wealth to the poor would only be altruistic if YOU choose the action selflessly out of concern for the welfare of others (I.e., if your act had proper agency and intention).
If the government is the one acting “selflessly” for you, then the acts lack agency and intention, and thus is not an altruistic act.
i agree with you that these sorts of social practices generally fail to achieve their goals–and often end up being counterproductive. BUT, please at least use the right terms… this is not altruism.
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
do you know what the word ‘altruism’ means? perhaps you should look it up.
Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness
Now, what if I don’t care at all about the plight of the poor or homeless? Our people were tricked into creating a government that will be ‘selfless’ for them, mostly by debasing the currency and high taxes. The productive are forced to help those who don’t want to be bothered. End result — chaos and suffering for all.
exactly, if YOU don’t care then it isn’t altruism–its forced wealth redistribution (and/or whatever other socialistic practices you want to talk about). The redistribution of YOUR wealth to the poor would only be altruistic if YOU choose the action selflessly out of concern for the welfare of others (I.e., if your act had proper agency and intention).
If the government is the one acting “selflessly” for you, then the acts lack agency and intention, and thus is not an altruistic act.
i agree with you that these sorts of social practices generally fail to achieve their goals–and often end up being counterproductive. BUT, please at least use the right terms… this is not altruism. [/quote]
The government and its agents are not acting in their self-interest when they re-distribute wealth, except in the sense of gaining favor with segments of the populace. Therefore, under the guise of benevolence, they increase their power by appealing to special interest groups. Since people have been taught that unselfishness is good, they don’t object when plundered. It therefore follows that the altrusim they are taught as being moral is used as a weapon against them. Therefore, my original thesis, that altruism is the source of our evils, stands.
Altruism in its purest form is also evil. A living thing that acts primarily for the needs of others is necessarily acting against its own welfare, by definition.
(1) your argument might hold if it was true that the populace allowed a socialistic government for the motives you mention. I highly doubt though that the populace allows for such government for those reasons. It seems much realistic to me that the population votes in socialists because THEY want the benefits…
I’ll give you an example. There are several politicians campaigning on a platform of among other things universal health care. these politicians receive huge support from a significant chunk of the population based on this issue alone. Now, it seems to me that most of the people who support this issue support it for their own potential benefit. It might be the case that there exist some who have altruistic motives in fighting for universal health care, though I would imagine this is a very small percent.
least you think i’m picking and choosing issues to prove my point, there seems to be good evidence that the general population is never altruistic in its voting habits. Consider the tax issue. Has a politician ever gotten anywhere with a campaign where they outright talk about the large tax increases their social plans would require? Very few.It is generally considered political suicide to campaign on a platform of raising taxes, even if for the social good.
I just don’t seem your premise as being the case, though i agree that if it is the case, you are correct.
(2) this is a big claim. why do you say this? what definition? on another note, is real altruism even possible? one can argue that no act is ever truly done unselfishly. For instance, even the bleeding heart liberals who are willing to forsake their own material gain for the profit of others get SOMETHING out of the deal. They get emotional satisfaction. Right now, if they are genuine, their hearts “ache” for the poor starving children in burma. Thus, donating food and money to the poor starving children fulfills a selfish purpose–elevating emotional pain.
also, there seems to be direct biological evidence against your last claim. It has been seriously hypothesized by biologists that the more altruistic social traits are actually conducive to survival. Thus, most humans today poses at least mildly altruistic traits because those traits have been successful. you of course might argue that this criticism does not apply to your second comment, as your second comment pertained to the “purest form” of altruism.
for this, there are other classic arguments against your claim. the obvious one that pops into my mind is Plato’s republic. There, Socrates attempts to persuade Glaucon that the truly just life (aka, your “purest altruism”) is better (in a moral goodness sense) then the truely unjust life.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Yeah, I know…its PP. But it sounds genuine in the audio.[/quote]
I believe he believes it.
And given that, how can you fault him?