----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 6:57 PM Subject: Re: The Prospect on the Future of the Democrats
On Dec 6, 2004, at 2:30 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > That's a reflection of "do onto others as you would have them do unto > you" > and "love your neighbor as yourself." It's a sound ethical principal > that > I see based in the value of every other human. >That's the basic idea, yeah. If I don't want to have my stuff stolen, I >shouldn't steal others' -- at the very least I would have no room to >complain if I've got my neighbor's lawnmower when I notice my stereo >sitting in his living room... >But it's also a value statement, sure, value of others I mean. The dividing line for me is that it's wrong to steal your neighbor's lawnmower, even if you can get away without him getting any of your things. I think we agree on this: hurting others is not only wrong because one can get caught and hurt in return, it's wrong because they are people...just like you. >>But, there are tremendous problems in deducing >> human rights from principals of biology, for example. >I'm not so sure about that. There are plenty of animal-kingdom examples >of the merits of altruism within a population. It's clearly a viable >survival strategy, one practiced by several "higher" mammal species. It does exit, sure. Nurturing of young is the clearest example I can think of that gives the evolutionary favorability of certain types of altruism. We can discuss other forms too, but I do not contest that altruism can sometimes be evolutionarily favored. >Of course the facts of biology, like the facts of physics or >mathematics, don't tell us how anyone or anything should behave in any >abstract sense. That's what I'm getting at. In some primates, for example, we have examples of behavior that is both moral and immoral if practiced by humans (at the very least behavior that both you and I have stated to be right and wrong on this list). Nurturing youth to help them grow is moral. Using forced sex as a tool of intimidation in order to establish a higher place in society than another is wrong. Both are practiced by primates. >To the extent that you want to argue that scientific >pursuit really is more about figuring out mechanics than anything else, >I'm likely to agree. At the same time, study of behavior in other >animals can tell us a *lot* about our own. In the same sense that studying the atmosphere of other planets helps us understand our own, definitely. Contrast and compare is always useful in developing an understanding. It provides a framework in which to evaluate; even if one is primarily interested in only one of the many examples considered. >> And, there are other perspectives that exist. Objectivism, for >> example, touts that caring for others is misguided; the only true virtue >>is selfishness. >Yeah, but the problem there is that there are plenty of examples of >strategy that works in opposition to that argument. There is no doubt that the "law of the jungle" view of evolution was myopic, and that cooperative and even altruistic behavior can be seen as evolutionarily favorable. But, since the Objectivists statement on ethics is a faith statement (whether they admit it or not), I don't think one can falsify it with data. >A less objectivist angle is that ultimately all actions are >self-serving, in one way or another, but that might be a sophistry to >justify apparent altruism. I have real problems with that too. It seems counterfactual to me. Take Gautam's risking his life to prevent someone from being hit by a car. Now that it's a couple of years later, it's safe to say that Gautam is extremely unlikely to receive tangible rewards that would make his actions reasonable, calculated, self-serving actions. If one appears to intangible rewards, then one is making statements about unobservables...and is not discussing facts any more. In particular, there are times that I've performed altruistic behavior and did not feel particularly good about it..so someone would have to argue that they knew how I felt better than I did. >> Post Modernism argues that ideas like human rights are simply >> political tools. >A compelling way of looking at it, but I wouldn't take it as literally >true any more than I would Lovelock's "Gaia" model. That is, it's one >form of model for social discourse, and an intriguing way to look at >things, but I believe it might be a grave mistake (and rather cynical) >to take it as a literal fact. Or at least one that's applicable 100% of >the time. My view is that Post Modernism as a philosophical system is very problematic, and significantly inferior to modernistic philosophies. But, as a cautionary caveat to modernism, it can be quite useful. It's true that right and wrong can be twisted to use as political tools....but that doesn't mean that Gautam's actions were political when he saved someone else. >Which is an interesting phenomenon. The only way that could be a valid >assessment would be if the bourgeoisie were withholding rights from the >proletariat. To understand him, I think one needs to understand the context. He was the first sociologist; and he was writing at a time when group characteristics were considered well established scientific fact. >One that recognizes that accomplishments have merit >that can't or won't necessarily be valued strictly in terms of dollars. >Pablo Picasso or Vincent van Gogh, anyone? I think I understand your point, but you probably have picked a bad examples, their paintings sell for millions. :-) >> I would make a further statement. It is wrong for young skinheads to go >>on wildings and beat up gay men. Even if they can get away with it; it is wrong...it >>is immoral. >Yes, but I'd stop just before immoral. The term "moral" implies to me >absolute measures, and some creature or other that has imposed those >measures. Or the existence of Truth....as in "We hold these truths to be self-evident." The basic existence of human rights as true, even though it is not scientifically verifiable. >Actually the world seems much more a balance of trades and >compromises. In one sense, that is true. We make tradeoffs and compromises because our power is limited. Sometimes we chose bad over worse. But, in another sense, I don't think that's true. I don't think those with nothing to trade lose their rights as humans. >Because one is not always in a position to be the dominant. Roles can >reverse, quickly. They can in some cases, but not in others. The Roman empire lasted for over 1500 years (at least the Eastern part did.) The threats came from the outside, slave revolts were not successful. The aristocracy in Europe lasted for generations, peasants were not effective in overthrowing them. I think that the observation that at times "the good die young and the evil prosper and see their children's children's children" was accurate all too often. So, while enlightened self interest might involve being nice to people on the way up, because you will meet them again on the way down, I think I can point to a number of times where enlightened self interest would include very selfish behavior. Indeed, it was only recently that people could raise their own standard of living very far on the value of one's own labors. Before the Industrial Revolution, the most common form of wealth was being part of the landed aristocracy. >It would be a very bad idea for me to suppress or >oppress and count on permanence in my supremacy -- one mistake and >those whom I've oppressed will very definitely rise up and strike me >down. But, if that were true, why did oppression often last for centuries without a successful revolt? If you want a modern example, where is the punishment for executives who fatten their own pockets at the expense of their workers and the shareholders of the companies they run? How many abusive husbands are beaten in return? I think people do get away with hurting other people for a lesser gain of their own. Not all the time, mind you. But enough to make the statement that "altruistic behavior is sometimes in one's own self interest and sometimes not" valid. >> What other reason besides the understanding that it is the wrong thing >to do? Because the people stepped upon on to gain an advantage are just > as important as the person who contemplates the stepping. >They're potentially as valid, sure. I think I'm one of those people who >believes that one has to earn the right to call oneself human, and that >that right can be forfeit depending on one's actions. A kind of >nontheistic fall from grace, with possibility of repentance, and >definitely with a liberal dose of "original sin" in the idea that at >some point or another one really does have to produce *something* of >merit. I find earned humanity rather problematic. Let me ask several questions that illustrate some of my difficulties with earned humanity. 1) Are those who have been a net burden up until the present (i.e. children) sub-human because they have not overcome "original sin?" 2) Are severely handicapped people permanently sub-human? 3) Are high contributors superhuman and thus entitled to extra rights? 4) Do convicted felons forfeit their humanity, and are thus deserving of any abusive actions? 5) Who gets to decide the value of contributions? >Any thinker would concede that great ideas tend to come from >singular minds, and yes, The Masses™ do tend to hold one back. But that >does not mean, by extension, that all societies are inherently evil, >that altruism is worthless, or that genius will always be quashed or >bled dry by the lesser-thans. Progress in science during the last 50 or so years provides strong evidence that counters this idea of Rand's. In physics, the best minds like Feynman have there work complemented by thousands of less talented but still very good physicists, engineers, technicians, etc. >And I thought it was fashionable in the US not to care about what the >French think about anything. ;) More seriously I'd have to probe >Foucault's POV in greater depth before I could offer any response to any >of it. There's also some discussion of PoMo in the archives that gives a fairly succinct description. If you are interested, I could look for them. > A Marxist analysis would only > consider this valid if it is part of class warfare. The very idea of > the > rights of individual members of the other classes would be at odds > with the > reality of the historical dialectic. >Again, Marx's peculiar and rather singleminded interpretation of >history. His writings, and Rand's, are somewhat reminiscent of L. Ron >Hubbard's Scientology (or, for that matter, chiropractic). Marx probably deserves more intellectual respect than Rand or Hubbard because he actually did have some worthwhile insights. His work on the historical dialectic and alienation is very good, for example. But, the flaws in his viewpoints are also very strong. Indeed, his ideas caused a lot more harm than Rand's or Hubbard's because they were partially worthwhile. >> Nietchiez calls it "a slave's moralty" and considers it a source of >> weakness. >His arguments were used to shore up others' attacks on others as well. Agreed >> So, this is not a viewpoint that has universal acceptance. >Since we're on the subject of philosophers, Dogen, Siddhartha Gautama >and Iasus would probably side with us, so we're in goodish company. I'm >fairly sanguine about my point of view. And, of course, the Enlightenment philosophers who I tend to favor. Looking over this post, I think we agree far more than disagree here. I think it is a worthwhile dialog, and hope you do too. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
