I think the problem in this discussion is that we think about the relationship between the individual and the group differently, Harry. I am convinced that we must approach social issues from the position that the individual and the group are essential to each other's best development. That is, the individual cannot survive, and certainly cannot thrive without the group's interests being taken care of, and the group cannot survive unless the individual's interests are cared for and unless individual's are allowed to develop their best potential.
Given that, to discuss self-interest in terms of just the individual, or to discuss social interest just in terms of the group doesn't make sense to me. I believe this is just one aspect of the fragmentation problem that is so much a part of western materialistic, mechanistic, linear thinking. Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Selma Singer'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Stephen Straker'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Ed Weick'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'futurework'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 4:11 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Re: Hobbes > Selma, > > I am not very keen about the Hobbesian Leviathan, but think more > about self-interest. > > If one always acts in one's self-interest, one is more likely to > survive. > > If one always acts against one's self-interest, one is less > likely to survive. > > We have survived. > > Think what is in our self-interest. > > Peace is in our self-interest. > > Community is in our self interest. > > Cooperation is in our self interest. > > Trade is in our self-interest. > > Friendship is in our self-interest. > > Don't equate self-interest with selfishness which includes a > disregard for others. Selfishness doesn't seem to be a survival > value. > > We have a tendency to treat observation subjectively. Thus the > "unlimited desires" assumption is thought to mean we are greedy. > It doesn't. And the "least exertion" principle is thought to mean > laziness. It doesn't. > > Thus with self-interest. It does not mean selfishness. > > Harry > > ******************************************** > Henry George School of Social Science > of Los Angeles > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 > http://haledward.home.comcast.net > ******************************************** > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Selma > Singer > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 5:52 AM > To: Stephen Straker; Ed Weick; futurework > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re: Hobbes > > I guess my question has to do with Hobbes's basic sense of human > nature. If, as I understand him, he believes that our nature is > to act only in our self-interest, and if that self interest has > to do only with our physical and material preservation, why would > he care to inform us, as Stephen has so clearly written here, > about what is in our best interests. That seems to me to be an > act that goes beyond self-interest to an interest in general > human welfare, or an act that comes from some creative need (?) > in Hobbes. > > I guess I have a sense that people who engage in creative work, > like writing, are doing something that goes beyond their own > self-interest. And I believe strongly that creative work (and I > include in that work which can be done by anyone from a baker to > an entrepreneur) defines us much more accurately than does our > need to preserve our lives or even our comfort. > > Selma > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 12/5/2003 > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
