From: Peter C. McCluskey (pcm@rahul.net)
Date: Fri Aug 02 2002 - 09:57:01 MDT
lcorbin@tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) writes:
>> > The part that seriously bothers me is that such language
>> > can be immediately turned towards use by those that claim
>> > that no one ever does anything except for a selfish reason.
>>
>> Why exactly does that bother you?
>
>There are two reasons. The first is merely corruption of
>language. Someone used a very elegant phrase for that either
>here or on SL4---something like "good mental hygiene" but I've
>been unable to find the original quote. It's just stupid, IMO,
>to attempt to lump together sincere acts of anonymous charity,
>for example, with self-serving behavior. Our language---indeed
>I would speculate ever language on Earth---evolved a very clean
>distinction between self-serving behavior, and acts of noble
>intent. Both are real, I say, even though of course complexities
>and mixed motives can and do arise.
If this distinction is clean, can you describe how I could go about
making an educated guess about which category a typical act of apparent
charity falls into? For instance, can you suggest any evidence that
someone on this list (possibly yourself) has engaged in an act that
you would consider genuinely altruistic?
I reject your language because it discourages people from adopting
language (i.e. altruism = having a consistent policy of helping people)
whose distinctions are easier to observe and more directly related to
the kind of behavior I want to encourage (is there any advantage to
having people not personally benefit from acts that genuinely help
others?).
>The other reason is much more conjectural; it could very
>well happen IMO that by repeatedly announcing to oneself
>that every act one does is for a selfish reason, less
>cooperative behavior in one could develop. I actually
I can sort of imagine how describing cooperation as selfish (i.e. describing
the benefits of cooperation) could reduce cooperation, but it's hard to
see how this is more likely than, say, the hypothesis that convincing
people that good behavior will be rewarded by a trip to the Christian
version of heaven will cause them to act nicer.
>think that this has happened to a few libertarians.
Has it happened to any libertarians who understand the evolutionary basis
of charitable behavior?
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter McCluskey | Free Jon Johansen! http://www.rahul.net/pcm |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:51 MST