NationStates Jolt Archive

When you get right down to it everything we do--be it work, eat, sleep, fuck, pay taxes, or bunjee jump-- we do for one of two reasons: either we have to do it to get by, or we do it because it makes us feel good. If you find no fulfillment in something, and you don't have to do it, chances are you won't keep it up for long unless you're incredibly bored or just plain crazy.

Bearing this in mind, when we look at altruistic acts, basically what we're looking at is a set of actions committed by an individual or a group of individuals not only because they think it will help people, but because it makes them feel good while they do it. Say what you will about the primary of these two motivations, the simple fact of the matter remains that you feel better about yourself if you give change to a bum or vote for $BILL for the disadvantaged. If you didn't, you probably wouldn't do it. If you're interested in doing things that you don't have to do that are also not self-fulfilling, maybe suicide is for you.

Altruism is not a moral absolute, it's a value which is very easy to confuse with a moral. Morality is a universal concept which tells us not to beat other people or steal their wallets; it's something we all more or less grow up with. Value systems, on the other hand, vary widely and are subject to change as you age. The most dangerous thing we can do, both as an individual and as a collective society, is come to accept our values as a moral code and enforce them as such.

Bottom line: Altruism is just another form of self fullfillment, only minus the material gain. Whether that makes it "better" than any other value system is obviously open for debate.

Those selfish bastards, making themselves feel better by dedicating their time and resources to helping others. Won't someone please think of the children....

Ayn? Are you there, Ayn? It's me, John.

Bearing this in mind, when we look at altruistic acts, basically what we're looking at is a set of actions committed by an individual or a group of individuals not only because they think it will help people, but because it makes them feel good while they do it.

you know, such as throwing oneself on a grenade

All voluntary action is selfish.

Altruism, however, on a scientific basis, refers to group-positive behavior. It's still a selfish act, however, it works in a wider manner than personal-positive behavior.

Essentially, if you save your sister from the lion, but get yourself killed, she still has a good chance of making a lot of little kids, and you may very well have even more of your genetics in the gene pool than if you had survived and bred yourself.

Altruism is selfish, it's just a special kind of selfish.

you know, such as throwing oneself on a grenade

Well, yes, in a way. "Feeling Good" doesn't always equate with being pleasurable (or, indeed, even survivable). If your value heirarchy dictates that saving the life of another is of paramount importance, then accomplishing this will make you "feel good," even if someone has to squeegie your smile off the walls afterwards.

Perhaps the knowledge that a sacrifice is helping someone is what makes someone happy when they do something for another person. Especially in the example of throwing yourself on a gernade.

Altruism is a very good system to follow - within reason. You can't give up all of your time for others, and you don't need to. You've heard the saying "What goes around comes around", and it's true. If you're willing to be helpful and selfless for a few minutes each day you'll get that selflessness back from others, and then some.

So why is feeling happy that you've done something good to help someone else at the expense of your personal well-being a bad thing?

Well, yes, in a way. "Feeling Good" doesn't always equate with being pleasurable (or, indeed, even survivable). If your value heirarchy dictates that saving the life of another is of paramount importance, then accomplishing this will make you "feel good," even if someone has to squeegie your smile off the walls afterwards.

which means that every possible action and its contradiction is claimed as selfish or self-interested. seems like a meaningless way to talk about things to me.

That's an interesting point, Free Soviets. About the grenade and all, I mean.

But here's the bottom line. If I'm throwing myself onto a grenade to save my friends, it means I value my friends' lives to the extent that I'd give up my own. On the surface, that does look altruistic.

But in reality, it means that, for whatever reason, I'm willing to die knowing my friends are safe. The plain fact is, the act of WANTING anything, even if it's wanting something for someone else, is when you get right down to it, a selfish act.

To be truly self-less, you have to want nothing. Self-interest can be rational, it can be irrational, it can be short-sighted or long-sighted. Usually, selfishness is most commonly recognized when it's being irrational and/or short-sighted.

Well, yes, in a way. "Feeling Good" doesn't always equate with being pleasurable (or, indeed, even survivable). If your value heirarchy dictates that saving the life of another is of paramount importance, then accomplishing this will make you "feel good," even if someone has to squeegie your smile off the walls afterwards.
I would argue that that has more to do with our hardwiring as a social animal. When you're 'unit' becomes your 'pack' (because I can't remember what you call a group of primates) we're hardwired to protect it. Kinda like what someone else pointed out with more terms and better sentence structure.

seems like a meaningless way to talk about things to me.
That ringing sound, if I where to guess, would be the sound of a nail being hit on the head.

So why is feeling happy that you've done something good to help someone else at the expense of your personal well-being a bad thing?

I didnt mean to say or imply that it's a bad thing; it's only a bad thing if you treat that particular value system as an infallible moral code and enforce it as such, which was my closing statement. Altruism is a virtue when employed by the individual, for example, and a curse when employed by the State.

which means that every possible action and its contradiction is claimed as selfish or self-interested. seems like a meaningless way to talk about things to me.

That of course assumes that your example was a contradiction. As it stands; it's not. Read Berkylvania's post again.

That ringing sound, if I where to guess, would be the sound of a nail being hit on the head.

It's along the lines of pointing out that determinism is true.

Yes. Determinism is true. Free will is a groundless concept that doesn't have a logical definition.

Doesn't change a damned thing.

Oh no doubt. After all, I'm being forced by greater powers then I to write every word that I'm typing, and I have no will of my own.

Sheesh. Determinism never made me feel more insulted in my life.

That's an interesting point, Free Soviets. About the grenade and all, I mean.
But here's the bottom line. If I'm throwing myself onto a grenade to save my friends, it means I value my friends' lives to the extent that I'd give up my own. On the surface, that does look altruistic.
But in reality, it means that, for whatever reason, I'm willing to die knowing my friends are safe. The plain fact is, the act of WANTING anything, even if it's wanting something for someone else, is when you get right down to it, a selfish act.
To be truly self-less, you have to want nothing. Self-interest can be rational, it can be irrational, it can be short-sighted or long-sighted. Usually, selfishness is most commonly recognized when it's being irrational and/or short-sighted.

If you are throwing yourself on a grenade to save your friends, it's pretty much an acknowledgement that you consider your life less valuable than those of your friends. I'm not sure what could be more self-less.

In fact, any instance where you acknowledge someone else's needs as greater than your own and help in some manner that costs you in some way is a self-less act. Whether this sparks a pleasurable emotion in you or not is besides the point.

which means that every possible action and its contradiction is claimed as selfish or self-interested. seems like a meaningless way to talk about things to me.

I'm not particularly endorsing the viewpoint as it seems a helluva cynical way to view the world. However, it can be legitimately argued that all action does indeed rise from self-interest in the fact that all action arises from the self. You decide to do what you do because it has legitimacy to you and your concept of who you are. Therefore, all action is, on some level, selfish, regardless of any contradiction of choices that may exist. This is meaningful in the sense that it allows individual value heirarchies to come into question and tends to refute the idea of absolute "good" and "evil".

I would argue that that has more to do with our hardwiring as a social animal. When you're 'unit' becomes your 'pack' (because I can't remember what you call a group of primates) we're hardwired to protect it. Kinda like what someone else pointed out with more terms and better sentence structure.

Well, in certain cases of biological altruism, I'd tend to agree with you. However, I think human conciousness adds a level of abstraction to all of our choices that allows us to override hardwired responses. Thus, we can make decisions more in line with our individual value structure.

If you are throwing yourself on a grenade to save your friends, it's pretty much an acknowledgement that you consider your life less valuable than those of your friends. I'm not sure what could be more self-less.

In fact, any instance where you acknowledge someone else's needs as greater than your own and help in some manner that costs you in some way is a self-less act. Whether this sparks a pleasurable emotion in you or not is besides the point.

But if your value system dictates that your life is less valuable than that of your buddies, then you're mreley enforcing your own values. I refer you again to Berkylvania's first post in this thread; he put it better than I could have. I've yet to see an argument here that accounts for this.

Oh no doubt. After all, I'm being forced by greater powers then I to write every word that I'm typing, and I have no will of my own.

Sheesh. Determinism never made me feel more insulted in my life.

The only powers you're being coerced by are your genetics and your phsyical composition. You know. Memories. Ideas. Beliefs. Instincts.

Your will is a function of determinism. Otherwise psychology would be absolutely useless, rather than only mostly useless

No big whup. It just means that people can be manipulated (and, if you happen to be a good person, you can manipulate them in a good way).

I like to determine my friends' moods by giving them back rubs.

If you are throwing yourself on a grenade to save your friends, it's pretty much an acknowledgement that you consider your life less valuable than those of your friends. I'm not sure what could be more self-less.

You're also acknowledging that you are yourself capable of making such a judgement and establishing a criteria of value for life. You then decide that, under your value structure, since you have judged your own life to be of less importance than that of your friends, the right action for you to take is to sacrifice your life so that theirs might continue. All of these judgements are based on your central concept of "self" and arise from your value heirarchy. That makes the action fundamentally "selfish" in the sense that you are satisfying your own needs of self by saving the lives of others.


In fact, any instance where you acknowledge someone else's needs as greater than your own and help in some manner that costs you in some way is a self-less act. Whether this sparks a pleasurable emotion in you or not is besides the point.

Pleasure is indeed beside the point because we are talking about satisfaction of the self and the value heirachy that is a cornerstone of that self, which may not have anything to do with pleasure in the least.

If you are throwing yourself on a grenade to save your friends, it's pretty much an acknowledgement that you consider your life less valuable than those of your friends. I'm not sure what could be more self-less.

In fact, any instance where you acknowledge someone else's needs as greater than your own and help in some manner that costs you in some way is a self-less act. Whether this sparks a pleasurable emotion in you or not is besides the point.

I could argue that, by throwing yourself on that grenade, you are being selfish, because your friends, (assuming they care about you) are going to be saddened by your departure, and you don't have to worry about that. Look, even if you decide someone else's life has more value then you're own, your still expecting gain by wanting something for that person. If you value someone's happiness, it makes you happy when he or she is happy, no? I don't, for example, give my entire month's pay to someone just so he can be happy and I can be sad. There would have to be some reason to do it, something that I personally want to see happen.

Sacrifice is giving something up and getting something that's less valuable in return. If I'm throwing myself atop a grenade to save someone's life because I believe his or her life is more valuable, then I'm not making a sacrifice, I'm making a trade. It would only be a sacrifice if that person's life was of less value then my own

You're also acknowledging that you are yourself capable of making such a judgement and establishing a criteria of value for life. You then decide that, under your value structure, since you have judged your own life to be of less importance than that of your friends, the right action for you to take is to sacrifice your life so that theirs might continue. All of these judgements are based on your central concept of "self" and arise from your value heirarchy. That makes the action fundamentally "selfish" in the sense that you are satisfying your own needs of self by saving the lives of others.
Pleasure is indeed beside the point because we are talking about satisfaction of the self and the value heirachy that is a cornerstone of that self, which may not have anything to do with pleasure in the least.
Ah, your pardon please. I thought you meant "greed" when you said "selfishness" when you meant actions arising from the self.

So:
All action are expressions of identity.
All expressions of identity are selfish.
Therefore all action is selfish.

Altruism requires action.
Actions are a priori selfish.
Therefore altruism is impossible.

Is that about right?

I cant speak for Berky of course, but I would tenuously argue that it would primarily depend on how you define "Altrusim." If you want to define it as doing good things for other people then this is somehting of a misnomer, since it's obviously possible to do good things for other people. If you want to define it as absolute selflessness, then that syllogism is quite apt.

The point I'm trying to make is that true selflessness does not exist, and a lot of left-thinking folks out there want to try and pass themselves off as truly selfless people; they're not. In fact in a way they're a lot more selfish than I am [which is saying a lot] in that they want to make their ideas policy on nearly every level of government or personal interaction.

Granted, we all want this to a certain extent, but a more objectivist approach to this kind of thing facilitates individual altruism to a greater extent because it leaves us all free to make our own choices about how we want to spend our time and our money. A more altruistic doctrine would tell us that we all have to spend our time and money on helping others. To hell with that.

Ah, your pardon please. I thought you meant "greed" when you said "selfishness" when you meant actions arising from the self.

So:
All action are expressions of identity.
All expressions of identity are selfish.
Therefore all action is selfish.

Altruism requires action.
Actions are a priori selfish.
Therefore altruism is impossible.

Is that about right?

As far as I understand the Randian concept of "selfishness" then, yes, that seems about right. It's certainly not a question of "greed," simply that all action arises from a desire to fulfill the goals of the self, not some abstract concept of "good" or "evil", "right" or "wrong". Those notions are all self-referrential.

Now, my understanding of Rand is far from complete, so I may be missing something myself. This has always seemed rather contradictory to me in her philosophy of Objectivism.

It's along the lines of pointing out that determinism is true.

Yes. Determinism is true. Free will is a groundless concept that doesn't have a logical definition.

Doesn't change a damned thing.

except, of course, determinism is false

except, of course, determinism is false

Of course.

Everything science has taught us about the human brain, (and, really, the whole body, since hormones and nerve impulses come from all over) is a lie.

It's just there for insulation of the back of your eyeballs.

Eeeeevil scientists. :eek:

In your argument that altruism doesn't exist, you seem to make the assumption that people make decisions in a rational fashion. Personally I think that's an unreasonable assumption.

I have known many people who engage in self destructive behaviour even though they take no enjoyment, and get no benefit from it.

Many things that I do, I don't do because they make me feel good, or bad, but just because it's what i'm accustomed to doing. Maybe at some point in the past, i did these things for a reason, but after the reason is gone, the behaviour can remain.

I think that altruism does exist, and it is exactly this sort of conditioned behaviour.

Of course I think that you're right that a lot of so called 'altruism' is people doing what's right because it makes them feel good, and I also think that someone who has learned to enjoy doing the right thing is a good person. I wish more people were like that.

But I still don't buy your argument :D

It's been a while sine I read The Fountainhead, which I read because my father once told me that Ayn Rand was an author that conservatives tended to read while masturbating...her and Milton Friedman.

I am always impressed with the agility of the minds who can dig into this topic and not see how useless it is. Perhaps I'm stupid, but it all seems like circular sophistry to me. In the end, the point winds up being that there's no such thing as altruism. My response to that is "so what."

Do I think some liberals go too far with their notion of altruism? Yes I do. Do I think that some conservatives don't go far enough? Yes I do. But none of it matters to those who have already formed their ideas about what they will or will not give of themselves. Neither hardcore socialist nor frothing capitalist will have their minds changed short of some apocalyptic catharsis.

So you've proven a word that has been applied to "doing good deeds" has been incorrectly applied. Big deal. I'm not trying to be glib -- I'd really like to know why anyone should care?

In your argument that altruism doesn't exist, you seem to make the assumption that people make decisions in a rational fashion. Personally I think that's an unreasonable assumption.

I have known many people who engage in self destructive behaviour even though they take no enjoyment, and get no benefit from it.

Again, though, the benefit may not be tangible or even understandable by someone with a different sense of self. Those actions, while appearing irrational to you (and, indeed, may be they are irrational), are still motivated by that person's value heirarchy (I'm not even sure I'm spelling that word correctly, but it's late). As they stem from that heirarchy, they are "selfish" in that they satisfy the requirements of that heirarchy.


Many things that I do, I don't do because they make me feel good, or bad, but just because it's what i'm accustomed to doing. Maybe at some point in the past, i did these things for a reason, but after the reason is gone, the behaviour can remain.

Then the value you are deriving is not "good" or "bad", but maintenance of the status quo. To you, it is better to continue to do these things than change them for your individual value heirarchy. This is a purely selfish action.


I think that altruism does exist, and it is exactly this sort of conditioned behaviour.

That seems a bit self-contradictory. Altruism, by it's nature, must be a conscious choice. To do something simply because you're used to doing it would seem to violate this definition. Can you elaborate more?


Of course I think that you're right that a lot of so called 'altruism' is people doing what's right because it makes them feel good, and I also think that someone who has learned to enjoy doing the right thing is a good person. I wish more people were like that.

Again, though, being "selfish" isn't necessarily a "bad" thing. The question is one of underlying motivation. To do something "good" is A) self-referrential (one man's "good" is another man's "bad) and B) simply means that you are satisfying your value structure. The action itself may be very positive indeed, but that doesn't mean you are serving some sort of "metagood" principle in violation of what you truly want.

Quorm said:
In your argument that altruism doesn't exist, you seem to make the assumption that people make decisions in a rational fashion. Personally I think that's an unreasonable assumption.

I have known many people who engage in self destructive behaviour even though they take no enjoyment, and get no benefit from it.

Many things that I do, I don't do because they make me feel good, or bad, but just because it's what i'm accustomed to doing. Maybe at some point in the past, i did these things for a reason, but after the reason is gone, the behaviour can remain.

I think that altruism does exist, and it is exactly this sort of conditioned behaviour.

Of course I think that you're right that a lot of so called 'altruism' is people doing what's right because it makes them feel good, and I also think that someone who has learned to enjoy doing the right thing is a good person. I wish more people were like that.

But I still don't buy your argument

Well, I don't know what that says to Berk or Melk, but that line of reasoning suggests to me that irrational behavior isn't actually truley selfish, and by selfish i mean serving one's self-interest.

Does it really serve my self-interest, for example, to slap my brother upside the face? In an irrational sense, it can. It sure as hell makes me feel good. But in fact my selfishness precluded me from doing so because I frequently need his computer and he won't let me use it unless I'm nice to him. :D

Therfore, in the name of self-interest, I am pleasent, accomodating, and, dare I say it, helpful.

It's been a while sine I read The Fountainhead, which I read because my father once told me that Ayn Rand was an author that conservatives tended to read while masturbating...her and Milton Friedman.

I am always impressed with the agility of the minds who can dig into this topic and not see how useless it is. Perhaps I'm stupid, but it all seems like circular sophistry to me. In the end, the point winds up being that there's no such thing as altruism. My response to that is "so what."

Do I think some liberals go too far with their notion of altruism? Yes I do. Do I think that some conservatives don't go far enough? Yes I do. But none of it matters to those who have already formed their ideas about what they will or will not give of themselves. Neither hardcore socialist nor frothing capitalist will have their minds changed short of some apocalyptic catharsis.

So you've proven a word that has been applied to "doing good deeds" has been incorrectly applied. Big deal. I'm not trying to be glib -- I'd really like to know why anyone should care?

Well, I care because some of the political institutions based on altrusim are costing me money. Things like welfare, social security, agricuture subsidies, and so forth. On a moral level I respect everyone's right to live their life as they see fit; if you want to help crackheads and bums then that's your business, but I don't want a cop busting down my door telling me that I have to.

It's been a while sine I read The Fountainhead, which I read because my father once told me that Ayn Rand was an author that conservatives tended to read while masturbating...her and Milton Friedman.

I can safetly say Ayn Rand has never given me wood. Although, I'm not a conservative, so maybe it's different for them...

Also, while The Fountainhead may be one of her better books, the fact of the matter is her prose was nightmarish. I always thought that was sort of funny, given the nature of her heroes being the best at what they do.


I am always impressed with the agility of the minds who can dig into this topic and not see how useless it is. Perhaps I'm stupid, but it all seems like circular sophistry to me. In the end, the point winds up being that there's no such thing as altruism. My response to that is "so what."

Well, you've just neatly summed up pretty much the whole of philosophy. :)


Do I think some liberals go too far with their notion of altruism? Yes I do. Do I think that some conservatives don't go far enough? Yes I do. But none of it matters to those who have already formed their ideas about what they will or will not give of themselves. Neither hardcore socialist nor frothing capitalist will have their minds changed short of some apocalyptic catharsis.

No, but others reading might have their interest piqued and be inspired to find out more on their own. The debate at hand isn't always for the debators themselves.


So you've proven a word that has been applied to "doing good deeds" has been incorrectly applied. Big deal. I'm not trying to be glib -- I'd really like to know why anyone should care?

Because it's a fascinating mind exercise?

Of course.

Everything science has taught us about the human brain, (and, really, the whole body, since hormones and nerve impulses come from all over) is a lie.

It's just there for insulation of the back of your eyeballs.

Eeeeevil scientists. :eek:

quantum indeterminism, yo

Well, I don't know what that says to Berk or Melk, but that line of reasoning suggests to me that irrational behavior isn't actually truley selfish, and by selfish i mean serving one's self-interest.

Does it really serve my self-interest, for example, to slap my brother upside the face? In an irrational sense, it can. It sure as hell makes me feel good. But in fact my selfishness precluded me from doing so because I frequently need his computer and he won't let me use it unless I'm nice to him. :D

Therfore, in the name of self-interest, I am pleasent, accomodating, and, dare I say it, helpful.

I think that, to an extent, rationality is subjective. Again, here I fly in the face of Rand, but it seems to me that rationality and self-interest are not necessarily connected or, at least, not objective absolutes.

An action may not be percieved as being rational by a majority of observers. Yet, I would still say that action is motivated by self-interest and that the performer of the action simply has a value structure that is not shared by the observer. The performer is still doing what they're doing because they want to do it. Now, this may not be true in extreme cases of mental illness, but those are lifeboat situations so they shouldn't be used to judge the standard. Even in those cases, though, I would be tempted to argue that the issue isn't lack of self-interest (meaning satisfying a self-imposed value structure), but that the value structure is so far removed from the observer's value structure as to be completely incomprehensible.

Well, I care because some of the political institutions based on altrusim are costing me money. Things like welfare, social security, agricuture subsidies, and so forth. On a moral level I respect everyone's right to live their life as they see fit; if you want to help crackheads and bums then that's your business, but I don't want a cop busting down my door telling me that I have to.

Of course, given the nature of this discussion, the point I would suggest is that you never HAVE to. You always have a choice. You just have to be honest about what you're actually choosing.

Well, I care because some of the political institutions based on altrusim are costing me money. Things like welfare, social security, agricuture subsidies, and so forth. On a moral level I respect everyone's right to live their life as they see fit; if you want to help crackheads and bums then that's your business, but I don't want a cop busting down my door telling me that I have to.
It always comes down to taxes with you guys. What gives?

I agree with you that there is an enormous amount of hypocracy in government policy. An endless amount in fact. But surely you must see that you do benefit from social spending?

As far as the cops busting down the door, come on, you live in Angband. They'd need the combined forces of the Valar, Maiar, Noldor and Vanyar to take you out. I don't care how big their budget is they can't afford that kind of firepower.

*snip*
The point I'm trying to make is that I believe that a very large portion of people's actions are not based on rational decision of any sort. I don't think we do these things to 'maintain the status quo', we just do them because it's what we're accustomoed to doing them, and if we actually gave it some thought, we might choose to do something entirely different.

For instance, when I sit down at the computer, I almost immediately open up a web brower and go to the NS page. I don't raelly take any enjoyment from this, it's just a habit. If I give it concious thought, I'd rather not do this. I like the Nation States site, but there's no good reason to go there everytime I sit down at my computer.

I think you're over simplifying human psychology by assuming everything is governed by some sort of pleasure principle. I blame Freud for the damn idea being so pervasive.

I think that habit is a very powerful force in human behaviour, and while it may take some nudging from pleasure or pain to first form habits, I don't think that either is involved anymore after some time.

B]Berk said:[/B]
I think that, to an extent, rationality is subjective. Again, here I fly in the face of Rand, but it seems to me that rationality and self-interest are not necessarily connected or, at least, not objective absolutes.

An action may not be percieved as being rational by a majority of observers. Yet, I would still say that action is motivated by self-interest and that the performer of the action simply has a value structure that is not shared by the observer. The performer is still doing what they're doing because they want to do it. Now, this may not be true in extreme cases of mental illness, but those are lifeboat situations so they shouldn't be used to judge the standard. Even in those cases, though, I would be tempted to argue that the issue isn't lack of self-interest (meaning satisfying a self-imposed value structure), but that the value structure is so far removed from the observer's value structure as to be completely incomprehensible. Berk said:



I actually agree with what you say about value structures, but at the risk of sounding philisophically unfashionable (and I don't give a shit), I agree with Rand most of the time, including the idea that rationality is objective rather then subjective. If two million people do a stupid thing, it still is a stupid thing. Hell, I think most liberals would even agree with that.

All the same, I will concede that just because something is rational doesn't mean that it's obvious to the observer, for the reasons you illustrated above. The question isn't, "Is this rational", it's really "Do I see rationality in this?" because you are correct, no two value systems are ever going to be identical, and in the end the individual relies on his own value structure.

quantum indeterminism, yo

It's a leap of faith to assume that what cannot be predicted NOW can never be predicted.

I doubt people thought we could slow light down a thousand years ago.

So you've proven a word that has been applied to "doing good deeds" has been incorrectly applied. Big deal. I'm not trying to be glib -- I'd really like to know why anyone should care?Welcome to the faculty of arts Intangelon, I hope you enjoy your stay. Here in the humanities, cleverness is more important than content, verbiage is more valuable than reason, and abouve all, words and their usage are of greater interest than the issue itself. The wonderful world of acadaemia in the arts is a somewhat inbred circle of intelectual snobs who thrive on verbosity, convolution, and most especially contradiction. You see, when you're being paid to do something that is in no way tied to the commercial market realities, you seize every shred of a likely-looking object, and do some work on it. Then you get tenured, and invent you own vocabulary, make your own allies, claim some plot of intelectual property, and tear it appart.
...I guess they just like it.

It always comes down to taxes with you guys. What gives?

I agree with you that there is an enormous amount of hypocracy in government policy. An endless amount in fact. But surely you must see that you do benefit from social spending?

As far as the cops busting down the door, come on, you live in Angband. They'd need the combined forces of the Valar, Maiar, Noldor and Vanyar to take you out. I don't care how big their budget is they can't afford that kind of firepower.

Words cannot express how funny I think this is. Not because I think you're wrong: quite the contrary: you hit the nail right on the head. And boy howdy, do I wish I lived in Angband.

But I must admit out that I don't see how I benefit from social spending: I was jobless for close to two months and systematically refused to seek government aid because my life is my own responsibility and I'm not about to make you pay for it. I lived for 6 weeks on $6 and never once contacted the unemployment office or any welfare isntitution because I recognized my own responsibility for the circumstances of my existence.

You want compassion? I'll give you compassion: I'd rather starve to death than make you pay your own money to feed me.

Technically, they DO owe you the amount of money you put in to the system.

But bravo, despite.

The point I'm trying to make is that I believe that a very large portion of people's actions are not based on rational decision of any sort. I don't think we do these things to 'maintain the status quo', we just do them because it's what we're accustomoed to doing them, and if we actually gave it some thought, we might choose to do something entirely different.

For instance, when I sit down at the computer, I almost immediately open up a web brower and go to the NS page. I don't raelly take any enjoyment from this, it's just a habit. If I give it concious thought, I'd rather not do this. I like the Nation States site, but there's no good reason to go there everytime I sit down at my computer.

Right, then, but I would suggest that you're still acting out of satisfaction of your particular value structure. For that given action, you do what you always do because it's not worth it to you to do anything else. You're still fundamentally doing it because you want to do it. Not the specific action, per se, but you don't want to perform the thinking to do something differently. This isn't a moral judgement or anything, just that the action is still ultimately selfish.


I think you're over simplifying human psychology by assuming everything is governed by some sort of pleasure principle. I blame Freud for the damn idea being so pervasive.

Well, I've taken great pains to point out that pleasure has very little to do with satisfying a value structure. I'm not arguing for hedonism here. Hell, I'm not even really arguing for Randian Objectivism. What I'm saying is that people do what they do because they want to do it. They want to do it because it satisfies their individual value structure and that structure makes up a substatial portion of who they are. Thus, all actions arise from self-interest as all actions arise from satisfaction of individual self value structures.


I think that habit is a very powerful force in human behaviour, and while it may take some nudging from pleasure or pain to first form habits, I don't think that either is involved anymore after some time.

Quite so. But moving beyond pain and pleasure and into exactly where the impulse to do what one does comes from, you're left with very little to base human action on. I feel, sort of like Rand, that what's left is one's value structure and that one will always act in accordance with it.

Well, I care because some of the political institutions based on altrusim are costing me money. Things like welfare, social security, agricuture subsidies, and so forth. On a moral level I respect everyone's right to live their life as they see fit; if you want to help crackheads and bums then that's your business, but I don't want a cop busting down my door telling me that I have to.

I don't think Welfare and Social Security are based on altruism at all. They're based on the notion that helping those who need it is good public policy. I doubt that any architect of The Great Society, from LBJ on down, considered themselves altruists.

And since when have cops busted down doors and forced you to help crackheads and bums? If you're referring to taxes, they pay for other things besides SS and Welfare. The problem with programs like that is that they're not managed properly. There should be penalites or denial for any kind of felony arrest -- making anyone think twice about crack if they want to keep receiving government checks. There should be NO extension of unemployment benefits unless proof of career retraining in progress is given or significant nationwide economic issues have legitimately made work of any kind harder to find. To sit there and cast the whole of safety net recipients as bums or crackheads is ludicrous, unprovable and far too easy -- especially for someone whose mind can so elegantly wrap itself around philosophy.

If it displeases you to imagine that your tax money is paying a bum, then instead imagine that it built a new interstate bridge or aircraft carrier.

I actually agree with what you say about value structures, but at the risk of sounding philisophically unfashionable (and I don't give a shit), I agree with Rand most of the time, including the idea that rationality is objective rather then subjective. If two million people do a stupid thing, it still is a stupid thing. Hell, I think most liberals would even agree with that.

Well, that's an interesting point. History is littered with examples of huge numbers of people doing incredibly stupid things all at the same time. I'm still not sure I buy the concept of objective rationality, however. At least, not as I understand Rand puts it forth.

She seems to imply that rationality exists almost in a Platonic ideal state and that all rational people will naturally make the same choices in any given situation. Therefore, these people will rise to the top because rationality is the fundametal principle of existance. I may be off base on this (like I said, I'm not a Rand scholar by any means).

I would tend to agree with the second part, at least most of the time. However, the multitude of human decision-making seems to argue against the first.

Words cannot express how funny I think this is. Not because I think you're wrong: quite the contrary: you hit the nail right on the head. And boy howdy, do I wish I lived in Angband.

But I must admit out that I don't see how I benefit from social spending: I was jobless for close to two months and systematically refused to seek government aid because my life is my own responsibility and I'm not about to make you pay for it. I lived for 6 weeks on $6 and never once contacted the unemployment office or any welfare isntitution because I recognized my own responsibility for the circumstances of my existence.

You want compassion? I'lld give you compassion: I'd rather starve to death than make you pay your own money to feed me.

Well, I admire your willpower, if not your decision making processes. You are already paying taxes. You are entitled to the social services! I'm fully cognizant of where my taxes go and I'd pay more if I could stipulate no more corporate welfare and military spending. I can't, so in the meantime I agitate for change and don't cheat on my taxes. How's that for compassion champ? I'd rather pay taxes, knowing that a portion is paying for policies I find reprehensible knowing that another part is helping people in need!!

And fuck buddy, what's so wrong with asking for help when you are in dire straits?

Back to the selfish note, I benefit from social spending. Like clean drinking water, public health in general. In a complex, technologically advanced society I benefit from a wide array of people having an education since I can't do it all myself (especially when you consider the amount of time I spend on this and other forums) I could go on, but I think you see my point.

Welcome to the faculty of arts Intangelon, I hope you enjoy your stay. Here in the humanities, cleverness is more important than content, verbiage is more valuable than reason, and abouve all, words and their usage are of greater interest than the issue itself. The wonderful world of acadaemia in the arts is a somewhat inbred circle of intelectual snobs who thrive on verbosity, convolution, and most especially contradiction. You see, when you're being paid to do something that is in no way tied to the commercial market realities, you seize every shred of a likely-looking object, and do some work on it. Then you get tenured, and invent you own vocabulary, make your own allies, claim some plot of intelectual property, and tear it appart.
...I guess they just like it.

Y'know, I always knew after I got my Master's that I didn't want a Doctorate. Now I know why. Thank you! I'd rather teach than publish.

Right, then, but I would suggest that you're still acting out of satisfaction of your particular value structure. For that given action, you do what you always do because it's not worth it to you to do anything else. You're still fundamentally doing it because you want to do it. Not the specific action, per se, but you don't want to perform the thinking to do something differently. This isn't a moral judgement or anything, just that the action is still ultimately selfish.
I don't think that a value structure has anything to do with actions of habit. Certainly you're right that some sort of value structure decides that I'm not conciously doing anything else when I act out of habit, but it doesn't determine what I do when I'm not doing anything else. So I believe that people can take actions that are not determined by a value structure.

Unsurprisingly, these actions happen exactly when my value structure doesn't tell me to do something else.

I don't think Welfare and Social Security are based on altruism at all. They're based on the notion that helping those who need it is good public policy. I doubt that any architect of The Great Society, from LBJ on down, considered themselves altruists.

And since when have cops busted down doors and forced you to help crackheads and bums? If you're referring to taxes, they pay for other things besides SS and Welfare. The problem with programs like that is that they're not managed properly. There should be penalites or denial for any kind of felony arrest -- making anyone think twice about crack if they want to keep receiving government checks. There should be NO extension of unemployment benefits unless proof of career retraining in progress is given or significant nationwide economic issues have legitimately made work of any kind harder to find. To sit there and cast the whole of safety net recipients as bums or crackheads is ludicrous, unprovable and far too easy -- especially for someone whose mind can so elegantly wrap itself around philosophy.

If it displeases you to imagine that your tax money is paying a bum, then instead imagine that it built a new interstate bridge or aircraft carrier.

To be honest, the parallel I invoked concerning cops and doors is a bit of an extreme example: it doesn't generally happen in any sort of practical sense. It's merely an extension of my argument, more or less.

Yes, I know that my taxes pay for other things. But the fact of the matter is if we did away with all the stupid shit [re: the mismanagaed programs you mentioned, and the Drug War, for example] it would be much easier to fund the legitimate costs via other soucrces, and without taking money out of my paycheck.

If the government can milk $40 out of everyone in the nation who parks within 30 feet of a stop sign, or $50 out of everyone who violates the speed limit, for example, chances are we could probably fund the absolutely necessary shit like interstates and financial aid for people who really can't work because they really can't work without kicking my Monday and Tuesdays at work square in the ass.

But I must admit out that I don't see how I benefit from social spending: I was jobless for close to two months and systematically refused to seek government aid because my life is my own responsibility and I'm not about to make you pay for it. I lived for 6 weeks on $6 and never once contacted the unemployment office or any welfare isntitution because I recognized my own responsibility for the circumstances of my existence.

You want compassion? I'll give you compassion: I'd rather starve to death than make you pay your own money to feed me.

Well, that's all fine and good, but then, that's your value structure.

I see Rand's point about offering help to others being an insult to them as humans. However, it also occurs to me that no man is an island. That, by nature, we are to an extent communal creatures. We seek peer groups, tribes, clans, families, political parties, what have you. To ignore this desire for connection is to ignore one of the funamental traits of mankind.

So, by supporting governmental programs like social security or welfare, I feel I am, in a way, acknowledging my membership in the human race. It's my admission that I am connected to those around me, if by no other reason than that we're all here, right now, and aware of it.

Furthermore, in a purely mercenary sense, government programs like this preclude later costs that are much higher. Yes, people should plan for their retirement, but by paying a relatively small amount to social security, I ensure that elderly homeless aren't wandering the street, causing a much greater social problem. By supporting welfare, I'm hopefully ensuring that people without jobs are not looking at me and my pocket book and thinking, "I could just take that," or are not starving in the streets. Are these programs perfect? No, of course not. But they're better than nothing, at least to my way of thinking.

Well, I admire your willpower, if not your decision making processes. You are already paying taxes. You are entitled to the social services! I'm fully cognizant of where my taxes go and I'd pay more if I could stipulate no more corporate welfare and military spending. I can't, so in the meantime I agitate for change and don't cheat on my taxes. How's that for compassion champ? I'd rather pay taxes, knowing that a portion is paying for policies I find reprehensible knowing that another part is helping people in need!!

And fuck buddy, what's so wrong with asking for help when you are in dire straits?

Back to the selfish note, I benefit from social spending. Like clean drinking water, public health in general. In a complex, technologically advanced society I benefit from a wide array of people having an education since I can't do it all myself (especially when you consider the amount of time I spend on this and other forums) I could go on, but I think you see my point.

This is something of a misnomer: I wasnt paying taxes; I had no income. And when I was paying taxes, I didnt approve of the majority of the programs they were being used for, and didn't want to augment the costs of said programs by being a part of them. I can see where you're coming from, but I don't agree with it.

And, as I mentioned above, we probably could actually account for the people in geniune need without taking money out of my paycheck to do so. I have to earn my own income, so why can't the government earn its income? They have to take their cash right from me? What the hell?

I don't think that a value structure has anything to do with actions of habit. Certainly you're right that some sort of value structure decides that I'm not conciously doing anything else when I act out of habit, but it doesn't determine what I do when I'm not doing anything else. So I believe that people can take actions that are not determined by a value structure.

Then what does it have to do with? A habit is something you do, over and over again. Not because you have to. No one's forcing you. You do it because on some level you make the choice that doing something else either isn't feasable or important enough. That choice is where the value structure comes into play and what makes the action ultimately selfish.

Also, I may have been unclear. I'm not saying your value structure controls your actions. You control your value structure and can change it at will. Yet, in the end, you will always do what you do because you want to do it and you will want to do it because it agrees with your self-imposed value structure.

I don't think that a value structure has anything to do with actions of habit. Certainly you're right that some sort of value structure decides that I'm not conciously doing anything else when I act out of habit, but it doesn't determine what I do when I'm not doing anything else. So I believe that people can take actions that are not determined by a value structure.

Unsurprisingly, these actions happen exactly when my value structure doesn't tell me to do something else.I think Berky (and the others) are defining 'value structure' as the fundamental charachteristic, or force behing the thing you actually end up doing . Therefore, actions of habit are still consistent with your value structure (NOT moral code), which is telling you that its less worthwhile to change than to follow whatever flawed path you're already on. If you define your actions as results of an individual self-specific 'value structure' that it is impossible to act against it, however superficially illogical, painful, or stupid an action might be.
Of course, this train of thought immediately justifies all actions as inevitable results of some "force" which we cannot define. This is where I get a little stuck.

To be honest, the parallel I invoked concerning cops and doors is a bit of an extreme example: it doesn't generally happen in any sort of practical sense. It's merely an extension of my argument, more or less.

Yes, I know that my taxes pay for other things. But the fact of the matter is if we did away with all the stupid shit [re: the mismanagaed programs you mentioned, and the Drug War, for example] it would be much easier to fund the legitimate costs via other soucrces, and without taking money out of my paycheck.

If the government can milk $40 out of everyone in the nation who parks within 30 feet of a stop sign, or $50 out of everyone who violates the speed limit, for example, chances are we could probably fund the absolutely necessary shit like interstates and financial aid for people who really can't work because they really can't work without kicking my Monday and Tuesdays at work square in the ass.

Well, again though, that's a problem with the institution, not with the principle. I'll fully agree that social services programs need work. I am hesitant, however, to say they need to be removed entirely.

Well, that's all fine and good, but then, that's your value structure.

I see Rand's point about offering help to others being an insult to them as humans. However, it also occurs to me that no man is an island. That, by nature, we are to an extent communal creatures. We seek peer groups, tribes, clans, families, political parties, what have you. To ignore this desire for connection is to ignore one of the funamental traits of mankind.

So, by supporting governmental programs like social security or welfare, I feel I am, in a way, acknowledging my membership in the human race. It's my admission that I am connected to those around me, if by no other reason than that we're all here, right now, and aware of it.

Furthermore, in a purely mercenary sense, government programs like this preclude later costs that are much higher. Yes, people should plan for their retirement, but by paying a relatively small amount to social security, I ensure that elderly homeless aren't wandering the street, causing a much greater social problem. By supporting welfare, I'm hopefully ensuring that people without jobs are not looking at me and my pocket book and thinking, "I could just take that," or are not starving in the streets. Are these programs perfect? No, of course not. But they're better than nothing, at least to my way of thinking.

Remind me to respond to this when I'm sober; you raise some interesting points here and elsewhere in the thread that I find very interesting. Right now about the best thing I can come up with is this:

I'm not arguing my value structure so much as I'm arguing morals. Like I said before, a moral is basically a universal absolute which more or less tells us not to beat people or steal their wallets. The way I see it, making other people pay for my misfortune in having lost my job is, essentially, stealing their wallet. Not the whole thing though. :p

Also, I may have been unclear. I'm not saying your value structure controls your actions. You control your value structure and can change it at will. Yet, in the end, you will always do what you do because you want to do it and you will want to do it because it agrees with your self-imposed value structure.This is circular logic. It seems to me that we hit a logical dead end here: If my value structure is subject to change (which it clearly is) and I determine that change, than what makes me take the action of changeing my value structure other than the existing value structure I posses? And if so, why would I change at all?

The only other option is reverting to some abstract of 'free will' of soul that goes beyong the 'value structure' that determines who we are, and how we live our lives. But that's just cheap.

Then what does it have to do with? A habit is something you do, over and over again. Not because you have to. No one's forcing you. You do it because on some level you make the choice that doing something else either isn't feasable or important enough. That choice is where the value structure comes into play and what makes the action ultimately selfish.

Also, I may have been unclear. I'm not saying your value structure controls your actions. You control your value structure and can change it at will. Yet, in the end, you will always do what you do because you want to do it and you will want to do it because it agrees with your self-imposed value structure.
I don't think it's even a choice not to do something else. I don't do something else because it doesn't even occur to me to do something else. I don't decide not to think about it either, I just don't think about it at all.

When I'm acting out of habit I'm not aware enough of what I'm doing to judge it not worth stopping any more than I'm aware enough to not have done it in the first place.

There are an infinite number of things that I don't consider at any point in time, and I never make the decision not to consider them. The human brain just isn't capable of handling an infinite number of things.

This is circular logic. It seems to me that we hit a logical dead end here: If my value structure is subject to change (which it clearly is) and I determine that change, than what makes me take the action of changeing my value structure other than the existing value structure I posses? And if so, why would I change at all?

Yes, I realize that. Like I said earlier, I'm not really sold on this idea, but I think it has some merit and it's interesting to discuss it from this side of the table.

I have two responses:

First, at the risk of adding a level of abstraction, I would suggest that the value structure that is directly involved in the decision making process is somehow governed by a much more firm meta-structure that one develops in parallel over the course of one's life. The direct value structure is subject to change, but only within the guidelines of the meta-structure.

Second, I would suggest that the value structure is self-regulating. That an intrinsic part of it is a resistance to change. That, as the structure is built over the course of a life, it becomes so intrinsicly involved with all other aspects of self that to change it would be basically changing "self." So, while it is possible to change it and all that is required to change it is an act of will, it would only be done in extreme circumstances as it would lead, in a sense, to the destruction of self.



The only other option is reverting to some abstract of 'free will' of soul that goes beyong the 'value structure' that determines who we are, and how we live our lives. But that's just cheap.

Agreed. For the purposes of this discussion, that doesn't really satisfy.

It's a leap of faith to assume that what cannot be predicted NOW can never be predicted.

I doubt people thought we could slow light down a thousand years ago.

quantum mechanics doesn't say we can't predict these indeterminate events now. they say we can't ever, even in principle. we may, of course, be wrong about this. but the epistemological model we normally to use when it comes to scientific theories should lead us to at least provisionally accept the fact that the universe is fundamentally indeterministic, in the same way we provisionally accept that gravity is an artifact of the curvature of space-time and that the diversity of life on earth is a result of neo-darwinian evolution.

I don't think it's even a choice not to do something else. I don't do something else because it doesn't even occur to me to do something else. I don't decide not to think about it either, I just don't think about it at all.

But you must be conscious of the static nature of the event, otherwise you wouldn't be able to separate it from the rest of your actions and assign it different attributes. This acknowledgement of the difference of the event implies that, at least on some level, you are weighing options and making a choice.

Furthermore, even if it is a wholly unconscious action, this completely rules out the idea of altruism, at least for that particular event. In order for an action to be altruistic in nature, there must be a conscious choice involved. If all the action amounts to is blind repetition, then there can never be any sort of altruistic option no matter how you define it.


When I'm acting out of habit I'm not aware enough of what I'm doing to judge it not worth stopping any more than I'm aware enough to not have done it in the first place.

There are an infinite number of things that I don't consider at any point in time, and I never make the decision not to consider them. The human brain just isn't capable of handling an infinite number of things.

Well, the human body isn't capable of an infinite number of actions. The brain may not be capable of an infinite number of things, but it doesn't have to be. It only has to be capable of specific things, specific actions, and those, at least in the frame of reference of a human body, don't happen in infinite clumps.

First, at the risk of adding a level of abstraction, I would suggest that the value structure that is directly involved in the decision making process is somehow governed by a much more firm meta-structure that one develops in parallel over the course of one's life. The direct value structure is subject to change, but only within the guidelines of the meta-structure.This is plausible, even leaving the door open for genetically deterministic models of such meta-structures, while leaving value structures open to the influance of events and environment.

Second, I would suggest that the value structure is self-regulating. That an intrinsic part of it is a resistance to change. That, as the structure is built over the course of a life, it becomes so intrinsicly involved with all other aspects of self that to change it would be basically changing "self." So, while it is possible to change it and all that is required to change it is an act of will, it would only be done in extreme circumstances as it would lead, in a sense, to the destruction of self.If you have any aquaintances and friends that you've known from childhood, I'm sure you've noticed, as i have, that people rarely, if ever (in my experience) change. The tendancies, motivations, and social interactions of people are immediately recognizable even years later, after periods of no contact. I would suggest that significant changes in value-structure can only occur in situations of existential threat, ie. change, or die. Natural selection trumps everything, really. This is the only way that an adjustment to the more fundamental structure can be rationally shown.

Well, I must retire for the night as I've put at least 5 drinks in me and I dont trust myself ot argue my point of view coherently. But I must say I'm very satisfied with the way this thread has developed so far, and I just want to say: I don't want anyone to agree with me just because I say it. I don't mind someone disagreeing with me so long as they do so rationally, and as long as I make you think, I'm happy. I don't want to change anyone's mind here; I'm just out to make you think. Berk, for example, has posed some of the best arguments I've seen so far for a sensible Welfare and Social Security programs, for example. I'll have to examine them more closely when I'm not drunk off my ass :p

quantum mechanics doesn't say we can't predict these indeterminate events now. they say we can't ever, even in principle. we may, of course, be wrong about this. but the epistemological model we normally to use when it comes to scientific theories should lead us to at least provisionally accept the fact that the universe is fundamentally indeterministic, in the same way we provisionally accept that gravity is an artifact of the curvature of space-time and that the diversity of life on earth is a result of neo-darwinian evolution.

Yes, but quantum mechanics still has theories that don't even have strong evidence yet.

Mind you, it's entirely possible that true, absolute chaos exists.

But that's going to take an ass-load of evidence to back up, not just the latest in "throw your hands up and shrug" theories.

Remember the "People won't ever fly" days?