Man, rights and reason

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-06-17 04:27pm

The Question wrote:[
And according to mine, you're a moral cannibal.

Well, you're half right there...

By the way, do you drink a lot? It's just that I don't like the taste of alcohol, you see.

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-17 04:30pm

Andrew J. wrote:
The Question wrote:[
And according to mine, you're a moral cannibal.
Well, you're half right there...

By the way, do you drink a lot? It's just that I don't like the taste of alcohol, you see.

Nice one.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-06-17 06:41pm

Fer cryin out loud! You guys don't want to debate, you just want a slap-fight.

You said that!

You said this!

Noididn't noididn't!

*slapslapslapslapslap*

State a thesis, support it, rebut it, and stop tossing "Dumbass" into the vocabulariy. You can't talk to someone if they don't respect you. And please, read each other's responses clearly. You just scan till you think you know what they're saying, then you respond.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-17 06:47pm

CC, he's made his opinion quite clear. He thinks altruism is "immoral" for some perverse reason (obviously because he's a Randroid), he thinks no one has any moral imperative to serve the public good in any way, shape or form, he thinks that the textbook "whistle blower" ethicist's dilemma is a simple case of fraud (in an attempt to dismiss it), he thinks that one must be either "collectivist" or "individualist" (heaven forbid one try to balance the two moral concepts), and he thinks that if you're not personally at fault for some public safety issue, you have no moral obligation whatsoever to report it.

Then he defends it all with a nice dash of moral relativism.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-06-17 06:55pm

Very well.

A rebuttal, TQ?

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-17 07:15pm

Altruism is immoral because it forces a man to sacrifice his higher values for lesser ones, and allows society through the agency of the state to make individuals eternal servants of their fellow men.

It states that no man's life is his own - that his life is the means to a larger group's end. It is the ethical system of cannibals and Aztec virgin sacrificers.

It is based on the irrational idea that rights are additive, or that two individuals can have just claims on conflicting rights. It is based on the idea that society has rights. Rights are a function of individuals only.

In the choice between poison and food, there can be no balance sought. The fallacy of the golden mean applies here more than anywhere.

Charity to others? Sure. Help others in need - probably, because it is in accordance with my values. Altruism? No thanks.

Ehthankhayou, and good night.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-17 07:27pm

The Question wrote:[Altruism] is the ethical system of cannibals and Aztec virgin sacrificers.

Altruism = cannibalism? That's rich; notice how he tries to interpret altruism as total disregard for individual rights; as I predicted, he is incapable of extricating himself from a mindset of false dilemmas between "100% society, 0% individual" and "0% society, 100% individual".

Altruism is voluntary work (or perhaps even sacrifice) for the welfare of others. It is not the right of society to arbitrarily abuse or murder people. As usual, he resorts to massive distortions (much like his amusing attempt to equate product safety defects with putting poison in someone's food).

In the choice between poison and food, there can be no balance sought.

See above (BTW, beer is an example of a food product which is actually toxic; your own analogy backfires on you, and yes, it is still a false dilemma).

The fallacy of the golden mean applies here more than anywhere.

Wrong. At no point was a mixture of societal and individual welfare promoted BECAUSE it is in the middle. It was promoted because examples were provided in which a disregard for societal concerns led to people being hurt (unless, of course, your ethical system does not concern itself with people being hurt).

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-06-17 07:40pm

The Question wrote:Altruism is immoral because it forces a man to sacrifice his higher values for lesser ones, and allows society through the agency of the state to make individuals eternal servants of their fellow men.

A two-way value of altruism is not a master/servant servant relationship.

The Question wrote:It states that no man's life is his own - that his life is the means to a larger group's end. It is the ethical system of cannibals and Aztec virgin sacrificers.

Neither of those ethical systems you mention involve actual altruism.

The Question wrote:It is based on the irrational idea that rights are additive, or that two individuals can have just claims on conflicting rights. It is based on the idea that society has rights. Rights are a function of individuals only.

This argument is based on an irrational Americanese obsession with applying the rights model of morality to everything. What, you think rights are irrational? I completely agree! But as for the rest... this is no different than if the common creationist inference "evolution is wrong, hence creationism is right."

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-06-17 07:42pm

It may be just me, but I don't think altruism is anything BUT moral. Of course, that's my Christian values showing through.

What I think we have here is two opposing views:

Importance of individuality over all else vs. Importance of social integrity over all else.

right?

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-06-17 07:42pm

The Question wrote:Altruism is immoral because it forces a man to sacrifice his higher values for lesser ones, and allows society through the agency of the state to make individuals eternal servants of their fellow men.

Adopting an ethical system like altruism is voluntary, dumbass.

It states that no man's life is his own - that his life is the means to a larger group's end. It is the ethical system of cannibals and Aztec virgin sacrificers.

Say...you wouldn't happen to be a virgin, would you?

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-17 07:44pm

Wrong, Wong.

Altruism says that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification for an individual's existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty and value.

It's a superficiality to ask whether one should help the downtrodden. That ain't the issue.

The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without making those sacrifices.

The issue is whether you must keep buying your life from every bum on the street who cites his need as a moral blank check on your life and existence.

The issue is whether man is a sacrificial animal.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-06-17 07:46pm

Andrew J. wrote:Adopting an ethical system like altruism is voluntary, dumbass.

Although that is not the case for ethical objectivism.

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-17 07:49pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:It may be just me, but I don't think altruism is anything BUT moral. Of course, that's my Christian values showing through.

Charity is moral - altruism ain't.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-17 07:50pm

The Question wrote:Wrong, Wong.

Altruism says that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification for an individual's existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty and value.

Either that, or it simply says that it's good to help others, even at cost to yourself. The dictionary definition of the word agrees with me, not your wild exaggeration.

It's a superficiality to ask whether one should help the downtrodden. That ain't the issue.

Yes it is, since that is the definition of altruism: a desire to help others. Cannibals are not being altruistic when they kill someone and eat him, dumb-ass.

The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without making those sacrifices.

Nowhere in the definition of altruism is it stated that you have no right to exist unless you help people. Your penchant for wildly exaggerating a position in order to attack it remains unchanged.

The issue is whether you must keep buying your life from every bum on the street who cites his need as a moral blank check on your life and existence.

That bum on the street would not be altruistic, and you are still distorting voluntary concern for the welfare of others into "others having total control over me".

The issue is whether man is a sacrificial animal.

No, the issue is whether you will EVER be able to stop distorting altruism in order to attack it.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-06-17 07:50pm

Charity is moral - altruism ain't.

What's the difference?

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-17 07:53pm

Darth Wong wrote: The dictionary definition of the word agrees with me, not your wild exaggeration.

Yeah, look up liberal in the dictionary, it has some bullshit about being open-minded.

Cannibals are not being altruistic when they kill someone and eat him, dumb-ass.

They are violating the rights of their victim for the good of the larger group.

Eat up.

That bum on the street would not be altruistic, and you are still distorting voluntary concern for the welfare of others into "others having total control over me".

I'm talking deeper meaning here, Wong. Try to keep up. We're talking about the nature and reason and purpose of man's existence. His very justification for being, and whether others have a moral claim on his life.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-17 07:53pm

From Merriam-Webster:

altruism:

1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

Hmmmm, nothing in there to support your exaggeration, I'm afraid. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness; it is a behaviour trait. A society of largely altruistic people would be much more pleasant to live in than a society of largely selfish people. Your problem is that you distort altruism into "no existence and no life and no rights apart from altruism" in order to attack it.

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-17 07:54pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
Charity is moral - altruism ain't.
What's the difference?

Charity is giving because you want to - altruism is giving because that's the only way you can be good and that's the purpose of your existence; giving to others at the expense of self.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-17 07:54pm

The Question wrote:
Cannibals are not being altruistic when they kill someone and eat him, dumb-ass.
They are violating the rights of their victim for the good of the larger group.

Since altruism is about helping others, and says NOTHING about subsuming individuals to the group, that is a red herring and you have failed to support your assertion. How is it altruistic to kill someone and eat him?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-17 07:56pm

The Question wrote:Charity is giving because you want to - altruism is giving because that's the only way you can be good and that's the purpose of your existence; giving to others at the expense of self.

And where did you get this definition from? Since you think that a dictionary definition is worthless, what is your basis? Atlas Shrugged?

Altruism is the ACT of giving to others, possibly at the expense of self. It is not the destruction of all individualism in order to make such acts possible.

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-17 07:56pm

Darth Wong wrote: Since altruism is about helping others, and says NOTHING about subsuming individuals to the group, that is a red herring and you have failed to support your assertion. How is it altruistic to kill someone and eat him?

You're helping the majority at the expense of the minority.

"Balancing the needs of the many against the rights of the few" as you put it earlier.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-17 07:58pm

The Question wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: Since altruism is about helping others, and says NOTHING about subsuming individuals to the group, that is a red herring and you have failed to support your assertion. How is it altruistic to kill someone and eat him?
You're helping the majority at the expense of the minority.

"Balancing the needs of the many against the rights of the few" as you put it earlier.

Are you really this dense? The victim of the cannibalism might arguably be an altruist (albeit probably an unwilling one), but the cannibals are most certainly not.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-06-17 07:58pm

The Question wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:
Charity is moral - altruism ain't.
What's the difference?

Charity is giving because you want to - altruism is giving because that's the only way you can be good and that's the purpose of your existence; giving to others at the expense of self.

I see so in using the Zoological answer...you believe that somehow overrides the common one?

Huh.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-06-17 07:59pm

Now that's Spock talking.

The needs of the few can be sacrificed for the many, but not without the consent of those few.

Hence, voluntary military service and other wonderful social structures.

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-17 07:59pm

Darth Wong wrote:And where did you get this definition from?

The great father of modern philosophical altruism - Immanuel Kant.

The silly prick he was.

Who argued all for what you're arguing for, he just didn't try to hide it by paying lip service to individual rights, as you do.