= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
buybuydandavis comments on Avoiding the emergency room - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (68)
Some of them are, and some of them are not. David Kelley is at least a leader of those who are not, and previously posted to LW to point out the error of this assumption.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/m1/guardians_of_ayn_rand/h16
But Objectivism is not about fulfilling your desires, which Rand would consider "whim worshipping subjectivism".
Many people believe in altruism and their feelings of self worth are based in it. Even those not particularly moved by it generally grant that it is moral. She condemns altruism as an evil in harsh, explicit, and effective terms. People are unaccustomed to that, and don't like it. That makes her a natural object of hatred for altruists, as probably the most well known "egoist" philosopher, particularly in the US.
Interesting. Not my experience. I'd say they are more focused on instrumental rationality here than in objectivist lists I've been on previously. Almost entirely theoretical, to the extent that I can recall. Maybe that was because it was the very early days of the internet, and people hadn't gotten pontificating out of their systems yet.
And she uses the original definition of altruism (approximately: reversed survival instinct), which most people don't even know today.
Instead of blaming her, I would rather blame the people who use the word "altruism" as an applause light. Successful Dark Arts maneuver here -- 1) invent a new word describing something horrible, and say it is the best thing ever and all humans should do that; 2) wait for your opponents to publicly criticize the word; 3) change the definition of the word to something nice and pretend the original version never existed... now all your opponents look like horrible, evil people.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (which is generally very trustworthy on such things),
In that work, Comte says of positivism "It is by its nature thoroughly altruistic, or unselfish" which seems to indicate that he takes altruism to mean something like "being concerned directly for others rather than only or primarily for oneself" -- which is pretty much the standard present-day meaning.
Here's a longer quotation from the same work of Comte; it doesn't happen to use the word "altruism" but seems to me to make it clear that he isn't calling for the abandonment of self-interest, never mind its outright reversal:
On what basis do you say that the original definition of altruism is "approximately: reversed survival instinct"?
George H. Smith talks about what Comte meant by altruism here. Excerpts below. Assuming his summaries are accurate and his quotes are selected charitably, this is not what most people mean nowadays by altruism.
So, first of all, none of that indicates even slightly that "altruism" ever meant anything like "reversed survival instinct". (Which, to me, implies an outright preference for death.)
Secondly, it is not necessarily right to assume that Comte intended "altruism" to mean "the entirety of what Positivism says people should think, feel and do". It looks to me, from an admittedly cursory look at his book, as if he took "egoism" to mean "acting for oneself" or "caring about oneself" and "altruism" to mean "acting for others" or "caring about others", and the key moral content of his quasi-religion was: "altruism should totally dominate over egoism". If I'm right, this dominance is part of Positivism but not part of what he meant by "altruism", and any action or attitude based on caring about others is "altruistic" in his sense even if the person involved cares a lot about himself too.
Those don't seem to me like safe assumptions.
No, I don't think it was. I do think Comte believed in something like that duty (though I think Smith is overstating it a little) but it doesn't seem to me that that duty was what he meant by "altruism".
That isn't (in my reading, at least) Comte's meaning of "altruism", merely one of his doctrines about altruism. And, further, I think "exclusively" is an exaggeration: see the passage I quoted above, which seems to me to be saying that although the welfare of humanity as a whole is the One True Ultimate Goal it's necessary and proper for people to care about themselves because if they don't they'll end up being no use to the rest of humanity.
To summarize my position:
and it seems to me that even Comte's meaning is actually pretty close to what "altruism" usually means today, even though he believed things about it that few other people do.
[EDITED to fix formatting]
I disagree. Altruism is almost always put in opposition to egoism. If you care about your family because you love them, and put their needs above the needs of others, that's less altruistic than putting the needs of another family over the needs of your own.
I think Rand is correct on the current usage. One is altruistic to the extent that one sacrifices your own interests to the interests of others.
You can always leave yourself an out with "at all about yourself". Yes, even most people who praise altruism will allow you a moment to do something for your own happiness. How generous they are! But you are praised to the extent you sacrifice your own happiness for the sake of others, and condemned to the extent that you don't. It's not how much happiness you produce in others, it's how much happiness it costs you that matters. If you do exactly as you please but thereby still make millions happier, you are not an altruist by the usual calculations.
If you think that contradicts what I was saying, then I fear you have misunderstood my point. Altruism is (according to what I think was Comte's usage) the opposite of egoism in the same way as loving is the opposite of hating: they point in opposite directions but the same person can do both -- even, in unusual cases, both at once.
A single action will rarely be both altruistic and egoistic, just as a single action is rarely both loving and hating. But "altruism" doesn't mean "never thinking about your own interests" any more than "loving" means "never hating anyone". A typical person will be altruistic sometimes and egoistic sometimes; a typical person will sometimes be moved by love and sometimes by hate.
There are probably people who hold that everyone should be as completely altruistic and non-egoistic as possible. Perhaps Auguste Comte was one of them. That's an entirely separate question from whether "altruism" implies the total absence of egoism; still more is it separate from whether "altruism" means anything like "reversed survival instinct", which you might recall is the claim I was originally arguing against and which no one seems at all inclined to defend so far.
There may be people who believe that, but it certainly isn't part of the meaning of "altruism". And the example you give doesn't support that very strong claim. If you do something with the purpose of making millions happier and not out of considering your own welfare then (at least in my book) that is an altruistic action whether it happens to help you or harm you. If people are reluctant to apply the term "altruistic" to actions that benefit the agent, I suggest that's just because it's hard to be sure something was done for the sake of others when self-interest is a credible alternative explanation.
Bad analogy. Loving and hating are different emotions with different qualities, while egoism and altruism are different in the objects of their intent, not the quality of the intent. The intent is to serve the interests of the object - whose interests are to be served is what is at issue. Basically, it's whose love matters to you, your own, or the other guys?
And your continued disavowal of absolute Altruism as the meaning of Altruism is self contradictory - Altruism is what it is, and allowing people to be less than 100% does not change the quality that we're measuring in percentages.
More altruistic means more willing to sacrifice your interests for the interests of others. It's the balance of the trade off that matters. The more you lose, the more altruistic you are. The smaller the gain to others for what you lose, the more altruistic you are. The more you hate the beneficiary, the more altruistic you are. It's the ratio of marginal cost to yourself (including actually caring for the beneficiary) versus marginal benefit to the beneficiary.
Of course, one should not just waste value inefficiently, destroying your own values to jack up the cost to yourself, or minimizing the value you create for others to minimize the benefit to others. But as you maximize net total weighted utils, it's the relative weight you assign to your utils and their utils that matters.
But I admittedly said this poorly
I was just trying to get at the issue of the trade off here. Setting myself on fire willy nilly is not necessarily altruistic, it's only altruistic if it's done as an intended and efficient tradeoff for the benefit of others.
I wrote:
You've changed the scenario. In mine, You did exactly as you pleased and it happened to make others happier. You changed it to "with the purpose of making millions happier". That was not the purpose. Satisfying yourself was the purpose.
So, in my scenario, are you altruistic according to you, or not?
I don't see why. I was trying to point out a feature of the logical structure. If the difference between love/hate and egoism/altruism that you point out invalidates that, I'm not currently seeing why.
If (as I think is the case) your objection is simply that generally optimizing for one thing gets you suboptimal results by any other standard, so that e.g. if you optimize for others' wellbeing then usually you end up worse off yourself, then of course I agree with that.
We seem to be agreed that (1) whatever the exact definition of "altruism", it is possible to say coherently that a person, or an individual action, is somewhat altruistic and somewhat egoistic, and (2) altruism doesn't mean actively preferring worse outcomes for oneself. In which case, I think we are in fact agreed about everything I was trying to say.
Yes; that was the whole point. Your scenario was relevant to the question "is altruism about intentions or about outcomes?", but we never had any disagreement about that; of course it's about intentions. I was aiming at the question "is altruism about acting for others or about suppressing one's own interests?". Though I'm not sure my scenario actually addresses that very well, and I suspect it's almost impossible to give clear-cut examples of. (Because in most circumstances there's no observable difference between the results of caring more for others, and those of caring less for oneself.)
We're agreed on 1 but not on 2.
As I maintained, a crucial part of altruism is the trade off between your interests and the interests of others. The more you've sacrificed of your interests to others, the more altruistic you are. If nothing else, there is always an opportunity cost associated with pursuing the interests of others over yourself.
I don't think that's the definiction she gives, although given the sum of her beliefs, you could say that. Reversed "interests" instinct seems about right. It's about who is the intended beneficiary of the action - if it's them, it's a good action, and if it's you, it's a bad action. Now you put that together with life as your fundamental interest, and you could say "reversed survival instinct", but I think that conveys a too narrow concept for most people.
Have they redefined altruism it to something nice when I wasn't looking?
Altruism as the desire to help others is fine and dandy. But who means that by altruism?
Everyone seems to mean that slave morality which states that working for the happiness of others is good, and working for your own happiness is evil.
Uhm, almost everone?
I am not sure, because people typically don't provide their definitions of words like "altruism" when they use them. They assume that everyone knows exactly what it means, and if you ask for a definition, that seems like trolling.
That too, actually. Perhaps the word is usually used to mean a set of this all. You know, the wider the meaning, the greater the chance that at least some part of it can be defended successfully in a debate.
(Anti-epistemology as usual: oppose "tabooing" words, and only use narrow definitions for the things you don't like.)
Most importantly, themselves.
Yes. If you suggest they're conceptually muddled, instead of attempting to demonstrate their conceptual clarity, which should be trivial to do if they have it, they will get huffy and declare you a troll.
That's the true Dark Art. Endlessly equivocate on the meaning of your terms. It's so dark, you can manipulate yourself into believing that you know what you're talking about. See Rand and "life" for details.