| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"George Dance" |
| Date: |
24 Nov 2003 08:29:24 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Altruism (Re: Is god measurable?) |
After another month of trying, I've given up hoping to see any of my
posts on alt.atheism.moderated. I think the best bet is for me to
post them here instead, so at least some will be able to read them.
John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<nyLhf4AfXCo$EwD6@secker.demon.co.uk>...
In article <79de2737.0310260930.7e93914b@posting.google.com>, dug
<dug_down_deep@hotmail.com> writes
Part of being an adult is in the squelching of compulsive urges
(smoking, overeating, binge drinking, etc.). That is not prurient or
vain. It is self-aware, responsible, sometimes altruistic, AND adult.
It is also astoundingly arrogant to say that we know better than other
people what is in their best interest. You say that smoking is not in
someone's best interest because it will make them more likely to die
prematurely. Is my self-interest solely concerned with length of life?
If nicotine (or alcohol, or chocolate, or cocaine) makes it easier for
me to cope with the vicissitudes of life, then who are you to tell me
they are not in my own self-interest?
That's a good way to put it. If you any of your values involve your
doing something at a future time t, then it is in your interest to
look after your life and well-being up to t; and it's not arrogant,
but reasonable, for someone to tell you that. But that's as far as I
see it going; anyone who told you that it was in your self-interest to
extend your life, period, would have to support that by reference to
his own values, not yours; which sounds not only arrogant, but
incoherent.
.
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Altruism (Re: Is god measurable?) |
24 Nov 2003 10:47:01 AM |
|
|
On 24 Nov 2003, (George Dance) screwed up his
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:6312c50b.0311240629.1938554b@posting.google.com:
After another month of trying, I've given up hoping to see any of my
posts on alt.atheism.moderated. I think the best bet is for me to
post them here instead, so at least some will be able to read them.
John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<nyLhf4AfXCo$EwD6@secker.demon.co.uk>...
In article <79de2737.0310260930.7e93914b@posting.google.com>, dug
<dug_down_deep@hotmail.com> writes
Part of being an adult is in the squelching of compulsive urges
(smoking, overeating, binge drinking, etc.). That is not prurient or
vain. It is self-aware, responsible, sometimes altruistic, AND
adult.
It is also astoundingly arrogant to say that we know better than
other people what is in their best interest. You say that smoking is
not in someone's best interest because it will make them more likely
to die prematurely. Is my self-interest solely concerned with length
of life? If nicotine (or alcohol, or chocolate, or cocaine) makes it
easier for me to cope with the vicissitudes of life, then who are you
to tell me they are not in my own self-interest?
That's a good way to put it. If you any of your values involve your
doing something at a future time t, then it is in your interest to
look after your life and well-being up to t; and it's not arrogant,
but reasonable, for someone to tell you that. But that's as far as I
see it going; anyone who told you that it was in your self-interest to
extend your life, period, would have to support that by reference to
his own values, not yours; which sounds not only arrogant, but
incoherent.
Exactly. While I, personally, would never even think of shooting junk,
another person may be happier on junk than they would be with the
physical health they would have if they never touched the stuff. Thus,
if an adult wants to make the reasoned choice to get hooked on heroin,
that's their business. I may disagree, and if they're a friend of mine
I may do my damnedest to convince them otherwise, but you know what? In
the final analysis, I have no right to tell anyone else what is or is
not in their best interest. Your right to swing your fist may end at my
face, but who am I (or the government, for that matter) to tell anyone
that their right to swing their fist ends at their *own* face?
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian" |
|
| Title: Re: Altruism (Re: Is god measurable?) |
26 Nov 2003 11:30:04 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns943D6DB9AFA31Mekkala@199.45.49.11>,
said...
On 24 Nov 2003, (George Dance) screwed up his
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:6312c50b.0311240629.1938554b@posting.google.com:
After another month of trying, I've given up hoping to see any of my
posts on alt.atheism.moderated. I think the best bet is for me to
post them here instead, so at least some will be able to read them.
John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<nyLhf4AfXCo$EwD6@secker.demon.co.uk>...
In article <79de2737.0310260930.7e93914b@posting.google.com>, dug
<dug_down_deep@hotmail.com> writes
Part of being an adult is in the squelching of compulsive urges
(smoking, overeating, binge drinking, etc.). That is not prurient or
vain. It is self-aware, responsible, sometimes altruistic, AND
adult.
It is also astoundingly arrogant to say that we know better than
other people what is in their best interest. You say that smoking is
not in someone's best interest because it will make them more likely
to die prematurely. Is my self-interest solely concerned with length
of life? If nicotine (or alcohol, or chocolate, or cocaine) makes it
easier for me to cope with the vicissitudes of life, then who are you
to tell me they are not in my own self-interest?
That's a good way to put it. If you any of your values involve your
doing something at a future time t, then it is in your interest to
look after your life and well-being up to t; and it's not arrogant,
but reasonable, for someone to tell you that. But that's as far as I
see it going; anyone who told you that it was in your self-interest to
extend your life, period, would have to support that by reference to
his own values, not yours; which sounds not only arrogant, but
incoherent.
Exactly. While I, personally, would never even think of shooting junk,
another person may be happier on junk than they would be with the
physical health they would have if they never touched the stuff. Thus,
if an adult wants to make the reasoned choice to get hooked on heroin,
that's their business. I may disagree, and if they're a friend of mine
I may do my damnedest to convince them otherwise, but you know what? In
the final analysis, I have no right to tell anyone else what is or is
not in their best interest. Your right to swing your fist may end at my
face, but who am I (or the government, for that matter) to tell anyone
that their right to swing their fist ends at their *own* face?
Well, I think you're basically right, except that since people don't
live in a social vacuum, it's not that simple. For example, while one
may indeed be happier high than sober, that tendancy could be
devastating to immediate family members. And not necessarily in just a
psychological sense. If a father or mother indulged in self-destructive
behavior that made them happy, but shortened their lives to the point
that they died while their children were still dependants, it could be a
real problem.
While I think you're right in that overall people and the government
should not be dictating to others that they can't swing their fists at
their own faces, quite often one's own continued livelihood is important
to the livelihood of others. While most of the time what you do or don't
do to yourself should be entirely an individual decision, there are
times where one's responsibility to others should override that, I
think.
--
To reply to me via email, drop the dash in the address.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Altruism (Re: Is god measurable?) |
26 Nov 2003 11:52:53 AM |
|
|
On 26 Nov 2003, Ian <masakado-kou@yahoo.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:MPG.1a2c4d6b272ef3a4989695@netnews.upenn.edu:
In article <Xns943D6DB9AFA31Mekkala@199.45.49.11>,
joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com said...
On 24 Nov 2003, (George Dance) screwed up his
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:6312c50b.0311240629.1938554b@posting.google.com:
After another month of trying, I've given up hoping to see any of
my posts on alt.atheism.moderated. I think the best bet is for me
to post them here instead, so at least some will be able to read
them.
John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<nyLhf4AfXCo$EwD6@secker.demon.co.uk>...
In article <79de2737.0310260930.7e93914b@posting.google.com>, dug
<dug_down_deep@hotmail.com> writes
Part of being an adult is in the squelching of compulsive urges
(smoking, overeating, binge drinking, etc.). That is not prurient
or vain. It is self-aware, responsible, sometimes altruistic, AND
adult.
It is also astoundingly arrogant to say that we know better than
other people what is in their best interest. You say that smoking
is not in someone's best interest because it will make them more
likely to die prematurely. Is my self-interest solely concerned
with length of life? If nicotine (or alcohol, or chocolate, or
cocaine) makes it easier for me to cope with the vicissitudes of
life, then who are you to tell me they are not in my own
self-interest?
That's a good way to put it. If you any of your values involve
your doing something at a future time t, then it is in your
interest to look after your life and well-being up to t; and it's
not arrogant, but reasonable, for someone to tell you that. But
that's as far as I see it going; anyone who told you that it was in
your self-interest to extend your life, period, would have to
support that by reference to his own values, not yours; which
sounds not only arrogant, but incoherent.
Exactly. While I, personally, would never even think of shooting
junk, another person may be happier on junk than they would be with
the physical health they would have if they never touched the stuff.
Thus, if an adult wants to make the reasoned choice to get hooked on
heroin, that's their business. I may disagree, and if they're a
friend of mine I may do my damnedest to convince them otherwise, but
you know what? In the final analysis, I have no right to tell anyone
else what is or is not in their best interest. Your right to swing
your fist may end at my face, but who am I (or the government, for
that matter) to tell anyone that their right to swing their fist ends
at their *own* face?
Well, I think you're basically right, except that since people don't
live in a social vacuum, it's not that simple. For example, while one
may indeed be happier high than sober, that tendancy could be
devastating to immediate family members. And not necessarily in just a
psychological sense. If a father or mother indulged in
self-destructive behavior that made them happy, but shortened their
lives to the point that they died while their children were still
dependants, it could be a real problem.
While I think you're right in that overall people and the government
should not be dictating to others that they can't swing their fists at
their own faces, quite often one's own continued livelihood is
important to the livelihood of others. While most of the time what you
do or don't do to yourself should be entirely an individual decision,
there are times where one's responsibility to others should override
that, I think.
I see your point, but I don't agree.
I wouldn't mind seeing laws that say you can't indulge in extremely
self-destructive activities without ensuring that your dependents will
be cared for -- but then, you can go skydiving (which is very dangerous)
or mountain-climbing (which is very dangerous) or scuba diving (which,
depending on the situation, can be very dangerous) and so on... would
you say that people should be banned from putting themselves in any kind
of danger if they have dependents? Probably the most dangerous thing
you'll *ever* do is drive a car, yet nobody thinks to ban that for the
sake of a person's dependents.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Altruism (Re: Is god measurable?) |
26 Nov 2003 01:02:10 PM |
|
|
Mekkala wrote:
On 26 Nov 2003, Ian <masakado-kou@yahoo.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:MPG.1a2c4d6b272ef3a4989695@netnews.upenn.edu:
In article <Xns943D6DB9AFA31Mekkala@199.45.49.11>,
joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com said...
While I think you're right in that overall people and the government
should not be dictating to others that they can't swing their fists at
their own faces, quite often one's own continued livelihood is
important to the livelihood of others. While most of the time what you
do or don't do to yourself should be entirely an individual decision,
there are times where one's responsibility to others should override
that, I think.
I see your point, but I don't agree.
I wouldn't mind seeing laws that say you can't indulge in extremely
self-destructive activities without ensuring that your dependents will
be cared for -- but then, you can go skydiving (which is very dangerous)
or mountain-climbing (which is very dangerous) or scuba diving (which,
depending on the situation, can be very dangerous) and so on... would
you say that people should be banned from putting themselves in any kind
of danger if they have dependents? Probably the most dangerous thing
you'll *ever* do is drive a car, yet nobody thinks to ban that for the
sake of a person's dependents.
Very well said.
sdq
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dug" |
|
| Title: Re: Altruism (Re: Is god measurable?) |
25 Nov 2003 10:08:05 PM |
|
|
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns943D6DB9AFA31Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
That's a good way to put it. If you any of your values involve your
doing something at a future time t, then it is in your interest to
look after your life and well-being up to t; and it's not arrogant,
but reasonable, for someone to tell you that. But that's as far as I
see it going; anyone who told you that it was in your self-interest to
extend your life, period, would have to support that by reference to
his own values, not yours; which sounds not only arrogant, but
incoherent.
Is it arrogant to believe in your values? That sounds like political
correctness taken to the wimpiest degree...
Exactly. While I, personally, would never even think of shooting junk,
another person may be happier on junk than they would be with the
physical health they would have if they never touched the stuff. Thus,
if an adult wants to make the reasoned choice to get hooked on heroin,
that's their business. I may disagree, and if they're a friend of mine
I may do my damnedest to convince them otherwise, but you know what? In
the final analysis, I have no right to tell anyone else what is or is
not in their best interest. Your right to swing your fist may end at my
face, but who am I (or the government, for that matter) to tell anyone
that their right to swing their fist ends at their *own* face?
You're confusing the issue. Rights and values are not the same thing.
You have a right to be miserable, of course. That is part of the
meaning of liberty. Fortunately, you also have the right to pursue
happiness. :)
A legal contract like the US Constitution is meant to protect you from
my misconceptions of virtue, and vice-versa. That's how we live
together without persecuting each other. Nevertheless, my values are
my values precisely because I believe in them. And I would be a fool,
or else without conviction, if I were to say "Well, maybe you're
right, and this thing that I think is awful is really OK." That's
wishy-washy, Charlie Brown. ;)
--doug
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Altruism (Re: Is god measurable?) |
27 Nov 2003 10:57:20 AM |
|
|
(dug) wrote in message news:<79de2737.0311252008.6457fc28@posting.google.com>...
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns943D6DB9AFA31Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
That's a good way to put it. If you any of your values involve your
doing something at a future time t, then it is in your interest to
look after your life and well-being up to t; and it's not arrogant,
but reasonable, for someone to tell you that. But that's as far as I
see it going; anyone who told you that it was in your self-interest to
extend your life, period, would have to support that by reference to
his own values, not yours; which sounds not only arrogant, but
incoherent.
Is it arrogant to believe in your values? That sounds like political
correctness taken to the wimpiest degree...
Since this is a question about what I wrote above, I'm going to jump
in here. There's nothing arrogant about believing in one's own
values; the arrogance enters when you assume that your values are the
ones that should motivate the other person - because either your
values are better than his (as in Plato's "city of pigs"), or yours
are real values and his aren't (as in someone who tells a smoker, "You
don't really enjoy smoking; that's your addiction speaking, not
you.").
Obviously if realizing your own values involves witnessing and/or
trying to convert others (as, perhaps, in your case), it's hard to
avoid the appearance of arrogance - but not impossible: many people
are highly successful at motivating others to do the things they want,
and it's just a matter of study to learn how to do it.
Exactly. While I, personally, would never even think of shooting junk,
another person may be happier on junk than they would be with the
physical health they would have if they never touched the stuff. Thus,
if an adult wants to make the reasoned choice to get hooked on heroin,
that's their business. I may disagree, and if they're a friend of mine
I may do my damnedest to convince them otherwise, but you know what? In
the final analysis, I have no right to tell anyone else what is or is
not in their best interest. Your right to swing your fist may end at my
face, but who am I (or the government, for that matter) to tell anyone
that their right to swing their fist ends at their *own* face?
You're confusing the issue. Rights and values are not the same thing.
You have a right to be miserable, of course. That is part of the
meaning of liberty. Fortunately, you also have the right to pursue
happiness. :)
First of all, rights and values aren't the same thing but are
connected; what rights people think they and others have depends on
their value judgements. Second, people's actual value judgements can
and often do trump the formal rights that they and others have on
paper; it's only when people value the rights of others, that those
rights are safe.
A legal contract like the US Constitution is meant to protect you from
my misconceptions of virtue, and vice-versa. That's how we live
together without persecuting each other.
But even that fine statement of rights did not prevent US sheriffs and
police from abetting lynchings, or framing people like Ruben Carter,
or beating up people like Rodney King. Values are all-important here.
Nevertheless, my values are
my values precisely because I believe in them. And I would be a fool,
or else without conviction, if I were to say "Well, maybe you're
right, and this thing that I think is awful is really OK." That's
wishy-washy, Charlie Brown. ;)
--doug
Fair enough. Just don't expect that to be any reason for the other
person to believe that it's not OK, but awful - that, to be
reasonable, he should be that wishy-washy about his own values.
(That, I think, illustrates the mindset that was being called
'arrogance' perfectly.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "dug" |
|
| Title: Re: Altruism (Re: Is god measurable?) |
30 Nov 2003 11:09:40 AM |
|
|
(George Dance) wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0311270857.6ee0934a@posting.google.com>...
Since this is a question about what I wrote above, I'm going to jump
in here. There's nothing arrogant about believing in one's own
values; the arrogance enters when you assume that your values are the
ones that should motivate the other person - because either your
values are better than his (as in Plato's "city of pigs"), or yours
are real values and his aren't (as in someone who tells a smoker, "You
don't really enjoy smoking; that's your addiction speaking, not
you.").
If your assumption of correctness is 100%, then you are indeed
arrogant, and foolish to boot. But there is no arrogance in
proclaiming your values, which include usually by their very nature
judgments on EVERYONE's actions and opinions. Is it arrogant then
(once again) to say so? If it is--oh well. Seems to me that most of
the important people in history have had that sort of arrogance.
And BTW, that is indeed the addiction talking. Been there, done that.
Obviously if realizing your own values involves witnessing and/or
trying to convert others (as, perhaps, in your case), it's hard to
avoid the appearance of arrogance - but not impossible: many people
are highly successful at motivating others to do the things they want,
and it's just a matter of study to learn how to do it.
Everyone would prefer that others adopt their value system. That's why
you're debating with me and vice-versa. It's human nature. The key is
respect, which is a frequently missing element among the
evangelical-minded (not me, BTW) and the average unmoderated internet
forum (ab)user.
First of all, rights and values aren't the same thing but are
connected; what rights people think they and others have depends on
their value judgements. Second, people's actual value judgements can
and often do trump the formal rights that they and others have on
paper; it's only when people value the rights of others, that those
rights are safe.
I agree, but I would say the key words are 'respect the rights of
others' as opposed to 'value the rights of others'.
A legal contract like the US Constitution is meant to protect you from
my misconceptions of virtue, and vice-versa. That's how we live
together without persecuting each other.
But even that fine statement of rights did not prevent US sheriffs and
police from abetting lynchings, or framing people like Ruben Carter,
or beating up people like Rodney King. Values are all-important here.
Of course.
Nevertheless, my values are
my values precisely because I believe in them. And I would be a fool,
or else without conviction, if I were to say "Well, maybe you're
right, and this thing that I think is awful is really OK." That's
wishy-washy, Charlie Brown. ;)
--doug
Fair enough. Just don't expect that to be any reason for the other
person to believe that it's not OK, but awful - that, to be
reasonable, he should be that wishy-washy about his own values.
(That, I think, illustrates the mindset that was being called
'arrogance' perfectly.)
Nevertheless, if there is a well-reasoned argument in favor of a
position, then it is reasonable not arrogant to state it as such. You
feel that way, too. Otherwise you would not be supporting your
argument in this forum. ;)
--doug
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Altruism (Re: Is god measurable?) |
26 Nov 2003 09:26:02 AM |
|
|
On 25 Nov 2003, (dug) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:79de2737.0311252008.6457fc28@posting.google.com:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns943D6DB9AFA31Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
That's a good way to put it. If you any of your values involve
your doing something at a future time t, then it is in your
interest to look after your life and well-being up to t; and it's
not arrogant, but reasonable, for someone to tell you that. But
that's as far as I see it going; anyone who told you that it was in
your self-interest to extend your life, period, would have to
support that by reference to his own values, not yours; which
sounds not only arrogant, but incoherent.
Is it arrogant to believe in your values? That sounds like political
correctness taken to the wimpiest degree...
Exactly. While I, personally, would never even think of shooting
junk, another person may be happier on junk than they would be with
the physical health they would have if they never touched the stuff.
Thus, if an adult wants to make the reasoned choice to get hooked on
heroin, that's their business. I may disagree, and if they're a
friend of mine I may do my damnedest to convince them otherwise, but
you know what? In the final analysis, I have no right to tell anyone
else what is or is not in their best interest. Your right to swing
your fist may end at my face, but who am I (or the government, for
that matter) to tell anyone that their right to swing their fist ends
at their *own* face?
You're confusing the issue. Rights and values are not the same thing.
You have a right to be miserable, of course. That is part of the
meaning of liberty. Fortunately, you also have the right to pursue
happiness. :)
A legal contract like the US Constitution is meant to protect you from
my misconceptions of virtue, and vice-versa. That's how we live
together without persecuting each other. Nevertheless, my values are
my values precisely because I believe in them. And I would be a fool,
or else without conviction, if I were to say "Well, maybe you're
right, and this thing that I think is awful is really OK." That's
wishy-washy, Charlie Brown. ;)
And if you think a thing is "awful", abide by those values and don't do
it. Beyond that, if it doesn't harm you or yours, what more do you need
to do to protect your personal values?
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dug" |
|
| Title: Re: Altruism (Re: Is god measurable?) |
30 Nov 2003 10:24:46 AM |
|
|
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns943F60023DB95Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
And if you think a thing is "awful", abide by those values and don't do
it. Beyond that, if it doesn't harm you or yours, what more do you need
to do to protect your personal values?
Well, as a political libertarian that's pretty much what I do.
When it comes to talking on internet forums, though, I will trumpet my
value-based opinions as loudly as my breath will allow. ;^)
--doug
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
