RE: A very basic printing question re XY3

[Brian.Henderson@xxxxxxxx]

Title: Message



Harry, I base my
built-in altruism statement on recent anthropology studies. It's becoming clear
that we evolved in small enough groups where helping one another was, in many or
most cases, helping your own bloodline. We were near-human for many many times
longer than we have been human, and what we are is still mostly that near-human
ancestor. There's nothing spiritual in much of anything we do. It's all nuts and
bolts evolutionary mechanics (seems to me, anyway).
 
BTW - when I said
"good nature" I was mostly just being optimistic. I reckon we're pretty much
evenly balanced between "good" and "evil"...whatever the hell that
means.
 
 

-----Original Message-----  From: Harry
Binswanger


Altruism isn't
 religious, it's built-in (well...built-into some
 people).
Religion just takes advantage
 our good nature.
(and our need to
 celebrate the winter solstice...btw)

I think religion takes advantage of the evil
(irrational) in some people's nature. If altruism isn't based on religion, what
is it based on? I've been unable to find *argument* (good or bad) for altruism
in the history of philosophy. It's just taken as self-evident (because of the
influence of religion). It's hard to think of what *could* be an argument for
"non-you" as the standard of morality. 

"Why is it moral to serve the
happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral
when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? If the
sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your
stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others?" (Atlas
Shrugged, p. 1031)



-BrianH.
 
-----Original
 Message-----  From: Harry Binswanger
 
Good for
 Jobs! I guess he learned from the parable of his namesake that there's no
 point in buying into the ethics of He Who Toys With Us.

Harry
 Binswanger
hb@xxxxxxxx 



Harry Binswanger
hb@xxxxxxxx