RE: A very basic printing question re XY3

[Harry Binswanger hb@xxxxxxxx]

Yes, but if you're talking about any built-in behavior patterns
(something I reject, but that's another issue), then you are not talking
about *ought*, not talking about what *should be*. "Psychological
egoism" or "psychological altruism" is the view (that I
reject) that we do as a matter of fact act a certain way. "Ethical
egoism" and "ethical altruism" are the issues we care
about--i.e., what *ought* one to do? what is *right*?



Another way of saying it is: to the extent that you automatically,
without choice, act a certain way, ethics cannot evaluate it at all.
There's no moral right or wrong about how your cells metabolize. There
has to be choice for morality to apply. "Should implies can" as
they say.



Which applies also to "our" goodness or badness. It's each
individual's choices, not "us," that can be evaluated. Some
people make characteristically good, moral choices--and they are good;
others make characteristically bad, immoral choices--and they are bad;
lots of others have differing proportions as a track record, and they are
they mixed cases.



Don't ask me to name names here. :)



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 




Harry Binswanger
hb@xxxxxxxx