Originally Posted by P*
Quote: Originally Posted by Gulielmus Beta
This is one of the silliest things I've ever read. Caring for one's child is not altruism. If you think it is, then you do not understand what altruism is. Caring for your child is a moral and legal obligation. One ought to go about it with love, but how that love should be selfless and unrewarding for the parent I have no idea. Do you? Can you explain it to me?
P*: Of course it is altruistic. Do you seriously mean to suggest that changing dirty diapers is a pleasure for you? And for most people? (And you accuse me of silliness!) I think you are the one needing to look up the words "altruism" and "selfish", as being selfish, by definition, means to pretty much disregard the effects on others. Thus, caring for a child that involves actually caring for the child is inherently unselfish. And altruism does not entail not getting anything out of something, though it does entail a primary concern for someone else. And that is what raising a child in a manner that most people would regard as being proper entails.
Yes, changing dirty diapers was a pleasure for me, because leaving my child in dirty diapers would have meant enduring the feeling of allowing my child to suffer in discomfort. It is in my best interest as well as the child's to change its diapers, unless I become a parent by accident rather than by choice and if I consider raising a child an unwelcome burden. Altruism has connotations of disinteredness and self-sacrifice, and there are many who believe that the lesser the reward for doing a certain action, the more virtuous it is.
Your definition of selfish does not jibe with the definition Objectivists are referring to when they talk about rational self-interest. Objectivists are strong defenders of the concept of rights, and any person whose ethical system recognizes the value of individual rights would not behave in complete disregard for how their behavior affects others, for doing so would be to live in disregard of the rights of others.
Ayn Rand knew that writing a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness" would cause an unholy shit-storm, and she did it with a purpose: to get people to think about what they have been force-fed to believe about morality for so long. But if you actually crack open the book you will see that what she means by selfishness is not a crass, conceited, arrogant disregard for other people. It is not the selfishness of a knuckle-dragging brute who can't see past the end of his own nose, who is blind to the consequences of his actions and doesn't give a damn about them. That's the selfishness of a rapist, a mugger, or a junkie, not the rational self-interest of a law-abiding human being who recognizes his right to exist for his own sake and not for the sake of everyone else but him.
Now, for myself personally, I don't describe myself as a selfish person nor do I go around extolling the virtue of selfishness, but I do understand the necessity of a strong defense for enlightened self-interest and I am dead-set against all of this anti-ego "there is no I, there is no self" nonsense that is in vogue in so many philosophy forums. Those sentiments are dangerous and stupid, and I will fight them as long as I have breath to speak and fingertips to type.
Quote: Originally Posted by Gulielmus Beta
This is one of the silliest things I've ever read. Caring for one's child is not altruism. If you think it is, then you do not understand what altruism is. Caring for your child is a moral and legal obligation. One ought to go about it with love, but how that love should be selfless and unrewarding for the parent I have no idea. Do you? Can you explain it to me?
P*: Of course it is altruistic. Do you seriously mean to suggest that changing dirty diapers is a pleasure for you? And for most people? (And you accuse me of silliness!) I think you are the one needing to look up the words "altruism" and "selfish", as being selfish, by definition, means to pretty much disregard the effects on others. Thus, caring for a child that involves actually caring for the child is inherently unselfish. And altruism does not entail not getting anything out of something, though it does entail a primary concern for someone else. And that is what raising a child in a manner that most people would regard as being proper entails.
Yes, changing dirty diapers was a pleasure for me, because leaving my child in dirty diapers would have meant enduring the feeling of allowing my child to suffer in discomfort. It is in my best interest as well as the child's to change its diapers, unless I become a parent by accident rather than by choice and if I consider raising a child an unwelcome burden. Altruism has connotations of disinteredness and self-sacrifice, and there are many who believe that the lesser the reward for doing a certain action, the more virtuous it is.
Your definition of selfish does not jibe with the definition Objectivists are referring to when they talk about rational self-interest. Objectivists are strong defenders of the concept of rights, and any person whose ethical system recognizes the value of individual rights would not behave in complete disregard for how their behavior affects others, for doing so would be to live in disregard of the rights of others.
Ayn Rand knew that writing a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness" would cause an unholy shit-storm, and she did it with a purpose: to get people to think about what they have been force-fed to believe about morality for so long. But if you actually crack open the book you will see that what she means by selfishness is not a crass, conceited, arrogant disregard for other people. It is not the selfishness of a knuckle-dragging brute who can't see past the end of his own nose, who is blind to the consequences of his actions and doesn't give a damn about them. That's the selfishness of a rapist, a mugger, or a junkie, not the rational self-interest of a law-abiding human being who recognizes his right to exist for his own sake and not for the sake of everyone else but him.
Now, for myself personally, I don't describe myself as a selfish person nor do I go around extolling the virtue of selfishness, but I do understand the necessity of a strong defense for enlightened self-interest and I am dead-set against all of this anti-ego "there is no I, there is no self" nonsense that is in vogue in so many philosophy forums. Those sentiments are dangerous and stupid, and I will fight them as long as I have breath to speak and fingertips to type.
No comments:
Post a Comment