Thatcher and Socialist Sentiment

[teatree]

People don't watch each others backs and they never did. People act in their own self interest, and it was in one's interest to help the tribe survive.

People do watch each others backs - sometimes for selfish reasons, sometimes just because they've been brought up that way and it's automatic by the time they are adults. But whatever the reason, we are strongly tribal.

Here's a small anecdote for you: I was a small child when the IRA tried to assassinate Thatcher (and they managed to murder some of her ministers in that attempt). Now my family was anti-Thatcher - but my God they turned anti-IRA as a result of that and other bombings. Because Thatcher like or hate her, was part of our tribe.

Every now, when I heard that the Boston bombs were placed in litter bins, my first thought was "IRA", because that was their signature, and if you look at British boards, I wasn't the only one thinking that. When Americans heard the same thing, they immediately thought "Saudi". That was pure tribalism in action there, on the part of both - and it's not rational.

You keep talking about "self-interest", but that is part of our rational selves - you actually have to calculate what your self-interest is before you can act selfishly, and it's done by the conscious mind.

Tribal instincts work on a deep subconscious level. Many people try to pretend these instincts don't exist, but loyalty to the tribe is pretty much one of the strongest forces on earth, second only to loyalty to family. In fact traditionally tribes were extended family.

 

[Grindstone]

I'd rather someone be for killing

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsaoU6MT1Ts]Megadeth - Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good! - YouTube[/ame]

Came for the song, stayed for the vid.

 

[pixelo]

That seems to be the trend in Europe?

Greece, Spain, Italy, UK, France... isn't it all the same story?

No? Wealth is idolised and celebrated more than ever.

 

[guerilla]

Ayn Rand trashed the idea of EXTREME altruism.

I am fairly certain you have no idea what Ayn Rand wrote. Adding "extreme" to words doesn't change what they mean.

Ayn's criticism of altruism is based off of the assumption that you can't be altruistic unless you're ALWAYS altruistic 100%.

You can't be altruistic, ever.

But with all things in life, you need to find a balance - A balance between self-preservation and honest concern for the welfare of others.

Your problem is, you see them as being mutually exclusive. They aren't.

Lastly, comparing individualism with rape, murder, etc... is ridiculous. You're a logical guy - c'mon now.

A = A. I don't engage in the sort of dissonance you're promoting.

A radical individualist is someone who acts in his own self-interest the majority of the time without any form of compromise (while completely neglecting the needs of others).

Again, not mutually exclusive.

I didn't reply to the ranty-incoherent parts of your post.

 

[guerilla]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, although I think it is a stretch when anyone makes complex psychological evaluations. It's possible, but hard to pull off credibly.

People do watch each others backs - sometimes for selfish reasons, sometimes just because they've been brought up that way and it's automatic by the time they are adults. But whatever the reason, we are strongly tribal.

Here's a small anecdote for you: I was a small child when the IRA tried to assassinate Thatcher (and they managed to murder some of her ministers in that attempt). Now my family was anti-Thatcher - but my God they turned anti-IRA as a result of that and other bombings. Because Thatcher like or hate her, was part of our tribe.

Every now, when I heard that the Boston bombs were placed in litter bins, my first thought was "IRA", because that was their signature, and if you look at British boards, I wasn't the only one thinking that. When Americans heard the same thing, they immediately thought "Saudi". That was pure tribalism in action there, on the part of both - and it's not rational.

You keep talking about "self-interest", but that is part of our rational selves - you actually have to calculate what your self-interest is before you can act selfishly, and it's done by the conscious mind.

Tribal instincts work on a deep subconscious level. Many people try to pretend these instincts don't exist, but loyalty to the tribe is pretty much one of the strongest forces on earth, second only to loyalty to family. In fact traditionally tribes were extended family.

 

[GimpSpack]

I am fairly certain you have no idea what Ayn Rand wrote. Adding "extreme" to words doesn't change what they mean.


You can't be altruistic, ever.

So I can't work towards the welfare of my fellow man without self-interest in mind? That's absurd, and you've offered little evidence as to why altruism is a false ideal, other then by saying it is. Try again.

(For the record, I've been reading criticism of altruism since we began this debate, and I've only found denial that true altruism exists (without evidence), and attacks on false-altruism. Never an attack on TRUE, SINCERE altruism. It's all straw men.)

Your problem is, you see them as being mutually exclusive. They aren't.

No, I don't, but apparently Ayn Rand does. Read more if you're so well versed on her outlook. I'm not doing the homework for you, so if really want to pursue it further, read. (I can't post links, otherwise I'd give you a head start. See? Altruism right there )

A = A. I don't engage in the sort of dissonance you're promoting.

How is that dissonance? You compared an action (i.e. killing another human being) to a philosophy. You fucked up. Explain to me how individualism and murder are anything alike. You can't, so instead of admitting a flaw in your logic, you simply accuse me of propagating dissonance. I mean, if that creates cognitive dissonance in your mind, then maybe you should reevaluate how you process reality.

I conveniently didn't reply to the logical parts of your post that made me admit not everything is black and white. [FIXED]

You're the type of member that selectively addresses small excerpts of an opposing view, while completely leaving everything else unaddressed. I addressed your incoherent rant, the least you could have done is addressed mine.

If you want to continue to respond to ANYTHING I write, I suggest you respond to it's entirety. You don't have to respond to any ad-homs or insults I throw at you, but if you intentionally leave out the MEAT of my argument, you admit defeat by default. It's not always about who's right, but what's right, and if you can't admit when you're wrong, then you've failed your duty as a sentient being. I'm ready and willing to admit my logic is flawed as long as you provide the evidence (which you haven't).

 

[guerilla]

So I can't work towards the welfare of my fellow man without self-interest in mind?

No, you can't. Without self interest, you can't act.

That's absurd, and you've offered little evidence as to why altruism is a false ideal, other then by saying it is. Try again.

I don't have to prove a negative. You have to prove a positive (altruism exists).

Also, you're going to later claim you're familiar with Ayn Rand. If so, why are we even having this discussion?

For the record, I've been reading criticism of altruism since we began this debate, and I've only found denial that true altruism exists (without evidence), and attacks on false-altruism. Never an attack on TRUE, SINCERE altruism. It's all straw men.)

More word games. *YAWN*

No, I don't, but apparently Ayn Rand does. Read more if you're so well versed on her outlook. I'm not doing the homework for you, so if really want to pursue it further, read. (I can't post links, otherwise I'd give you a head start. See? Altruism right there )

I think I have read everything Ayn Rand has written. You're welcome to post links. In fact, I insist, in the interest of evidence and reason that you do.

How is that dissonance? You compared an action (i.e. killing another human being) to a philosophy. You fucked up.

No, I didn't make that comparison. You fucked up.

I simply demonstrated how your word game "extreme" is nonsense in several contexts. And it's also nonsense in this context. If you speak in nonsense words, then why are you so surprised you can't have a decent argument?

You're the type of member that selectively addresses small excerpts of an opposing view, while completely leaving everything else unaddressed.

What part of your post did I leave un-addressed beside the nonsense ranty parts?

I addressed your incoherent rant, the least you could have done is addressed mine.

I have no interest in your incoherent ranting. I don't think anyone does.

If you want to continue to respond to ANYTHING I write, I suggest you respond to it's entirety.

I will respond to what I want, how I want, when I want.

It's not always about who's right, but what's right, and if you can't admit when you're wrong, then you've failed your duty as a sentient being.

Are you like this in real life? Does anyone like you?

I'm ready and willing to admit my logic is flawed as long as you provide the evidence (which you haven't).

I don't have to provide evidence. You have to prove your positive claim that altruism exists. It's called the burden of proof.

 

[TheRedBaron]

I think part of the problem is that you can't really prove altruism one way or the other. Perhaps it is just an idealistic fantasy, I'm not sure now...

You can prove that "seemingly" altruistic acts do take place, ie the man throwing himself on the grenade. But you can then explain them away with hidden (selfish) psychological motivations... ie "Doing the right thing", and thus claiming that the act was actually selfish and not "true" altruism.

I dunno... I've been thinking about this a lot and I wasn't able to sleep properly last night because of it.. and I know I have a lot more to think about.

Guerilla I think one of the things that stuck with me the most about what you said was that people do gain something from every action, even if it is just a sense of "having done the right thing". I think that is an excellent starting point, because it strips away everything else and makes it a very simple argument.

If a man carries out an altruistic action, only with the motivation of "doing the right thing", does that man then receive some sort of psychological satisfaction, and this then negates the altruism?

I'm not sure that it does.

If the psychological satisfaction is merely a side effect of the altruisitc action and not a primary motivating factor?

Can something be both altruistic and self serving at the same time? So perhaps there is no such thing as 100% altruism, but rather varying degrees of it?

I'm also not sure if there is even an answer to this question. How can we know the psychological state or motivations of an individual when carrying out an action? It is easy to explain away almost any action with some sort of explanation about how that psychologically benefited the person carrying out the action, but we can't truly know.

Is the burden of proof on proving that altruism exists? Or is the burden of proof on proving that someone always has a selfish reason for carrying out an action?

It seems like both of these are unfalsifiable.

I don't know what to think.

I feel like that little boy who was pulling apart a fly, first the wings, then the legs, only to be left with a pile of fly parts and wonder where the fly has gone.

Cheers Guerilla, I have been too focused on work and not thinking as much as I should be about other things. I appreciate your intellect and your challenge.

R.

 

[guerilla]

If a man carries out an altruistic action, only with the motivation of "doing the right thing", does that man then receive some sort of psychological satisfaction, and this then negates the altruism?

Let me try one more time. I think an error you guys may be making as seeing the idea of altruism exclusively as selflessness, instead of beneficial to the other party.

A focus on motive instead of result.

What if it is in our self-interest sometimes, or often, to benefit others?

What if selfishness can actually be a positive (the virtue of selfishness)?

Maybe seeing selfishness as bad and selflessness as good is a false dichotomy.

Also, thanks for kind words.

 

[TheRedBaron]

I'll admit that I have been assuming that selflessness and altruism are essentially the same thing...

Doing something to benefit another without regard for benefitting the self.

I have to go drink beer now, but I'll come back to this later.

 

[GimpSpack]

No, you can't. Without self interest, you can't act.

Self Interest:

1
: a concern for one's own advantage and well-being <acted out of self–interest and fear>

2
: one's own interest or advantage <self–interest requires that we be generous in foreign aid>

So at no point, in the history of man, has anyone EVER acted in another persons interest without having THEIR OWN interest/advantage in mind? I thought I was cynical, but damn....

I realize that you believe altruism and selfishness aren't mutually exclusive, but the definition clearly states otherwise:

1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others ( opposed to egoism ).

What if it is in our self-interest sometimes, or often, to benefit others?

It is often in our self-interest to benefit others. Politicians do it all the time. I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine. That's not altruism.

If I were to help someone BECAUSE it was in my self-interest to do so, that would not be altruism.

If I were to help someone out of LOVE without knowing, wanting, or expecting it to be in my self-interest (concern for my own advantage or well being), that would be altruism.

If I were to help someone just because it was the "RIGHT THING TO DO," would that be altruism? Now that's a grey area. If the ego-gratification of knowing "I did the right thing" was my primary motive for helping someone, I can't honestly say that's altruism, because there's an element of selfishness involved.

However, if I were to help someone out of LOVE for them without wanting or expecting it to be in my self interest, that would be altruistic even if I got the gratification of knowing it was the "right thing to do" afterwards.

So yes, motive is essential for defining altruism.

Maybe seeing selfishness as bad and selflessness as good is a false dichotomy.

Notice how I NEVER said selfishness or selflessness is good/bad. Never once in this post. It's irrelevant whether we consider selfishness good or bad.

Good things can come of selfishness, for sure. Bad things can come from selflessness also.

But altruism is (and forever will be) the principle or practice of unselfish concern for the welfare of others.

It exists in this world, and it's very real.

Now carry on...

 

[guerilla]

I don't play dictionary definition games so I skimmed most of your post.

There is no way to prove motive. It is psychological and intrapersonal. Motive is irrelevant and arbitrary when judging action.

The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.

There is no such thing as selfless action. It is an oxymoron. See Praxeology.

It exists in this world, and it's very real.

I just thought of an animal. It is purple and has the mane of a lion, and 4 heads. 2 of the heads are alligator heads without eyes. And it can fly. And speaks Spanish.

I call it, Skajlncuheoine. It exists in this world, and it's very real.

The lesson is, don't assume because you can make up a definition for something, that makes it "real" in a tangible, meaningful, measurable, objective sense. All of Frank Herbert's Dune novels are real, and yet the world of Dune, despite being wonderfully described, does not in fact exist.

 

[guerilla]

However, if I were to help someone out of LOVE for them without wanting or expecting it to be in my self interest, that would be altruistic even if I got the gratification of knowing it was the "right thing to do" afterwards.

It would be irrational if you acted without an expectation of an outcome you desire. It's nonsense, since all properly functioning human beings are rational actors.

You're describing something which is a nonsense concept. An empty word. A feel good idea. Ayn Rand (who you claimed you could source) made this very clear.

People don't act without intention. If you argue they do act without intention, then your very argument is without intention as well. That would be a performative contradiction.

And if they act with intention, then I am right.

So deal with it. The argument was not whether altruism can be defined. The argument was whether altruism exists.

 

[GimpSpack]

I don't play dictionary definition games so I skimmed most of your post.

There is no way to prove motive. It is psychological and intrapersonal. Motive is irrelevant and arbitrary when judging action.

If motive is irrelevant and arbitrary when judging action, what would be the point in judging action in the first place?

If a grown ass man you've never met starts giving your 12-year-old daughter rides to and from the mall (without your consent), wouldn't you be interested in the motives behind his actions? Or would they still be "arbitrary and irrelevant?"

Do motives need to be proven for altruism to exist? Or just so you believe in it?

The lesson is, don't assume because you can make up a definition for something, that makes it "real" in a tangible, meaningful, measurable, objective sense. All of Frank Herbert's Dune novels are real, and yet the world of Dune, despite being wonderfully described, does not in fact exist.

It makes more sense that altruism existed before the definition of it did. Outside of fiction, I don't know one word that has ever been defined that wasn't based in reality.

Thoughts aren't tangible, yet they exist.

Also, don't lump tangibility and meaningfulness together. Something can be meaningful without being tangible (i.e., a memory).

There is no such thing as selfless action. It is an oxymoron. See Praxeology.

Because Proxeology is based off of human action, and human action is based off of thought, and thoughts are not "real" in a tangible, meaningful, measurable, objective sense, I refuse to watch that video. I don't play the "Action Axiom" game.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I can't prove altruism exists. I know it does because I've experienced it. If you've never experienced altruism, you'll always doubt it. Simple as that.

If you were a sociopath, there's no way I could convince you genuine love exists. I could point out examples of how it's manifested in the real world, but you'd simply chalk that up to some evolutionary mechanism in order to cheapen it.

After all, if YOU can't feel it or measure, it:
A) Does not exist.
B) Isn't actually something that matters. It's a byproduct of blah blah blah.

You would CHEAPEN the concept to fit your "emotionless" paradigm of existence.

And if you can't relate to a state of selflessness (ego-detachment), there's no way words, info-graphics, pie-charts, or YouTube videos with busty bitches is going to convince you such a state exists.

Stay up.

 

[guerilla]

If motive is irrelevant and arbitrary when judging action, what would be the point in judging action in the first place?

The effect?

If a grown ass man you've never met starts giving your 12-year-old daughter rides to and from the mall (without your consent), wouldn't you be interested in the motives behind his actions? Or would they still be "arbitrary and irrelevant?"

I'd be more concerned he was doing it than trying to ascertain his motives. ymmv.

Do motives need to be proven for altruism to exist?

How else can you know if something was selfless.

Or just so you believe in it?

Believe in what? Nonsense?

It makes more sense that altruism existed before the definition of it did. Outside of fiction, I don't know one word that has ever been defined that wasn't based in reality.

Irrelevant even if it was true. Playing definition games doesn't prove the existence of altruism. All you have done so far is play definition games.

For a guy who is so sure he is right, where is the smoking gun?

Thoughts aren't tangible, yet they exist.

Do they? Do your thoughts exist? How can I know what your thoughts are?

Without that, you can't objectively judge any action as altruistic based on motive because YOU CAN NEVER OBJECTIVELY KNOW MOTIVE.

And without motive, what makes one action altruistic rather than another action?

Also, don't lump tangibility and meaningfulness together. Something can be meaningful without being tangible (i.e., a memory).

Tangibility is objective. Meaningfulness is subjective. Two different realms.

Because Proxeology is based off of human action, and human action is based off of thought, and thoughts are not "real" in a tangible, meaningful, measurable, objective sense, I refuse to watch that video. I don't play the "Action Axiom" game.

It's praxeology. And if you deny axioms then you have no base from which to argue.

Indeed, you still have not articulated proof of altruism. Just more rhetoric...

I can't prove altruism exists. I know it does because I've experienced it. If you've never experienced altruism, you'll always doubt it. Simple as that.

Sounds like a proof for the existence of God. Well done.

After all, if YOU can't feel it or measure, it:
A) Does not exist.
B) Isn't actually something that matters. It's a byproduct of blah blah blah.

You're making a classic mistake. You're confusing what you think for what is.

You would CHEAPEN the concept to fit your "emotionless" paradigm of existence.

I am not emotionless. I simply try to avoid bullshitting myself. ymmv.

And if you can't relate to a state of selflessness (ego-detachment), there's no way words, info-graphics, pie-charts, or YouTube videos with busty bitches is going to convince you such a state exists.

As you said, you can't prove your point.

It's a shame you don't have enough class to just admit it and let it go, but have to cast your lack of intellect onto me as some failure on my part to be a complete human being, knowledge you have no insight in to, and which there is ample evidence you're wrong.

Like many anti-intellectual children, you're stamping your foot when you don't get your way, when people won't buy into your delusion, when someone actually takes the time to deconstruct a NONSENSE idea, such that you can live a more rational, healthy life.

Bringing this thread full circle, people like you are why we can't have nice things.

 

[GimpSpack]

As you said, you can't prove your point.

It's a shame you don't have enough class to just admit it and let it go, but have to cast your lack of intellect onto me as some failure on my part to be a complete human being, knowledge you have no insight in to, and which there is ample evidence you're wrong.

Like many anti-intellectual children, you're stamping your foot when you don't get your way, when people won't buy into your delusion, when someone actually takes the time to deconstruct a NONSENSE idea, such that you can live a more rational, healthy life.

Bringing this thread full circle, people like you are why we can't have nice things.

Your arrogance is... premature. Gotta earn it first, buddy.

1) I think the biggest mistake you've made thus far (other then asking for three-dimensional proof of an intangible state of being) is to assume I care if you believe altruism exists or not. I don't. Honestly, I'm arguing with you HOPING you'll bring a truly challenging case against altruism. I was curious how in the hell you were going to prove it's impossible to act without self-interest when helping other people...

Unfortunately, you haven't challenged me yet. This entire time, we've essentially been debating this single point:

No, you can't. Without self-interest, you can't act.

I say you can.
You say I can't.

You scoff at me when I define "self-interest," so let me ask you:

What is self-interest? Guerilla, please help me understand what self-interest is from your viewpoint, so I can evaluate whether or not I've truly acted without it...

...Because if I go by the dictionary's definition, I have acted without self-interest. And trust me - I'm a total shithead. So if I can act without "self-interest" (as is defined by your nemesis - the dictionary) at least once in my 21 years of being on this planet, I KNOW other people can and have.

...Unless of course I don't really know what self-interest actually means (or how it relates to the basis of human behavior).

Enlighten me! Please! If you give me a link to read, I promise you - I WILL READ IT!

And I swear to God, if I discover that what I thought was originally altruism is actually a subtle form of self-interest , I will admit it to you. I'm here to learn!

Thank you!

 

[hehejo]

Because Proxeology is based off of human action, and human action is based off of thought, and thoughts are not "real" in a tangible, meaningful, measurable, objective sense, I refuse to watch that video. I don't play the "Action Axiom" game.

Human action is not necessarily based on thought, it can be instinctive too. So the rest of your argument against praxeology is based on a false assumption.

I can't prove altruism exists. I know it does because I've experienced it. If you've never experienced altruism, you'll always doubt it. Simple as that.

Hmm where have I heard that before? Oh... try replacing "altruism" with "god"

Burden of proof is on you.

 

[hehejo]

Without self-interest you can act

Humans (and all other living beings on this planet as far as I know) act out of self-interest. By that I mean that out of a pool of unlimited actions available at any given moment, they choose the one that they perceive at that moment (not logically reasoned but based on their experience, preferences and whatever else can influence a decision) as the one with the highest value at that moment.

Keep in mind this does not mean it is the best action from an outsiders perspective. It does not mean it is the best action from an evolutionary perspective either. It just means that at that given moment, it was the action that the individual thought would fit his needs the best.

It has been a while since I read it, so if you want the proper answer go read Mises' Human Action.

 

[TheRedBaron]

I've just realized how ridiculous this is.

I am a fool. lol.

 

[TheRedBaron]

I am starting to see things from Guerilla's point of view, it just makes sense. And it IS like arguing about God, he's right to say that. It's totally ridiculous, you can't prove anything. And it doesn't really even matter whether it exists or not. It's like worrying about whether or not the force of luck is truly real! Reality is reality. It is what it is.

Now my only question is... Is there actually a function though, of keeping this ideal of Altruisim in our consciousness personally/collectively? Is there a point in thinking about ethereal concepts like God or Altruism & Selflessness? If it is just a fantasy, does it still hold some value to humanity? Does a deeply held cultural tradition or myth, or thought pattern, or approach to life, psychological fairy tale, shared illusion, etc... Even if it is not real absolutely, still maybe serve some purpose in the development and evolution of our psychology?

Even though true Altruism may not even be possible, is it still worth it to strive for it as an ideal? Does the fantasy serve a purpose and actually affect our operation in the world positively? Or is it evil, corrupts our better judgement, and needs to be disposed of completely...

For better or worse, it is, in a way, a reality of sorts.

Is this even worth continuing to think about? Lol.

Guerilla pretty much wins though, sorry GimpSpack you're defending the hard reality of Altruism is pretty funny and ridiculous. When you realize that, just have a laugh mate, it's funny.