Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!ora!ambar From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, like it or not) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Isn't it time to start treating men like human beings? Message-ID: <20021@alice.att.com> Date: 8 Mar 91 14:07:51 GMT References: <513Go7_c@cs.psu.edu> <1991Feb8.165736.24726@aero.org> <1991Mar5.120705.8052@ora.com> Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz) Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Daddies Lines: 51 Approved: ambar@ora.com In article <1991Mar5.120705.8052@ora.com> jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: >I think I'll have to argue against that. If someone believes they are >doing the right thing, then they're doing it for the purely selfish >reason of their own pride, sense of self. My argument is that the >self is so tied up in any decision that there is no such thing as a >"selfless" act. On the surface, at least, this is a very scary argument, if you consider the implications. First, it argues that there is no right and no wrong in human thought, only "selfish" reasons. This is rebuttable by the reply that it is indeed selfish to do the "right" thing, at least in the long run. Unfortunately, you then exclude enlightened self interest. Second, it portrays all people on an equal level. This is a more scary idea, since it suggests that all people are merely selfish, and some express it differently. I have a problem with this idea. Third, you say "pride of self", thereby excluding my reply to the first item, enlightened self interest. I guess what bothers me is that you absolutely deny the existance of enlightened self interest in your statement above. If your statement is in fact true, you are arguing that the entire race of human beings is in some way evil; the race is incapable of reasoned thought regarding the concepts "good" and "evil". Now, I'm not a theist, but I can still shudder at the theistic implications. The non-theistic implications are even worse, as they suggest that there is no good in humankind whatsoever, a sort of athiestic version of "original sin". Can we have some clarification, please? Now, I don't think this is a "feminist" issue, it's more of a basic philosophical issue. I will note that some (self-proclaimed) feminists seem to have the ideas 2 and 3 when talking about males (as do some males when talking about females). All (male, female, human) forms of this statement seem somehow both counterproductive and ultimately causing a negative social result. It's somewhat ironic that even if your statement is indeed true making the statement is counterproductive, especially if believed and codified. Such is life. -- -------->From the pyrolagnic keyboard of jj@alice.att.com<-------- Copyright alice!jj 1991, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET and like free facilities granted. Said permission is granted only for complete copies that include this notice. Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.