Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Isn't it time to start treating men like human beings? Message-ID: <9103141804.AA15086@rutgers.edu> Date: 14 Mar 91 21:20:10 GMT References: <513Go7_c@cs.psu.edu> <1991Feb8.165736.24726@aero.org> <1991Mar5.120705.8052@ora.com> <20021@alice.att.com> Organization: Barbie's Dream Dungeon Lines: 128 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: glacier.ics.uci.edu In article <20021@alice.att.com> jj@alice.att.com (jj, like it or not) writes: >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. No, I'm afraid that I never said that there is no right and wrong -- I merely say that, in most situations, right or wrong is dependent upon whether or not it has some perceived beneficial result for the individual. Therefore, of course enlightened self interest is still included in my statement. Unless of course, you decide that people shouldn't be allowed to decided that it would make them happy to do something (like die to save a bus of children) that might have destructive effects. You seem to think that anything which involves pain on the individual's part immediately takes it into the realm of selflessness. Well, I say this, the person was not _swept_ away helplessly into the realm of "selflessness" they WENT there all by themselves with a conscious act of will because somehow it was also good for them. Selfishness is not completely connected to the physical body. If you think about it, right and wrong must *always* begin with the individual. Civilization, with it's rules and laws was initially (probably) created to do more good for more people (individuals) so therefore it is in their own "enlightened self interest" to help out society. BUT -- that decision to help out is fundamentally based on the fact that somewhere down the road there will be some satisfaction for the individual -- some good if you will. It is people, I argue, who give meaning to the concepts right and wrong. Right and wrong do not exist outside of humanity. >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. Everyone wants to live don't they? Everyone wants to be happy, yes? That's equality of all people and I see nothing wrong with it. I think you're problem is you're defining what people see as "good" too narrowly -- almost at the level of the libertine and that's *way* too simplistic a model. Consider this, if you take a "selfless act" like, say, dying for one's country in a war -- most people would consider that a selfless act. But it's not, don't you see? The act wouldn't have been possible if the individual being _asked_ to make the choice hadn't decided to do it. The whole decision process began and ended with the self and what that individual decided would satisfy him and his own drives/morals and personal imperatives. But you cannot *make* someone commit a "selfless act". >Third, you say "pride of self", thereby excluding my reply to the >first item, enlightened self interest. Please see the above. >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? Yes, I don't believe in absolute concepts of good and evil as if they existed somehow outside of the sphere of human worth, value and activity. I challenge any theory that states that human value must be subjugated to a imperative drive which operates outside of it -- if that were true, then how would humanity, as a race, possibly survive if it was constantly making "selfless acts" which robbed the individual of any free will or ability to express their unique viewpoint? How could a race survive if it was constantly condemned to actions which had no possible benefit for it or for anything it cared about? How can you define "enlightened self interest" alongside of the concepts of good and evil and _still_ demand that the person, the individual be robbed of any chance at a legacy -- at any chance of having a self? I see that as highly contradictory, but that's alright, these are things that few people ever really think about. Unless of course you're assuming that all people everywhere must subscribe to the Judeo-Christian beliefs which are so present in your arguments. >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. I think my view, which elevates and celebrates the individual and the worth of the human will and life is far, far more productive than one which condemns us all to be mindless, selfless, slaves of a society that is far more interested in how it can exploit *us* for its survival than vice versa. I believe that we should be in control of our own creations, not vice versa. >Such is life. yup. j- -- #*#*#*#*#*# Transient Creature of the Wide, Wild World #*#*#*#*#*#*#* "Time is not linear to me, it is a nebulous web of existential freedom."