Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!aero-c!nadel 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: <20064@alice.att.com> Date: 18 Mar 91 17:18:28 GMT References: <513Go7_c@cs.psu.edu> <1991Feb8.165736.24726@aero.org> <1991Mar5.120705.8052@ora.com> <20021@alice.att.com> <9103141804.AA15086@rutgers.edu> Sender: news@aero.org Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, like it or not) Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals Lines: 187 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org [This is starting to drift away from feminist issues. Followups should be directed elsewhere - maybe talk.politics.misc? - MHN] In article <9103141804.AA15086@rutgers.edu> jdravk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes: >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: >>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. I think this is mostly due to misunderstanding (perhaps my prose is at fault). I don't seek to propose that there IS any absolute right and wrong. I should have quoted the words "right" and "wrong", clearly, because I don't accept their absolute nature myself. (There are absolutely no absolutes!) Note that I say "in human thought". I have NOT proposed any absolutes here, and I stongly reject such tomfoolery. >Therefore, of course enlightened self interest is still included in my >statement. I don't see that it can be, unless this enlightened self-interest is nothing but an accidental byproduct of the selfish behavior you propose. This is an accepted presumption in some philosophies, but it's hardly accepted as an axiom in general debate. Now, if you would argue that enlightened selfishness could lead to enlightened self-interest, I'd agree, but somehow you seem to imply an accidental and less-than-firm relationship between the two, and so chose to argue to selfishness rather than self-interest. >You seem to think that anything which involves pain on the >individual's part immediately takes it into the realm of selflessness. Huh? Now, waitddaminut. I haven't said anything like that at all, AND I'M NOT ARGUING THAT DYING (hurting/etc) for society is good/bad/selfless or anything of the sort. -->>I would prefer to observe that there is usually (although not always) a more sensible way to do what must be done than "suffer" or whatever. -->>WHY IS SUFFERING selfless? I can imagine (and I've seen, in my past while working as a campus cop) that some people use suffering in most astonishingly UNselfless ways, for many reasons. Perhaps I'm somewhat of an idealist, but I'd prefer to avoid suffering altogether. I'm not of any religious bent, I don't believe in any life-after-death, and THIS IS ALL WE GOT, folks.. Might as well make it better. (Now, to do that, many things, such as cooperation and equitable behavior, are necessary.) >conscious act of will because somehow it was also good for them. Huh? Dying for war's sake is good? Nah, I think you haven't examined your own premises and conclusions. >Selfishness is not completely connected to the physical body. What else IS there? There is nothing more, or at least nothing more that I've ever seen the most minimal evidence for. >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. On this we agree wholeheartedly. I'd also argue the same for religions, since it's so obvious how some religious dogma corresponds to desert survival issues in a non-technological world. Both civilizations and religions, as is typical of institutions, fail to adapt and adjust as the world changes. I would argue, though, that it IS in ones "enlightened self interest" to create a cooperative society, but that that the value of cooperation does NOT require the existance of a society. The advantages of cooperation can be seen to CREATE what one might ( I don't ) describe as "natural" rules; such rules do not require the prior existance of any civilization, rather they preceed it. In its most basic form, me vs. the lion and you vs. the well-fed lion is much worse from our point of view than us vs. the lion. >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. This is the basis for all cooperation. I'm NOT talking about altruism (whatever that REALLY is...), but cooperation. >>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? I can't agree with this. There are people who put very little value on their own life (some due to the effects of "civilization"). There are people who cannot deal with being happy. Your choice of universals has a gigantic case-history of counterexample, some inflicted by society, some (it is argued) inflicted by genetics or whatever. >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 Say what? I've never had the enemy ask if I'd LIKE to die in war. I wasn't asked if I wanted to go to war, either, I was told (but my notice came AFTER the draft ended, fortunately). I simply think that wars and death by conflict are a simple waste of life, and I value mine too highly to waste it until the alternatives are worse. I would expect others to take the same position, quite obviously. It is, rather, enlightened to PRE-EMPT the war, I would argue. >But you cannot *make* someone commit a "selfless act". Thats the whole point, and the basic flaw in your previous paragraph. >>Third, you say "pride of self", thereby excluding my reply to the >>first item, enlightened self interest. > >Please see the above. I have. You still seem to imply that "pride of self" somehow has as a side effect "enlightened self interest", and I can't agree with that. >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 have no problems at all with that particular juxtaposition. I suspect (I can't read minds) that you are making incorrect assumptions about my position. Since there is really no 'absolute good' (or evil) outside human existance, I would propose that "enlightened self interest" is that which qualifies (as much as anything can) as "good". The words good and evil are very common in this society, but as you quite correctly point out, few people examine what they mean. If, in fact, acting in one's enlightened self interest is good, then there is no contradiction. You seem to be arguing otherwise. Is "good" opposed to enlightened self interest? Why? How? >I see that as highly contradictory, but that's alright, these are >things that few people ever really think about. Please don't make assumptions about what I've thought about. I think that there's some miscommunication here, perhaps because you've missed my initial qualifier "in human thought", and taken my mention of the words "good" and "evil" to mean something other than what they mean. >Unless of course you're assuming that all people everywhere must >subscribe to the Judeo-Christian beliefs which are so present in your >arguments. ACK! That's simply offensive. Please don't project your dislike for an obsolete 2000 year old set of rules for desert survival on ME! Further debates on obsolete sets of ethics and morals should be moved to talk.religion.2 C2H2+ 5 O2, please. If I were to accept the guilt-view (aka the Judeo-Christian view), I couldn't even concive of using the qualifier "in human thought", because I'd never have accepted the ability of the human to have self-determination and do good in contradiction to the JC ethic. >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. How curious, I happen to share your view on what the current society would make of us. What's alarming to me is that you would seem to be supporting that outcome, by somehow making a value judgement that encourages ultimate cynicism. -- -------->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.