Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houti!trc
From: trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: RE: Selfishness, altruism, and reality
Message-ID: <376@houti.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Aug-83 18:03:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: houti.376
Posted: Wed Aug 10 18:03:15 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Aug-83 11:50:51 EDT
Lines: 41

Response to Bill Price:

You make some interesting points  I would be interested to hear whether 
the various supporters of altruism or some "mixed" philosophy agree with
the assumption of zero/negative-sum-game society, though.  I suspect
that they would not agree that that is the only basis for altruism.
However, no one has yet given me any other even semi-rational basis - and 
I thank you for your explanation.  However, I think it is possible that 
altruism has other bases - such as mysticism - which are *not* correct 
answers to the wrong question.  Probably mysticism (through Christian 
influences) has a lot more to do with why so many accept altruism.  Not 
that all altruists are Christians or mystics - it is just that they have 
accepted what the culture presents.  The intellectuals who should know 
better, but promote altruism anyway, have no such excuse - they must
either be mystics, or falsely belief life to be non-positive-sum.

Rather than say Objectivism assumes life is a positive-sum game, I think 
it might be more accurate to say that Objectivism would say it is possible 
for a rational human being to make his/her own life be positive-sum 
game with respect to others, and that that is the moral way to live -
as a producer, rather than a parasite.  

Entropy in the universe as a whole is increased, but within the limits 
of the system of humanity, decreases in entropy are possible.  This 
explains why human society need not be zero or negative sum with respect 
to other humans.  The existence of human society is proof that this is
*possible* - though not *necessary*.  

I stressed "necessary" in the last sentence, because it emphasizes an 
assumption that altruists seem to often make - that the state of humanity
is somehow a metaphysical *given* - that nothing is required for it to
come into existence, or continue.  While they would probably reject this, 
if put to them as bluntly as that, they seem to act upon that assumption.
When practiced on a personal level it is not so apparent - but when altruism
is instituted in government, this tendency becomes obvious.  Altruists tend 
to blank out the *source* of the benefits that they would distribute - as 
in welfare programs.  Who created the wealth to distribute?  Why was it
created?  Who was it created for?  Why would more be created?  

	Tom Craver
	houti!trc