Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!dr_who
From: dr_who@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: K. Almquist's definitions
Message-ID: <1828@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 14-Aug-83 00:38:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1828
Posted: Sun Aug 14 00:38:40 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Aug-83 16:58:21 EDT
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 18

Laura Creighton's criticism of Kenneth Almquist's defense of the middle
ground is invalid.  Kenneth's definitions of selfishness and altruism are
attempts to provide identical ones to Tom's (at least as far as the middle
ground is concerned).  If those attempts failed (I don't think so),
then Tom can say so.

The only thing I can see that might make someone think that Kenneth's
definition is different from Tom's, is Kenneth's statement that "Once you
place any constraint on concern for self, you no longer have pure
selfishness."  However, I believe that this statement is intended not as a
definition, but as a statement of (alleged) fact.  The alleged fact is that
constraints regarding people's rights cannot be derived from self-interest.
Tom would deny, whereas Kenneth (and I) would affirm, that respect for the
rights of others is a *real constraint* on self-interest.  By "real
constraint," I mean one that reduces the effectiveness of the pursuit of
personal benefit.

--Paul Torek, U of MD College Park