He's mostly wrong
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Almindor Dec 16, 2008 11:37 AM EDT |
He has some good points, but is mostly wrong. While I actually agree that FOSS is a sort of functioning communism (without a "proletariat" or "leadership model" associated with it) but in the GOOD sense (if you don't agree that there's a lot of good in the idea of communism don't argue with me please). He's also right about it not being altruistic, it's simply not. Nobody is altruistic, absolutely nobody. What he missed however, and it's very important thing, is the freedom. This is something which gives us happyness and in turn motivates us to work on things we want to. This freedom stems from the fact that we can work on what we want how we want and when we want in the first place :) And then there's the work of others which we can use without fuss. He's also right on the fact that people who just want the community to grow don't get it. A good community doesn't just search for new members, sometimes they don't even need them (at least not the majority available). The "give back" mentality is actually spot-on. It's vital and encouraging others to help is important. People need to understand that in this kind of environment, you are using something someone made in their free time. If you want to enhance it, don't shout on them (you have NO right to demand anything), just do it yourself. |
| bigg Dec 16, 2008 12:06 PM EDT |
> People need to understand that in this kind of environment, you are using something someone made in their free time. Ballmer just gave you a gold star. "It's free so be happy with what you get" is not a good attitude to have. FOSS!=stuff from Mom's basement. > If you want to enhance it, don't shout on them (you have NO right to demand anything), just do it yourself. What if you are paying money for the software? If there's no neck to choke, it will not be acceptable outside of use by teenagers as a weekend project. I would not use Slackware if Patrick and crew didn't have a commitment to quality. There is an obligation to point out when something is junk. The word 'FOSS' is used by many projects, and you hurt the work of all FOSS projects when you put out a half-working, unsupported piece of junk and then give a rude response when someone asks for help. Friendly, constructive criticism is best, but honest feedback is necessary. And when a distro like Zenwalk refuses to comply with the GPL (which they now do) the answer is not to tell people that they need to gather sources themselves as opposed to criticizing. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 16, 2008 12:06 PM EDT |
There's one more reason to do FOSS that I missed in his article: It's the easiest way to get contributors. Some of my FOSS code was not placed under a GPL license because I wanted to contribute and reap fame, but because I needed help and FOSS code attracts more help than other code. |
| azerthoth Dec 16, 2008 12:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:if you don't agree that there's a lot of good in the idea of communism don't argue with me pleaseThen dont post an arguable point publicly. Quoting:While I actually agree that FOSS is a sort of functioning communismThat seems to be the goal of many proponents, however it is an unfair term used in relationship as to how it actually works. Lots of little camps and crowds, who even internally can be fairly petty and/or supportive, mostly narrowly focused on one project/goal. Then the random big thinker who see's the need or has the desire to collectivize all the disparate groups. Thats functioning libertarianism, with the occasional control freak tossed in to get everyone focused. Anyway, Libervis, another great post. I'm glad that we agree on so many points, because debating with a mind like yours seems a daunting task. I'm sure I would do it, I'm just not sure how successful I would be. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. |
| dinotrac Dec 16, 2008 12:50 PM EDT |
No self-sacrifice? Somebody isn't keeping up with the science. |
| tuxchick Dec 16, 2008 12:50 PM EDT |
Quoting: While I actually agree that FOSS is a sort of functioning communism (without a "proletariat" or "leadership model" associated with it) but in the GOOD sense (if you don't agree that there's a lot of good in the idea of communism don't argue with me please). Would that be "communism" as in Stalin massacring millions, or Lenin, Stalin, and Mao interpreting it as a overly-strong centralized dictatorship? Lenin and Mao were responsible for an unimaginable amount of suffering and death as well. It's rather hard to separate the actual implementations of communism from whatever desirable ideals it might have-- you're going to have to be specific. I don't see FOSS as relating to any kind of communism at all, except perhaps in a vague sort of "collective ownership" concept. In practice it fosters individualism and anarchy. There are no bosses or centralized controls because it's messy, unpredectable, and chaotic, just like any good rich productive ecosystem. |
| DiBosco Dec 16, 2008 1:16 PM EDT |
Surely it's socialism more than communism? |
| ColonelPanik Dec 16, 2008 1:25 PM EDT |
Another nail in the coffin that will be used to bury Linux. And it seems that the LXer COMMUNITY is almost one in its remarks to this article. |
| azerthoth Dec 16, 2008 1:30 PM EDT |
It's not a new nail, it's an old rusty nail that keeps having to be debunked. |
| dinotrac Dec 16, 2008 1:59 PM EDT |
DiBosco -- No. Individuals continue to own the means of production. |
| bigg Dec 16, 2008 2:03 PM EDT |
I don't even understand where this idea of sharing==communism started. People ate vegetables under communism, so does that make anyone heading to the salad bar a communist? |
| theboomboomcars Dec 16, 2008 2:08 PM EDT |
I don't see how FOSS resembles communism in anyway. Let's see, communism is where one group of people dictate what the mass can and cannot do, say, or have. FOSS, every one is welcome to help make the whole better. No, not seeing any similarities there. Though comparing communism to proprietary software on the other hand... Yep a much closer model. |
| tuxchick Dec 16, 2008 2:15 PM EDT |
Well the OP did say "without a "proletariat" or "leadership model" associated with it". |
| dinotrac Dec 16, 2008 2:20 PM EDT |
tc -- Let's see: No proletariat and no leadership? Doesn't seem to leave anyone to "commune". |
| theboomboomcars Dec 16, 2008 2:53 PM EDT |
With out the leader you don't have communism. I haven't studied much on the different methods but from my understanding the dictator is kind of critical to communism. So if you take the leader out you don't have communism. Kind of like if you take the EULAs out of proprietary software, you have the freedom to actually use the software. |
| tuxchick Dec 16, 2008 3:06 PM EDT |
Quoting: Kind of like if you take the EULAs out of proprietary software, you have the freedom to actually use the software. For shame to even suggest such a thing. Think of the children. |
| number6x Dec 16, 2008 3:09 PM EDT |
Communist how? Like "We the People"? Or Like "E Pluribus Unum"? The proprietary software companies are trying to expand government granted monopoly protection (patents), trying to expand the government granted publishing protections (copyright), and trying to get the government to enforce intellectual property violations as criminal instead of civil crimes (copyright 'czar'). All this will result in fewer rights for individuals. The FOSS community has a DIY attitude and the commercial software industry is pushing socialism. |
| tracyanne Dec 16, 2008 3:45 PM EDT |
@dino DB wrote: Surely it's socialism more than communism? Dino wrote: No. Individuals continue to own the means of production. It that case Dino DiBosco is correct. |
| Libervis Dec 16, 2008 5:48 PM EDT |
@ Almindor:Quoting:He has some good points, but is mostly wrong. While I actually agree that FOSS is a sort of functioning communism (without a "proletariat" or "leadership model" associated with it) but in the GOOD sense (if you don't agree that there's a lot of good in the idea of communism don't argue with me please). Quoting:He's also right about it not being altruistic, it's simply not. Nobody is altruistic, absolutely nobody. Your second paragraph disproves the first one. Thank you. :P Seriously, if you don't believe in altruism (self-sacrifice) you can't possibly believe in communism and if you believe nobody is altruistic then that includes people involved in free software. Thus, FOSS cannot be communism, not anywhere near it. Every attempt to compare it with it is pure self-delusion. Like azerthoth said, they're like "random big thinker who see's the need or has the desire to collectivize all the disparate groups". Don't bother flirting with collectivism. It doesn't work. ;) Quoting:What he missed however, and it's very important thing, is the freedom. This is something which gives us happyness and in turn motivates us to work on things we want to. Of course. But freedom is a thing of the individual, not the collective. The collective doesn't exist. It's just an abstraction for a number of individuals. A collective cannot have freedom. You and me, however, can. Quoting:(you have NO right to demand anything) That's kinda what I said. Don't make frigging demands unless that's provisioned for in the contract/license. But it goes all ways. Nobody is entitled to do anything for nobody, unless there is a mutual agreement for it. @azerthoth Quoting:Anyway, Libervis, another great post. I'm glad that we agree on so many points, because debating with a mind like yours seems a daunting task. I'm sure I would do it, I'm just not sure how successful I would be. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Thanks. :) There may be more where this comes from. The rabbit hole I explored this year goes pretty deep. Maybe some day we'll discuss it. :) @dinotrac Quoting:No self-sacrifice? No self-sacrifice. Go ahead and point me to the scientific example of what you think proves genuine self-sacrifice and I'll shred your theory to pieces, because you'll probably be looking at your "evidence" upside down. ;) I can kill myself and it wouldn't be self-sacrifice. The reason is in the answer to the question: "why do I want to kill myself". People who believe there is somehow more to self-sacrifice than a selfish desire just end up being motivated by rewards which will never come. And there are plenty of people who will know exactly how to abuse this silliness of theirs, dangling in front of them with some pitiful fairy tales while leading them into the pit of death and misery. But... hey.. that's what always happens when people are blindly led by misconceptions. Black is white, up is down, war is peace, self-sacrifice is moral and selfishness is immoral. Right. @theboomboomcars Quoting:Let's see, communism is where one group of people dictate what the mass can and cannot do, say, or have. I think it goes deeper than that, which is why you'll have many defenders of communism say how what happened in Russia, China etc. wasn't real communism. Trouble is, real communism is impossible to implement because it is based on a fairy tale. In this fairy tale, everyone keeps shooting themselves in the foot (self-sacrifice) and somehow, all of a sudden, everyone is better off for it, happy feet and full stomachs. Yea right. Funny that this is exactly the kind of thinking most westerners still espouse. They don't call it communism anymore though. They have nicer and more acceptably sounding names now; democracy, liberalism, conservatism... Collectivism has many forms. If you think you're out of the fairy tale thinking, think again. No wonder so many people doing FOSS are so delusional about what it actually is. |
| theboomboomcars Dec 16, 2008 5:59 PM EDT |
Quoting:I think it goes deeper than that... It certainly does but from a casual glance, which is all I really have on the subject, that is what it is. Since we have applied the label of communism to the governments of the former Soviet Union, China, et.al that is what is represented by communism. The fairy tale people should probably come up with a new title for what they want since the corruption that will always be implemented with people is what we call communism. Which is why I am guessing that FOSS as been linked with communism, the proprietary software companies think that FOSS can only really exists in a fairy tale so what we have is some "evil" corruption of it. Now I have the link, thanks Libervis, though I still think the proprietary model fits better. |
| ColonelPanik Dec 16, 2008 6:00 PM EDT |
@Libervis: You said: No wonder so many people doing FOSS are so delusional about what it actually is." I don't know what you are saying but its not true! FOSS folks are brighter than the average, maybe a bit antisocial but clever folks none the less. Its all in the idea of doing what you love. Communities work, its not always fun or easy but it happens more often than you think. Linux = Community. |
| dinotrac Dec 16, 2008 6:06 PM EDT |
tracyanne - Excuse me for resorting to Wikipedia, but it was handy: Quoting:Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods Communism is merely an extreme form of socialism. |
| tracyanne Dec 16, 2008 6:13 PM EDT |
Well Australia and New Zealand and many Eurpean countries are Socialist democracies, and the last time I looked small business (which usually means single person or at most a small group of people) ownership is not only supported but actively encouraged, by the government through tax initiatives, and other Social engineering means. Even our right wing polititians are well to the left of most Democrats. Could it be *gasp* that once again the American viewpoint has once again prevailed when the definition of Socialism was published on Wkipedia. |
| azerthoth Dec 16, 2008 6:42 PM EDT |
@ColonelPanik: Community != communistic or socialistic. See my post above. Take LXer for example, we surely have a community, and some really bright people, however to say that we all have a common goal beyond a debate with other mostly coherent individuals is a stretch. Heck, we have here a group that is pre disposed to thinking well of OSS, however as a group we cant (or haven't yet) come to a consensus that OSS is best served in every single case. Personally I feel much better if the source code for the program that controls the launch of cruise missiles never see's the light of day. Linux may equal a community, so however does a prison population, so with that simple analogy we can prove that community != cohesive social organism. |
| Libervis Dec 16, 2008 6:55 PM EDT |
@ theboomboomcars:Quoting:Now I have the link, thanks Libervis, though I still think the proprietary model fits better. Well, I would agree that it does, though it's not exactly as simple as that and depends on how exactly is the proprietary model defined. Even if you removed all government therefore having no copyright law to assist in creation and enforcement of proprietary contracts, such contracts may still exist and would be perfectly fine so long as people aren't duped (fraud) or forced into buying them. I have no problem with someone offering a piece of software under restrictive terms so long as I can say no and so long as they actually don't have the capability to gain an unfair advantage over those who offer under different terms, advantages they gain through lobbying to make the copyright and patent related laws even worse and even more beneficial to their interests. ColonelPanic: Quoting:I don't know what you are saying but its not true! Dude, if you don't know what I'm saying how can you say it's not true? :P Quoting:FOSS folks are brighter than the average, maybe a bit antisocial but clever folks none the less. Its all in the idea of doing what you love. No question about it. I am slightly anti-social offline too. Whether I'm clever I'll let others judge, but I think I fit the profile you're describing, roughly, not that I love being bracketed. But I love the idea of doing what you love. That's about pursuing your own self-interest, your own happiness. Quoting:Communities work, its not always fun or easy but it happens more often than you think. What happens exactly? I'm not denying the existence of communities as number of people gathering around pursuit of specific similar interests. I think there are many little communities among FOSS users/developers. I just don't believe you can tie them all up into this single monolithic mega community because that pretty much stops making any sense, especially when you go so far as to say that by merely being a Linux user you are automatically a part of the community and expected to participate in it.. That's.. ugh.. like coming to a town and being all of a sudden harassed by all of the neighbors telling you how you need to get out with them or whatever - all because you moved close to them. And they pretend to be a "community" despite the fact that they're so different from each other that they can't resist not fighting each other over silly issues every chance they get. It does not walk like a duck, nor quack like a duch. Therefore it is not a duck. :) @dinotrac: Quoting: Communities work, its not always fun or easy but it happens more often than you think. Indeed. In my mind it's all just "collectivism" (socialism, communism, all forms of statism etc..). @tracyanne: USA is a socialist democracy too. Look around. |
| Libervis Dec 16, 2008 7:04 PM EDT |
Actually, azertoth is right. Community doesn't necessarily imply lack of disagreement. I would say it implies two things though: communication (how can you have a community between people who don't know each other and never communicate) and shared interests. But shared interests don't mean lack of disagreements. Most of us on LXer love Linux or GNU/Linux and FOSS in general, and that's the single tread binding us in communication with each other. BUT, someone using Linux doesn't make him a part of some fantastic big "Linux community" that somehow resonates through the ether of interwebs... or something. :P |
| DiBosco Dec 16, 2008 7:19 PM EDT |
Quoting: Communism is merely an extreme form of socialism. That depends on whether you take the Marxist view of socialism. I think they view socialism as the intermediate step between capitalism and communism, but my understanding is that in common usage these days socialism is a quite different animal. I would certainly view the two as being different. |
| tracyanne Dec 16, 2008 7:23 PM EDT |
Quoting:I would certainly view the two as being different. As do I. |
| dinotrac Dec 16, 2008 7:32 PM EDT |
>I would certainly view the two as being different. And, aside from purity and degree, you would be wrong. |
| tracyanne Dec 16, 2008 7:37 PM EDT |
And in practice, they are different. |
| Libervis Dec 16, 2008 7:42 PM EDT |
Socialism, communism, state regulated capitalism (and its more extreme form: fascism) all sacrifice an individual for the collective. Since the collective in itself doesn't really exist, in reality the most are sacrificed to the few. So I agree with dinotrac, purity and degree is all the difference, but fundamentally they're all the same. |
| tracyanne Dec 16, 2008 7:54 PM EDT |
The only Socialism I know, is the one I've experience, the one I've lived under all my life. It is quite different from the Communism of Russia or even China under Mao. The Socialism I grew up under was, and is, about Social equity (it is the ultimate Aussie fair go), that is precisely why small business is encouraged, supported, and nurtured. It is why, at the best of times we have a genuinely socially equitable health care system that doesn't discriminate on income, and your ability to afford private insurance. It is a system that encourages collective bargaining for workers, so that the individual worker, can by virtue of being part of a collective negotiate on more or less equal terms with the corporate employer. It most definitely isn't impure Communism. It's Socialism. |
| caitlyn Dec 16, 2008 8:09 PM EDT |
Communism, as espoused by Marx in "The Communist Manifesto" isn't anything like Maoism or Leninism or Stalinism. The idea was that the state would wither away, not become all powerful. While something akin to actual Marxism or Communism has never been truly implemented at a national level I would argue that the Israeli kibbutzim and moshavim came very close to implementing collective or Communist communities that actually worked well for their citizens. They've watered down the ideology in recent decades because parents wanted to raise their own children rather than have it entirely communal. Most kibbutzim even have limited personal/private property nowadays. The idea that Communism as described by Marx was entirely a utopian fairy tale isn't entirely true. Having said all of that I am not a kibbutznik and wouldn't want to be one. FOSS as a community doesn't reflect Communism, neither in the pure Marxist sense nor in the perverted, distorted sense we've seen in most if not all nations who called themselves Communist. dinotrac: Sorry, just saying someone is wrong doesn't make it so. In the U.S. there is a conflating of ther terms communism and socialism and automatically using them as meaning totalitarian state control. It's a great tool for "red baiting", calling someone a Commie to try and disparage them. We saw it done by the right wing of the Republican party to Senator (now President-elect) Obama during the recent election campaign. It works well with people who aren't educated and don't know better. Fortunately as people become more educated it becomes less effective. Sadly too many Americans don't understand that every successful western economy is a blend of capitalism and socialism. The only question is how much of each. Most Americans wouldn't want to shut down public schools or public libraries, both splendid examples of socialism. So are Medicaire, Social Security, unemployment insurance, or any other services provided by the public sector for the general welfare. The more intellectual attacks on President-elect Obama accuse him of European-style socialism. That would be northern and western Europe, not the old Soviet bloc. Sadly he doesn't quite fit the bill. I, for one, would like to see a true national healthcare system that covers everyone in this country. That isn't what he proposed and it is unlikely to happen soon. Anyway, equating FOSS with socialism or communism when done by the likes of Steve Balmer is usually tied to terms like "unAmerican" and is decidedly red baiting. Libervis: When we pay taxes we make sacrifices. In a free society we would hope that those taxes are often used to benefit the many, not the few. I would argue that everything from public education to national defense fits into that category. You are correct that extreme forms of any ideology are often perverted to benefit the few and that ideologies that are based on very different principles end up looking the same when perverted in that way. However, I think you are throwing out the baby with the proverbial bathwater and judging any form of collectivism by the most extreme examples. Reasonable regulation and government intervention in society benefits most of the citizenry. When it fails to do so in a free society the failed leadership gets replaced peacefully as we have basically seen in the 2006 and 2008 elections in the U.S. |
| tracyanne Dec 16, 2008 8:35 PM EDT |
Thanks caitlyn. |
| dinotrac Dec 16, 2008 8:43 PM EDT |
>dinotrac: Sorry, just saying someone is wrong doesn't make it so. In True enough. It being wrong is what makes it so. |
| tracyanne Dec 16, 2008 8:49 PM EDT |
I guess that's as close as we'll ever get to an admission from dino. |
| dinotrac Dec 16, 2008 9:09 PM EDT |
>I guess that's as close as we'll ever get to an admission from dino. Nothing to admit on my end. If it will help, let me refer you to these:: http://socialistworker.org/where-we-stand : "The alternative is socialism, a society based on workers collectively owning and controlling the wealth their labor creates." http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/ : "For these reasons we call for social ownership and democratic control of productive resources, for a guarantee to all of the right to participate in societal production, and to a fair share of society's product, in accordance with individual needs." And, just for fun, you can check out these rockin' URLs: http://www.swp.org.uk/archive.php http://www.123exp-orgs.com/t/00514139476/ http://www.themilitant.com/index.shtml |
| Libervis Dec 16, 2008 9:12 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, I'm sorry, but you can't water it down for me like that. What are taxes if not theft? You didn't even chose to make that sacrifice. You're forced to. You may be fine with someone violating your property, but don't force me to participate in it. And that's the whole problem. That's the whole reason why I put all of these collectivist ideologies in the same basket. It's not about judging them by most extreme examples, but by judging them even by the most mild examples. In even the least heinous of implementations I am still being forced to follow the opinions of others, despite my disagreement. I am still being forced to give away a good part of my property for the so called "common good" and without even knowing what it pays for instead of being let to make my own choice in how I want to spend my money. I'd rather give to a charity or even found a charity myself than give it to the government. You want universal healthcare and I suppose you want even people who do NOT want it to be forced to use it and pay for it anyway? I suppose that's "fair" for you, a "sacrifice" I have to make, right? For the "common good". It's EXACTLY what I was talking about. Let's all sacrifice each other for each other and we'll somehow all magically end up being unharmed. If you would only allow yourself to think about the true nature of what you're proposing you'd realize that you're proposing universal violence and universal theft. |
| tracyanne Dec 16, 2008 9:46 PM EDT |
"For these reasons we call for social ownership and democratic control of productive resources, for a guarantee to all of the right to participate in societal production, and to a fair share of society's product, in accordance with individual needs." That statement is in direct contradiction of the then status quo, which was ownership by the elite ruling class, where only a small elite had any rights and workers did as their masters bid. Sounds exactly like the Aussie fair go ethic, to me. In other words the concept of Social equity, or Socialism. |
| jdixon Dec 16, 2008 9:58 PM EDT |
> And in practice, they are different. I have to agree with Dino here. As commonly and historically defined; Socialism, Marxism, and Communism (and both Fascism and the other historically notable National Socialist party, but those are another topic), are all points on the same line. The differences are of degree, not type. Now, if you want to call a democratic government with an intrusive amount of state control of business Socialism, you are free to do so, but that doesn't make it so. It may be moving in the direction of Socialism (as is the United States, though I would argue that we're more likely to end up with Fascism), but there are still significant differences. > Communism, as espoused by Marx in "The Communist Manifesto" isn't anything like Maoism or Leninism or Stalinism. Agreed, but every time someone has tried to implement it at a national level, that's where they've ended up. There have been enough attempts that I think most reasonable people would conclude that any other outcome is at the very least extremely unlikely. > Sadly too many Americans don't understand that every successful western economy is a blend of capitalism and socialism. If you add the word current to your sentence, would it surprise you to hear that I agree completely? I expect Dino does also. Of course, that doesn't mean our responses to that fact are at all similar. > Most Americans wouldn't want to shut down public schools or public libraries, both splendid examples of socialism. So are Medicaire, Social Security, unemployment insurance, or any other services provided by the public sector for the general welfare. Except for unemployment insurance, I agree completely. Of course, the fact that these are all government programs which run way over any projected budget (completely destroying the government's ability to do other useful things), are continually used for greater control of the individual, and uniformly fail completely at their fulfilling their stated goals is another matter entirely. Added: To be fair, public libraries are usually too underfunded to be a significant problem in that regard. > Reasonable regulation and government intervention in society benefits most of the citizenry. I suspect we disagree strongly about what is and is not "reasonable" in this case, but I can agree that there is historical evidence supporting that position, yes. |
| Libervis Dec 16, 2008 10:03 PM EDT |
Yes tracyanne, and it's a fairy tale, which is why in practice this always ends up with a ruling class exercising violent control over the rest. It is a fairy tale because there is no such thing as social ownership and democratic control of all productive resources is all but social equity. It is mob rule. Reading up on kibbutzim it seems to me like it's more of a stateless attempt at socialism which I'm hard pressed to even call socialism because if stateless means without coercion, one remains free to opt out of a contract binding a commune together. Then it's much like a company held together by a string of contracts where everyone is involved not by force but by consent. As wikipedia says: "Kibbutzim today could even been seen as modeled upon a localized form of anarcho-syndicalist or libertarian socialist and compatible with anarcho-capitalist philosophy." I am an anarcho-capitalist in that I think a fully free market would naturally emerge once coercion is phased out, but I realize that there may be people who prefer to live in commune like environment, and organize in such a way. Nothing wrong with it if they don't force anyone to participate. That then is actually more in line with individualism than socialism as it's commonly seen because the choice of the individual is actually respected and you're a member of the commune only so long as you actually want to be. More broadly I'm a voluntaryist, obviously, someone who opposes all forms of initiated violence and coercion. |
| jdixon Dec 16, 2008 10:05 PM EDT |
> In other words the concept of Social equity, or Socialism. Socialism != Social equity. The two are completely different things. Socialism is a theoretical political and economic system. Social equity is an outcome. While it can be argued (unsuccessfully, in my opinion) that there is a cause/effect relationship between the two, that's the most that can be said. And a reasonable argument can be made that capitalism has been far more successful at achieving Social equity than socialism. Oh, and this is all at least skirting, if not breaking the TOS, though I've tried to keep my positions factual while also stating my opinions. I suspect we should all drop the subject very shortly, or it will be dropped for us. |
| tracyanne Dec 16, 2008 10:09 PM EDT |
Quoting:Yes tracyanne, and it's a fairy tale, which is why in practice this always ends up with a ruling class exercising violent control over the rest. Oh dear, i hadn't realised I lived in a fairy tale, I suppose that's why we call the place Oz. Quoting:And a reasonable argument can be made that capitalism has been far more successful at achieving Social equity than socialism. and a failed experiment, too. I suppose that's why there is far less social equity in the US then in Australia or New Zealand or those European countries. What with all that 'laissez faire capitalism to generate social equity, while us poor old socialists do it by social engineering. |
| tuxchick Dec 16, 2008 10:12 PM EDT |
OK this is the same old arguments that get trotted out every time. Let's try for something Fresh and New! Question: is any system of government, or non-government as the case may be, proof against human greed and lust for power? Aren't all systems doomed because they're run by people?Quoting: I guess that's as close as we'll ever get to an admission from dino. Dino makes admissions all the time. That's why we're chipping in to get him a case of Beano for christmas. Beano for Dino! |
| Libervis Dec 16, 2008 10:14 PM EDT |
I didn't say you lived in a fairy tale. You didn't classify yourself as in support of anything in that post. I called the description of socialism a fairy tale.Quoting: and a failed experiment, too. State regulated capitalism failed, yes. Don't confuse that with a truly stateless free market. If you blame free markets for the current crisis you're blaming something that was never even in effect. |
| tracyanne Dec 16, 2008 10:16 PM EDT |
Ah so you ARE in support of "For these reasons we call for social ownership and democratic control of productive resources, for a guarantee to all of the right to participate in societal production, and to a fair share of society's product, in accordance with individual needs." |
| jdixon Dec 16, 2008 10:21 PM EDT |
> Question: is any system of government, or non-government as the case may be, proof against human greed and lust for power? Government? No. Which is why some wise people of he past proposed limiting the power of government. Knowing that government power could and would be used by for evil, they wanted to limit the damage which could be done. Non-government? Historically speaking, I'd also have to say no. That normally results in anarchy and eventual rule by the strongest thug. To be fair, it's never been tried in modern times with an armed populace. |
| Libervis Dec 16, 2008 10:23 PM EDT |
tuxchick:Quoting:Aren't all systems doomed because they're run by people? Interesting question, with an interesting answer. Yes. That's why I no longer advocate systems. If people are easily corrupted then it follows it is a bad idea to put people in charge over each other. Only thing that remains is no system at all. Some may claim that "laissez faire" was tried, but it was never actually in effect. If you call coercively monopolizing whole industries, even if at the beginning in US it was only protection and arbitration (courts) as "laissez faire" then you clearly don't know what that term means: "let go" or "let be". Let go! Let be! That means absolutely no coercive rule! I believe a free market resembling capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) would then emerge naturally, but I don't make any sort of a prophetic claim on that (as mentioned above some people may prefer to create voluntary communes). I simply say, let's stop legalizing violence. It's enough that most people make it their highest moral not to violate others and support violating others for coercive companies known as governments to just wither away, and all the systems that go with them. All it takes is an intellectual enlightenment that would lead people towards saying no to violence and yes to self-government, responsibility for their own well being and protection of their own life, liberty and property. |
| Libervis Dec 16, 2008 10:25 PM EDT |
Tracyanne, don't be silly. jdixon: > To be fair, it's never been tried in modern times with an armed populace. Exactly. You will run out of excuses eventually dude. All minarchists (or sorts) eventually do. |
| jdixon Dec 16, 2008 10:28 PM EDT |
> Ah so you ARE in support of... Sure. They're called publicly traded companies. You may have heard of them. They're one of the central tenants of modern capitalism. They're owned by the public (social ownership), have an elected board of governors (democratic control), employee people (right to participate) and pay dividends or provide increased value to the owners (fair share of). What's not to support? |
| jdixon Dec 16, 2008 10:32 PM EDT |
> You will run out of excuses eventually dude. All minarchists (or sorts) eventually do. Baby steps, Libervis, baby steps. You don't start a long journey by jumping off a cliff. The fact that I support cutting back on the government we have now doesn't mean I think that's the final step in the journey. |
| Libervis Dec 16, 2008 10:32 PM EDT |
Man, imprecise thinking never ceases to amaze me. They are not owned by the "public" jdixon, but by individuals, a number of them, owning a share measured by the current value of the company divided by the number of shares. Elected board of governors may resemble democracy, but is not done at the point of a gun. You can opt out of the whole system, even if it meant leaving the company. Don't concede to the collectivist myths. There's no such thing as collective ownership (or "public property" or "social ownership" or whatever you wanna call it. Can two people occupy the same point in space at the same time? How about both owning the same share at the same time? |
| Libervis Dec 16, 2008 10:32 PM EDT |
Quoting:Baby steps, Libervis, baby steps. You don't start a long journey by jumping off a cliff. The fact that I support cutting back on the government we have now doesn't mean I think that's the final step in the journey. Fair enough. :) EDIT: Although... supporting less violence is still supporting violence. What's so wrong about ceasing to support violence period? I interpreted your post as in "you're still thinking about things" in which case I don't want to pressure anyone, but if it means "let's support less violence now, but still support just enough of it" you may be needlessly suppressing your ability to make a difference while not being entirely honest about whether you really support violence or not. Cause.. there isn't really an in-between. |
| jdixon Dec 16, 2008 10:39 PM EDT |
> They are not owned by the "public" jdixon, but by individuals. That's not the way Tracyanne is using the terms, Libervis. I'm taking her own argument and applying it to my position, using her terms. I doubt she'll be convinced, but it's sometimes a useful technique. |
| Libervis Dec 16, 2008 10:41 PM EDT |
You can try. :P I doubt it'll work though because those premises are faulty. It's like jumping on a roof whose pillars are so heavily damaged it's gonna fall any time now, and both of you will find yourselves in the clutter. :P But you can try... play the game.. see what happens... |
| jdixon Dec 16, 2008 10:45 PM EDT |
> But you can try... play the game.. see what happens... Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Most times you choose between the two. :) It's not like I was doing anything important tonight anyway. And the attempt is never wasted. |
| jdixon Dec 16, 2008 10:53 PM EDT |
> I interpreted your post as in "you're still thinking about things" I'm 50 years old, Libervis. I've thought about these things a long time. I know my positions. You have to get from where you are to where you want to go. We're (The US) still moving in the wrong direction. The first step is to get stopped. Then you turn around. There's time enough for arguing about where exactly it is you want to go and how fast to get there then. We haven't even convinced people to stop yet. They're not ready to hear about the final destination. |
| Libervis Dec 16, 2008 11:03 PM EDT |
Jdixon, but you aren't The US. You are You. You don't have to convince everybody else to stop before you move on forward in the right direction as far as you can go. If violence is wrong and you believe that and you realize that government is legalized violence then it is your responsibility to yourself that you cease supporting it and justifying it in any way, shape or form. Then you can truly begin making progress, because you can then tell others this same thing I'm trying to tell you. Then those others, and an increasing number of them, may not just get half way down the road personally and stop in the middle of nowhere where they sort of don't support violence, but sort of still do. It's almost like nothing has been accomplished. If you want to make a difference you have to go all the way. You can't keep making those kinds of excuses. When Titanic tried to avoid the iceberg they didn't just hit the brakes. They went *full reverse*. |
| dinotrac Dec 16, 2008 11:12 PM EDT |
Wow.
Head spinning.
Bolsheviks at the gate.
Some Chinese guy down the way waving a book over his head.
Wanted chicken soup, but had to get a whole Pol Pot. From each according to his ability, to each whatever I d@mned well please. Or something like that. Must have Beano. |
| jdixon Dec 16, 2008 11:42 PM EDT |
> but you aren't The US. You are You. I don't see much point in arguing with myself on matters where I already know the answers. It's other people I have to convince. > If violence is wrong and you believe that and you realize that government is legalized violence then it is your responsibility to yourself that you cease supporting it and justifying it in any way, shape or form. I told you Libervis. I know my positions. I've thought about this a lot longer than you have. I'm not supporting or justifying it. I'm discussing the matter with someone else who thinks a more powerful government is a good thing because it results in a greater "Social equity". > ...because you can then tell others this same thing I'm trying to tell you. And they'll listen about as well as they always have. I argue my positions because it's the right thing to do, not because I think I'll win. I fully expect to lose. Read "The Road to Serfdom" if you haven't. > Then those others, and an increasing number of them, may not just get half way down the road personally and stop in the middle of nowhere... Which is a lot farther from the nearby cliff then they are now. A good result which can be achieved is better than a perfect result which cannot. I'll settle for making things better for now. > When Titanic tried to avoid the iceberg they didn't just hit the brakes. They went *full reverse*. And we know how well that worked, don't we? Look. Believe me when I tell you you're preaching to the choir, though perhaps not someone of the same church. :) We're not the same, and we won't use the same arguments, but we largely agree on the goals. It's not me you need to convince. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 12:28 AM EDT |
Fair enough. I'll just leave it at this then http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/11/07/tyranny-is-built-out... and... this http://www.libertystickers.com/product/i-was-a-minarchist-bu... Just.. paraphrasing my earlier claim. No offense. ;) |
| jacog Dec 17, 2008 3:39 AM EDT |
Gosh guys... this has to be the most civilised and reasonable political discussion I have ever seen on LXer. :) |
| Almindor Dec 17, 2008 7:14 AM EDT |
I see I started a nice little discussion. What the length of this thread proves it that people don't understand what communism is :) How many of you are from the post-soviet bloc? I am, although I myself am too young to remember any of the doctrines being forced. Anyways, the basis of communism is that nobody owns anything and in a leaderless system (which is more of a FOSS thing) this means everybody owns everything. It's the same thing really. As for the non-altruistic view, of course there's no altruism. That doesn't mean it can't work for the good of the whole. When I fix a bug I do it first and foremost for myself or for some other personal reason. The fact that it helps others IS a factor but lesser. That's what I mean by that, you help out of selfish reasons, but it works out for the good of all. And btw. communism in it's purest form doesn't say anything about a dictator (and neither does capitalism), it just is concerned with ownership of the results of work by those who actually do the work and not some "boss" figure, more or less (Capital is a difficult book to read, and honestly I didn't finish reading it) + the workings of general economy (or non-economy if you will). What I mean by "pure" communism is a system in which you work on stuff you like, and take the things you need without anyone telling you to do so. Seems like anarchy, but to me anarchy is where everyone goes looting :D By Freedom I meant personal freedom, not some collective freedom (there's no such a thing). In FOSS nobody is your boss, nobody can coerce you in any way and you can do anything you want about the software (well almost anything). That's what I meant by freedom, and it is applicable to communism vs capitalism. In capitalism you HAVE to get a job to live "decently" paying off the global depts your whole life and chasing a carrot on a string listening to your boss (and even if you are the boss, you are pressured). By freedom I meant the freedom from this cycle. The freedom to do only when you want, what you want and how you want (technology might get us some of this eventually, but it's a social thing in the end). NOTE: socialism was the step in-between. This isn't from my head but as my parents and most people here understood it. In reality it was a failed experiment because of the leadership model and corruption. Communism is the "pure" result where there's no longer need for any government or even military (it'd have to be global to work and there's always some greedy bloke to ruin it. So yes I also think it's not doable). |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 7:58 AM EDT |
>of course there's no altruism Sigh. There is an internet, man. It really IS possible to keep up with the science on this. |
| jdixon Dec 17, 2008 8:10 AM EDT |
> It really IS possible to keep up with the science on this. To be fair, I think it is a relatively obscure study, Dino. Or is it an ongoing set of studies? I haven't been following it, I just saw it mentioned over on Vox Popoli once. |
| Almindor Dec 17, 2008 8:15 AM EDT |
> Sigh. There is an internet, man. It really IS possible to keep up with the science on this. Internet is not altruistic. Everyone does it for some selfish reason in the end, vanity, need for attention etc. |
| bigg Dec 17, 2008 8:48 AM EDT |
> communism in it's purest form doesn't say anything about a dictator In its practical form it requires a dictator. Someone has to make the decisions. There is no way to construct a system that works in practice unless someone can force you to share even when you're not in the mood. That's not to say that by definition it is bad. It is what it is. FOSS, on the other hand, is voluntary sharing. The "voluntary" is many times more important than the "sharing". |
| jdixon Dec 17, 2008 10:27 AM EDT |
> Everyone does it for some selfish reason in the end, Or possibly that it might be programmed in at a genetic level? Does the possibility that altruism is a survival trait never occur to you? |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 11:46 AM EDT |
Jdixon - A number of studies WRT to genetics and evolution. They whole "nothing is altruistic" notion -- other than being a great excuse for personal selfishness -- is related loosely to social Darwinism, as a philosophical bastardization of perfectly good science. In days gone by, many scientists presumed that altruism makes not evolutionary sense: sacrifice yourself and you don't reproduce. However, evolution is about perpetuation of species' genes, not specific individuals' -- and that's showing up in a lot of places. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 12:26 PM EDT |
Almindor, again it is impossible for everyone to own everything at the same time. It's only possible to have a series of mutual contracts between a number of people, from those who own to those who don't detailing who and when can use what. The terms of the contracts can be unrestrictive enough for it to seem like everyone is the owner, but that's an illusion. If that was true everyone could rightfully use the same exact thing at the same time without conflict. dinotrac; I never said that lack of altruism or self-sacrifice means only perpetuation of individuals. That's besides the point. As I said you might go as far as to actually kill yourself for the benefit of another and you'd still be acting in your self interest because there is something that makes you believe killing yourself is the right thing to do, something that motivates you to do that, that something is a reward, even if only mental and emotional. If people truly acted altruistically they'd be like mindless automatons without any values to consider when deciding what move to make. But that's not who we are. We have values and those values are everything to us. Everything we do is in pursuit of those values. Sometimes you may value another human being more than yourself which could make you act in a way that others would describe as "self-sacrifice" when in fact you're acting that way because this is most valuable to you. Belief in altruism is like believing that love is some sort of a sacrifice, that when someone does something good for another he is not doing it out of his own values, but solely to please another. In other words, it assumes a human being as incapable of genuine goodness to others (because doing it is always ascribed to sacrifice of ones values instead of as acting within those values, like giving someone a gift because you must, not because you care about that someone). |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 17, 2008 12:31 PM EDT |
> (if you don't agree that there's a lot of good in the idea of communism don't argue with me please) "Whatever you do, don't challenge my world view! I might have to think!" > Anyways, the basis of communism is that nobody owns anything and in a leaderless system (which is more of a FOSS thing) this means everybody owns everything. It's the same thing really. You owe it to yourself to explore the volumes written on the "Tragedy Of The Commons". F/OSS is not "leaderless" in the slightest. Each contributor fully owns the code they write. That's why there can be GPL violations. Your position on "common good" certainly does feel good. It would be nice if such a thing were to function. What has happened every time it has been tried, however, is basic human nature came to the fore and ruined it for everyone. There's a great story in America called "Thanksgiving" that illustrates this principle very well: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1650bradford.html and http://mises.org/story/336 It turns out that people do not "want" to work. They have to be motivated to do so. That's why "communist" countries always end up being socialist, with a dictatorship (by one or several, still "dictating") and brutal in their methods of "motivation". There is another motivation for people to perform work, called "profit", that works better because it does not require the use of force. Dino, > [The] whole "nothing is altruistic" notion -- other than being a great excuse for personal selfishness -- is related loosely to social Darwinism, as a philosophical bastardization of perfectly good science. "Social Darwinism" deserves to die the same philosophical death as every other form of racism. As you suggest, it's just a way to rationalize feeling superior to someone else. So many people conflate "selfish" with "self-centered", the same way "greed" and "avarice" are equated, so "liberty" and "libertine". Good grief, one can kill with water, does that make water bad? In the praxiological standpoint, "altruism" does not exist because people do not do that which they believe will leave them less happy. (using "happy" because of limitations of English. The most linguistically specific writings on the topic use "relieve uneasiness", too much for me to type) So someone who "sacrifices themselves" to do a good deed isn't actually altruistic. They choose to do it because they want the result of the action more than they want the result of not acting, even though the method may seem harsh. (diving onto a grenade, for example, to save their friends) Even the most altruistic seeming act is performed for selfish reasons. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 12:36 PM EDT |
Libervis - Sad, sad, sad. Bob - I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic, but if you have to stretch that hard to find selfishness, it either ain't there or ain't worth worrying about. Personally, I believe those who are most convinced that altruism doesn't exist are reflecting the cold and hard interiors of their own shriveled little hearts. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 12:42 PM EDT |
Yeah "sad, sad, sad" is all you have to say. Go and tell your family and friends how you love them only because you don't love yourself. Cause that's exactly the philosophy you seem to be representing. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 12:45 PM EDT |
Lib - As I said: sad, sad, sad. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 12:47 PM EDT |
The whole dichotomy between selfish and selfless is completely false. That's why it seems to you as if Bob is "stretching" it. There is only an individual and his pursuit of his values. And if that's all you have to say then you've reached a wall you brought up yourself. Thinking further is too hard for you I suppose. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 12:49 PM EDT |
Ah Lib, Never at a loss for meaningless, I see. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 12:55 PM EDT |
Dinotrac is in a troll mode. I'm so sick of it. Every time the same bullshit. One of the resident LXer's trolls the thread to death. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 1:05 PM EDT |
>I'm so sick of it. Cool. |
| azerthoth Dec 17, 2008 1:21 PM EDT |
Quoting: Personally, I believe those who are most convinced that altruism doesn't exist are reflecting the cold and hard interiors of their own shriveled little hearts. Or perhaps it's a failure on your part to crawl up inside your head and take a good hard honest look at why you do things. If you find so much of a scrap of 'it makes me feel good' or any sense of accomplishment then you have found that your altruism test has indeed returned a false positive. I still love my family and help with homework, donate to projects here and there without a worry of a tax deduction. I hold no thoughts of these actions being altruistic, I do them because it makes me feel good to do them, to see the light of understanding in my sons eyes when he gets a new concept. Thats not altruism, thats selfishness on my part. /me hands the stick back to dino so he can keep poking. |
| jdixon Dec 17, 2008 1:39 PM EDT |
> If you find so much of a scrap of 'it makes me feel good' or any sense of accomplishment then you have found that your altruism test has indeed returned a false positive. Which may be true, but it has very little to do with the standard definition of altruism. From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altruism 1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others 2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species Definition 2 is actually the broader definition and encompasses definition 1. The terms"makes me feel good" and "sense of accomplishment" are not normally equated to "benefit". You say it makes you feel good to do these things. I think you're missing yet another step. Why should doing these things make you feel good? |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 1:45 PM EDT |
jdixon -- bingo. That is the point of departure for deep thinkers, I'm afraid. It requires a sense of meaning beyond mere logic. Sure. In a trivial sense, even throwing yourself on a hand-grenade could be equated to a selfish act because you value the lives of others. At that point, you have ask, "What the Hell are we doing here?" |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 1:49 PM EDT |
Quoting:The terms"makes me feel good" and "sense of accomplishment" are not normally equated to "benefit". Perhaps because they are so obscured. People feel good and have a sense of accomplishment even when helping others, but they don't see those as benefits and probably for that reason exactly see these acts as selfless and altruistic. In every supposedly altruistic transaction the benefit is actually mutual, not one sided. The second definition then ends up describing what is effectively inapplicable to humans. It even mentions "animal" and not specifically a human (or human animal if you will). Because all behavior of a human is in pursuit of value and expectancy of benefit. Sometimes the benefit doesn't come, but if it always did, nobody would ever be wrong, so that's beside the point. |
| azerthoth Dec 17, 2008 1:49 PM EDT |
That is dependent upon the set of morals you were raised with. Me, I have an overload of Catholic Guilt that no amount of therapy or soul searching has been able to clear me of. However any reward at all removes altruism. I can think of one case where altruism exists in humanity, that case however is universally fatal. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 1:50 PM EDT |
Haha dinotrac feels like he hit the jack pot, NOT. Read what I (and azerthoth) said Mr. Dinotroll. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 2:04 PM EDT |
>However any reward at all removes altruism. No. Go back to square one. Altruism has to do with the act offered up, not with the consequences of the act. It is not altruistic if the act is offered in expectation of reward. The presentation of a reward does not render the act any less altruistic. The easiest way to see that is to accept, for the sake of argument, that an utterly altruistic act is possible. Let us imagine a man whose hatred for baby seals knows no limit who nevertheless frees a baby seal trapped by a rock. He frees the baby seal only to discover that moving the rock exposed a small box containing $100,000 in gold. The selfless act enriches the man greatly, but remains selfless because he had no way to anticipate getting rich by letting the seal go. Altruism is inextricably tied to intent. If the intent of an act is to make you feel good, then, sure, it cannot be considered a purely altruistic act. If, however, feeling good as the result of your action does not render it any less noble. |
| jdixon Dec 17, 2008 2:12 PM EDT |
> Because all behavior of a human is in pursuit of value and expectancy of benefit. I'd be willing to agree with value in the above, assuming one specific definition of the term, but not benefit. The two are not the same thing. Something of value to me may be of absolutely no benefit. It may, in fact, be a liability. > However any reward at all removes altruism. That's where I think you diverge from the standard definition. There are lots of things which can be considered rewarding in one way or another but do not cross the threshold into benefit. This dovetails with my point above that value != benefit. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 2:17 PM EDT |
jdixon - I think I would also include the notion of concrete acts with abstract benefits, ie -- I mentor a kid because I know it is a good thing for society overall. As a member of society, I might (or might not) benefit from a better society, but that's true so long as SOMEBODY takes care of helping the kids. It doesn't require me to do so. |
| azerthoth Dec 17, 2008 2:20 PM EDT |
Noble intent is fine, however it has nothing to do with altruism. Altruism (or lack of) is reward/compensation based. |
| ColonelPanik Dec 17, 2008 2:23 PM EDT |
Gee, I like Linux to. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 2:30 PM EDT |
azertoth - No. it has to do with the expectation of reward as the basis for an action. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 2:33 PM EDT |
@dinotrac Quoting:Altruism is inextricably tied to intent. If the intent of an act is to make you feel good, then, sure, it cannot be considered a purely altruistic act. If, however, feeling good as the result of your action does not render it any less noble. The point is that no act is made without a pursuit of a feel good of some kind, of something you value, or otherwise you would NOT be making an act in the first place. It has to do with the way people actually decide to act. Without this driving force we would be dead in the water or mindless automatons. It is therefore impossible to be altruistic. @jdixon: Quoting:Something of value to me may be of absolutely no benefit. It may, in fact, be a liability. But who decides if it is a benefit or a liability if not yourself? Again it comes down to your own values. Even when you're aware that there may be undesirable consequences of an act the fact that you value the result of pursuing a given act more than those consequences cancels out this "liability" into an overall benefit. There is no some strange mythical creature floating around deciding when something is a benefit or a liability. It's all you. @ dinotrac Quoting:I think I would also include the notion of concrete acts with abstract benefits, ie -- Same response to that as above. Concrete or abstract, it does not matter because either way it is you who is making the judgment of whether it is beneficial for you or not, whether you will value the sum total result of your action. @ dinotrac Quoting:I mentor a kid because I know it is a good thing for society overall. Then you're acting upon an illusion. There is no "society overall". Every time someone makes a statement like that it is implying that a "society overall" is somehow separate from individuals that make it up. As if the betterment of the kid's education and understanding somehow automatically makes this "society" creature better too. No, it makes the kid better off, if he thinks he is better off. And it makes you better off, knowing that you helped someone. Nobody else enters that equation. Two people who are better off, nothing more. It's like arguing with a religious guy who believes in some creatures up in the heavens or floating around between all humans.. "common good", "society"... how can I make you see you're talking about something that doesn't exist as more than an abstract mental concept? |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 2:40 PM EDT |
Lib - I think I get it now -- Your assertions are true because you said them and you know best. Nah. Sorry. Try that one on somebody who was born yesterday. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 2:46 PM EDT |
Yeah, that's what I said. Sheesh. Back to being a dinotroll I see. Every time you can't come up with anything meaningful to say you revert to poking. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 2:55 PM EDT |
Yes, Lib, it's exactly what you did. You cannot simply assert something away, and your argument against altruism amounts to nothing more than saying it doesn't exist. When you say that no action is taken without the expectation of benefit you are making an assertion that you fail to support. On a deeper level, you can't be bothered to consider why a theoretical benefit to society at large, that, even if it accrues may result in no benefit to the individual, should somehow strip the altruism from an act. There is not sense to that argument. It serves no purpose,unless to justify one's own pitiful outlook on life. And, to that, I say sad, sad, sad. Makes me feel good. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 17, 2008 3:02 PM EDT |
Dino, even your example of doing something "for the good of society as a whole" is just you expressing your values. You gain satisfaction by doing what you consider to be a "good deed". Just because the "benefits" do not directly effect you, has nothing to do with the fact that you gained satisfaction in doing it. You did it for the gain in you own satisfaction. You gained. That's all that Lib or I are asserting: a self-less act is performed in the expectation of gain. Whether that gain is material or spiritual is irrelevant. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 3:08 PM EDT |
Your attempt to misrepresent what I said wont work. I did far more than make unfounded assertions. I made arguments and asked some questions. Instead of claiming I can't support what I'm saying why don't you go and tell me why it isn't so? Otherwise you just seem like trying to divert attention from your inability to respond with rational arguments. If all I wanted to say is that altruism doesn't exist then I would say "altruism doesn't exist", period, which would be foolish. Yet even if I did say only that if you really wish to understand why would I believe that instead of just trolling you would seek me to explain myself. I did so anyway. And I gave you plenty of clues as to where to look for evidence of that. If you think about the questions I asked you would be getting somewhere. But all you seem to do is avoid thinking and engage in nothing more than an "I'm right you're wrong" diatribe, waiting for someone to say something favorable to your position so you can jump in with a silly "AHA" or when none of that works, simply troll your way into the discussion. Pathetic. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 3:09 PM EDT |
Bob - You made an assertion without support. I did not say that doing something for the good of society made you feel good, though it doesn't bother me in the least if it does. But that's neither here nor there. Yes, I assert that altruist acts are possible (and gee whiz!! Evolutionary and genetic science is starting to say the same thing, but that's just a bonus). You assert they are not. Frankly, I prefer my assertion to yours and see nothing about your assertion that renders it in any way superior to mine. You do, however, get some honesty points for accurately characterizing your statements. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 3:11 PM EDT |
LIb - You made no argument that does not rest on your assertion that people will not act altruisticly, or, restated, that people act only for their own benefit. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 17, 2008 3:21 PM EDT |
> You made an assertion without support. I've been supporting it over, and over and over. Any truly selfless act is pure accident. Every action that a human being deliberately does is done on the expectation of gain. Otherwise, they don't make that action. Simple demonstration: If I think a bomb will go off if I start my car, I'm not going to start my car. If setting the bomb off will stop a schoolbus full of children from being blown up, I might very well do so with the expectation that I will save lives by sacrificing my own because I want to save those other lives. Now, can you give an example of a deliberate altruistic act? |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 3:37 PM EDT |
Sure. Let's use your example, except instead of assert that you do it because you want to save those lives you do it because it is right to save those lives. Even using your example unchanged, you beg the question of why you would want to save those lives. What's in it for you? You can define anything away if you want to. Defining altruism away by making the desire to do good a reward that disqualifies one's acts from being altruistic is like denying the blue sky because it is actually a matter of light scattering in the atmosphere. That's true, but meaningless in any practical sense. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 3:37 PM EDT |
He'd have to redefine altruism for that again Bob. What's the point of arguing with someone who can't admit when his logic doesn't hold water (and he knows it) instead of launching a distraction to appear still relevant. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 3:38 PM EDT |
lol What did I say? :D |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 3:38 PM EDT |
>What's the point of arguing with someone who can't admit when his logic doesn't hold water You make a good point (finally). I won't argue with you any more. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 3:40 PM EDT |
I wasn't the one launching a distraction, so it's clear to anyone who I was describing there. So.. thanks! No wonder you have a reputation of never admitting being wrong. :P |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 3:43 PM EDT |
Bob - A better example has occurred to me. Honeybees in defense of the hive -- A bee sting may defend the hive, but it kills the bee. It doesn't help that bee to reproduce because that bee won't reproduce regardless. And...Unless you know of some new science that I'm not aware of, the bee lacks the mental capacity to "feel good" about its sacrifice. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 3:43 PM EDT |
>No wonder you have a reputation of never admitting being wrong. I always -- without fail -- admit when I'm wrong. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 3:45 PM EDT |
Sure, whatever makes you feel better. And btw, we're talking about humans, not bees, remember? Not that this example disproves anything. |
| jdixon Dec 17, 2008 3:49 PM EDT |
> ...I might very well do so with the expectation that I will save lives by sacrificing my own because I want to save those other lives. Bob, with all due respect, there's no way that can fall into any reasonable definition of "expectation of gain". You'll be dead. There is no gain. For reasons of your own, you may desire that outcome over the alternatives, but there is NO personal gain involved. In order to argue your point; you, Libervis, and Azerthoth have to twist the defintion of gain (or value, or benefit, or whatever you may choose as your unit of measurement) so far that it itself becomes meaningless. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 3:51 PM EDT |
You see, Lib -- You switch to bees when somebody demands that you accept his assertions as being magically superior to yours. No matter what I say, you will say, "but no -- This person feels better or somesuch." When robbed of the "Oh yeah?" alternative, you are crushed and must say "no fair". |
| jdixon Dec 17, 2008 3:52 PM EDT |
> And btw, we're talking about humans, not bees, remember? As noted by the definition, altruism isn't limited to humans. Household pets have been known to sacrifice themselves to save their human families. Again, by definition, the pet gains no benefit from doing so. It's dead. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 4:00 PM EDT |
jdixon, the gain doesn't necessarily come after the act has been made, but once the definite decision to do it has been made. You know you're doing the right thing and you feel good about it because you value those other lives more than your own at that point. But however you spin it you simply cannot truthfully say that someone can act without caring whatsoever about why is he acting and what he hopes to accomplish. This *caring*, or assigning of value to something, IS the whole point and the whole reason why no act can truly be labeled as selfless and altruistic. We're not twisting the definitions of gain. Would you say an increase of value on your side is not a gain? Why is your life meaningful to you if not because you value it? How can any sort of material or immaterial gain be a gain without the process of your assigning value to it? You and especially dinotrac seem to defend an impossibility. It is not us who are trying to redefine things, it's you. Either that, or we never even came to a consensus on the exact meaning of gain or even deeper, "value". And I welcome you to go that far, because I believe that the farther you go and more precise your thinking becomes, the more obvious it will become why no act can be truly altruistic and self-sacrificing. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 4:01 PM EDT |
In summation: No fair. No fair. You gotta believe what I say is right 'cos it's impossible for me to be wrong. How impressive. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 4:03 PM EDT |
Jdixon, I never said animals can't be altruistic, albeit there is a deeper point to consider there, but it's simply out of the scope. My claim is solely that human individuals cannot be truly altruistic, because they possess the capability to value things. Some animals may possess the same capability in which case they too become naturally self-interest pursuant in their acts. It simply cannot be otherwise. If you don't have values and don't act based on your values you simply aren't a human, and I wouldn't say anybody here would claim that. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 4:04 PM EDT |
dinotrac, you can take your trolling rhetoric elsewhere. How about you actually start thinking about what's being said and make reasonable rebuttals of actual content? I'll simply ignore you otherwise |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 4:12 PM EDT |
>My claim is solely that human individuals cannot be truly altruistic, because they possess the capability to value things. Hmmm. Now that's an interesting statement, but that hasn't been you argument. Your actual argument is that humans MUST value the outcome of each act they initiate. The capability to value doesn't bind you to place value. It also ignores the possibility that ingrained values may actually be part of an altruistic act. For example, one goal of military training is the elimination of thought processes. That's not the insult it sounds like. When under fire, there are times when you simply must obey orders and act in the expected way - your life and the lives of others depend on it. In the case of soldiers who throw themselves on grenades (Yes -- it has happened) - the timing does not permit reflection and the outcome cannot be viewed as personally rewarding. Without question, one could concoct a theory that the soldier had "pre-benefited" by virtue of a value system that would lead him to sacrifice his life in such a way.,.. But, in my not-so-humble opinion, that would serve only to emphasize how meaningless your argument is. You, of course, will disagree. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 4:13 PM EDT |
> It simply cannot be otherwise. Nope, no simple-minded assertions there. Nosirreee. I bow to your superior logic. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 17, 2008 4:20 PM EDT |
> Let's use your example, except instead of assert that you do it because you want to save those lives you do it because it is right to save those lives. "Right"? Ok, so I do it because I want to do "right". I believe in the benefits of doing what is "right". Benefits. Gain. Positive results of an action. > Even using your example unchanged, you beg the question of why you would want to save those lives. What's in it for you? Just because my motivations differ from those of others does not mean that I did not believe in the positive results of my actions at the time I performed them. > You can define anything away if you want to. Defining altruism away by making the desire to do good a reward that disqualifies one's acts from being altruistic is like denying the blue sky because it is actually a matter of light scattering in the atmosphere. That's true, but meaningless in any practical sense. Trying to assert that people do something expecting no gain, yet doing it because they expect gain, is a logical impossibility. Deliberate "altruism" is a logical impossibility, because without an expectation of gain people don't act. I'm not redefining "altruism". Altruism is a regard for others. So if I have regard for others, I'm not going to act in a way that will make them worse off because I do not _want_ to make them worse off. I will act to their benefit, because that is what I _want_ to do. That is the benefit I work towards. I act in expectation of gain, regardless if that gain is to myself or to others. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 4:21 PM EDT |
>That is the benefit I work towards. I act in expectation of gain, regardless if that gain is to myself or to others. So what do gain by throwing yourself on a hand grenade? |
| azerthoth Dec 17, 2008 4:38 PM EDT |
Remember a few posts back when I said I could think of an altruistic act that was universally fatal? |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 4:40 PM EDT |
Quoting:Hmmm. Now that's an interesting statement, but that hasn't been you argument. Are you gonna start making my own arguments instead of me now? Quoting:The capability to value doesn't bind you to place value. No it doesn't, but I do it anyway, all the time and every time I make an act. I don't see how would I be able to act without it being in pursuit of something I value. Quoting:Without question, one could concoct a theory that the soldier had "pre-benefited" by virtue of a value system that would lead him to sacrifice his life in such a way... Possibly, but not necessarily. The fact that soldiers are trained to remove thought processes does not necessarily mean that those processes have completely been eradicated. A soldier MAY actually face enough fear and doubt when the moment to throw himself comes to actually decide against it. And if he does throw himself then yes, he did that with pre-cognition of the reasons why he was willing to do that - the "why" being all of the things he values which he believes cannot be pursued otherwise. Quoting:But, in my not-so-humble opinion, that would serve only to emphasize how meaningless your argument is. That's only because you keep insisting on the false dichotomy between selfless and selfish. My point effectively does come down to that selfless is in fact only a form of selfishness rather than an opposite of it and that removes "the other side", the "opposite" which you apparently can't live without. In a sense, making "selflessness as opposite to selfishness" meaningless is EXACTLY the point and the fact you see it as meaningless actually illustrates that you already in some way agree, but cannot accept the new paradigm, so keep relentlessly fighting it. Quoting:> It simply cannot be otherwise. My saying that something is impossible stems from what I see as a logical contradiction (which is what makes a claim untrue) and supporting evidence that I can extract from my own experiences. I've had enough self introspective to see that I simply CANNOT act without it being in pursuit of some sort of a mental reward. Even when I do things automatically and routinely, I do it for a reason or else I wouldn't do it. If I go to sleep too late in the night despite rationally knowing it would've been better to go earlier, I can't exactly deny the fact that I went to sleep so late because I valued staying awake doing what I was doing more than going to bed. If I give someone I care about a gift or spend a good deal of time trying to encourage their self esteem, I do it because I value my time with them and them being helped more than the same time spent doing something else. So I simply cannot, neither logically nor from experience, see any way that an act can be altruistic. It's not about my logic being superior to your logic. That's just another childish attempt at distracting from the actual discussion. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 4:48 PM EDT |
>So I simply cannot, neither logically nor from experience, see any way that an act can be altruistic. I agree. You can't. I also agree that it's not about your logic being superior to mine. That much is obvious. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 4:56 PM EDT |
Meh, you just can't resist, can you? You can't begin to imagine how annoying and completely pointless your attitude is. You are a god damn troll. Doesn't this site have an anti-trolling policy? Why are you still here? EDIT: Checking TOS, nope, no anti-trolling policy. That explains a lot. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 4:59 PM EDT |
>Meh, you just can't resist, can you? I can't. A relentless passion for the truth drives me to annoy the living cr@p out of the intellectually challenged. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 5:00 PM EDT |
More trolling. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 5:01 PM EDT |
>More trolling Yes. Aren't you tired yet? |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 5:05 PM EDT |
You are a fool. You even admit to it. I demand this thread to be locked. Reason is obvious. And to the LXer staff, if you're tolerating this kind of thing I can guarantee you it's only a matter of time before people start noticing. You can't have a meaningful discussion on these forums without people like dinotrac coming in with their poking and trolling only to end up needlessly running the discussion into the ground. It's happening over and over again. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 5:09 PM EDT |
>It's happening over and over again. Any time you hop into a discussion, I would bet. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 5:12 PM EDT |
I am seriously considering leaving LXer.com and placing a boycott so long as trolls are being tolerated. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 17, 2008 5:19 PM EDT |
> So what do gain by throwing yourself on a hand grenade? Alone? Nothing. That's why people run from hand grenades. When that grenade will kill your friends? Jumping on the grenade is done in the expectation that doing so will save the lives of others. The gain is in the saving of others lives. If it were a 500lbs bomb, and throwing myself on it would save no one, I would not do it because there would be no gain. Or, if a hand grenade were thrown into a room full of people I didn't like, I would not throw myself on it to save their lives because I do not gain by having them live while I die. It is a choice. So long as it is a choice, I will do what I believe will give gain. Just as you do. **Edit: Or, to put it in the praxiological long-form, "Actions are undertaken for the purpose of relieving the most acute uneasiness at the moment." |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 5:28 PM EDT |
Bob - I think we're a little closer than it seemed. The definition of altruism clearfly fits the case of a person who does something for the benefit of others only. Beyond that, the real question may be "Does it matter" outside of discussing while drinking? For my money, doing good because you enjoy doing good is close enough to being altruistic that I don't care about the difference. |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 17, 2008 5:28 PM EDT |
Hey Dino, are you going to contribute something to the conversation or are you going to continue to add banter after banter? I get that you disagree with him but you are acting like a 5 year old. Contribute something worth reading or let the other participants discuss it without your "help" If your going to blatantly be a Troll, stop. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 5:34 PM EDT |
Scott - I will happily pop out, though I disagree strongly with your characterization. If you followed the actual thread, you would see it is, essentially, Libervis saying "No. This is what it must be and anything you say is stupid." More words, but absolutely a game of "Oh yeah?" |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 17, 2008 5:37 PM EDT |
I will gladly back off my troll statement Dino. You are not a troll, but you are kinda acting like one. I get that he is not exactly happy with dissenting opinions but if you have said your piece, then let it be. If he makes a fool of himself in your opinion then let him do it without your help. It only makes you look bad. If disagreeing with him means that you are troll, ok. Let him think it, but don't add fuel to the fire.. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 5:43 PM EDT |
Scott - I can't argue with you there. I was, in fact, being trollish, and not to my credit. But -- Cheeeeeeeee!!!!!! |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 5:50 PM EDT |
Yes, let me make a fool of myself if that's what I'm doing. Let others be the judge of whether I'm intolerant or not. But cop outs only make you look even worse IMHO, and make me even more hot headed because I insist on a discussion, not shouting past each other in dismissive manner. Cheers |
| tuxchick Dec 17, 2008 6:01 PM EDT |
Libervis, you should look at who shouted first. And kept shouting. |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 17, 2008 6:04 PM EDT |
Now Libervis, I will ask that you do not incite people to disagree with you, because if that is the case then you get the responses you deserve and I will not feel any empathy for you. It takes two to have a civil conversation. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 6:10 PM EDT |
TC: What shouting? Scott: How am I supposed to not incite disagreement without not saying anything at all? |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 17, 2008 6:14 PM EDT |
> The definition of altruism clearfly fits the case of a person who does something for the benefit of others only. I'll gladly grant that someone could choose to do something that net-benefits only others (like the grenade example where the actor ends up dead), but at the time they do it because they want to. They believe the gain is worth the doing. As to trolling, I've noted my own occasional heat under the collar, so I try to give as much room to "wtf" as possible without taking stuff personally. ...it just doesn't always work. :^) |
| jdixon Dec 17, 2008 6:27 PM EDT |
Wow, take an hour out to do real work and look what happens. > ...you simply cannot truthfully say that someone can act without caring whatsoever about why is he acting and what he hopes to accomplish. Oh, I most definitely can. Most people have little idea why they do what they do or what it will accomplish, and care less. I could say that the recent elections in the US prove my point, but that's somewhat of an over simplification. > We're not twisting the definitions of gain. I disagree. But that should be obvious by now. > ...because without an expectation of gain people don't act. See my above comment. Most people do not act rationally. Even I don't all of the time. > I believe in the benefits of doing what is "right". Doing what is right results in benefits at most 50% of the time, and you can seldom know in advance whether it will in any specific case. It often can have severe negative consequences. Yet people continue to do it. > Remember a few posts back when I said I could think of an altruistic act that was universally fatal? Ah. I see Azerthoth has broken ranks somewhat and admitted that at least the possibility of altruism exists. > I don't see how would I be able to act without it being in pursuit of something I value. Maybe you can't act in such a manner, but others can. They do it all the time. People sometimes act in ways entirely counter to their values. As I said above, most people do not behave rationally. Anyway. Bob, as Dino said, I don't think we're actually disagreeing about what's actually happening (actually, I'd be surprised if we were,given how much else we agree about). In your case I think it's just a matter of disagreeing about what the words actually mean. Now, with Libervis, the disagreement seems to be more fundamental. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 6:31 PM EDT |
Bob - ;0) |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 17, 2008 6:37 PM EDT |
Libervis, You can say you disagree without making the other parson feel like you are insulting them because you disagree. Its tough yes, but it can be done. Now when others are doing a little 'trolling" I know it does not help but it is still your choice to respond in kind, or not too. If others are trolling, people will see it and know that it really doesn't deserve a response. Now if everyone seems like a troll then maybe your stance really is that unpopular. No one can help you in that case. |
| jdixon Dec 17, 2008 6:39 PM EDT |
> ...but at the time they do it because they want to. See, we agree about that part. > They believe the gain is worth the doing. But that's where we disagree. They may not even believe there is any gain. But they choose to do it anyway. I think part of disagreement this boils down to a simple fundamental point which should be mentioned: You cannot know the heart of another person. Feel free to disagree if you want, but I think the facts and history are solidly on my side in this matter. In many cases, you will have no idea why another person did what they did. In some cases, even they won't be able to tell you. The reasons they do what they do may have little or nothing to do with the reasons you would do them. You cannot assume the same values you have, you cannot assume the same reactions, you cannot even assume rational behavior. Given that, arguing that they cannot be acting for altruistic reasons seems somewhat silly, at least to me. You simply cannot know. |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 6:49 PM EDT |
jdixon - Just remember, everything I do I do altruisticly. I like it that way. |
| TxtEdMacs Dec 17, 2008 6:54 PM EDT |
Oh, if I only were a speed reader and one less likely to doze off ... the jokes are here by the million just waiting for the taking, but by the time I am ready to write 10 more pages of b.s. are deposited. It's too much even for me. |
| azerthoth Dec 17, 2008 6:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:Ah. I see Azerthoth has broken ranks somewhat and admitted that at least the possibility of altruism exists. I never said that it didn't exist. My argument has been that as rare as supposed altruism is, it is in fact rarer yet. After rereading this mess, I find that Dinotrac came close to a non fatal altruistic act in his seal argument, that however was a straw man argument, in that in the situation described the act itself is unlikely in the extreme, regardless of something else being under the rock. Libervis is in my opinion more accurate but not 100% correct either, just closer. Intent be damned, it is consequence that is the determining factor of altruism. One can not intentionally perform an altruistic act. You can perform an act that can later be judged altruistic, that however would typically be done post mortem. If you set out to do altruistic acts you have already failed, as the doing and/or accomplishment of those deeds results in a positive feedback, either internally or externally. That then is not altruism, but rather just a good deed. |
| jdixon Dec 17, 2008 7:06 PM EDT |
> My argument has been that as rare as supposed altruism is, it is in fact rarer yet. Now, that's an argument I could probably agree with. > If you set out to do altruistic acts you have already failed, as the doing and/or accomplishment of those deeds results in a positive feedback, either internally or externally Now, there I must disagree. First, because that's defining altruism differently than 90+% of everyone else. Second, the feedback may not be positive. As Bob points out, merely negating negative feedback may be enough. Third, for the other reasons I listed above. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 7:08 PM EDT |
Quoting:You can say you disagree without making the other parson feel like you are insulting them because you disagree. Its tough yes, but it can be done. Now when others are doing a little 'trolling" I know it does not help but it is still your choice to respond in kind, or not too. If others are trolling, people will see it and know that it really doesn't deserve a response. Now if everyone seems like a troll then maybe your stance really is that unpopular. No one can help you in that case. But I was not insulting anyone so what it boils down to is that whenever someone has a strong enough disagreement to feel insulted and then turn into trolls for it, I am the one somehow responsible? So I should sugarcoat my every sentence and tread like walking on eggshells just to avoid hurting someone's feelings. Note that I never called anyone stupid. I called dinotrac a fool once it was clear that he was trolling and that's all. I wanted him to start actually attacking my arguments, not misrepresent me as an intolerant person who wants to impose my views on everyone. Is it that hard to go and respond with actual arguments? I have strong disagreements too. Should I feel insulted and instead of offering counter-arguments spout accusations of them treating me like I'm stupid? Of course not. I think there's plenty of hypocrisy going on here. I never even implied that everyone seems like a troll though. Most actually seem to be in more of an agreement with me than not. Jdixon and dinotrac seem most disagreeing, but it was only dinotrac who went on the troll mode. And let me point out that I actually came to expect this here. The moment he begun ignoring my posts and saying things like "sad sad sad" or parodying what I said I knew he was on to trolling *again*. And yes, I feel that's being overly tolerated. If it wasn't I wouldn't actually find myself *expecting* to face it again. The overall conclusion I'm supposed to reach is that this isn't a good place to have a discussion. |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 17, 2008 7:16 PM EDT |
If you like I can delete this entire thread and we can start over and try it again? I am not trying to sound contrite, but if this thread is a loss then lets try it again. From the top and with a clean start. Personally I think that is was its going to take.. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 7:21 PM EDT |
As for the disagreement, I think it comes down to whether selfishness and selflessness are the opposite or not. I claim that they're not and that selflessness is just a form of selfishness, that seemingly altruistic actions are a subset of self-interested actions, defined by pursuit of values held by your self. So one may call a particular act among those as "altruistic" and others may deny it, but I think that then merely comes down to not sharing the exact same definition of altruism, and it is hard to have a discussion with words when you don't even agree with your debaters on what the words you use actually mean. So it's irrelevant, until that agreement has been made. I define altruism as literally "self-sacrifice for the good of another" and reject is as a possible occurrence simply because I see self-sacrifice applied to humans as an oxymoron. Since everything a human does he does him or her *self* in pursuit of his or her own values. These values are what makes up the "self" even when these values value some other body or person more than his own. If someone dieing for another person didn't do this in pursuit of his own values then *he* didn't do it all. If it was not an act out of his own values then an act is not genuine, it is either forced or it doesn't happen. But it does go deeper and that's where I may have trouble expressing it. To go deeper we actually need to define "value". I see them as a balance between cognitive processes which constitute mental reward and those which constitute mental punishment, or in other words mental signals that tell you "this is good" and "this is bad", not in a moral sense, but much more deeply. It depends on who you are. You can have a moral belief in that something is wrong yet still do it. Someone would say that this is acting against his values, but it is not, because his actions reflect the values which are still in effect, the mind's "good" mental signal still rewards the act despite the fact that on a higher level, in your conscious, you think it's bad. So, I don't know if this makes sense to you, but it's my attempt at explaining it and perhaps some of you may see where my disagreement comes from. Those who disagree with me haven't dug deep enough into the foundations of my belief to convince me. It's really as simple as that. We haven't even touched the more intricate parts of the process. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 7:23 PM EDT |
No need Scott, what's here is here. If anyone's still willing to post, I promise I'll *try* to sugar coat a little more, out of courtesy if anything. :) But I might heed your advice and next time someone trolls just GTFO, which is still bad enough. Let's hope no trolling happens. Thanks for the offer |
| dinotrac Dec 17, 2008 8:20 PM EDT |
Libervis - IMHO - No sugarcoating required. In fact, sugarcoating is a bad idea. Better to ruffle a few feathers than to kill free expression, so long: a) some level of civility is maintained. Need not be complete, but at least visible somewhere in the distance. b)and one brings an ability to shrug and say, "that was then, this is now." Grudges suck hind teat. |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 8:42 PM EDT |
Can't say I disagree there dinotrac. I'm willing to be civil (a) and "bury the hatchet" (b). Let's try, next time we disagree, to go towards an "agree to disagree" conclusion rather than, well.. you know. Debates are best when it's purely about content written on the page than about people writing it. Let the words speak for themselves. |
| TxtEdMacs Dec 17, 2008 9:26 PM EDT |
Libervis, that's wrong Quoting:"bury[img] the hatchet"in dino head is not a civil offense. It's outrightly criminal. But if you persist, I can recommend a good criminal lawyer. A few years pretending you are a nut case and out with a buzzer on the ankle until they are stupid enough to trust you again. Repeat the process ... Scott DO NOT KILL THIS THREAD, or else we have to have a private talk. Have you composed a will yet, buddy? |
| Libervis Dec 17, 2008 9:42 PM EDT |
Ok, that was weird Txt... |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 17, 2008 9:59 PM EDT |
Your right Lib, but I get what he means..bigtime sarcasm tags, remember, big ones with him...lol! |
| jdixon Dec 17, 2008 10:18 PM EDT |
> A few years pretending you are a nut case and out with a buzzer on the ankle until they are stupid enough to trust you again. That shouldn't be a problem for most of here on LXer. :) I work in IT, so I'm already halfway there. |
| azerthoth Dec 17, 2008 10:51 PM EDT |
only half jd? |
| jdixon Dec 17, 2008 11:18 PM EDT |
> only half jd? It's a somewhat debated subject, I'll admit. :) |
| salparadise Dec 18, 2008 3:31 AM EDT |
Hi guys and gals.
Wow, what a thread. Thought I'd drop a link on y'all. I offer no opinions and am not here to add my 2p's worth. http://jim.com/bastiat.htm Some of you might like the ideas therein (and some of you might not). It's just a bunch of words. Happy this time of the year to one and all. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 18, 2008 9:14 AM EDT |
JD, > But that's where we disagree. They may not even believe there is any gain. But they choose to do it anyway. Ah! Yes, that is where we disagree. And, I'll even give this as a fundamental disagreement, something it's actually fun to drill down to. Yatta! Ok. Here is my postulate: Humans act. We have volition, free will, however one wants to word it. From that fundamental axiom, it follows that people act for a reason. The reason I assert is that people want what they believe is going to be the result of their action more than they want the result of their inaction (or simply "other" action) at the time they take it. I'll gladly admit that people act from a lack of information, or in simple error, even act from deliberate malice. Who am I to say that someone cannot be wrong? But they act because they want what they believe to be the result of that action. There is why I disagree with your statement, "They may not even believe there is any gain. But they choose to do it anyway." |
| jdixon Dec 18, 2008 12:51 PM EDT |
> From that fundamental axiom, it follows that people act for a reason. Possibly. But many times even they can't tell you what that reason is. I don't think it's an axiom which can be taken as universally true. > But they act because they want what they believe to be the result of that action. Again, you're attempting to judge the motives of another person. Something which time and again has been shown to be a futile effort. As I noted earlier, you cannot know the heart of another person. You are, of course, free to disagree. :) |
| dinotrac Dec 18, 2008 12:57 PM EDT |
jdixon - >But they act because they want what they believe to be the result of that action. I think he's also drifted away from any meaningful defnition of altruism. Altruism does not require you not to want the result of your action. It requires that you act for the benefit of others, without regard for your own well-being. That is true even if the end result of the action ends up enhancing your own well-being. Some mighty twisted and silly arguments in this thread, departing mightily from the actually meaning of altruism. You'd think no action is altruistic unless you got shot in the process. |
| jdixon Dec 18, 2008 1:04 PM EDT |
> You'd think no action is altruistic unless you got shot in the process. Aye. Yet the most common reason I've seen for actions which might be considered altruistic is not that you get some benefit, but rather that it doesn't cost you anything to do it. Holding the door for the person behind you doesn't cost most people anything. Unless you're on a tight schedule, stopping to help someone with a flat or dead battery doesn't cost you anything. There's normally no benefit to you, but it doesn't hurt you. That's reason enough for most people to do it. |
| azerthoth Dec 18, 2008 1:16 PM EDT |
I think it's in that, and correct me if I'm wrong, you see that doing good for the sake of doing good equates to altruistic behavior. That may well be a meaningful definition for you, personally I see it as meaningless. In that it lowers the bar on altruism, which IMHO takes a special definition of character, to anyone with a free half hour and small modicum of ambition. It's a difference of degrees, the comment of getting shot in the process is not too far off the mark of where my bar for altruism is. It's does not need to meet the requirements of a sanctioned miracle, but it's pretty close. I need not subscribe to your lesser theory, if I interpreted it correctly, nor you to mine, the truth may well be somewhere in between, I dont think I see us disagreeing on calling something a good deed, just whether or not it was altruistic. |
| dinotrac Dec 18, 2008 1:43 PM EDT |
azer - Boy! You people are cold. In my view, a guy who mentors a kid because he thinks people should give back is engaging in an altruistic act, and the very definition of the word would support me in that. Altruism requires nothing more than selfless sacrificial acts, not heroism or sainthood. Doing little niceties because it doesn't cost you anything does not rise to that level, because there is little or no cost involved. |
| jdixon Dec 18, 2008 2:15 PM EDT |
> Doing little niceties because it doesn't cost you anything does not rise to that level, because there is little or no cost involved. I'm willing to grant the point, but by the strict definition of term (given somewhere above), they do. That's why I used the example. Whether or not that is a good working definition, or even the one most people use is a debatable matter. We seem to have two trends here. On the side of those who claim there is little or no altruism, they consider any trifle to be a reward for the act (even making you feel good) sufficient to render the act non-altruistic. On the other hand, we can consider any act done out of kindness for no reward (no matter how minor) to be altruistic. In both cases, the results is to render the terms meaningless. I will grant that for an act to truly be considered altruistic, there most be some effort or cost involved. But it's also true that considering "making me feel good" an adequate reason for performing an act which may entail personal danger or considerable financial cost (thus attempting to remove it from the category or altruism) is unreasonable. And on that note, I have a long drive to make, so I'll drop out of the conversation for the reaminder of the day. |
| Libervis Dec 19, 2008 8:35 AM EDT |
Well for some reason you guys have made a long arc around the point that the whole dichotomy between altruistic and self-interested, selfless and selfish, may actually be false. Nobody even agreed nor disagreed with that, yet IMHO what I keep seeing is the evidence of confusion caused by trying to desperately stick to this dichotomy. Like Dinotrac, why would you call anyone cold if for some weird reason their "bar" of altruism is lower? I guess you see the label "altruist" as one that is desirable and good and must be applied to someone every time he does something you feel is good or else we're "cold" about it.. I don't know how to say this.. there really seems to be a deep chasm between our mentalities. I don't measure people's goodness by how "selfless" they are. I recognize that no act would be made if it wasn't for, even if deep and subconscious, reason based on the values of the individual in question. I feel you simply skipped the last arguments I had to make for it and went on with the superficials of the issue, no offense. Though at least you inspired me to write an article about this (possibly on my blog or soon to be opened site about individualism) where I'd start with clear cut definitions and then examine human action bottom up, from the deepest mental processes I know of involving the subconscious to the conscious. I simply feel I'm not even getting through to anyone (and I assume Bob as well) here. Cheers |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 19, 2008 3:52 PM EDT |
Lib, actually, something that Dino said I completely agree with: > Altruism does not require you not to want the result of your action. It requires that you act for the benefit of others, without regard for your own well-being. That is true even if the end result of the action ends up enhancing your own well-being. I see the problem here as one of intent. If the intent of the one who acts is to benefit others, the fulfillment of that intent gives them satisfaction. It is not "selfless" because the of the fulfilled intent. The "self" initiated the action for a specific reason, the "self" is satisfied. I don't understand the attachment to "selfless". So long as "selfless" must be part of the definition of "altruistic", then an altruistic act can only occur by accident. Take the "selfless" out of it as Dino did in this isolated paragraph, let "altruistic" mean actions taken specifically with regard for the benefit of others, and I don't think there's any argument here at all. |
| azerthoth Dec 19, 2008 5:01 PM EDT |
I remain calloused, probably because one of the daily annoyances is getting stuck at a 4 way stop on the road, not because the other guy is being a jerk, but because you have 3 or 4 people trying to let the other guy go first and it's the guy who gets annoyed first goes first. When you live with that kind of interpersonal decency on a daily basis its an easy reminder that being nice is not the same as being altruistic. |
| Libervis Dec 19, 2008 6:15 PM EDT |
Thanks Bob,Quoting:Take the "selfless" out of it as Dino did in this isolated paragraph, let "altruistic" mean actions taken specifically with regard for the benefit of others, and I don't think there's any argument here at all. Well, that's if accepting such definition of altruism, in which case I agree there isn't much of an argument left. But such definition of altruism doesn't involve selflessness or sacrifice of self which is what I included in the definition of altruism and which I think most people include. AFAIK, altruism and selflessness are generally considered synonymous and since so much "goodness" is attributed to selflessness altruism is considered moral, which results in viewing selfishness as the opposite and thus immoral. That's where the biggest reason for my hung up lies. This dichotomy easily misleads people into a trap of considering all self interested pursuits as immoral, and since all human pursuits effectively ARE for self interested, it's like calling every living and breeding human being evil. The ultimate moral thing then becomes to simply kill yourself in order to, indeed altruistically, save resources for consumption by others. This extreme of modern morality would have the whole human race suicide. No wonder Ayn Rand's John Galt called it "The Morality of Death". The reason this extreme never occurs is because people somehow deep down know it is a lie. They have to keep a facade of selflessness when necessary to be accepted in this upside down society, but remain quietly self-interested individuals. They cannot not to be. They are human. And it almost makes me want to weep when I see philosophies and organizations bandied about which effectively seek to dehumanize people like this. I've had enough of it and I am going to help change the thinking of many people. If I seem hot headed sometimes, that's why. If someone fails to understand, well I'm sorry. Can't win everyone. Cheers |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 19, 2008 8:12 PM EDT |
> it's like calling every living and breeding human being evil. You're not Catholic, obviously. :^) I agree with you, the problem is the delusion that "benefiting others" for some reason requires "detrimenting one's self". It may even be the source of much of the anti-capitalist tendencies to assume that someone who is wealthy must have gotten that way by exploiting others. It does seem that people with that gut reaction cannot be convinced of its falsity. Cheers indeed. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 20, 2008 12:44 PM EDT |
On the subject of "altruism", I submit this little article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7791278.stm "Decades after a notorious experiment, scientists have found test subjects are still willing to inflict pain on others - if told to by an authority figure." |
| dinotrac Dec 20, 2008 1:15 PM EDT |
So Bob - When drunken louts go into a French museum and slash a painting, how does that reflect on the artist? |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 20, 2008 4:07 PM EDT |
Hahahaha. I'd say the act has only the most passing relation to the artist at all, any more than driving a Chevy in a demolition derby is a comment on General Motors. I believe in individual responsibility first. A drunken lout is responsible for his actions, the artist for theirs. Let's hope the artist kept backups! :^) |
| azerthoth Dec 20, 2008 8:51 PM EDT |
dino, I'd call it improving the quality of art in existence. Most of what people call art, they really dont like that much, but the pretentious people have convinced them that it has some value. The Mona Lisa, if done today, would be one of those un numbered prints that grace the walls of so many no star hotels that are trying for the 'we have some class' look. |
| krisum Dec 22, 2008 5:14 PM EDT |
Wow, this thread really has digressed beyond repair. Here is a little more contribution. @Bob Quoting: It is not "selfless" because the of the fulfilled intent. The "self" initiated the action for a specific reason, the "self" is satisfied.You seem to think that just because an action has a reason, it ceases to be selfless. As others have noted, that the "self" is satisfied or not is besides the point (for instance, the "self" may be dissatisfied due to not being able to execute the action properly). @Libervis Quoting: The whole dichotomy between selfish and selfless is completely false.Only because you have not been careful in understanding/articulating their respective meanings. |
| Bob_Robertson Dec 23, 2008 11:55 AM EDT |
> that the "self" is satisfied or not is besides the point I didn't say that the "self" had to be satisfied BY the act, only that it is impossible for a deliberate action to be taken without the "self" concluding first that the act will, right or wrong, achieve more desired results than not acting. The problem I have with "selfless" is that the only "selfless" act is accidental. Everything else, regardless of its outcome, gets filtered through the "self". If we restrict "altruistic" merely to a higher regard for others than for one's self, there is no argument. It is the inclusion of "selfless" which has generated such heat. |
| krisum Dec 24, 2008 1:26 AM EDT |
You did say "fulfilled intent" and that "the self is satisfied", so the two combined can only have the meaning which I deduced. Anyway since now you have watered it down to:
Quoting: "self" concluding first that the act will, right or wrong, achieve more desired results than not actingthere is no argument that most deliberate actions are chosen since they are supposed to have more desired results. However, your definition of "selfless" is quite useless: Quoting: Everything else, regardless of its outcome, gets filtered through the "self".Action being "filtered" by the self (since it has been initiated by it) has little to do with it being or not being selfless. At least none of the usually accepted meanings remotely resemble yours. |
| dinotrac Dec 24, 2008 7:58 AM EDT |
krisum - Yes, "useless" is a good choice of words. If we wish to torture the language sufficiently, we can destroy any word. Eventually, utility matters. |
| azerthoth Dec 24, 2008 12:18 PM EDT |
That coming from a lawyer ... it's a christmas miracle. /humor |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!