From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:05:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.023924.2795@eecs.nwu.edu> ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland) writes:
>Brian Yoder writes:
>>In article <1992Nov6.175024.13668@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>>Peter Nelson (I think):
>>>But
>>>many parents teach their children rather impractical ideas,
>>>including the idea that selfishness is evil, others
>>>(especially the parents, or a favored sibling) come first, 
>>>and so forth.  There may also be some kind of biological 
>>>programing towards altruism.  
>>Such as?  Where's your evidence that there are ANY innate ideas, altruistic
>>or othrwise?  If anything, the biological basis of pleasure would seem to
>>be the foundation for a natural selfishness.

>I don't claim to be conversant with the details of this work, but there
>is work in sociobiology which suggests that it may be evolutionarily
>advantageous to be "altruistic" (in some sense) towards people you are
>related to.  

I think that the "sense" in which it is meant is vitally important.  
In one sense, the actions are detrimental to the life of the organism.
THAT is altruism.  In another sense, the actions of the organism amount
to a "trade" in which the net benefit is helpful to the life of the 
organism.  That is NOT altruism.  It is self-interest expressed in a 
trade.

>This idea makes some sense biologically on the face of
>it.  As for evidence of any innate ideas at all, I don't see that the
>burden of proof is on either side of the argument in this case.  Some
>sort of innate disposition towards altruism might help explain why
>ANYONE is altruistic IN DEFIANCE of logic.

Oh, come on.  People defy logic all the time.  Look at the lottery.  
People defy logic by buying lottery tickets all the time, but I don't 
think even you would say that there is  "lottery gene".

>>If you mean that a lot of people get very excited about her ideas, I agree.
>>Do you think that's bad?  Are you excited about your ideas?

>I can tell you from experience that there are many people walking
>around calling themselves "Objectivists" who can't reproduce the
>arguments for Objectivism's moral principles, but who quote those
>principles the way religious people quote the Bible, and who speak
>about Ayn Rand in almost the way religious people speak about Jesus
>Christ.  

Sure, there are such people, but there are fools in any movement.

>I think Ayn Rand would be disgusted by these people if she
>were alive, 

So am I.

>but the fact remains that many people interested in
>Objectivism are very dogmatic about it.  I don't think I'd call it
>totalitarianism, but it certainly goes way beyond "being excited about
>[Rand's] ideas".

>Actually, I'd say the causality is the opposite of that proposed by
>Mr.  Fitch (or whoever the hell said it).  Objectivism doesn't CAUSE
>this dogmatism in people.  Rather, Objectivism tends to ATTRACT people
>who want to be able to assert their principles with a great deal of
>certainty, but who are repelled by traditional religious morality (and
>so cannot simply assert their principles based on divine origin).
>Those who are truly rational will do this in a nondogmatic way.  Note
>that I do not consider the dogmatic assertion of the moral principles
>of Objectivism to be in keeping with the philosophy.

I quite agree.  Unfortunately, many people (on both sides) can't 
tell the difference between forceful argumentation and dogmatism.

--Brian
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:4894 sci.philosophy.tech:4076 sci.philosophy.meta:2562 sci.classics:1002