From: mlloyd@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Mike Lloyd)
Subject: Re: Altruism (was: two men)
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 06:07:05 GMT

J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
: mlloyd@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Lloyd) writes:
: >I think what [Muffy] has said points up an important
: >distinction in motivations for altruism: benefit against duty. 
: 
: I would say being altruistic for a balance of both reasons is the best.
: I don't think duty is all bad. There are things I do because I believe
: them to be good in themselves; do I seem all that "harmed"? (Even if I
: do, I don't think I have a choice).

Well, let's be careful here.  Some of these words are so vague they get
close to meaningless without some fleshing out: words like "duty".  To
some who read this dicussion, that word will refer to societal
expectations and ideals, and many here are rightly proud of their
debunking of such notions.  I suspect that this is not what you mean,
although I'm not sure.  I suspect you mean "duty" as something like
commitment, to a specified other.

Even there, it's worth drawing a line (but then, I think we've agreed
that extremism is wrong).  Think back to Muffy's example of a (dear and
mutual) friend who got royally fucked over by pursuing an impressive and
noble feeling of duty to an SO who gradually, and probably
unintentionally, destroyed this person's self-worth and self-respect.

A commitment is worth honoring; don't ever assume that proponents of
"selfishness" are suggesting otherwise.  However, there is a point at
which self-interest should take over, where the damage done by a
relationship, say, outweighs the benefit, present and future, of that
relationship.  Seeing when this point has been reached is extremely
difficult, and I am wary of either a "selfish" or an "altruistic"
formula for making such a decision.

So I can't answer your question on whether I think duty is harmful.  It
depends on what you mean: what duty, to whom.  Overall, it seems simpler
to pursue a pragmatic motivation for "altruism" (a word which becomes
meaningless as we use it here): we see benefit for someone in doing
something, so we do it, but we only grant them that benefit because we
see what is to be gained from it.  In all cases, it is possible (if
tortuous) to say that you benefit from that, IMHO.  Any call to duty
here is suspect, although not necessarily wrong: just reminiscent of
programming and self-denial.

: Yes I do judge
: selfishness to be bad - that's at the core of my philosophy - and no I
: don't presume that unselfishness equates to self-denial. That, too, is
: central to my argument here.

Ahah.  This is worth considering.  Why is selfishness bad?  What do you
understand it to mean?  Solipsism?  Or just acting in my own best
interest?  If I buy myself an icecream, instead of giving you the money
I would spend, I am acting in my own self-interest.  Is that selfish?
Is that wrong?  As I understand it, most others in this thread *would*
call that purchase selfish, and would *not* call it wrong.  Such a
definition of the word, stripped of its moralist's connotation, leads to
the argument that altruism cannot exist, or is really selfishness by
another name, unless the doer truly loses in every way.  If the loss is
total, why do it?

Alternately, do you think unselfishness equates to selflessness? (!?)
It seems that you do not.  Complete selflessness is damaging, IMHO,
unless done in pursuit of nirvana.  Done for peace, stability and
friendship, it is destructive, because it leaves out one half of the
equation (or two, if both sides do it).

We need clearer use of words for this to make any sense.

: >Still, I know that I have tended to be far too "unselfish"
: >and still am not good enough at sticking up for what
: >I want and need.  My current perpective is that that is damaging; going
: >for the easy life, where I sublimate what I want to avoid confrontation
: >of needs, is eventually harmful.  
: 
: Well, I don't accept that self-denial is neccessarily harmful; by this
: reasoning you think I'm damaged. Oh well.

It depends, one more time, on what you mean by self-denial.  Putting off
a desire to a more convenient time, or tactfully overlooking some
temporary problem, is part of the regular give-and-take of a
relationship.  To deny yourself something you want and need, just to
keep a partner happy, is to be a doormat.  It's not worth the cost.

Let me be clear: the level of self-denial I am attacking here is quite
intense: the kind of "this is only what I want, what my partner wants is
more important" thinking.  Yes, it is possible to run a relationship if
both partners act this way, but why do it?  Why not honestly and openly
express desires, in the hopes of meeting some of them?  A little
selfishness, in terms of having the temerity to admit what one wants,
can lead to a lot of fulfillment, which in turn can reinforce the
relationship beyond measure.

hugs (which in themselves are a selfish act, despite the sense of giving
involved)
Mike, selfish and self-giving as far as both are possible

-- 
Mike Lloyd, B0/1 h- f- t w- g+ k+ s m- e? |    "Bloody nose and burning eyes
      Retro-hippy, music nut, bi and      |  Raised in laughter to the skies"
          backrubber of devotion          |                 - Bruce Cockburn
               --The end of confusion is the beginning of death--
Newsgroups: soc.bi