Altruism as Moral Cannibalism

[amicus]

As of late, on several threads concerning Atheism and such, the term, 'altruism', has come into place as a 'virtue', and I beg to differ.

Some fervent 'left wing' advocates even go so far as to suggest that their opponents lack the, 'altruism gene' that makes them genetically incapable of kindness to others. Like the oft claimed, 'gay gene', science has not be able to distinguish any such genetic anomalies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(ethics)

"...Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. Auguste Comte's version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others. One who holds to either of these ethics is known as an "altruist."

"...Criticism of the doctrine

Friedrich Nietzsche held that the idea that it is virtuous to treat others as more important than oneself is degrading and demeaning to the self. He also believed that the idea that others have a higher value than oneself hinders the individual's pursuit of self-development, excellence, and creativity. [6]

Ayn Rand held that one should pursue rational self-interest, and viewed altruism as an evil moral philosophy. She states that:
“ What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice-—which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—-which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: "No." Altruism says: "Yes."[7]
”

David Kelley, discussing Ayn Rand's views, says that "there is no rational ground for asserting that sacrificing yourself in order to serve others is morally superior to pursuing your own (long-term, rational) self-interest. Altruism ultimately depends on non-rational 'rationales,' on mysticism in some form..." Furthermore, he holds that there is a danger of the state enforcing that moral ideal: "If self-sacrifice is an ideal - if service to others is the highest, most honorable course of action - why not force people to act accordingly?" He believes this can ultimately result in the state forcing everyone into a collectivist political system. [8]

Norwegian eco-philosopher Arne Naess argues that environmental action based upon altruism - or service of the other - stems from a shrunken "egoic" concept of the self. Self-actualisation will result, he argues, in the recovery of an "ecological self", in which actions formerly seen as altruistic are in reality a form of enlightened self-interest[1].

Finally, one argument is strictly logical. If person A acts in B's interests, and B acts in A's interests, who will be the final recipient of their generosity? While altruism can be seen as a virtue, it by itself cannot settle matters of fairness. An alternative to pure altruism is impartiality, exemplified by the ethic of reciprocity..."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

"...The moral cannibalism of all hedonist and altruist doctrines lies in the premise that the happiness of one man necessitates the injury of another..."

http://www.westga.edu/~rlane/law/lecture22_freedom1.html

"...and that type (3) laws are unjustified and constitute “moral cannibalism.”:

"...All such laws constitute what libertarians call moral cannibalism. A cannibal in the physical sense is a person who lives off the flesh of other beings. A moral cannibal is one who believes he has a right to live off the “spirit” of other human beings—who believes that he has a moral claim on the productive capacity, time, and effort expended by others. (218)..."

http://www.brentonpriestley.com/writing/relativism.htm

"...Arguing against Ethical Relativism

The central tenet of Relativism, that morality is relative to the society in which it exists, is deeply flawed, and reveals a major argument against the theory. How do you define a society? Is it a race of people, a nation or a particular culture? The assumption that all societies are independent and homogenous is patently false. .."

"...



Ethical Relativism:
An Introductory Exploration (2001)
Brenton Priestley

An Introduction to Ethical Relativism

It is a self-evident fact that across that world, there is a bewildering variety of different moral codes and practices. As well as varying geographically, ideas of right and wrong have changed continuously over time. Because of this sheer diversity of moral codes and practices, it then seems therefore logical that there are no absolute moral truths. The prevailing ethical code in Sweden during the Fifteenth Century would be the ‘right’ one for a Medieval Swede, just as it would probably be the ‘wrong’ one, incompatible for an Ancient Egyptian. Subsequently, it then seems logical to assume that morality is in no sense absolute or universal, but rather defined relative to the society in which it exists. It may be thought that not only are certain acts believed to be morally right in one society but wrong in another, but actually are right in one and are wrong in another. This theory is known as Ethical Relativism.

Ethical Relativism is a meta-ethical theory in that it questions the status of ethical theories as opposed to simply human behaviour (Warburton 1995 p.57). It exists in the sense of describing both relativity in ethics between individuals as well between societies. It is this latter sense on which this essay will focus.

Relativism has existed for a long time, with an early proponent in the Ancient Greek Sophist, Protagoras. It has been in more recent times, however, that Sociologists and Anthropologists have found it useful to help explain and understand the vast catalogue of moralities amongst the human race, as well as ‘...because they have often seen at first hand the destruction wreaked on other societies by a crude importation of Western values’ (Ibid. p.60). Because of this, it is said that Relativism promotes tolerance and discourages social criticism. However, the proponents and detractors of Relativism continue to be divided.

Arguments for Ethical Relativism

The arguments for Relativism are fairly straightforward. Hospers outlines the two major reasons for which moral rules and practices are relative, accepted in one society but not in another. The first is that environmental conditions differ between societies. In this sense, from an evolutionary perspective, morality may be seen as a means in which humans try to adapt to their environment. Thus, different environments will result in different moralities. The morality that promotes the good of the group above all else will often be the successful one. In a desert community, someone who wastes water will be considered immoral. In a lakeside community, though, wasting water would not be a problem (Hospers 1996 p.28).

Secondly, moral rules differ between societies because of different beliefs. A Moslem in Palestine will not eat pork, because he or she believes that doing so would be infringing the will of Allah. A Hindu in India, conversely, will eat the pork, but won’t eat any beef, because they believe that cows are sacred. Although such practices may seem illogical to an outsider, if that outsider had these beliefs, they would no doubt be doing the same.

There is also the idea of the so-called Primacy of De Facto Values. This concept states that morality can be seen as either de facto, the morals that people actually practice, or ideal, the morals that people should practice. Stace elaborates on this idea by examining the two meanings of the word ‘standard’ in relation to ethics – a moral standard, as in what is thought right and a moral standard as in what is actually right. According to an Absolutist, people may believe in current, relative moral standards, but there is nonetheless an ultimate, absolute moral standard. Relativists, on the other hand, only acknowledge the de facto values, the moral standard by which people live (Stace 1973 p.193). Consequently, a Relativistic view of morality is perhaps more logical than an Absolutist in that it states that the morals that a particular society already lives by are the best ones. Ethical evolution, the trial and error of certain ethical rules and practices result in the most appropriate morals for a certain society, as opposed to an external, absolute set of morals of which the society may not have ever encountered.

Arguing against Ethical Relativism

The central tenet of Relativism, that morality is relative to the society in which it exists, is deeply flawed, and reveals a major argument against the theory. How do you define a society? Is it a race of people, a nation or a particular culture? The assumption that all societies are independent and homogenous is patently false.

In countering this, Relativists might say that it would be necessary to find a representative group to provide the moral standard for a society. For example, the congregation of a certain church might be seen to provide ethically sound rules and practices by which the rest of a city should live. However, individuals amongst the congregation are bound to have differing beliefs about moral issues. On the other hand, who is to say that the morals of one minority is better than another? Professional criminals often have their own code of ethics – should we live by those?

Another criticism of Relativism is that it discourages moral criticism of social codes. This will be discussed in detail further on.

A charge levelled against Relativism is that it promotes complacency and conservatism. For instance, the current morality in one’s society might state that it is acceptable to keep slaves. On the basis of Relativism, it is immoral to suggest the abolition of slavery. If all morality is relative, from where can one derive an ethical standard to judge the morality of a society?

Although these arguments effectively undermine Relativism, some criticisms can themselves be refuted. For instance, Stace argues that:

...if taken seriously and pressed to its logical conclusion, ethical relativity can only end in destroying morality altogether... in robbing human beings of any incentive to strive for a better world. (Ibid. p.195)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

* I am, therefore I'll think

* Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification
In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.

* For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors - between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.

If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose- because it contains all the others- the fact that they were the people who created the phrase to make money. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity- to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created.

Man cannot survive except by gaining knowledge, and reason is his only means to gain it. Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by his senses. The task of his senses is to give him the evidence of existence, but the task of identifying it belongs to his reason, his senses tell him only that something is, but what it is must be learned by his mind.

And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: 'I.'

Anthem

* I am. I think. I will.

* I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction.

* And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: 'I.'

* Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds, I am not a sacrifice on their altars.

* There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his brothers.

* This miracle of me is mine to own and keep, and mine to guard, and mine to use, and mine to kneel before...The fortune of my spirit is not to be blown into coins of brass and flung to the winds as alms for the poor of spirit.

* I shall choose friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters. And I shall choose only such as please me, and them I shall love and respect, but neither command nor obey. And we shall join our hands when we wish, or walk alone when we so desire.

* In the temple of his spirit, each man is alone.

We The Living

* Do you believe in God, Andrei? No. Neither do I. But that's a favorite question of mine. An upside-down question, you know. What do you mean? Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they'd never understand what I meant. It's a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do -- then, I know they don't believe in life. Why? Because, you see, God -- whatever anyone chooses to call God -- is one's highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It's a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own.

Philosophy: Who Needs It

* I can say — not as a patriotic bromide, but with full knowledge of the necessary metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political, and aesthetic roots — that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

* The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.

* In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions and interests dictate.

* America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages, and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way.

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

* ...observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for 'harmony with nature'—there is no discussion of man's needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears...

~~~

Becoming reacquainted with readings done a half century ago, I got a little carried away with the desire to share my early recognition of the values and philosophy demonstrated above.

If you have on occasion wondered why all the fuss about Ayn Rand, perhaps one or more of the quotations provided above will inspire you to do a little investigation as you pursue answers to moral and ethical issues and wonder how one, such as I, can say the things I do, and defend them, with moral certainty.

To those who view, 'altruism', the act of sacrificing or giving to others without recompense, as a 'virtue', a good and proper thing to do, I apologize for the stark opposition expressed and implore you to know it is not personal, you may believe that which you wish. But in terms of a search for a rational moral and ethical system to guide your actions, reality is the only arbiter between right and wrong, good and bad.

Consider this Pro Bono, an act of giving, I expect no thank you's.

Amicus

 

[manyeyedhydra]

Some interesting stuff.

I'd suggest also looking into the biological theories for altruism as it fills in the gaps Rand doesn't understand. Altruistic behaviour in vampire bats was and might still be the classic example if I remember correctly. Throw in some Game Theory and it gets very interesting.

Start with evolutionary game theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_game_theory

and you'll see the biological perspective.

There's a very good reason why altruism exists in social organisms. Individuals that run that strategy (sensibly) are better off in the long term than individuals that don't.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Need I remind you that altruism and robbery are the chief means of support for the Usual Suspects? Guilt and guns is all they have in their tool boxes.

 

[amicus]

Thank you...how do I abbreviate manyeyedhydra?

I appreciate the link and:

* Adaptive dynamics
* Behavioral ecology
* Dynamical systems
* Evolution and the Theory of Games (book)
* Evolutionary stable strategy
* Gene-centered view of evolution

Which I browsed or scanned, trying to discern the motivation.

I suggest that biology and mathematics and formulaic equations, et cetera, all exist in an intellectual vacuum that discounts free will inherent to sentient species.

I will not stoop to calling the association a, 'conspiracy theory', but the accumulated intent appears to be a rejection of values based on individual existence and a purposeful distancing of science from philosophy, ethics and morals in search of a, 'mechanistic' answer to existence.

If one could effectively factor out the, 'human element', in game theory, mutatable and inheritable characteristics, as some attempt with 'altruism & gay genes', and the sidekick, seratonin sally, of the pharmaceutical parrots that attempt to condense human existence to excretion therapy, then hell, they get what they really want, "any thing goes, if it feels good, do it", which is what this is really all about.

Under the guise of science, everything becomes amoral, neither right nor wrong, good or bad, hmmm...agnostic morality? Have I coined another phrase?


regards...

Amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Look under 'politics.'

 

[amicus]

AMICUS

Look under 'politics.'

~~~

Point well taken, JBJ, were there ever at any time, "Statesmen"?



ami

 

[Dragonlipz]

As of late, on several threads concerning Atheism and such, the term, 'altruism', has come into place as a 'virtue', and I beg to differ.

Some fervent 'left wing' advocates even go so far as to suggest that their opponents lack the, 'altruism gene' that makes them genetically incapable of kindness to others. Like the oft claimed, 'gay gene', science has not be able to distinguish any such genetic anomalies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(ethics)


"...Criticism of the doctrine



http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand



http://www.westga.edu/~rlane/law/lecture22_freedom1.html


http://www.brentonpriestley.com/writing/relativism.htm

"...Arguing against Ethical Relativism


"...



Ethical Relativism:
An Introductory Exploration (2001)
Brenton Priestley

An Introduction to Ethical Relativism



Arguments for Ethical Relativism



Arguing against Ethical Relativism


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand



Anthem



We The Living


Philosophy: Who Needs It



Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal



The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution




~~~

Becoming reacquainted with readings done a half century ago, I got a little carried away with the desire to share my early recognition of the values and philosophy demonstrated above.

If you have on occasion wondered why all the fuss about Ayn Rand, perhaps one or more of the quotations provided above will inspire you to do a little investigation as you pursue answers to moral and ethical issues and wonder how one, such as I, can say the things I do, and defend them, with moral certainty.

To those who view, 'altruism', the act of sacrificing or giving to others without recompense, as a 'virtue', a good and proper thing to do, I apologize for the stark opposition expressed and implore you to know it is not personal, you may believe that which you wish. But in terms of a search for a rational moral and ethical system to guide your actions, reality is the only arbiter between right and wrong, good and bad.

Consider this Pro Bono, an act of giving, I expect no thank you's.

Amicus

Yer smokin' that shit agin.......I warned you and your clone about that stuff.....best leave it alone and get some original thoughts in yer head......someday that crap is all you'll have....maybe it's all you have now and you're mistaking it for true neural activity. What a shame, but ya did it to yerself.......a true 'conservative' lobotomy.......you're incapable of any fecund intellectual thought.....so it goes........

 

[Pure]

huh?

AMICUS

Need I remind you that altruism and robbery are the chief means of support for the Usual Suspects? Guilt and guns is all they have in their tool boxes.


you have something against robbery? pray tell, based on what?

ami, certainly does not, for instance, have anything against the behavior of Rockefeller Sr. in his early days; he just calls it 'creative entrepreneurship.'

a bit like the 'entrepreneurial' talents of Ken Lay and Conrad Black.

 

[amicus]

Putrescent Pure again attempts to disprove the general by exemplifying the exceptions, forgetting, in his utter haste to disparage freedom, that all systems, socialist and capitalist alike have the common factor of humanity in the mix.

The number of thieves and frauds in the general population, criminals, are neither more nor less prevalent in any system.

However, to postulate a collective system, wherein the good are sacrificed to the evil, as superior to a free system is foolish and evil. It insures that the result, as illustrated by previous failures of command societies, religious or communal, will be human suffering and misery.

Return to your prayer beads and chants, Pure, perhaps an inspiration to glorify the losers and parasites will come as an ephiphany to you and you can foolishly try again to distort the concept of free men and a free society.

A very weak rebuttal; even for you.

Amicus

 

[ishtat]

Amicus, the fact of your original post seems to deny the point of it. What rational self interest can you have that is served by posting ideas which you must be pretty certain will either be ignored or rejected by 99.9% of your readers?

I have always assumed you were being altruistic in seeking to help your fellow litsters with all of your posts. If you believe you are following your own 'rational self interest' and not being altruistic it appears that your motivation must therefore be entirely egoistical.

NB. the common dictionary definitions of altruism do not include the idea of obligation noted in the Wiki article. I referred to OED, Macquarie, and Chambers.

 

[amicus]

Amicus, the fact of your original post seems to deny the point of it. What rational self interest can you have that is served by posting ideas which you must be pretty certain will either be ignored or rejected by 99.9% of your readers?

I have always assumed you were being altruistic in seeking to help your fellow litsters with all of your posts. If you believe you are following your own 'rational self interest' and not being altruistic it appears that your motivation must therefore be entirely egoistical.

NB. the common dictionary definitions of altruism do not include the idea of obligation noted in the Wiki article. I referred to OED, Macquarie, and Chambers.

~~~

There remains the possibility that I will be called to return to the microphone and expound upon the philosophy of human individual freedom and the corollary, the free market system. Thus, 'knowing thine enemy' is in my self interest.

The matter of how many readers or listeners agree with my words is something neither you nor I can determine with any accuracy, and approval is not necessary for me to continue.

Rather than mount a personal attack on me, why not address the issue in addition to questioning the definition offered.

From the tone of your previous posts, I did not expect you to employ the usual tactics of the 'usual suspects', that to always attack and never present or defend or even attempt to rebut the premise.

So, you see, I am capable of mistakes; as I apparently misjudge you.

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Statesmen do exist; unicorns are more common, but a few statesmen get into the mix.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

I know a little about John D. Rockefeller; he's one of my heroes.

He was a poor boy when he organized Standard Oil. At the time, 1870 I think it was, Pennsylvania was an environmental toxic waste dump because of the public's mania to harvest oil there. Also, lamp oil cost 95 cents a gallon, and was harvested from whales.

What Rockefeller did was buy all the pissant 'refineries' and stop a significant chunk of the ecological damage in Pennsylvania and Ohio. He used steel barrels and railroad tank cars, and stopped the harvesting of hardwood trees for barrel making. Then he located the refineries along the coasts, adjacent to the metro areas that used his kerosene. The price of kerosene dropped to 5 cents a gallon and the whaling industry passed into history.

He gave away 500 MILLION Dollars during his lifetime. People who bought one share of his stock in the 1870s, retired with 250K in stock during the 20s. No one ever lost a dime on Standard Oil stock, and most became rich. He built University of Chicago, Rockefeller University, and Spellman College for blacks. He personally eradicated hookworm disease in the South.

Rockefeller always said that his bad reputation came from the resentment of people who took his money instead of his Standard Oil stock. He offered people a choice: money or stock. Politicians hated him because he consolidated Standard Oil properties into a few refining and storage terminals, reducing the numbers of politicians and officials who required payoffs.

 

[ishtat]

~~~

There remains the possibility that I will be called to return to the microphone and expound upon the philosophy of human individual freedom and the corollary, the free market system. Thus, 'knowing thine enemy' is in my self interest.

The matter of how many readers or listeners agree with my words is something neither you nor I can determine with any accuracy, and approval is not necessary for me to continue.

Rather than mount a personal attack on me, why not address the issue in addition to questioning the definition offered.

From the tone of your previous posts, I did not expect you to employ the usual tactics of the 'usual suspects', that to always attack and never present or defend or even attempt to rebut the premise.

So, you see, I am capable of mistakes; as I apparently misjudge you.

Amicus

Well I must have made some sort of point if you think that rather bland comment is a personal attack.

No, I am not going to address your question because I don't choose to and I also note that is pretty much the same reply you gave to another poster in similar circumstances a day or two ago. Basically I do not choose to do so because I suspect that the same tired nostrums will be discussed that have been prescribed many times before without the slightest risk of their ever being implemented in the real world.

And Amicus, I have never doubted both our capacities for misjudgement.

So that you don't mistake what sort of 'suspect' I am in future I would say I'm very free market orientated on economic issues and a follower of Schumpeter (as much as anybody).

Ayn Rand as a philosopher in my view is 3rd rate at best, David Hume is probably the thinker I most admire. I'm fairly free market on social issues too, taking the view that so long as it doesn't hurt your neighbour each man or woman is free to live their own life as they will. (I realise that 'not hurting ones neighbour' covers a multitude of issues) So far as this board is concerned I try not to take either myself or anyone else too seriously


Finally, I am going to toddle off to Papua New Guinea for a few days. Perhaps when I return the AH will have experienced a Damascene conversion to the thinking of Ms Rand and yourself- but then again, perhaps not.

 

[JamesSD]

Some fervent 'left wing' advocates even go so far as to suggest that their opponents lack the, 'altruism gene' that makes them genetically incapable of kindness to others. Like the oft claimed, 'gay gene', science has not be able to distinguish any such genetic anomalies.

<sigh>

There IS good evidence of a genetic link to homosexuality. Although not strictly, "genetic", there's good evidence birth order has an impact (eldest males are less likely to be homosexual than youngest males). Genetic research using family and twin methodologies has produced consistent evidence that genes influence sexual orientation, but molecular research has not yet produced compelling evidence for specific genes (perhaps what you were referring to?) It's reasonably to say that like hair color and skin tone, there isn't simply one gene that controls sexual orientation. Additionally, there are environmental factors (the state of the mother's womb is not "genetic", although obviously not a choice), there's a fluidity to sexual attraction over the course of one's life, and trauma can also play a role. The evidence is clearer in men than women, partially because, sadly, there has been a lot more attention paid to homosexual men, and a lot less energy to women.

I realize not everyone has access, but a simple PubMed search of Homsexuality and Genetics gives a large number of peer reviewed scientific articles on the subject. It's a very interesting question, and like a lot of traits, there's clearly a strong genetic component, but also a social component. Also complicating things are desire does not always equal behavoir. Ted Haggard calls himself a heterosexual these days, but he happened to actually get caught. There's a lot of evidence there are a good number of men and women engaging in same-sex relations who do not identify as homo or bi sexual.

Regarding altruism, like most things (ability to hit a baseball, skill at math or cooking) there's a genetic component and a socialization component. There's a lot of interesting research on the subject out there if you look.


What fascinates me about this discussion is it's yet another case where "liberal" and "conservative" thought tend to divulge. "Liberal" thought tends to treat humans as just another animal, albeit a pretty complicated and fascinating one. "Liberal" thought looks at genetic evidence and behaviors factors, such as gorillas being able to learn sign language or even family pets learning to communicate non-verbally as evidence that while humans might be the most interesting and effective species on the planet, we're not really that far removed from our former homes in the trees and caves, and have a lot in common with our animal cousins.

"Conservative" thought tends to believe man is noble and divine, possessing some abstract sentience beyond that of the other living creatures on the planet. "God" is the most common explanation for this.

There are of course moderates on these sorts of positions as well.

The difficulty is we don't understand each other's views, and what to us is self-evident, to our intellectual opposite is hogwash. A conservative might say "Humans are divine and special". I might say "Humans are basically complicated apes". To each of us these are obvious observation, not opinion. It certainly makes coming to any sort of consensus difficult.

 

[amicus]

Originally Posted by ishtat View Post

Amicus, the fact of your original post seems to deny the point of it. What rational self interest can you have that is served by posting ideas which you must be pretty certain will either be ignored or rejected by 99.9% of your readers?

I have always assumed you were being altruistic in seeking to help your fellow litsters with all of your posts. If you believe you are following your own 'rational self interest' and not being altruistic it appears that your motivation must therefore be entirely egoistical.

~~~

Ahm. okay, if I do not read your post as criticism, but view it as irony or satire, then perhaps I can understand your approach to my, 'rational self interest', and, the intent of the post to state an anti altruism and your assumption that my motives are, 'altruistics' on the forum. You must admit that your post could be interpreted a being critical of what you perceived as a contradiction.

However, in fact, you are confronting my premise that neither altruism nor homosexuality can be explained as genetic inheritance; you are suggesting, even offering proof that both may be, at least partially, genetic in nature.

Putting that aside for the moment, the latter part of your post keyed a memory, "The Naked Ape" Desmond...and I had to search to refresh my memory:

http://www.fandango.com/thenakedape_v103565/summary

Somewhat based on Desmond Morris' fascinating book of pop anthropology, this partially animated satirical docudrama -- produced by Playboy Magazine publisher Hugh Hefner -- traces the evolution of humankind and offers insight into the reasons why we behave the way we do. Though often dealing with sexuality, nothing in the film is terribly offensive or graphic. ~ Sandra Brennan, All Movie Guide

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qsort=&page=1&matches=26&browse=1&qwork=2473057&full=1

From Naked Ape to Super Species: A Personal Perspective on Humanity and the Global Ecocrisis

by David T Suzuki, Holly Dressel

About this title: From Naked Ape to Super Species takes an unflinching look at where we are at this unprecedented moment in history. Suzuki and Dressel reveal that a clear and present environmental danger is staring us in the face, a danger that is screened out by perceptual filters formed by our current values and beliefs. And should the truth get through to us, we experience a paralysis in the face of adversity that is fueled by a sense of impotence and by the psychological and institutional barriers that stymie us.

There has been for a generation, a crop of 'pop' psychologists and anthropologists, determined to view human actions are largely a product of inherited characteristics observable in the animal world.

There was a time when the, 'criminal gene', offered explanations as to why the one to three percent of humans engaged in criminal activities.

I have been following this direction of research for a very long time and now, with the, 'gay' gene, and now the, 'altruism', gene, and even the left wing posit that conservative premises can be explained via the same biological procedure, begins to take on the aura of eugenics.

http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html

I was searching for a particular scientist, popular in the US, in the 70's, I think, concerning eugenics, but ran across that rather horrifying piece above.

I think it might be possible to tie the current liberal contention of genetic inheritance to the much older Eugenics philosophy of 'eradicating' unsavory human characteristics from the species.

In any case, thank you for your reply' were it not for that I would not have been inspired to search along the lines of the, 'naked ape'.

Amicus

 

[Handley_Page]

I'm no Philosopher, but it strikes me that Rand is wrong in the quoted conclusions, rather in the same way as "reducto ad absurdam". I don't agree with Nietzsche either for the same reason.

To my mind, "Altruism" is the concept that separates us from the Animal kingdom. It isn't a "willing slavery" (that would give someone else the idea that they are, in some ways, superior), but a means of all humankind getting along together to common goal (of peaceful existence).


And I do not agree with this at all:-

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose- because it contains all the others- the fact that they were the people who created the phrase to make money. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity- to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created."

You think the great trading nations of antiquity didn't know about the creation of wealth ? Sorry; I think that's rubbish. To discuss it further would take me all night and I'm tired.

Thanks for the stimulation of thought, though.

 

[amicus]

I'm no Philosopher, but it strikes me that Rand is wrong in the quoted conclusions, rather in the same way as "reducto ad absurdam". I don't agree with Nietzsche either for the same reason.

To my mind, "Altruism" is the concept that separates us from the Animal kingdom. It isn't a "willing slavery" (that would give someone else the idea that they are, in some ways, superior), but a means of all humankind getting along together to common goal (of peaceful existence).


And I do not agree with this at all:-

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose- because it contains all the others- the fact that they were the people who created the phrase to make money. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity- to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created."

You think the great trading nations of antiquity didn't know about the creation of wealth ? Sorry; I think that's rubbish. To discuss it further would take me all night and I'm tired.

Thanks for the stimulation of thought, though.

~~~

Hello Handley from UK, pleased to make your acquaintance.

Presenting altruism as moral cannibalism did not originate with me and I provided links to past usage. I did so to present an engaging title and to confront those who are advocating that conservatives are born without a heart, heh, well, the altruistic gene, and to explore the nature and definition of that human action called altruism.

Most humans naturally engage in acts of kindness to their loved ones to family, to tribe or village, I doubt anyone will argue with that.

But when 'altruism' is codified as a part of a religion, or imposed by the State as a Pigouvian Law, to modify behavior, it becomes incumbent upon one to define the term and comprehend the importance and Rand and others did just that.

You obviously disagree, thas fine, part of the process of learning.

"...You think the great trading nations of antiquity didn't know about the creation of wealth ? Sorry; I think that's rubbish. To discuss it further would take me all night and I'm tired..."

I will try to make quick work of the above. Like the Islamic Mullah's and Kings, the wealth provided by huge reserves of petroleum, was not created, it is being exploited.

The great trading nations of the past were all Monarchy's or Dictatorships and the wealth acquired was by taxing the shipping companies and converting most of the wealth to Gold and Land ownership that did not benefit the common man but gave Kings and Popes Golden Thrones.

Even the Greeks, Romans and Phoenicians, some of the earliest 'trading nations', confiscated the wealth. How else do you think such monuments as the Coliseum the Pyramids and the great Sphinx were built?

But Rand is absolutely correct; America was the first to acknowledge and guarantee the right of the common man to, 'make money' and enjoy the fruits of his own labor without being beholden to a King or Pope. (there were no, 'income taxes' until 1916)

Amicus