Altruism is Evil

[Volderbeek]

I find myself agreeing with this sentiment. Do leftists really have to buy into the "virtue" of selflessness? *Goes away to read Ayn Rand books*

[Decolonize The Left]

I find myself agreeing with this sentiment. Do leftists really have to buy into the "virtue" of selflessness? *Goes away to read Ayn Rand books*

"Selflessness," like all virtues, is qualified according to context. "Leftists" are not altruistic because it's a good-in-itself, they can be altruistic because they choose to be for whatever reasons they may have.

- August

[Volderbeek]

"Selflessness," like all virtues, is qualified according to context. "Leftists" are not altruistic because it's a good-in-itself, they can be altruistic because they choose to be for whatever reasons they may have.

- August

If virtues were qualified according to context, I think they'd have to be re-badged as informed decisions. I'm saying one should never choose an altruistic path as it leads to ruin.

[Sentinel]

I'm not sure about the validity of that quote per se. But leftism -- and especially scientific communism -- has little to do with altruism.

The working class seizing power does that acting in it's self-interest, after the material conditions have made this possible.

Class cooperation is simply more beneficial than individualism for the workers.

[Dystisis]

Can you explain how altruism is "evil"?

So far I haven't seen anything with any meaning in this thread.

[Ratatosk]

I don't think total selflessness is desirable or achievable, and I agree that some leftists often make a fetish out of selflessness, but I don't see why it should be "evil".

I'm not sure about the validity of that quote per se. But leftism -- and especially scientific communism -- has little to do with altruism.I don't believe many people support socialism out of pure self-interest. I mean, if it turned out that your own interests would be best served by some totally unfair but more easily achievable system, would you support it? I hope not. (Of course, admitting this would require dropping the cool-sounding "scientific" epithet, which is why many communists like to pretend that they do support socialism out of sheer self-interest.)

(And if you want to retort by including "other people's well-being" as your "selfish" motivation, you completely trivialize the question.)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Volderbeek is an idealist, and they generally sink into cynicism. We can see this already happening in his case.

No wonder then that he trashes one of humanity's more endearing traits.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How can altruism be "evil"? That implies some kind of intentional harm, something which is lacking from acts and behaviour that is commonly termed "altruistic".

[PRC-UTE]

it's not evil, whatever that's supposed to mean.

in fact it will probably play a very essential role in building socialism. there's quite a few vulgar marxists who will say that workers will only be motivated to act by their class interest, and while that's an essential component, the willingness to sacrifice and even die for a freedom that you won't live to see is the very essence of altruism.

there's some solid scientific work that documents how vital this trait is in humans, how fundamental. there were some useful findings published in New Scientist magazine. if I remember correctly the conclusion it cam to is that altruism is actually a sophisticated form of enlightened self interest, and we are wired to feel good doing it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PRC:


if I remember correctly the conclusion it cam to is that altruism is actually a sophisticated form of enlightened self interest, and we are wired to feel good doing it.

This conclusion is the result of some rightwing biology (called 'Evolutionary Psychology', and 'inclusive fitness') being superimposed on the facts -- you can surely tell this for yourself, since it is all of a piece with the reactioanry idea that we are all basically selfish.

If you can, get hold of David Stove's book Darwinian Fairytales, which exposes this slander on humanity.

[Stove was until his death in 1994, an atheist, who belived that Darwin's theory was not applicable to the development of our species, even if it was applciable to the rest of nature. He was also a rightwing git himself, and an ex-Marxist. In addition, he was one of the best philosophical essayists since Descartes.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stove

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinian_Fairytales

I have posted an article by him on this, here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=993823&postcount=7

The rest of the thread is also relevant:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/natural-selection-t62803/index.html

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I find myself agreeing with this sentiment. Do leftists really have to buy into the "virtue" of selflessness? *Goes away to read Ayn Rand books*

I hate to be unkind, but I don't see how this question has any content at all? Are you talking about psychological egoism? Should we believe that we are all completely self-interested? What follows from that? A soldier who jumps on a hand grenade is equally self-interested as a soldier who doesn't. So what?

The only question that seems to be of interest in this is, what is the value of selfishness or altruism. Perhaps even more precisely, what are the contexts for altruism to be valuable. Che Guevara was selfless and it was clearly good. His selflessness expressed fidelity to the noble cause of global human liberation.

Nazi soldiers were clearly selfless (the holocaust acted directly against their material political and military advantage) and yet they should be understood as radically evil or diabolically evil for their selflessness.

[Decolonize The Left]

If virtues were qualified according to context, I think they'd have to be re-badged as informed decisions. I'm saying one should never choose an altruistic path as it leads to ruin.

But then they wouldn't be called "virtues" would they? Honesty is a virtue, but it's not always virtuous to be honest...

Selflessness, like all other virtues, can be qualified according to its context. You say altruism always leads to ruin, but do you have anything to back this up? Where do you come up with such dogmatic opinions?

- August

[Dean]

(And if you want to retort by including "other people's well-being" as your "selfish" motivation, you completely trivialize the question.)

The question is trivial in the first place. Human interests are social, and for that reason self interest cannot exclude what are seen as primarily social benefits of human action.

[Volderbeek]

But then they wouldn't be called "virtues" would they? Honesty is a virtue, but it's not always virtuous to be honest...

Selflessness, like all other virtues, can be qualified according to its context. You say altruism always leads to ruin, but do you have anything to back this up? Where do you come up with such dogmatic opinions?

- August

If honesty is a virtue, then how can you ever be virtuous while being dishonest? Unless, you're being *gasp* a utilitarian! :scared:

I don't need to back it up. It's quite self-evident. Think about it.

[Volderbeek]

I hate to be unkind, but I don't see how this question has any content at all? Are you talking about psychological egoism? Should we believe that we are all completely self-interested? What follows from that? A soldier who jumps on a hand grenade is equally self-interested as a soldier who doesn't. So what?

No, the soldier who jumps on the grenade is foolish (and got what he deserved) for being altruistic.


The only question that seems to be of interest in this is, what is the value of selfishness or altruism. Perhaps even more precisely, what are the contexts for altruism to be valuable. Che Guevara was selfless and it was clearly good. His selflessness expressed fidelity to the noble cause of global human liberation.As much as I admire Che's revolutionary activity, one can't ignore his totalitarian nature, which I allege is because of what we're talking about.


Nazi soldiers were clearly selfless (the holocaust acted directly against their material political and military advantage) and yet they should be understood as radically evil or diabolically evil for their selflessness.My point exactly. Thank you. :)

[Volderbeek]

How can altruism be "evil"? That implies some kind of intentional harm, something which is lacking from acts and behaviour that is commonly termed "altruistic".

I would consider it to be a lack of utility, which altruistic actions bring about.

[Volderbeek]

Can you explain how altruism is "evil"?

So far I haven't seen anything with any meaning in this thread.

I thought this board was for discussion not education. I believe they have one for that here...

[Volderbeek]

it's not evil, whatever that's supposed to mean.

A lot of you seem to be grilling me on the evil thing. :lol: People, it's just an expression like "God is dead". I assumed people could catch on.


in fact it will probably play a very essential role in building socialism. there's quite a few vulgar marxists who will say that workers will only be motivated to act by their class interest, and while that's an essential component, the willingness to sacrifice and even die for a freedom that you won't live to see is the very essence of altruism.

Dying for future freedoms always ends up being for the benefit of some oppressive authoritarian regime. Self-preservation should be a virtue to those of us on the left.


there's some solid scientific work that documents how vital this trait is in humans, how fundamental. there were some useful findings published in New Scientist magazine. if I remember correctly the conclusion it cam to is that altruism is actually a sophisticated form of enlightened self interest, and we are wired to feel good doing it.

I don't think we're "wired" for much of anything except survival. That kind of conclusion doesn't seem very scientific to me.

[Volderbeek]

I don't think total selflessness is desirable or achievable, and I agree that some leftists often make a fetish out of selflessness, but I don't see why it should be "evil".

You're half the way there. :)


(And if you want to retort by including "other people's well-being" as your "selfish" motivation, you completely trivialize the question.)

Nope, you shan't care about that. You'll simply do more harm then good. People will seek help when they need it and helping will come as naturally as good Tao.

[Plagueround]

To me, altruism is simply an extension of cooperation and mutual aid. While there is not necessarily an immediate or urgent gain in helping someone, the society we wish to create functions on mutual aid. I don't see anything wrong with expressing that idea even when the gains are not immediately apparent or it isn't directly driven by that line of thought. Kind of the butterfly effect of mutual aid I suppose? :lol:

As for jumping on grenades or sacrificing one's self for others, I suppose some people develop bonds or attitudes that defy such logic. Irrational? Perhaps. Evil? Certainly not the right word, even if it's not a literal sense. I certainly know I would sacrifice my own life for that of my child, but even that could stem from one of those other big human urges. ;)

[Decolonize The Left]

If honesty is a virtue, then how can you ever be virtuous while being dishonest? Unless, you're being *gasp* a utilitarian! :scared:

I'm not a utilitarian, but I'm also not a deontologist like yourself.

I shall provide with an answer to your question (regardless of your intended sarcasm). An example of when it is virtuous to be dishonest:
Your friend runs into a room screaming and locks the door. A man wearing a bloody shirt and holding a running chainsaw runs into the hallway and asks you whether or not your friend ran into the room. In this situation it is virtuous to lie.


I don't need to back it up. It's quite self-evident. Think about it.

Yes, yes you do need to back it up. Until you do no one in this thread ought to take you seriously.

- August

[Volderbeek]

I'm not a utilitarian, but I'm also not a deontologist like yourself.

How is that even possible? You have to be one or the other. (I'm a die hard utilitarian.)


I shall provide with an answer to your question (regardless of your intended sarcasm). An example of when it is virtuous to be dishonest:
Your friend runs into a room screaming and locks the door. A man wearing a bloody shirt and holding a running chainsaw runs into the hallway and asks you whether or not your friend ran into the room. In this situation it is virtuous to lie.
Yeah, that's consequentialist/utilitarian. What would you call it?


Yes, yes you do need to back it up. Until you do no one in this thread ought to take you seriously.Is that the right thing to do or should I be concerned about that outcome? :lol:

[Decolonize The Left]

How is that even possible? You have to be one or the other. (I'm a die hard utilitarian.)

Why?


Yeah, that's consequentialist/utilitarian. What would you call it?

Common sense.


Is that the right thing to do or should I be concerned about that outcome? :lol:

I don't listen to people who don't justify themselves. This is also a forum based around discussion and debate which necessarily entails justification for statements.

- August

[Demogorgon]

How is that even possible? You have to be one or the other.
Not all Consequentialists are Utilitarians.

Anyway, your views on altruism are ridiculous. Out in the real world the concept of treating others well for the sake of treating them well does everyone a great deal of good.

[TheDevil'sApprentice]

How is that even possible? You have to be one or the other. (I'm a die hard utilitarian.)Lots of ways. This for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics

To the OP, check out Max Stirner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner

http://tmh.floonet.net/teaho/theego0.html

[Pogue]

This is possibly the most pointless and idiotic argument I have ever seen. More so than the philosophical perspective of 'libertarians' when arguing that libertarianism is true and absolute freedom and anarchism in its only correct sense is tyranny/oppression, and thats saying something.

Arguments like this are the sort of things which make me hate philosophy sometimes, even though I study it.

[DesertShark]

I don't need to back it up. It's quite self-evident. Think about it.

If you want to discuss/debate the topic with people on this forum and a majority of the people posting a reply are asking you to explain yourself or provide some justification for your claim, then maybe there is a need for you to explain your claim and provide justification for it...

I'm only saying this so that a proper discussion/debate can ensue, if that is in fact what you really want to happen.

On the whole Deontologist or Utilitarian, 'you have to be one or the other' argument, you should explore more philosophy - specifically ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics) (the link is to wikipedia, it gives an okay break down of some of the theoretical theories that exist today).

-DesertShark

[Trystan]

Volderbeek is an idealist, and they generally sink into cynicism. We can see this already happening in his case.

No wonder then that he trashes one of humanity's more endearing traits.

Just out if interest, what do you think of Rand and Randism, Mrs. Litchenstein? (I ask because you seem to know about these things).

[Volderbeek]

Why?

Why I'm utilitarian? Well, it's really the only system with a strong basis in reality because it retains specificity and context.


Common sense.And how do you arrive at this common sense? Just because you didn't study it in philosophy class doesn't mean your brain didn't do a little consequentialist accounting for the situation.


I don't listen to people who don't justify themselves. This is also a forum based around discussion and debate which necessarily entails justification for statements.And I don't respond to threats! :lol:

Look, I just wanted to get some opinions and start a discussion from there. I'm not trying to "win" this "debate". Like anyone would be shaken from their convictions. I just want people to think about these things a bit different.

[Volderbeek]

Lots of ways. This for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics

That's really just deontology applied to people instead of their actions. As such, it's really the worst of all because of how it pigeonholes people.

I don't even acknowledge it really because I'm a Taoist and don't believe in the existence of the self.

[Volderbeek]

Not all Consequentialists are Utilitarians.

Yeah, some like to combine elements of rule ethics, but they're like the Social Democrats of consequentialists. They just want to take the edge off.


Anyway, your views on altruism are ridiculous. Out in the real world the concept of treating others well for the sake of treating them well does everyone a great deal of good.It's an interesting "concept" but few really do it, and no one really cares about them. Besides, this is almost always based on empathy more than anything. That's why we don't care as much about animals; it's not as easy to empathize with them. Some people do, though, and this is usually based on the animals' human-like traits. Same goes for plants and then inanimate objects and so on.

[Volderbeek]

To me, altruism is simply an extension of cooperation and mutual aid. While there is not necessarily an immediate or urgent gain in helping someone, the society we wish to create functions on mutual aid. I don't see anything wrong with expressing that idea even when the gains are not immediately apparent or it isn't directly driven by that line of thought. Kind of the butterfly effect of mutual aid I suppose? :lol:

Yeah, but you see, that's the thing. It's mutual aid. You wouldn't want it if it was about someone just mooching off you.


As for jumping on grenades or sacrificing one's self for others, I suppose some people develop bonds or attitudes that defy such logic. Irrational? Perhaps. Evil? Certainly not the right word, even if it's not a literal sense. I certainly know I would sacrifice my own life for that of my child, but even that could stem from one of those other big human urges. ;)The Selfish Gene I believe they call it.

[Decolonize The Left]

Why I'm utilitarian? Well, it's really the only system with a strong basis in reality because it retains specificity and context.

No. The "why" was directed at why must one be a deontologist or a utilitarian?


And how do you arrive at this common sense? Just because you didn't study it in philosophy class doesn't mean your brain didn't do a little consequentialist accounting for the situation.

It's true that I considered consequences in the act of choosing to lie to the murderer - but it doesn't follow that I'm a utilitarian. It's awful self-absorbed to think that anytime someone considers the future that they are engaging in utilitarian philosophy...


And I don't respond to threats! :lol:

Look, I just wanted to get some opinions and start a discussion from there. I'm not trying to "win" this "debate". Like anyone would be shaken from their convictions. I just want people to think about these things a bit different.

It wasn't a threat at all - I was merely stating that you didn't provide any sort of justification for your claims, and when asked, you said that it's "self-evident." This type of dogmatism isn't helpful to discussion in any way. If you wish to encourage people to "think about these things a bit different" then you might consider making coherent arguments...

- August

[Thunder]

EDIT: This may be way different from the convo going on here, but I decided to post it since it had to do with altruism.
I dont see how any ethical rule can be completely selfless...
Like in the Golden Rule, "Do unto others that which you'd have them do unto you", it is selfish because you abstain from doing bad to others BECAUSE you dont want them to do evil to you, thus you are trying to protect yourself.

[benhur]

Altruism doesn't exist. So it cannot be good or evil. Case closed.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^And thus spoke 'God'.

[Volderbeek]

This conclusion is the result of some rightwing biology (called 'Evolutionary Psychology', and 'inclusive fitness') being superimposed on the facts -- you can surely tell this for yourself, since it is all of a piece with the reactioanry idea that we are all basically selfish.

So now biology is some kind of right-wing conspiracy? It never ends with you does it? :rolleyes:

We're not all "basically selfish" and that's precisely the problem. We've (humans that is) developed a strange fetish for sacrifice, when progress is almost universally seen as making life easier.

[Volderbeek]

No. The "why" was directed at why must one be a deontologist or a utilitarian?

What other way can you judge an action? You either judge it by some pre-conceived standards or by its consequences; perhaps somewhere in between as well, but those are the poles.


It's true that I considered consequences in the act of choosing to lie to the murderer - but it doesn't follow that I'm a utilitarian. It's awful self-absorbed to think that anytime someone considers the future that they are engaging in utilitarian philosophy...Yeah yeah, I know there are certain nuances between different forms of consequentialism, but that's really the main one.


It wasn't a threat at all - I was merely stating that you didn't provide any sort of justification for your claims, and when asked, you said that it's "self-evident." This type of dogmatism isn't helpful to discussion in any way. If you wish to encourage people to "think about these things a bit different" then you might consider making coherent arguments...That was actually a line from a TV show, but never mind... :lol:

You're still missing my point. I'm not making an argument (with the exception of this argument about whether I'm making an argument). I'm merely stating my opinion and looking to challenge others' opinions.

[Slave Revolt]

Nazi soldiers were clearly selfless (the holocaust acted directly against their material political and military advantage) and yet they should be understood as radically evil or diabolically evil for their selflessness.

Altruism is not selflessness itself, it is the selfless regard for others' welfare. I hardly think that you can call the Nazis altruistic.

Also selfish disregard of the welfare of others is capitalism's most basic flaw. Everyone acting on their own self interest for the attainment of profit. By believing that altruism is evil, does that not make you the capitalist you so despise?

[black magick hustla]

It is a good trait. I dont think ideologies should be based fundamentally on that though. The consequences turn bad when someone does that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


So now biology is some kind of right-wing conspiracy? It never ends with you does it?

Your word, "conspiracy", not mine.


We're not all "basically selfish" and that's precisely the problem. We've (humans that is) developed a strange fetish for sacrifice, when progress is almost universally seen as making life easier.

I have read this several times, and it still makes little sense.

Perhaps if you tried again, but with your brain engaged this time, we might be able to figure out what, if anything, you are trying to say.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Altruism is not selflessness itself, it is the selfless regard for others' welfare. I hardly think that you can call the Nazis altruistic.

Also selfish disregard of the welfare of others is capitalism's most basic flaw. Everyone acting on their own self interest for the attainment of profit. By believing that altruism is evil, does that not make you the capitalist you so despise?
I think you're missing the point. The Nazis saw themselves as carrying out the grand destiny of Europe. Furthermore they were trying to radically willing to lay down their lives for their cause. This makes them altruistic.

I certainly agree that capitalism pushes people to be selfish. The conceptual failure lies in thinking it is a simple opposition between altruistic and selfish. Rather we should see altruism as breaking into radical good and radical evil. The Nazis were radically evil. They were willing to sacrifice themselves for evil. Communists are (for the most part) radically good. They are willing to sacrifice themselves for good.

[Decolonize The Left]

I think you're missing the point. The Nazis saw themselves as carrying out the grand destiny of Europe. Furthermore they were trying to radically willing to lay down their lives for their cause. This makes them altruistic.

No, it doesn't.

Altruism: "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others" (Merriam-Webster)
The Nazis did not devote themselves to the 'welfare of others,' for this would imply that the welfare of Jewish individuals ought to be respected....


I certainly agree that capitalism pushes people to be selfish. The conceptual failure lies in thinking it is a simple opposition between altruistic and selfish. Rather we should see altruism as breaking into radical good and radical evil. The Nazis were radically evil. They were willing to sacrifice themselves for evil. Communists are (for the most part) radically good. They are willing to sacrifice themselves for good.

But you fail to note that, as a communist, you have already defined what is 'good' and 'evil.' Hence it follows that communists are "radically good" because you have already defined communism as good. Similarly, a Nazi might define Nazism as "good," thereby making themselves "radically good."

The point here is to step beyond good and evil and the conventional tendency to label that which we believe in 'good,' and that which opposes our beliefs 'evil.' I agree that communism is a good theory, but my belief in this centers around the notion that communism provides a ground for critical thinking and freedom, which in turn leads to the definitions of 'good.' Therefore it is 'good' which allows good to be defined.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

What other way can you judge an action? You either judge it by some pre-conceived standards or by its consequences; perhaps somewhere in between as well, but those are the poles.

Isn't 'judging an action by its consequences' also 'judging an action by pre-conceived standards?' Namely, the pre-conceived standard of consequences?


You're still missing my point. I'm not making an argument (with the exception of this argument about whether I'm making an argument). I'm merely stating my opinion and looking to challenge others' opinions.

This is fine - you ought to state your opinions. But opinions are worthless without arguments, therefore it is in your interest to make arguments towards your opinions.

- August

[Reclaimed Dasein]

No, it doesn't.

Altruism: "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others" (Merriam-Webster)
The Nazis did not devote themselves to the 'welfare of others,' for this would imply that the welfare of Jewish individuals ought to be respected....

Two things. First, a dictionary is neither necessary or sufficient to decide a serious philosophical discussion. This is especially true when the philosophical discussion is controversial. Your use of a dictionary is inappropriate in this context.

Secondly, the Nazis did not view Jews as individuals. Thereby, they would still be considered altruistic. One of the many clear moral failings of the Nazis would be their inability to extend morality to other human beings, but not necessarily their inability to sacrifice. Most capitalists aren't willing to dedicate themselves and sacrifice for any cause. However, the Nazis clearly were willing and able to sacrifice. The clear problem was that their cause was evil.


But you fail to note that, as a communist, you have already defined what is 'good' and 'evil.' Hence it follows that communists are "radically good" because you have already defined communism as good. Similarly, a Nazi might define Nazism as "good," thereby making themselves "radically good." I have not already "define communism as good." Rather within an discourse there are certain linguistic and evaluative structures that adhere to any set of statements. I'm not arguing for the essentiality of certain structures or evaluations, but every language has a certain structure or evaluation. As it is, I'm engaged in a discourse where its structures evaluate murdering millions of people and putting them in ovens is evil. Now, you may be engaged in some sort of discourse in which the structures of language do not make this self-evident, but I don't need another fucking lesson in global skepticism. So if you want explication on this particular discourse, I'd be pleased to do it. If you want to articulate a relevant discourse that values differently, I'm receptive to that. I'm not receptive to bullshit skeptical relativism (one kind of relativism) that says, "You can't know anything about truth/good/evil/right/your mom/etc."


The point here is to step beyond good and evil and the conventional tendency to label that which we believe in 'good,' and that which opposes our beliefs 'evil.' I agree that communism is a good theory, but my belief in this centers around the notion that communism provides a ground for critical thinking and freedom, which in turn leads to the definitions of 'good.' Therefore it is 'good' which allows good to be defined.
- AugustA few things. Do you honestly think that labeling Nazis as evil just depends on a matter of "conventional tendency to label that which we believe in?" Secondly, I noticed what could be a reference to Nietzsche. Let me ask you the same question two different ways. Who is it who teaches relativism today? Isn't it capitalism trying to create a "tolerant" society where every truth can be sold for a low low price? Secondly, who is it who teaches relativism today? Isn't it the herd and the last man who says "there is no truth" and then blinks?

[Slave Revolt]

I think you're missing the point. The Nazis saw themselves as carrying out the grand destiny of Europe. Furthermore they were trying to radically willing to lay down their lives for their cause. This makes them altruistic.


As August said, the Nazis do not concern themselves with the welfare of the Jews. I guess it depends on how you interpret the term but I take it as concerning the welfare of other beings, that is, all living things. Unless the Nazis did not realise Jews to be living, I do not see them as essentially altruistic. I understand they may be willing to risk their own lives for their cause, but this cause is not concerning the welfare of others, or if it is, only the welfare of themselves and the 'Aryans'. Would you call a hired assassin altruistic? Or a mercenary?

Also, I believe that the Jews were a scapegoat for the Nazis and they built up hatred of them in Germany, using that to get into power, which seems somewhat self-rewarding. I suppose this depends on your take on the reasons for Nazi anti-semitism though I am far from an expert on this so correct me if I am mistaken.

[Decolonize The Left]

Two things. First, a dictionary is neither necessary or sufficient to decide a serious philosophical discussion. This is especially true when the philosophical discussion is controversial. Your use of a dictionary is inappropriate in this context.

Two things. You want to have a "serious philosophical discussion?" Then you better be able to define the words you're using... a dictionary does this. How is my use of a dictionary "inappropriate?" You don't want to know what you're talking about? :confused:


Secondly, the Nazis did not view Jews as individuals. Thereby, they would still be considered altruistic.

Wrong. It is irrelevant what they thought. The point is that Jewish people are individuals - therefore the complete disregard of their interests is contrary to altruism.

Ex: I can think that bald eagles (an endangered species) are chickens and kill them. You come along and say, 'hey, you're killing an endangered species' and I say, 'well, no I'm not - I'm killing chickens.' Does this mean that I'm not killing an endangered species because I think that it's something different?


One of the many clear moral failings of the Nazis would be their inability to extend morality to other human beings, but not necessarily their inability to sacrifice. Most capitalists aren't willing to dedicate themselves and sacrifice for any cause. However, the Nazis clearly were willing and able to sacrifice. The clear problem was that their cause was evil.

"The clear problem" was that their cause was dependent upon the oppression and murder of millions of individuals, not that it was 'evil.'


I have not already "define communism as good." Rather within an discourse there are certain linguistic and evaluative structures that adhere to any set of statements. I'm not arguing for the essentiality of certain structures or evaluations, but every language has a certain structure or evaluation.

Ok... you know what book tends to clarify these linguistic structures? A dictionary.


As it is, I'm engaged in a discourse where its structures evaluate murdering millions of people and putting them in ovens is evil.

Ugh. You are not passive in this equation. The discourse is not set (Nazis are evil) and you're just 'chiming in.' You are shaping the discourse with your language and your moral statements which declare Nazis to be evil.

I.e. you are evaluating... the discourse cannot evaluate as it does not have a will.


Now, you may be engaged in some sort of discourse in which the structures of language do not make this self-evident, but I don't need another fucking lesson in global skepticism. So if you want explication on this particular discourse, I'd be pleased to do it. If you want to articulate a relevant discourse that values differently, I'm receptive to that. I'm not receptive to bullshit skeptical relativism (one kind of relativism) that says, "You can't know anything about truth/good/evil/right/your mom/etc."

This appears to be an extremely convoluted way of saying 'I'm talking about this, and if you don't like it, fuck off.' Is this observation correct?

Does my skeptical critique bother you? Just because I challenged your knee-jerk, poorly-articulated moral convictions doesn't mean you have to disregard my argument.


A few things. Do you honestly think that labeling Nazis as evil just depends on a matter of "conventional tendency to label that which we believe in?"

No. I was merely noting that, as a communist, it is easy to declare communism 'good' because you believe it to be so. Similarly, it is easy to declare Nazism 'evil' because it is the radical opposite of your beliefs.

I was hinting that a more sophisticated argument could be made...


Secondly, I noticed what could be a reference to Nietzsche. Let me ask you the same question two different ways. Who is it who teaches relativism today?

As far as I understand, there is no strict doctrine of 'relativism' in practice on a widespread scale. On the other hand, there are many ideologies which involve relativist principles..


Isn't it capitalism trying to create a "tolerant" society where every truth can be sold for a low low price?

Truths cannot be bought or sold - they are not commodities.


Secondly, who is it who teaches relativism today? Isn't it the herd and the last man who says "there is no truth" and then blinks?

This is true. I fail to understand what this has to do with anything I've said.

- August

[Dystisis]

Truths cannot be bought or sold - they are not commodities.
As a media student that is certainly news to me.

[Decolonize The Left]

As a media student that is certainly news to me.

This calls for a discussion of the meaning of "truth(s)." Oh, and nice, nice, pun.

- August

[Dean]

Good is evil.

[Big Red]

just gunna put it out there, dont have time to read the whole thread right now but when it comes to Altruism I generally agree with the Zapatista saying (I believe)
"everything for everyone, nothing for ourselves."