Those who criticize selfishness rarely if ever advocate total lack of love, emotions or care for oneself. They criticize what they see as excessive, unbalanced selfishness.
The Unselfishness TrapfareJune 21 2008, 23:09:58 UTC
"excessive" as compared to what? "unbalanced" according to what scale? Those who criticize selfishness don't think, they emote. They do not try to convince, they try to manipulate others - into subservience to their own selfish comfort. They present selfishness as something essentially bad, that may be "natural" and "necessary" but must otherwise be repressed. They promote the basic justification for all oppression and mass criminality in the world.
Selfishness is the measure of all good in the world. There cannot be any good whatsoever without a self to feel it. WHO is whatever "altruistic" oppression ever good for? No one. Why is gratuitous vandalism or well-intentioned mass murder bad? Not because it is selfish, but precisely because it hurts other people's selfish interest.
Re: The Unselfishness Trap
anonymous
June 22 2008, 16:25:34 UTC
Of course, criticism for selfishness can be used as a justification for oppression. That is unselfishness trap you speak about. However, it still doesn't mean that criticism is invalid in all circumstances.
If one is willing to kill unknown man to steal his $500 and buy, say, TV, can we agree that he is excessively selfish?
Re: The Unselfishness TrapfareJune 22 2008, 16:58:20 UTC
That man isn't particularly selfish. Everyone wants $500. You yourself probably go through a lot of trouble to get much more money than that. As far as selfish ambition goes, this man has next to none.
The obvious problem is not that he is selfish, but that he is particularly oblivious to other people's selfishness. He is a psychopath. He is the enemy of others, and he's pitting others against him. Others will react and try very hard to catch him and will eventually get him if he makes killing a habit. He'll have to hide and take the risk to fight, go to prison and be executed. All in all, not only is he not selfish, but he's probably lacking in care for his future self. His problem is not an excess of selfishness but a huge lack of it.
Re: The Unselfishness Trap
anonymous
June 22 2008, 22:26:13 UTC
Hm, hm ...
I do not think that man who kill for $500 is psychopath or enemy of other people - he does not kill for sake of killing, but for money. He simply cares more for $500 than for life of other man - that is exactly the system of values very selfish man should have.
You can still argue that murderer risks revenge of the society, so even extremely selfish man could do such evils only due to his lack of the understanding for his situation, in which case his selfishness shouldn't be blamed.
However, society's revenge system is not perfect, so there are such situations that it is actually profitable to do "wrong things." It is easy to find few examples. Do you think that one should actually kill and rob one for $500, if he discovered the hole in the society's revenge system?
Double standard and petition of principlefareJune 23 2008, 02:13:03 UTC
In an all-too-common fallacy, you of course apply a double standard to the robber and his victim. If the mugger is selfish to want those $500, how isn't his victim just as selfish in wanting to keep them?
You apply your criterion one-sidedly and then reach your conclusion as a non-sequitur by positing it with intimidation. That's not going to work with me or my readers.
The problem obviously isn't one of selfishness. It's one of conflict. And because conflict is a negative sum game, whoever causes it obviously has less selfishness than one who cares enough about the expected sum to avoid the conflict. (Not to talk, once more, about the blatant disregard for other people's selfishness, that lies at the root of the conflict.)
Re: Double standard and petition of principlefareJune 23 2008, 12:00:30 UTC
And of course, communists will indeed apply the "selfishness" one-sidedly to accuse the legitimate owner of selfishness while exonerating the mugger as a victim of society, reversing the nature of oppression.
Re: Double standard and petition of principle
anonymous
June 24 2008, 23:05:24 UTC
There is no fallacy - I said nothing about victim because it is not relevant to my point: that one who advocates unrestricted selfishness has to advocate that one should kill and steal, whenever he find it is in his interest
( ... )
Re: Double standard and petition of principlefareJune 24 2008, 23:36:53 UTC
Saying nothing of the victim is the double-standard. Why blame only one person's selfishness when two person's selfishnesses are at stake? And what is there to blame him for at all if the victim's selfishness doesn't matter? That you ASSUME the legitimacy of the victim's selfishness establishes the performative contradiction of your claim. At least communist are most consistent in their criminal craziness (not that consistency is something I encourage in people with criminal ideas
( ... )
Positive vs Negative SumfareJune 24 2008, 23:54:21 UTC
Socialists believe that society is all about negative sum interactions. Conservatives believe that any departure from a hypothetical status quo is to be presumed to be such a negative sum game that should be quelled. Both want to restrict free interactions between individuals for that reason.
Libertarians understand that society is made of positive sum free interactions that are in the mutual interest of all involved.
Reply
Selfishness is the measure of all good in the world. There cannot be any good whatsoever without a self to feel it. WHO is whatever "altruistic" oppression ever good for? No one. Why is gratuitous vandalism or well-intentioned mass murder bad? Not because it is selfish, but precisely because it hurts other people's selfish interest.
Reply
If one is willing to kill unknown man to steal his $500 and buy, say, TV, can we agree that he is excessively selfish?
Reply
The obvious problem is not that he is selfish, but that he is particularly oblivious to other people's selfishness. He is a psychopath. He is the enemy of others, and he's pitting others against him. Others will react and try very hard to catch him and will eventually get him if he makes killing a habit. He'll have to hide and take the risk to fight, go to prison and be executed. All in all, not only is he not selfish, but he's probably lacking in care for his future self. His problem is not an excess of selfishness but a huge lack of it.
Reply
I do not think that man who kill for $500 is psychopath or enemy of other people - he does not kill for sake of killing, but for money. He simply cares more for $500 than for life of other man - that is exactly the system of values very selfish man should have.
You can still argue that murderer risks revenge of the society, so even extremely selfish man could do such evils only due to his lack of the understanding for his situation, in which case his selfishness shouldn't be blamed.
However, society's revenge system is not perfect, so there are such situations that it is actually profitable to do "wrong things." It is easy to find few examples. Do you think that one should actually kill and rob one for $500, if he discovered the hole in the society's revenge system?
Reply
Reply
You apply your criterion one-sidedly and then reach your conclusion as a non-sequitur by positing it with intimidation. That's not going to work with me or my readers.
The problem obviously isn't one of selfishness. It's one of conflict. And because conflict is a negative sum game, whoever causes it obviously has less selfishness than one who
cares enough about the expected sum to avoid the conflict. (Not to talk, once more, about the blatant disregard for other people's selfishness, that lies at the root of the conflict.)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Libertarians understand that society is made of positive sum free interactions that are in the mutual interest of all involved.
Reply
Leave a comment