Mr. Taft wrote:
Donn ... I've been reading and thinking a lot about your writing. I have a few questions. With the statements about Hitler and slave owners and things such as that, I understand that they promoted the 'altruistic' ideal, but I don't see any evidence of them living it themselves. It seems to me that their internal motives were selfish, even though they preached self-sacrifice. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they didn't practice what they preached. So instead of altruists, I feel like a better name for these people (and any that follow in their example) should be 'egoists breaking the natural law'. What are your thoughts on this?
In Jesus' paradigm, he stayed true to self-sacrifice, long before He asked anything of others. He and many of His followers followed this teaching to death. Paul speaks in his writing 'if we are wrong, let us be the most pitied people on earth'.
I love this quote from Paul. I think what he’s trying to say is...if you are wrong, and there is no Heaven, no eternal life, no reward, then you should be the most pitied person on Earth...pitied because you sacrificed your happiness on Earth for some promised reward after you’re dead. If the reward doesn’t exist, and this is your only life, then you have sacrificed your life for nothing.
Altruists like to say “the world would be perfect if everybody were only strong enough to live true to the code, like Jesus did.” They argue, like you, that people just don’t “live it.” To which I have at least two responses:
1. People can’t “live it” because it is irrational, i.e. contrary to what comes natural to humans...REASON and the desire to live. The only way to achieve perfection by the altruist code of self-sacrifice is to do what Jesus did and let them kill you. For a human being to aspire to be dead is most irrational. Dead people, of course, have no need of moral codes.
2. Any code that demands human self-sacrifice will be [and has been] used by its practitioners to sanction the sacrifice of humans [particularly those outside the collective]. And the really sad thing is that they generally execute these genocides in the name of their god...Yes, Mr. Taft, even Christians. If you live by the code that views sacrifice as a normal [even moral] component of human relationships, then you will do one of two things: A. make sacrifices for others, or B. demand sacrifices of others. Most people who live by your code do both. Ever hear a parent say, “How could you after all I’ve done for you?” What they’re actually saying is “How can you do this thing that I don’t want you to do after all I have sacrificed for you. Now you must sacrifice and give it up.” Guilt and force are the tools of the altruist.
It’s a good thing most Americans don’t live it! The sad thing is they believe the code of self-sacrifice is moral and are made to feel guilty for not living it. By whom? By others who thrive on collecting human sacrifices. An egoist, all I want you to do is live a good life and achieve your happiness in any way you see fit that does not violate the rights of any other individual. Now that’s a message of love.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
1. I've never sacrificed my happiness. Never.
2. If a Christian is a Christian because they seek some sort of post-earth reward, they are not a Christian. I repeat, they are NOT a Christian.
3. Even you say that most Americans don't actually live the 'altruistic code'. They just think it's 'moral' and tell everyone else to do it. Don't you believe that actions speak louder than words? I'm not asking you to abide in cliche's, but I'm saying that if you want to throw philosophical labels on everyone, use the right one. I understand that people (even Christians!) that preach altruistic code have certain behavioral patterns (like killing people and scolding those who aren't 'sacrificing enough'. But if they aren't actually doing it themselves, how can you label them an altruist? William Shatner played the captain of an intergalactic ship on Star Trek, but that doesn't make one (though it does make him a tool). Sean Connery played 007, but that doesn't make him a British spy. I've had a friend preach in a church service, even though they weren't a Christian. What I'm asking you to consider is this- when a person preaches one side of philosophy, but is internally driven by a different one, which philosophy has that individual truly adapted?
Post a Comment