Mr.Taft Wrote:
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 cliché’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 him 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?
There are two sides to the altruist coin, two kinds of practitioner: the sacrificial lambs who willingly walk to their own slaughter under the delusion that they will spend eternity in paradise with super beings; and the collectors of sacrifice who perpetuate the irrational mythology and profit from the sacrifices of others right here on Earth. The answer to your question is simple: Both the sacrificial lamb and the collector of sacrifices are living by the altruistic code. Neither are egoists. Egoists neither make nor collect sacrifices. Egoists are free. We live by trade, value for value.
The problem is people believe the code of self-sacrifice is the moral one. All aspects of the code are in play in the hearts and minds of all believers. This opens the door for all of the collectors of sacrifices out there, from the Christian preacher who tells you it’s a sin to acknowledge the validity of the 21st Century science of evolution, to the Wahabi school teacher who convinces his teen-age student to strap on the explosives and blow up the infidels. One asks you to sacrifice your mind to the lord, the other, your life. It is simply a matter of degrees. But, mark my words: Should Christians in this country be backed into a wall like the Muslim in the Middle East believe they are, Christians would respond in kind, committing the very same atrocities, sacrificing infidels in the name of their lord with impunity.
All religionists of every stripe are the enemies of liberty. When you believe you were created by a supernatural being who also sent a rule book to follow, you can justify all kinds of behaviors. The only defense a man has against men who claim to know the unknowable [and equally unlikely] is his own mind with which to judge what is, and what isn’t. If you give up your right to reason truth, you give up your soul, your humanity.
I could have raised my children believing that Harry Potter is a god, that J.K. Rowling’s amazing books are holy books and that she is a great prophet; that all we muggles aspire to become magical beings [if not in this world, then in the next]...I could have raised them to be Potters, a new faith I just invented, and my kids would actually have good role models to emulate, despite Rowling’s altruistic bent. Harry’s a terrific kid...a really nice person despite some miserable cards he was dealt; he loves his friends, and he is humble to the core despite the fact that he is always the hero; Hermione is wonderfully studious, smart and loyal, who also achieves greatness despite being born a lowly mudblood. She’s beautiful, but seems to not notice the effect she has on people. Ron’s whole family is dirt poor [but happy as hell] and Ron is a loyal friend who at the age of twelve willingly put his life on the line to protect a boy he met less than a year ago. Harry has many other disciples: Ginny, Neville, Luna, Fred, George, etc. All face and ultimately destroy unmitigated evil, a devil-sorcerer, whose name I cannot mention here.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I own my life and my liberty. Through this blog, I am pursuing my happiness.
6 comments:
An Egoist serves the self. An altruist serves an imaginary or sometimes tangible "Greater Cause". There is room for corruption in both camps. The "collector" altruist is an easy example of that evil. But there are of course evil Egoists. Those who fuel their happiness or their pocketbooks with the blood of the fallen are an example. I do not refer to capitalists in general. I mean those who stole, lied, cheated, or even killed in order to better their own existence. Greed. That is the derision between good and evil in Egoism. What are you willing to do in order to reach your goals? An evil Altruist makes promises to the people that he will do his best to keep, no matter the cost (money, lives, etc.). An evil Egoist will have no responsibility to the masses he destroys. It is only him in the world. And it is only himself that he will benefit through the destruction of others. Greed /= Selfishness. A good Egoist knows when to stop taking; When he has harmed his fellow man. An evil Egoist will bleed the world dry with his greed.
You wrote: "Those who fuel their happiness or their pocketbooks with the blood of the fallen are an example..." of "evil Egoists."
Nonesense. Look at your words: People who fuel their happiness or pocketbooks by the sacrifices of others are Altruist, collectors of human sacrifice. Egoists live by trade...value for value.
Egoists-capitalists are creators and producers. We do not steal, lie, cheat, or kill. A "capitalist" who does is not an egoist or a capitalist [in the true sense of the word]. They are ALtruists, once again, collecting human sacrifice by force, fraud, and abuse.
Egoists/capitalists do not build their empires on the destruction of others. We produce goods and services to trade [value for value] in the free market place. Egoists reject the use of force in every instance except self-defense. We harm no one. We live in pursuit of our own happiness WITH A PROFOUND RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS OF ALL INDIVIDUALS. There is no such thing as an evil-egoist.
Only the altruist "bleeds the world" with his desire for the unearned, wealth or power.
You seem to be rather closed-minded when it comes to debating philosophy. While it is true that YOU do not break others on the path to your goals, that does not mean that every Egoist is so virtuous. I trust that you can speak for the good. Now allow me to speak for the bad.
The difference between the collector Altruist and the immoral Egoist is simple: cause. The collector does it for a "greater good". Adolf Hitler killed in order to make a perfect race. While he did not sacrifice himself, he sure as hell couldn't expect to be the idol of perfection that his master race required. The masses would have eventually sacrificed him in a sort of "False God" scenario. So in the end he would have served a "Greater good"(In no way do I endorse Genocide or racial supremacy).
On the other end of the spectrum: Kim Il-Sung; The famed dictator and "Life President" of North Korea. Through the kissing of Stalin's communist ass, he rose to power and adopted any policy he could to keep the people loving him. He purged the nonbelievers and believers alike in order to fuel his public conspiracy theories that the West was trying to destroy Korea. He drove the country into a state of economic ruin. Why? Power. That was his wish. He served the self and only the self. There were no good intentions. He started the largest cult of personality in modern history just to preserve his name and power. He served no "greater good". Yet he still destroyed millions of lives. THAT is the mark of an evil Egoist. Serving the self, but still sacrificing others.
There is room for corruption in everything a human touches, even your personal philosophy.
Not close-minded...sure. I'm not going to give creedance to something that I know is incorrect in order to carry on a debate.
There is no evil side to Egoism. There is no good side to Altruism.
There is no such thing as a "greater good." There is nothing greater than you and your right to live your life free and in pursuit of your own happiness. Hitler and Kim are both altruistic collector of human sacrifice serving nothing.
The "greater good" is an attempt to rationalize their corruption. It fails because there is no such thing.
If one fails to live a perfectly moral, egoistic life, than one fails to be a perfect. Nobody's perfect. But that doesn't change the egoistic code, or somehow make it imperfect. The ideas are perfect even as humans fail to live up to them.
Then how can you say that anyone is an Egoist? If it is true moral perfection, and there are no perfect humans, then there can be no Egoist. Only a corrupted form of the word. Those who can't even follow the guideline of freedom for all, are crossing into something other than Egoism. This corrupted Egoism; it must have a name. Humanism, perhaps?
And I would argue that there are beings that have the ABILITY to live by the moral code of true Egoism. But living strictly by that code, with no room for error, is a shackle. Always benefiting only the self gets rather lonely, and often times, boring. There are those who wished to live their lives enchained to others. (The name of a real person escapes me so I will use Dominique Francon as an example.) One is never free while in chains. Therefore we all serve something in the end, do we not?
One cannot be shackled by liberty. A rational code of morality dedicated to the proposition that each man owns his life and the purpose of life is to live it, does not mean that men live on desert islands. Free men live by trade, value for value. We love for reasons. We work, create, produce, strive for perfection; we adore our children and our friends. We live full lives. As we honor our values, we enjoy our lives.
Post a Comment