First, to assuage the outrage of those who doubt my sanity in ever reading den Beste, I'll quote a bit of this refutation of the argument by at least one "liberal" ("liberals" promote collective liberty, or the rights of groups to inflict their will upon others; liberals promote the rights of individuals not to have others acts inflicted upon us) to remake Reagan in their image:
"...Carter was right but terribly unlucky. Reagan proved the old adage that it is better to be lucky than to be smart. He did everything wrong, of course, but somehow didn't get what he deserved. He kept falling into manure piles and emerging with gold rings on his fingers. Despite that, it was Carter who really had the right attitude about foreign policy.
President Bush should emulate Carter, but Diggins knows he can't laud Carter and expect anyone to take him seriously. So he is trying to claim that Reagan's achievements arose because Reagan got in touch with his inner Carter. That was his real essence, and it was Reagan's inner Carter which was responsible for Reagan's "enlightened foreign policy that achieved most of its diplomatic objectives peacefully and succeeded in firmly uniting our allies". And thus we are led to the conclusion that Bush should get in touch with his inner Clinton, and change his foreign policy to match.
But back to that most disturbing of topics, God: Real or Made UP? (which, to me, bears only glancingly on my topic of whether Rational Self-Interest can lead us to live a good life on earth):
Steven den Beste concludes an article about the nature of identity with this statement about the sacrifices atheists must make:
I do not harbor any doubt about my atheism. But it cannot be denied that atheism is cold and uncomforting, and that there is a price to be paid for believing in it. An atheist must at all times live with the idea that in the end nothing we think or do is really very significant, and we may not really matter at all.
I may just be a temporarily-active blob of protoplasm which deceives itself into thinking it actually is something more than that.
I, personally, don't find life that annoying even when I contemplate a Godless universe. I see a pretty benevolent place, though possibly only temporarily so, and I see a species with the capability of saving itself and other species as well when the universe rolls over in its bed on top of us.
I see our political institutions as the main obstacle to our growth beyond this one little planet.
I called den Beste's position a sacrifice, and in the standard parlance it is one. He sacrifices [a degree] of security, comfort and certainty in the belief that a ruthless pursuit of the truth will pay off in greater happiness for greater numbers later. Psychic security and comfort, that is. That's an investment strategy, not a sacrifice. It would be a sacrifice to invest in ventures that you knew were doomed to fail. Compte coined the term altruism pretty much with that meaning in mind; if you know that you stand to profit from an activity, then it's not a moral activity. Or, as Wikipedia put's it,
Advocates of altruism as an ethical doctrine assert that one's actions ought to further the welfare of other people, ideally to the exclusion of one's own interests. ...In practice, altruism is the performance of duties to others with no view to any sort of personal gain for one's efforts. If one performs an act beneficial to others with a view to gaining affection, respect, reputation, or any form of gratitude or remuneration then it is not an altruistic act. It is in fact a selfish act because the principal motivation was to reap some benefit for oneself. The desire of this benefit exists equally whether it is psychological, emotional, intellectual, or material - each form of desirable benefit is philosophically identical as a motivation.
"Not moral" is not necessarily immoral, it may be amoral, but ask yourself how you feel about amoral activities.
That is the nub of the rhetorical problem that Ayn Rand was attacking. Most of work life and quite a lot of home life (and 99.99% of politics) would be considered amoral and shading toward unworthy.
No comments:
Post a Comment