Question for you regarding Altruism
Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
We've had a totally voluntary military for about 40 years now.
The ultimate altruistic act would be to willingly give one's life for others.
We've had several periods of conflict over those 40 years.
How do Objectivists view those who volunteer for the military? Especially the Army and Marines who have been the brunt of the casualties in the past 40 years.
Isn't volunteering for something that might result in the ultimate sacrifice, one's own life, for the benefit of others, the ultimate form of altruism?
Should those who volunteer for the military be admired, or vilified?
The ultimate altruistic act would be to willingly give one's life for others.
We've had several periods of conflict over those 40 years.
How do Objectivists view those who volunteer for the military? Especially the Army and Marines who have been the brunt of the casualties in the past 40 years.
Isn't volunteering for something that might result in the ultimate sacrifice, one's own life, for the benefit of others, the ultimate form of altruism?
Should those who volunteer for the military be admired, or vilified?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Thank you.
Have you ever put yourself in a situation where you might be called upon to make a decision to give your life - without rational thought and evaluation but "because it was the right thing to do?"
If so, then I'll give your perspective due respect and authority on the subject.
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I've been a soldier. I've trained in these situations. I've read about those who have made these types of decisions. I've never encountered, nor can imagine having being in the situation, an instance where not having a profound belief in something greater than oneself would lead to throwing oneself on a grenade - whether to save others, even those they valued highly - or not.
WWII is replete with instances of soldiers doing incredible acts of courage to save/protect fellow soldiers, even those they had absolutely no relationship with other than that they were fellow soldiers. This is not a rational evaluation, it is more visceral.
I ask you to check your premise.
It isn't a sacrifice, Robbie. It is a "visceral" reaction to preserve / save / protect something of such great value to yourself, that you would instantly risk your life. Such an action is in no way automatically defined as altruistic. Doing so would be to disregard or deny the truth of what happened. Atheists, Objectivists, Christians, or whatever have no doubt reacted for those very reasons in similar scenarios without a bit of altruism as the motivation.
I don't mean this flippantly, but please check your premises on this one. Other people, that you acknowledge have a greater grasp of Objectivism than you do, have been patiently trying to explain how your conclusions are not valid. When I said it wasn't hard to understand, I meant that honestly, not as a personal dig.
I DON"T CARE ABOUT THE POINTS - other than I find it amusing to see the trolls go through and down vote all my posts because they are so insecure in their own beliefs that they can't handle a rational challenge.
As for the altruism angle - this is one of the basic problems that I have with Objectivism. If I could get around this, perhaps I could be more aligned. Alas, the discussion here has had little to dissuade my views.
You can -1 me all you want, I don't care about points.
You are trying to make an argument about someone who makes rational analyses and decisions. With the grenade you don't have that luxury.
Stand up for your friends, that's fine with me. I'm here for honest and rational discourse, not to make/support friends.
Why would an Objectivist throw themselves on a grenade? They would be steeped in self interest. They would instinctually want to preserve themselves and dive away. At best, they might struggle with what to do, and with a grenade, you don't have time to struggle. You do, or you are dead.
Only one who has an instinctual basis to dive on that grenade will do so. Even one who values their friends highly will not instinctually dive on that grenade. They have to have a belief in something greater than themselves. That is not something that Objectivists have.
Your trite response is not worthy of your otherwise thoughtful posts.
Would an Objectivist, steeped in a philosophy of rational self-interest evaluation respond by throwing themselves on the grenade? I think not. They would either instinctually dive away (as would most - and I don't count me out of that group, I just don't know) or they would be tied up in an ethical discussion with themselves while the fuse burned down and it exploded.
No, it takes someone with a moral foundation of giving for their fellow human with greater reward in another life to take such an action instinctually. At least that's how I read the situation. You, of course, are free to disagree.
There is a profound inconsistency in many here regarding such perspectives.
I don't negate your value in such things. Why do Objectivists negate mine?
I can't love giving something of value (my time, sweat, tears, investments, etc.) to get something in value in return?? Huh??
I can't desire capacity to increase my earning? I can't choose to spend (literal) my time to make my country someplace I want to live in?
Even worse, why does someone else have to measure - in their terms - what I do or do not hold as something of value? That's about the most anti-objective thing I can fathom. That's like saying just because I don't see the value in a pot of pig iron, then it has no value. Bull.
It's not up to another person to make the determination what has value to someone else. That's both non-objective and absolutely irrational, sorry.
Read Galt's oath - really grok that puppy - and tell me where I should have to base what I value on what another person feels is its worth.
Load more comments...