From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Wed Jul 09 2003 - 02:45:45 MDT
Lee Corbin writes:
> Brett writes
>
> > > > Human nature being what it is not all the recommendations for
> > > > employee cuts will be motivated by the higher good.
> > >
> > > With almost superhuman effort, I refrain from the requisite
> > > sarcastic comment here.
> >
> > You lost me Lee. Where are you going?
>
> Sorry Brett. The requisite sarcastic comment would be
> "Oh really? Are you telling me that some of the employee
> cuts might be for base motives? Surely you cannot be
> serious!", or similar words to convey my cynicism.
Fair enough. The tone was missing and sometimes, to your
credit, (no sarcasm at all) you question the bleedin' obvious
just as I do, and soetimes the bleedin; obvious turns out to
be not so obvious after all.
> > > > Some will want to settle old scores, remove competitors,
> > > > use the opportunities in the restructure to alter their
> > > > competitive position.
> > >
> > > Say it's not so!
> > >
> > > (After all, I'm only human.)
> >
> > In some cases it *is* so. (Double sarcasm if you like ;-)
>
> Well, DUH, of COURSE it's so!
Triple sarcasm with a redundant DOH ;-)
>
> > *You* asked the question!? What gives?
>
> It was a rhetorical question---that is, when I said
> "what possible incentive would government (or government
> employees, etc.) ever have to cut spending?", I was just
> saying that they do not have incentives to cut spending.
> I am sorry that you took it so literally; that is not how
> it was meant.
Ah but in some cases they do. We agree now I presume, if
we ever really disagree that being a member of the government
employee class is insufficient to give us full insight into the
motives of each particualar instance in that classs whilst they
are also members of other classes with other calls on their
loyalty.
Probably I push these things into the area of the bleedin
obvious sometimes because a *series* of obvious steps often
gets one to a not so obvious conclusion. Sometimes finer
grained explanations are useful. Sometimes not.
>
> > Well I'm not quite that cynical. People's positive views
> > of themselves are something they sometimes want to retain too.
>
> Well, yes, but see Robin's recent comments on "views" of
> a person. People also will want positive views of themselves
> too, but often foment the most amazingly self-delusional beliefs
> to do so.
Yep but I think the desire to reduce cognitive dissonance is still
there. Actually Robin's thesis reminds me of Glaucon's question
to Socrates in the republic. I paraphasing. "Why would people
want to do what is generally regarded as righteous and nobel
as opposed to merely being perceived as doing what is
righteous and nobel and actually doing whatever they damn
well please."
> Oops, sorry, I know what you think about "beliefs", but it
> is late and I am too tired to reword that.
I know what you mean. You know what I mean. The beliefs
thing is another discussion for another day.
>
> > There probably is such a thing as someone wanting to do a
> > real public service all things being equal.
> >
> > Anyway I thought *you* were the one that believed in altruism.
>
> Yes, but the kind of altruism that we are evolved for
> is not at all related to the kind of decisions bureaucrats
> make. We are evolved to feel sympathy for individual other
> people.
Sympathy or empathy. Your a rational sort of specimen Lee, I
figure I am too. We can't both be using altruism with the same
referent you holding that it is true and me holding that it is
not (or actually I hold that I don't believe in it - which is not quite
the same thing).
What's your case for altruism. You may be able to convert me.
Stick in a link or ref if you don't want to reinvent the wheel.
I don't think these discussions are merely academic.
I suspect that there are core attributes, universals if you like
of 'human nature' that almost all of us subscribe to.
Having a good handle on these would be very useful. We
may define a set of median interests that more people can
get behind. Currently ethics seem to be on appallingly
poor rational ground.
I'd start with the propositions that human beings have
1) a propensity to sociability (not unlimited)
2) a propensity to rationality (not unlimited)
Related to these we have a capacity for language.
3) We develop biologically so our capacities and even
our conceptions of ourselves as conscious selves emerge
over time. There are some cognitive steps we cannot
jump.
Are there any other fundamentals? Are these too many?
I think I'd throw in a thesis that life, one's own life
is one's first (original not necessarily highest) value.
Dead things value nothing. Some people will sacrifice
their lives for what seems to me to be their self
concept. Ghandi perhaps. But the key word is perhaps
still *their* self concept.
My point is we (scientists, humanists) may be able to take
these basic "truths" of human nature and put ethics on
a stronger footing. Game Theory, tit for tat etc are a
start but I reckon we can go further.
I am not yet ready to surrender to Bertrand Russell's
notion that what is ethical can amount to no more than
what I like, or in your case what you like. I think we
can attack the thesis with some of the other aspects of
human nature but I don't think we need altruism.
Regards,
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 09 2003 - 02:54:43 MDT