On Saturday I ended up having a bit of a debate with a friend about the nature of humanity - I've touched on this a couple of times here about how I feel human nature works, which I will attempt to cover at another point. But what got me most was how my friend said that he had thought about it alot and logic had led him to conclude that all humans are inherently selfish and everything they do is dictated by that selfish nature.
Now I have a couple of issues with such Randian Objectivism. Firstly, logic is not evidence. While the argument is a valid one, it makes a big assumption - you need to prove that all humans are selfish and that every single action they take is driven by selfish need.
But we know that there are altruistic people out there - how can that be explained in selfish terms. My friend argued that they do it to feel good - which is a selfish thing, apparently. Again, Ayn Rand's ideas seep forward in the form of enlightened self-interest.
The problem is that Ayn Rand was conflating the meaning of selfishness to the point of it being a meaningless word that would shift meaning to suit her needs.
I feel that the same applies here.
Because if human's act purely out of selfish need then they would do things to look out for themselves. Self-sacrifice is not an action that benefits the person. Those men and women who go to war and die without expectation of reward, Red Cross volunteers who leave their families without telling them to help protect and save victims of conflict - these people exist and are not getting any identifiable self-benefit.
Saying "they get to feel good about themselves" confuses self-confidence with selfishness. Selfishness has a very specific meaning, and muddying the waters to suit a negative world view does not make something logical - it makes an argument that is flawed suffer from shifting goals so that it can't be refuted.
However it doesn't need to be refuted - it is a valid argument, just not a sound argument. There is not enough solid evidence to base it on. Instead there is a lot of evidence that contradicts it. Furthermore it remains the height of arrogance to assume that you know the intentions behind someone else's actions - something that Logic actually can't deal with. Logic does not deal with emotions and humans can be very very illogical at times.
Relativism
Now I don't have a lot of time to talk on this subject again today. The goal is to start a little discussion on it. See the problem with relativism - and I'm talking pretty much about all relativism - is that it holds that all truths have equal weight. The problem is that this applies to contradictory truths as well. It takes a concept like the Law of Equipollence and enforces it on everything.
But wait, that is an absurd notion - and Relativists do try to argue logic to select truths. Yet this then exposes the flaw in the theory - if all truths are relative and equal how do you choose a truth? What can give one truth a weight over another? What authority forces me to accept your truth and not my own?
Relativists try to have their cake and eat it too. Relativism is much like Objectivism - it intially sounds seductively logical. Because it initially presents a valid sounding argument. Unfortunately further analysis reveals some glaring flaws in the viewpoint. Like Objectivism it doesn't hold up to critical analysis - which is why you tend to find both views being popular mostly with people who don't think about the implications.
Both Objectivism and Relativism have been taken up by people who tend to argue for inaction and take great efforts to not take responsibility for their actions.
Objectivists are classics at this - they word their case to try and sound like they take responsibility, and yet how can you really be taking responsibility if you've just argued that you have no choice but to be selfish and self-serving?
Relativists use their arguments to avoid challenging others to take responsibility for their choices by saying "well it makes sense to them, so we can't really judge them." The problem is that this means that we have no obligation to follow society's rules. My truth is no better or worse than anyone else in New Zealand.
The thing is that while the perspectives are different all cultures seek the same core things. Both Relativists and Objectivists allow themselves to be blinded by the flashy exteriors of the world - they don't actually notice the underlying drives and needs.
Take the West and the East for example. Relativists are the kind of people who will argue that the two sides are totally different. They will argue that Eastern cultures are about the collective, not the individual.
This is not entirely true. Individualist and Collectivist societies have different approaches - but they both value the individual. In Individualist societies we define ourselves and enforce that view on the people around us. But in a Collectivist society, an individual is defined by how the society reacts to that individual's actions. The Individual is still free to define him or herself - but part of their definition is formed from how people react to them.
When forming a philosophy of the world, it is sedutive to just follow the most basic theories that appeal. Yet views like Objectivism and Relativism are not simple theories - they rely on a lot of deceptive dancing to reach their conclusions.
While the solution is likely to have a simple series of arguments at the base - they must be both sound and valid. Neither Relativism nor Objectivism have been able to prove themselves sound theories.
Love and Huggles
Conan
Currently Reading: Nothing at the moment
Currently Playing: The Grand Experiment; World of Darkness: The University Club
Mood: Still thinking about the world in general...
No comments:
Post a Comment