From: "Phil Roberts, Jr." 




Owleye wrote:
> 
> "Phil Roberts, Jr." wrote:
> 
> > and IRRESPECTIVE of whether it benefits one personally or directly.  That's
> > why I view it as entailing self-sacrifice.
> 
> But, for Kant, the only good that is good in itself arises from having a good will.
> Benefit is defined in such a way that is pure and not contaminated by interest.  
> Why is it a sacrifice to give in to one's desires and fears?
> 

It isn't.  My theory is in agreement with Kant on this point.  I think you've
misunderstood me on this.

> > Yes.  'Valuing others as you value yourself' would be even further from a
> > consequentialist position (if I understand the term) than Kant himself, who
> > I believe is often seen as juxtaposed to consequentialism.
> 
> First, Kant does have an account of the Golden Rule that is consistent with the
> Categorical Imperative.  Note that the Golden rule is a categorical imperative, 
> if love is to be understood in a certain way that Kant himself explains.  

I see the Golden Rule as one of many implicit appeals to self-interest, and as 
such not a moral rule at all.

> Your maxim (Valuing
> others as you value yourself) is also a categorical imperative and might even be
> consistent with the Categorical Imperative, if valuing is pure (i.e., unconditional).
> 

I suppose, but I don't really see it as an imperative but rather as a THEORY about
rationality which just happens to entail that 'being rational' is synonymous with
'being moral', i.e., that 'being rational' equates with 'being valuatively objective'.  


> > I believe I can get to a justification for
> > valuing others intrinsically much more directly and much less problematically
> > than Kant, although conversations with folks such as yourself are necessary
> > for me too iron out the murkey details.
> 
> We'll see.  Philosophy ought not to be considered an easy subject.
> 

GIVEN that 'being rational' is a matter of 'being able to "see" what is going on',
i.e., of 'being objective, then it follows that 'being rational' is a matter
of 'being valuatively objective', i.e., 'being good'.  What could be simpler?

> >
> > Inclusive fitness refers to the ability to perpetuate one's DNA, not
> > only via one's direct offspring, but in terms of copies of one's DNA
> > elsewhere in the population, usually intended to mean immediate kin
> > (e.g., siblings, etc.).  Altruism, in the technical sense, is usually
> > a matter of mathematical analysis of the cost/benefit ratios with
> > regard to achieving this end.  However, you don't have to be a genius
> > to realize that non-self-serving concern for others would be altruistic
> > in the technical sense 9 times out of ten.
> 
> What does perpetuation mean?  How can it be measured?  Is it possible to 
> tell which behavior helps to perpetuate one's DNA and which does not?  When 
> you speak of cost/benefit analysis, what is being measured?  I'm familiar 
> with the work of Trivers and Hamilton in the early days of Sociobiology, 
> though their work was based on birds an other animal orders.  

Then you should also be aware that none of your questions are problematic for
sociobiologists, or at least are manageable and have already been workded out
to scientists satisfaction.  My theory BEGINS where sociobiology leave off.

> I don't think this analysis translates terribly well to humans,
> but perhaps you can enlighten me.
>

You're right.  The importance of sociobiology is that it makes human nature
even more enigmatic than originally supposed, some much so, that it resulted
in Richard Dawkins throwing up his hands and calling for an ADDENDUM to 
natural selection, a theory of the 'meme', to supplement the theory of 
the 'gene'.  That's basically what my own theory purports to be, a means
of bridging the explanatory gap between the "ruthless selfishness" predicted
by Hamilton's calculus and the benevolent selfishness we find in ourselves.


 
-- 

                  Phil Roberts, Jr.

       The Psychodynamics of Genetic Indeterminism:
Why We Turned Out Like Captain Kirk Instead of Mr. Spock
     http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/dada/90/