Quote
Kathaariancode

Quote
mike10k
i just want everybody to be happy.

"Hey whaddya think about that Mike guy's post up there?"

"Well as long as everybody is limited to only non-land owning males, I agree"

i have a t-shirt that says "i am to blame."

Thanks, WC, for the delightful education. I really appreciate reading someone who can articulate the intellectual arguments of the right (or at least those to my right) in a reasonable way, even when I disagree with some of those points.

To add someone to the discussion, you made a reference to poor people not paying taxes, which is misleading (though not intentionally so here, I've read others who are happy to conflate this issue). Even though this discussion has been largely about federal income taxes, which many people low income people don't pay, everyone pays state and local taxes (including sales taxes), which are highly regressive. This means that the poor pay a significantly higher portion of their income in those taxes than higher income classes. Just wanted to through that out there.

And to clarify another point you made (because I think it tripped up Mike a bit): you said "warren buffett paid far more taxes, dollar-for-dollar, than his secretary." Dollar-for-dollar implies a percent, not an absolute amount. While Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary, he pays far more in total dollars than his secretary.

Quote
Kathaariancode

The main distinction that I'd like to make between Aristotle's notion of giving and the Christian notion of charity is that the Christian notion implies underlying altruism. Christians are supposed to give even when no one can see them giving, whereas Aristotle wanted to help others in order to reach a state he called Eudaimonia, a word usually translated as happiness but has strong implications of honor and and recognition for one's kindness. He thought that only free, landowning men could obtain this. Slaves, women and children could never be recognized for their good acts and because of this be considered having Eudaimonia.

I thought you might be going here. So it seems a fair point to criticize Aristotle's restrictions on charity, I still reserve doubts that others even in that time didn't do good things that we would consider "altruistic". But maybe this discussion ought to be about more widely accepted principles and not individuals, which I don't know enough about.

Secondly, Christian "altruism" is done to get into Heaven, so I don't see it being that much different than Aristotle's Eudaimonia anyway (though I admit to not being familiar with the concept). This kind of parallels the economic assumptions that people act in their own rational self interest. It's true in a way, if you accept that 1) people have different goals of what it means for them to be satisfied, and 2) that they have different methods for measuring that satisfaction.

Quote

Me too. Like I said I'm not a Christian but the argument I've presented to answer Mike's question is similar to ones I've read from the likes of Dinesh D'Souza and other Right wing christian apologetics. His "Letters to a Young Conservative" is a great read if you like politics and you'd like to hear a very simplified, very well reasoned account of American conservatism.

I've not been impressed with some of D'Souza's other writings, but maybe I'll give that one a try.

Quote
dtrom4

Quote
Kathaariancode

The main distinction that I'd like to make between Aristotle's notion of giving and the Christian notion of charity is that the Christian notion implies underlying altruism. Christians are supposed to give even when no one can see them giving, whereas Aristotle wanted to help others in order to reach a state he called Eudaimonia, a word usually translated as happiness but has strong implications of honor and and recognition for one's kindness. He thought that only free, landowning men could obtain this. Slaves, women and children could never be recognized for their good acts and because of this be considered having Eudaimonia.

I thought you might be going here. So it seems a fair point to criticize Aristotle's restrictions on charity, I still reserve doubts that others even in that time didn't do good things that we would consider "altruistic". But maybe this discussion ought to be about more widely accepted principles and not individuals, which I don't know enough about.

Secondly, Christian "altruism" is done to get into Heaven, so I don't see it being that much different than Aristotle's Eudaimonia anyway (though I admit to not being familiar with the concept). This kind of parallels the economic assumptions that people act in their own rational self interest. It's true in a way, if you accept that 1) people have different goals of what it means for them to be satisfied, and 2) that they have different methods for measuring that satisfaction.

Quote

Me too. Like I said I'm not a Christian but the argument I've presented to answer Mike's question is similar to ones I've read from the likes of Dinesh D'Souza and other Right wing christian apologetics. His "Letters to a Young Conservative" is a great read if you like politics and you'd like to hear a very simplified, very well reasoned account of American conservatism.

I've not been impressed with some of D'Souza's other writings, but maybe I'll give that one a try.

Again, great arguments dtrom. It seems that both the aristocrats seeking Eudaimonia and Christians have some sort of motivation for their actions that makes the actions seem less selfless. Personally, I've always questioned the concept of altruism, since it seems that whenever I've done things for others, it is always followed by a great level of personal satisfaction. Is altruism still selfless if you gain a personal high from it? What if seeking this self satisfaction becomes your primary motivation?

might as well face it



you're addicted to altruism

Quote
Kathaariancode
I've always questioned the concept of altruism

as a good philosopher should!

check out this definition of ALTRUISM from dictionary.com

Animal Behavior . behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator, -or- paying more taxes than less fortunate wildebeests

makes more sense when you think about it in terms of the animal kingdom. who knows. maybe we aren't animals afterall. maybe we've evolved into something greater. something more meaningful in the grand scheme of things.















































CHA



RIGHT



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2012 11:57PM by mike10k.

Shit, you guys… I go to bed and the discussion has rumbled through taxes and on to altruism. To avoid it becoming a monstrous post, I’ll go with this format:

@WC – taxes
I think we’ll have to disagree with each other on the ‘responsibility’ aspect of the Govt. when redistributing wealth, but I think we do agree on the idea of closing loopholes. The Chancellor over this way (Conservative Party,(leaning off to the right) for those that don’t know) complained yesterday that “"I was shocked to see that some of the very wealthiest people in the country have organised their tax affairs - and to be fair it's within the tax laws - so that they were regularly paying virtually no income tax. And I don't think that's right.". I think this is at worst a lie, and at best incredibly naïve but it does show that the level of tax is kind of pointless if the rich continue to find ways around it. Closing these legal (but unfair and available to those only with wealth who can afford accountants) loopholes would generate a considerable income and shold be priority number one.

I don’t know what I think the upper band of income tax should be (40%, 45% or 50%+) but I don’t think that the rich contributing more (to support the poorest) necessarily encourages laziness on the part of the poor, or indeed the rich. I would hope that people do things for reasons other than money, but even if money is the main motivator, being taxed heavily yet still being able to afford a yacht is a fairly nice return, i would think!

(The benefits system needs to change in the UK to prevent the poor section of the population that do sit on their laurels waiting for handouts, but that would be a different discussion and I don’t know how it works in the US.)

Ultimately, I see no reason why (with the correct benefits/welfare package and tax approaches) those who can afford it, support those who cannot and that the Govt. should, in it’s appointed role as leader of the country, decide how that happens and that it is not irresponsible to do so.

@KC/dtrom – altruism
I think you’ve both covered points that I was going to make, regarding the fact that those of a religion generally perform good acts because it will either:
a. Get them into heaven (or equivalent) or;
b. Because they’ve been told it’s what a ‘Good [religion]’ does.

Yep, that’s an incredibly cynical viewpoint and I’m sure there are purely altruistic folk of a religious nature who do it for other reasons (such as an evolved moral code) but then that’s nothing to do with religion.

This brings me onto my next point that, if I recall correctly, there can be acts which are purely altruistic… I agree that when you do a good deed, you feel good inside but that’s just a chemical release and is it really fair to take an altruistic act away from someone because of this? Maybe… maybe they know it will release those sexy, feel good chemicals? Dunno.

However, I do recall reading (I’m sure it was Dawkins, but I may have been another paper on something else) that suggested there are purely altruistic acts of self-sacrificing cells (?) during the evolutionary process, which allow complex organisms to evolve. This is part reason why we are predisposed (in the main) to helping others. It’s part of the larger, common, argument between atheists and theists as to where we get our morals from and I’ll read up on it again tonight to see if I’m correct in the way I’ve remembered.

Quote

What if seeking this self satisfaction becomes your primary motivation?

Is that a bad thing, though? Seeking it to the detriment of others, no. But seeking it so that you, personally, are happy?

I apologise for the length (fnar), and I’m not sure if I added much or just bolstered the debate a bit but, it passed the time and I do enjoy debates on this forum.

Props for civility, folks. *doffs hat*

---

let's get dressed up in costumes and dance by the bar.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2012 05:38AM by betamax.

Quote
betamax

Quote

What if seeking this self satisfaction becomes your primary motivation?

Is that a bad thing, though? Seeking it to the detriment of others, no. But seeking it so that you, personally, are happy?

I apologise for the length (fnar), and I’m not sure if I added much or just bolstered the debate a bit but, it passed the time and I do enjoy debates on this forum.

Props for civility, folks. *doffs hat*

Well it's definitely not a bad thing. I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with seeking self satisfaction. However I'm still not convinced that it's still altruism exactly since now the action cannot be removed from the self. I'm agnostic though, so I'm okay with not knowing things.










I like those sexy chemicals.

---

"But not me,
I'm gonna crawl,
I'm gonna crawl,
I'm gonna crawl,
Back to the sea."

"Goddamit, I love John Coltrane."

I wrote this incredibly long reply to something and then realized there were three more pages and that everything I'd said was pretty moot.

---

[hackberrygarage.tumblr.com]
[eavesdroppingvulpine.tumblr.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2012 04:00PM by simonfox.

man i hate that. i feel dat bro