Thesis: Libertarianism, the logical conclusion of objectivist humanism-human experience is the point and end-all of being-‪#‎EgocenttricFallacy‬,

Anti-Thesis: ?

 

Altruism, maybe? An extreme, self sacrificing form, like that practiced by ants and bees?

 

Libertarianism is dying out because Google and the internet are making libraries obsolete.

 

Ayn Rand was a fraud! Her whole philosophy is dependent on a fictional character.

 

Of course the problem with altruism is that it can go against our nature if it begins to interfere with genetic drives. An ant is altruistic within her colony because she is 75% genetically similar to her non-fertile sisters, but only 50% similar to her fertile mother and sisters. Due to the way ant genetics works, it is actually better, from a genetic standpoint for a non-fertile worker or soldier ant to ensure the survival of her colony, because that ensures that even if SHE were to die, SOME of her genes would continue to exist, and be passed on by her reproductive sister. A selfish motive (passing ones own genes) is expressed altruistically (service to the colony, and a willingness to sacrifice ones own life without a second thought.).

I'm not sure humans are capable of a similar degree of altruism, at least on such a large scale. Do I care for my baby nephew because he is cute and lovable, because it is 'right' do to so, because it is 'unthinkable' or 'monstrous' to NOT care about him, or because he and I share some genes, and as I've yet to reproduce (nor do I wish do), there is a part of me, genetically speaking, that I can see in him, and so want to ensure the survival of my own genes? Words, lots of words, something to think about. But the result is, I care for my nephew, and it is interesting to ponder. I care for him in a way that I do not feel for other young people.

 

The notion about ants and bees came to me as I listened to the Libertarian candidates seek to extol the 'superior' virtues of Libertarian (passive) government and the societal consequences (before changing to the more virtuous athletic performances of the Western Conference Finals between the Thunder and the Warriors). As you address in the later post, human 'altruism' is not the same as genetic altruism, in which the components act as organ systems for the entire colony. [On NPR's 'Wait, Wait! Don't tell me..', I caught the answer to a question of how a queen bee was caught in the brake drum of a vehicle and her colony persisted in staying with her, making that vehicle a bee's nest, even when the bees, sans the queen, were removed from the seen parts of the assembly, but the queen was overlooked. The bees returned to the queen at the vehicle-chasing the vehicle down. ONLY after the queen was found and placed in a 'hive' separate from the vehicle did her colony abandon residence at that vehicle]

(More at your later post!)

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because of my unique set of circumstances, I have found myself with a legal, ethical, and-or moral duty to those not of my blood lines but attached by blood to my significant others. In their helpless through chronologically non-mature states, I've shown the due diligence of the legal-moral-ethical standards would require, with varying levels of sympathetic and empathetic insights of affection into their own drama-creating actions . As was said in the Gospels by Jesus,
have I done no more than that which even Hitler or Goebbels would have done for their significant others? I would ask that as culture has evolved within a paternalistic-maternalistic hierarchy of entitlement and patronage, such would be and should be expected. Talk of anything greater within the present extension of that system would be stretching credulity [as the Libertarian were so audacious to say that no one [en mass}was dying in the streets though the garment fire in the early 1900's in NYC, the budding cosmopolitan center in the Gilded Age of the 'Noblesse Oblige' of the well-to-do, lit the fuse of the muckrakers and the progressive movement laws of the next decade]

SO NO, historically leaving social welfare and infrastructure to the altruism of the (belabored) public falls short. BUT YES, an ego-less altruism exists in Nature from which human culture has become demonstrably detached.

 

Not completely.
Third world, isolated tribal communities have maintained both an involved continuity with nature, as well as an altruistic devotion to their communities.
Something the "civilized world" could learn from.

 

You have a point, Freespiritx. Perhaps societies like the one you describe have such a form of altruism because they MUST work together to survive. Because surviving becomes less of a struggle with the benefits of modern civilization, such altruism can be seen as unnecessary or even stifling to the individual.

What would an ants society look like, if it wasn't necessary for them to work together to survive. We marvel an the order of an ant colony, but it is only so orderly because they have no individual ego. What happens when you give an ant a personal will?

 

I'm not so sure it's a sense of MUST work together as an intrinsic desire to work together.
I can't help but feel that their communal interpersonal bonds may well far out reach even "our sense of family bonds".
That acute devotion to community, is painfully absent from our own.

 

With an ant, I believe the possibility may well exist, that the advantages of community might out-way individual pursuits.
But that would imply they'd have to have the ability of common sense reasoning.
And that's a whole other story! LOL

 

I have argued before that a sterile worker ants behavior, her altruism, is the result of a selfish motivation, a 'desire' (I'm stretching the definition here) to see her own genes be passed on. The only way she can do this is if her fertile brothers and sisters can survive long enough to breed. Because she and her sisters are 75% genetically similar (and only 50% similar to their mother), it's beneficial for her and her sterile sisters in the long run to allow her fertile sisters to breed. A selfish motivation is expressed in an altruistic manner. Humans don't necessarily have such a genetic drive.

If we do, it might be more complex, and the pressure involved might be of a different nature.

 

For males, there are psychological implications, as well as the potential of genetically driven desires, not necessarily for the propagation of our species, but rather the continuation of the blood line.
That being said, it would be negligent not to consider the social, and cultural conditioning's as being motivators.
From my limited exposure to studies regarding this topic, my understanding is that women have a maternal desire to reproduce, where males are primarily driven by sexual interaction.
Both of which are internalized selfish desires.

 

You understand well. There are genetic drives, and those drives are reinforced by cultural and social pressures. We are social beings, we create and environment for us to thrive, just as an ant creates a colony. Strip away philosophy, art, self deception of our own inherent superiority, and you are left with the purely physical. We are chemistry in action. Molecules. It can be argued that our social and cultural achievements are the results of a desire for our molecules to continue to exist. Thus, we have children. Some form of self aware existence will be 'alive' after we have 'died'.

 

@SilverLycan -My attention was caught by this line, "[altruism not being important when there is ..] less of a struggle with the benefits of modern civilization" as well as in your latest post, "We are chemistry in action. Molecules. It can be argued that our social and cultural achievements are the results of a desire for our molecules to continue to exist in.."
<<<Does your latter statement set the predicate for the former quoted statement? In that the drive for the cultural and social 'benefits' of our unique biochemical expressions has separated us from a holistic to altruistic perspective and more toward a parasitic and viral depredation on the environment which is the nature from which we are derived. Thus, we are more predisposed to be more predatory upon ourselves as part of that 'evolved' expression?

 

I"m sorry, what are you asking, precisely? Forgive me for being dense, you have a tendency to ask highly cerebral questions that I frequently struggle to even comprehend.

 

It's been suggested we've evolved from a primordial soup. Resultant amino acids, energies, chemical reactions and the evolutionary ladder has construct.

Altruism being an inherent DNA predisposition of our species is more than just possible. The soldier who throws himself on a grenade without hesitation, or the time to face the reality of his own mortality. The adult dashing into heavy traffic to grab a strangers wondering child, and toss it out of harms way when his imminent demise is then at hand from the oncoming traffic. Examples of selfless sacrifice at it's extreme, and conducted without forethought.

All living organisms are parasitic in nature, the human species is not an exception. Predatory? It's our nature. We are a quagmire of contradictions. As for a holistic to altruistic perspective and more toward a parasitic and viral depredation on the environment which is the nature from which we are derived, again a series of contradictions as these events, and actions are cyclical. We nurture, and devour, build, and destroy.

We've come to have a limited understanding of the sciences. Mysteries that in our lifetime will likely remain so. A universally accepted understanding is that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it simply changes state". All living things on this planet to my understanding share the same building blocks, along with the energy that accommodates life . Would that explain an inherent desire to preserve, even as we leach from the support net of our own existence? A connection, and disconnect occupying the same space, and/in time.

 

@freespiritx covered much of what I was getting-at when I wrote, "In that the drive for the cultural and social 'benefits' of our unique biochemical expressions has separated us from a holistic to altruistic perspective and more toward a parasitic and viral depredation on the environment which is the nature from which we are derived. Thus, we are more predisposed to be more predatory upon ourselves as part of that 'evolved' expression?"

The nurturing of non-symbiotic to destructive environmental technologies in the 'developed' world versus the continued symbiosis in the aboriginal world shows how nurturing can modify culture and societies, plus in the long run genetics from the winnowing of natural selection over the ages.. As I noticed on Stephen Hawking's 'Genius' on PBS Thursday: as activity amorally ad serendipitously aligns with circumstances which increase the chance of viability in a certain environment, those most in affinity with the environment become the function of that environment (We're the result of adaptive conditioning to the environment we have created). Altruism exists in those who've created an environment of ethos in which greater selflessness is predominant over conscious self-centeredness- going back to the metaphor of the ant colony.

Libertarians, believing that they can have both the predominance of property rights with a minimum of any communal obligation or the right of any communal authority over their possession, are straining credibility for their altruistic claims beyond platitudes for empathy with others in extreme circumstances

 

I'll take "false dichotomy" for $500, Alex

 

Ok @Old Tool
The philosophy that stresses humanistic ends and the self-serving ends?