If welfare of strangers is something you value, then it is not a net cost.
Having a particular value cannot have a cost. Values start to have costs only when they are realized or implemented.
Costlessly increasing the welfare of strangers doesn’t sound like altruism to me. Let’s say we start telling people “Say yes and magically a hundred lives will be saved in Chad. Nothing is required of you but to say ‘yes’.” How many people will say “yes”? I bet almost everyone. And we will be suspicious of those who do not—they would look like sociopaths to us. That doesn’t mean that we should call everyone but sociopaths is an altruist—you can, of course, define altruism that way but at this point the concept becomes diluted into meaninglessness.
We continue to have major disagreements about the social contract, but that’s a big discussion that should probably go off into a separate thread if you want to pursue it.
Values start to have costs only when they are realized or implemented.
How? Are you saying that I might hold legitimate value in something, but be worse off if I get it?
Costlessly increasing the welfare of strangers doesn’t sound like altruism to me.
OK, so we are having a dictionary writers’ dispute—one I don’t especially care to continue. So every place I used ‘altruism,’ substitute ‘being decent’ or ‘being a good egg,’ or whatever. (Please check, though, that your usage is somewhat consistent.)
But your initial claim (the one that I initially challenged) was that rationality has nothing to do with value, and is manifestly false.
I don’t think we understand each other. We start from different points, ascribe different meaning to the same words, and think in different frameworks. I think you’re much confused and no doubt you think the same of me.
Having a particular value cannot have a cost. Values start to have costs only when they are realized or implemented.
Costlessly increasing the welfare of strangers doesn’t sound like altruism to me. Let’s say we start telling people “Say yes and magically a hundred lives will be saved in Chad. Nothing is required of you but to say ‘yes’.” How many people will say “yes”? I bet almost everyone. And we will be suspicious of those who do not—they would look like sociopaths to us. That doesn’t mean that we should call everyone but sociopaths is an altruist—you can, of course, define altruism that way but at this point the concept becomes diluted into meaninglessness.
We continue to have major disagreements about the social contract, but that’s a big discussion that should probably go off into a separate thread if you want to pursue it.
How? Are you saying that I might hold legitimate value in something, but be worse off if I get it?
OK, so we are having a dictionary writers’ dispute—one I don’t especially care to continue. So every place I used ‘altruism,’ substitute ‘being decent’ or ‘being a good egg,’ or whatever. (Please check, though, that your usage is somewhat consistent.)
But your initial claim (the one that I initially challenged) was that rationality has nothing to do with value, and is manifestly false.
I don’t think we understand each other. We start from different points, ascribe different meaning to the same words, and think in different frameworks. I think you’re much confused and no doubt you think the same of me.