Survivor!

[Justin Schwartz]

No, what I meant is that there are NOT obvious answers to the question Why 
Should I Be Moral (or if my beautiful Kells is right about how it should be 
phrased) Why Should I Care About Anyone Else, if the premise is What's In it 
For Me? In his Morals by Consent David Gauthier has produced a heroic 
attempt to show that mere self-interest will produced "constrained 
maximization," a sort of homo economicus substitute for caring about anyone 
else, which he identifies with "morality." I think the general consebsus is 
that it doesn't work. Russell Hardin has a similar story that also doesn't 
work. Maybe we just have not got the right version of the theory yet, but I 
suspect that trying to get other-regarding attitudes out of self-regarding 
ones is like trying to get milk from a bull. (Don't think those thoughts, 
Kells love!, you know that is not what I mean.)

I can understand why my irresistable Kelly was disappointed in my unsubtle 
phrasing of the pragmatic answer to the egoist or amoralist or whatever you 
want to call him, but I was paraphrasing J.S. Mill (and I presume Harriet 
Taylor), who says that the basis of motivation to care for others is the 
desire for fellow feeling, or to be at one with her fellows; for the person 
in whom that feeling is lacking, says Mill (and Taylor) is lacking, only 
external sanctions will serve. I also agree with Wojtek that there really 
are very few stone egoists, and if we find someone who acts like one, we 
will treat him like a dangerous psychopath and probably elect him to high 
political office.

Kisses

jks


>From: Gordon Fitch <gcf at panix.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: Re: Survivor!
>Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 11:54:57 -0400
>
>Justin Schwartz:
> > ...
> > I will also add that Chris, in a rather flatheaded way, is pushing a
> > question that philosophers have discussed a lot going back to Plato: Why
> > Should I Be Moral? And there isn't an obvious answer to that if you want 
>an
> > answer that says, What's In It For Me? My real suspicion is that we say 
>to
> > Chris: you don't really believe that. And if you do, and if you act onit 
>and
> > get out of line, we'll crush you like a bug.
>
>You mean there _are_ obvious answers if one asks "What's
>in it for me?"  It's when people try to universalize this
>pragmatic observation into Absolute Truth that they run
>into trouble.  This is not surprising; even 2 + 2 = 4 can
>have problems getting to A.T.
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.