On Mon, 6 May 1996 gehrig@banyan.doc.gov wrote:
> The point
> being that self-interest gives rise to both and is one reasonably
> predictable element of human nature.
Followers of Ayn Rand advance an argument that asserts that all behavior is
motivated by self-interest, what they define as "selfishness." You assert
the existence of altruistic behavior and they argue that altruism has its
root in selfishness. You point out a mother protecting her children
even if it kills her, a stranger rushing into a burning building to save
children he doesn't know, a daughter taking care of her dying aunt--all
examples of altruism. "No, no," the objectivist argues, "each of these is
an example of selfishness. The mother saved her children because it gives
her great satisfaction to know her children will live. The man rushes
into the building for fame and fortune as a hero. And the daughter feels
good when she helps her grandmother."
You may think that your objectivist friend has stumbled upon the ultimate
argument, an argument impervious to counterexample. But wait... therein
lies the fallacy. You ask your friend to present to you one example of
altruistic behavior. If you friend cannot, and surely he cannot because
his whole argument was that all motivation is self-interest, then you have
no argument before you. It is tautological, that is say, true by definition,
to say (according to our objectivist) that all behavior is carried out in
self-interest. This is a special form of the begging-the-question fallacy
called the "self-sealing argument." Why? In the ordinary meaning of
"selfish" or "self-interest" we do not count a person doing good things
for others as selfish. In fact, this is the opposite of selfish, it is
unselfish or altruistic behavior. If the meaning of "selfish" or
"self-interest" is expanded to encompass its opposite, the word "selfish"
becomes cognitively empty. Under such a fallacy it would by IMPOSSIBLE by
definition to do any act that was NOT selfish. Under such a definition of
behavior described as selfish (in this case ALL behavior), any claim made
about humans beings using this term has no empirical content, i.e. it
tells us nothing about human behavior or motivation. Again, all it says
is that human behavior being selfish is true by definition.
This is no argument at all.
Peace,
Andy