tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post6458219256815811901..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Total, Abject SelflessnessGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-72538057578902713912010-08-23T17:55:43.488-06:002010-08-23T17:55:43.488-06:00Thanks for supplying that incriminating quote.Thanks for supplying that incriminating quote.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-3988407948226932142010-08-23T15:22:06.444-06:002010-08-23T15:22:06.444-06:00Wow. What Krämer said is right out of Kant's p...<i>Wow. What Krämer said is right out of Kant's play book. </i><br /><br />Hell, it might as well have been a direct quote.<br /><br />This one, in point of fact:<br /><br /><i>“To be beneficent when we can is a duty; and besides this, there are many minds so sympathetically constituted that, without any other motive of vanity or self-interest, they find a pleasure in spreading joy around them, and can take delight in the satisfaction of others so far as it is their own work. But I maintain that in such a case an action of this kind, however proper, however amiable it may be, has nevertheless no true moral worth, but is on a level with other inclinations. … For the maxim lacks the moral import, namely, that such actions be done from duty, not from inclination.<br /><br />Put the case that the mind of that philanthropist were clouded by sorrow of his own extinguishing all sympathy with the lot of others, and that while he still has the power to benefit others in distress, he is not touched by their trouble because he is absorbed with his own; and now suppose that he tears himself out of this dead insensibility, and performs the action without any inclination to it, but simply from duty, then first has his action its genuine moral worth.“ </i><br /><br />--from the Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (1785)<br /><br />Or to put it in a more modern and brief, but no less telling, form: "It should hurt when you give."<br /><br />Also, see the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow's_mite" rel="nofollow">parable of the widow's mite</a>.<br /><br />Yes, folks, they mean it.Jim Maynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-3374949396367722292010-08-19T04:32:02.976-06:002010-08-19T04:32:02.976-06:00Or worse, that no one is entitled to anything of h...Or worse, that no one is entitled to anything of his own.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-32585534585002736362010-08-18T22:26:49.469-06:002010-08-18T22:26:49.469-06:00as if they are somehow entitled to it in the first...as if they are somehow entitled to it in the first placeMonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-21619987962070030562010-08-18T05:05:12.206-06:002010-08-18T05:05:12.206-06:00Narayan,
Very interesting. I don't know enoug...Narayan,<br /><br />Very interesting. I don't know enough about what influenced Kant to be able to say anything about that possibility one way or the other.<br /><br />As a possible alternative hypothesis, it's worth considering what Christianity, which I do know heavily influenced Kant, offers that those religions don't: Substitute made-up "values" (e.g., an eternal afterlife) doled out by the Omnipotent One. They sell self-denial "on earth" in exchange for pie-in-the-sky. (Before I go on, I am not terribly familiar with either religion, so if I'm wrong about this in some way, feel free to point that out.)<br /><br />If I understand correctly, Kant was trying to save Christian morality from the increasing doubt religion received at the hands of the more secular, rational outlook of his time. So he worked to undercut certainty in reason. Perhaps, in addition, he addressed doubts about pie-in-the-sky by creating a new, stripped-down argument for altruism which, lacking these things, didn't depend on them, and would up happening to resemble what the religions you mention arrived at on their own.<br /><br />I could see it either way. Good question, that.<br /><br />Dismuke,<br /><br />My general impression of skimming the article and contents is that, aside from the author there, lots of this <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/11/63239/1369" rel="nofollow">admiration</a>of Kramer is based on pragmatism "informed" by adoption of altruism by osmosis from leftist culture (e.g., there's a net gain of money for the poor in America, where tax laws don't capture as much of the money as they do in Germany).<br /><br />Still, it's pretty revolting stuff, and a worthwhile reminder that America isn't devoid of Krämer's ilk.<br /><br />GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-10388299816318432202010-08-18T00:05:58.611-06:002010-08-18T00:05:58.611-06:00I did some googling to learn more about Krämer and...I did some googling to learn more about Krämer and how much of a following he has in Germany. Hard for me to tell as most articles are in German. But his comments have found a fan base here in the USA. Unsurprisingly, it is at the Daily Kos:<br /><a rel="nofollow">http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/11/63239/1369</a>Dismukehttp://RadioDismuke.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-13164993276110973592010-08-17T20:49:45.791-06:002010-08-17T20:49:45.791-06:00Your last quote from Ayn Rand on Kant and selfishn...Your last quote from Ayn Rand on Kant and selfishness reminds of a commonly accepted interpretation of a verse from the Bhagavad Gita on work -- that an action is (morally) right if falls under the category of proscribed duties but the actor must be completely unattached to the fruits of their actions or its consequences of any kind. I've always wondered whether Kant was heavily influenced by Hinduism. When it comes to certain religions like Hinduism and Buddhism where there is an absence of an all knowing God, its easier argue against them the way one argues against Kant.narayannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-76757542193626443762010-08-17T19:34:34.954-06:002010-08-17T19:34:34.954-06:00The more I think of what Krämer said, the more inc...The more I think of what Krämer said, the more incredulous I am that he can even imagine being condescending, let alone as condescending as he was.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-39940141992805425022010-08-17T17:13:46.455-06:002010-08-17T17:13:46.455-06:00this is very repugnant I have to say. Similar to t...this is very repugnant I have to say. Similar to the introduction of "social justice" in medical ethics that I read on the black ribbon project website. Yuck!Monoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-38260157658797110442010-08-17T15:23:23.159-06:002010-08-17T15:23:23.159-06:00Jeff,
Stunningly evil. You rarely see an ordinary...Jeff,<br /><br />Stunningly evil. You rarely see an ordinary person like this, at least in America.<br /><br />Madmax,<br /><br />No. I doubt that this is anywhere near the dominant approach to ethics in our country, but that doesn't matter in the sense that enough intellectuals who ARE like this can drive a culture towards what it calls for.<br /><br />It has happened before, and it can happen again.<br /><br />GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-84196474546035656742010-08-17T15:17:22.478-06:002010-08-17T15:17:22.478-06:00An action is moral, said Kant, only if one has no ...<i>An action is moral, said Kant, only if one has no desire to perform it, but performs it out of a sense of duty and derives no benefit from it of any sort, neither material nor spiritual; a benefit destroys the moral value of an action.</i><br /><br />Gus, do you think this is the dominant approach to altruism in today's world? I ask because according to Kant, you can't even derive a <i>spiritual</i> benefit from selfless activity. I don't know if most people would go that far. I think that the way altruism plays out for most is that in order for an action to be considered moral two things must happen: (1)someone else (the "other") must gain a <i>material</i> benefit and (2) you (the actor) must suffer a net <i>material</i> loss. If both aren't present then your action can never be considered moral. However, I do think that most people would allow you to get some type of spiritual/psychological benefit. In that way, while we are a thoroughly altruist culture, we have not yet reached the level of Kant's altruism. If we ever do, that will be the end.madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-1577289741264017742010-08-17T11:20:23.637-06:002010-08-17T11:20:23.637-06:00Wow. What Krämer said is right out of Kant's p...Wow. What Krämer said is right out of Kant's play book. <br /><br />I find this disapproving statement particularly offensive: "In this case, 40 superwealthy people want to decide what their money will be used for."<br /><br />Utter evil.<br /><br />And I see the spirit of National Socialism is alive and well in Germany.mtnrunner2https://www.blogger.com/profile/10974435572236740294noreply@blogger.com