Is Altruistic War good?--Or bad?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Orson, Feb 18, 2003.

Loading...
  1. Orson

    Orson New Member

    Students for a Democratic Society
    A new generation of campus activists support American ideals.

    BY JOSH CHAFETZ AND ARIEL DAVID ADESNIK
    The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, February 18, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

    "OXFORD, England--A specter is haunting college campuses--the specter of student activism. But this isn't quite what you might think. To be sure, the most vocal activists are those who oppose the use of force to disarm Iraq and enforce the will of the United Nations. But there is also a growing student movement dedicated to the promotion of democracy and human rights in countries where brutal tyrants crush the human spirit. As the founders of the Oxford Democracy Forum (OxDem), we think the time has come to let both America and its allies know where the next generation stands.

    "We founded OxDem because we were saddened by many students' lack of interest in the fate of those who are not fortunate enough to share in the freedom that students in Western democracies take for granted. While students have taken to the streets on behalf of good causes such as the plight of exploited workers in Vietnam and desperate refugees in Central Africa, none of them seem to recognize that the ultimate cause of such suffering is a lack of democratic government."

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003085

    BUT is a war waged for altruistic purposes better than one waged for (nationally) self-interested goals? Or just as bad?

    --Orson
     
  2. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    Someone with a philosophical frame of mind might point out that there is no such thing as "a war waged for altruistic purposes." It's extremely difficult to find a purely altruistic act, even on an individualistic level. The idea that a nation might, collectively, act in a purely altruistic manner is unrealistic (meaning it would never happen). There's always self-interest involved on some level when war takes place. Similarly, there's always self-interest involved in the protest of war. This is no surprise. We are all humans with both human dignity/grace as well as human failings.
    Jack
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 19, 2003
  3. Myoptimism

    Myoptimism New Member

    I agree, and disagree with Jack. True altruism doesn't exist, although de facto altruism does. For example, in an animal population, it is common for individuals to act in what is not their own best interest, but in the interest of the herd. Is this altruism? I think not. If we apply Darwin's principles, not only to the individual, but also to the population, individual actions that will help propagate genetic survival (within the species, such as letting out warning calls), are beneficial to the species although not necessarily beneficial to the individual. Although these actions do not help pass on an individuals genes, they help the species survive. If you abstractly view a species as an "individual", this is a survival trait. It could explain why some species proliferate while others die off. Perhaps we could call it 'survival of the fittest group'? So, is this altruism?

    I view war in much the same way, an argument that could be used either way.

    Tony
     
  4. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    In a word, no. If you're searching for a single word, try "instinct." It may not be a perfect fit for your scenario but it's a lot closer than altruism. (C'mon, we're talking about national policy and war, not some wombat who wants to eat a bug)
    Jack
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 19, 2003
  5. Myoptimism

    Myoptimism New Member

    Hi Jack,

    Of course my question was somewhat rhetorical, but my scenario was based on what many would term as altruism in an animal kingdom. I thought that the important part was survival, and how this so-called altruism played into that. In this I agree with you, nothing is done without a benefit. But, the benefit doesn't necessarily have to come to the individual (or country in this case). Perhaps instinct is the right word. Instinct to perserve the human species. Although, admittedly, this is not a truly altruistic motivation, by most definitions it is.

    Regards,
    Tony
     
  6. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    I'm afraid I have to disagree. Instinct is automatic. Altruism is "considered."

    "By most definitions" (whatever that means) altruism is not the same as instinct. Please consult your favorite dictionary (OED is recommended).
    Jack
     
  7. Myoptimism

    Myoptimism New Member

    From
    Merriam-Webster...

    Main Entry: al·tru·ism
    Pronunciation: 'al-tru-"i-z&m
    Etymology: French altruisme, from autrui other people, from Old French, oblique case form of autre other, from Latin alter
    Date: 1853
    1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
    2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

    Take notice of number two. This is central to the argument of whether altruism exists or not. In my original scenario, this behavior was outlined, although it wasn't called altruism for reasons previously discussed. This behaviour I don't consider altruism, although it is defined as such. This line of thinking is what I was citing (although I disagree) when I stated that it is usually defined so. So are the previously outlined actions altruism or (as you posited) instinct?

    I would argue that they are not altruism, regardless of the accepted definition. If they are instict, and in regards to Darwinism I feel it must be so, then as animals (although somewhat removed from natural selction, not totally so) we may be capable of having an 'altruistic' conflict that doesn't benefit us directly, but only in how our 'instincts' tell us the world should be.

    Tony
     
  8. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    Whatever,
    Jack
     
  9. Myoptimism

    Myoptimism New Member

    My point was simple.
    I was pointing out that true altruism likely doesn't exist, therefor I agreed with your point that a purely altruistic war is near impossible. However, how we define altruism (and my scenario along with the defintion was meant to illustrate that 'true' altruism doesn't exist) can determine if actions (such as a war) are 'altruistic'. Your argument was "I've said already that it is possible for an individual to display altruistic behavior, but this is a far, far, cry from an entire society, collectively, with the same collective motivation, displaying altruism". Yet, can you think of no situation in which a country might engage itself that represents no tangible or knowable personal gain (other than acting altruistic, or acting to save humanity from itself, which are obviously both gains which blur the meaning of altruism). My seeming contradiction was my attempt to gain a grasp on what is meant when we reference altruism. This contradiction (in the meaning) was what prompted me to state the I both agreed and disagreed with your response. I apologize if I muddied the issue with (what I thought were relevant) thoughts on altruism as it applies to a species.

    Thanks,
    Tony
     
  10. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    If any apology is required it is probably from me as I should know by now not to post so late at night. I get a bit cranky when I'm tired (not unlike my daughter). As to your question, "Yet, can you think of no situation in which a country might . . . " My answer is a qualified "no." I could probably invent some wild hypothetical situation but it would sound a lot like some science fiction novel. It's a sad thing, and perhaps a cynical thing but it reflects my view of humans and humanity.
    Jack
     
  11. Orson

    Orson New Member

    Wow! Perhaps I ought to reframe this...

    THE QESTION restated: "Is a war aimed at liberating an alien people more just than one for strictly (nationally) self-interested purposes?"

    Examples of the first: US led war in Bosnia.
    Examples of the latter: the 1956 British-French war for the Suez canal.

    --Orson

    PS Guys Guys: are we "philosophers" or men? :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 22, 2003
  12. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    Re: Wow! Perhaps I ought to reframe this...

    So Orson, again I find your statement ambiguous. Are you stating that one cannot be both a philosopher and a man concurrently. Sorry, the sarcasm smilie does nothing to clarify your true intended meaning of this question. If anything it makes it less clear.
    Jack
     
  13. Orson

    Orson New Member

    It's a straigtforward joke, Jack!--not sarcasm--which is why it was rendered as a PS. (And obviously, philosophers are reknown for getting sidetracked in devotion to their abstractions, c.f, Plato. Why should our debating friends above be any different?)

    It should be obvious, too: philosophers are men (or women), and Aristotle defined man as a rational animal, however much we doubt or debate or deny it. It's hard to be an educated human being and avoid being philosophical, sooner or later. Even "meatheads" like Yogi Bera are among America's best!

    However, I indended the issue (obviously, to me) to relate to the pending US-Iraq war.

    NOW that Bush has (finally, Wednesday night) announced these rather remarkable humanitarian ends of his war, and the fact that it will run us yanks $100-200 billion (and 3-5 years) before "we" get anything tangible out of it, I believe the obviousness I assumed ought to be evident to others, too.
    Can we debate it?

    Or am I wrong?

    --Orson
     
  14. Myoptimism

    Myoptimism New Member

    Re: Wow! Perhaps I ought to reframe this...

    More just? Yes, it is, in my opinion. The real question is who decides what the war is about. To paraphrase Jack in a different post, sometimes we must peel the onion. This explains many viewpoints, depending on who is peeling.
    Philosophers? Nope, just normal guys (at least I am) who actually enjoy when someone disagrees with them, and learn from it.

    Refer above to who is peeling. Personally, I believe the reasoning involved to be justifiable. Others (including most of my friends) don't see things the same way.

    We all want peace,
    Tony
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 27, 2003

Share This Page