I would like to thank WWCKFS for posting his set of questions in response to my e-mail regarding the Morality of Rational Self-Interest. I include his questions below, and follow them with my responses to the points he is making or questioning.

In a message dated March 13, 1998, WWCKFS writes:

You answered your own question here quite adequately. My statement about man's actions beginning with and revolving around the absolute constant of man's self was part of the point I was making about the metaphysical nature of man.

In the context of man's nature and his life, this does not change (again, I believe I was clear that I was talking about man's nature here). No matter what man knows, he must know it by use of his mind; no matter how old a man grows, he must grown in his body. No matter what a man things throughout his life, and no matter how drastically those thoughts change throughout his lifetime, it is his self that is always at its center.

If this point is still not clear, please try to identify the point of your confusion.

Very true, logic and reason are limited. However, the limitations of rational thinking (reason and logic) are not a defect to its efficacy as man's only tool of knowledge, but in fact one of its primary virtues.

Logic is basically a set of laws and principles for valid thinking. (This is not supposed to be a textbook definition: I refer the reader to Patrick J. Hurley's A Concise Introduction to Logic for deeper study of the principles of formal logic. There are many other volumes of considerable worth to consult in addition to this.)

As I have mentioned, reason is the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Already, the epistemology of reason eliminates what cannot ultimately be perceived by one or more of man's senses.

The epistemology also eliminates from the rubric 'knowledge' all arbitrary claims. If I were to claim that abominable snowmen inhabit giant ice-caves on Jupiter's fifth moon, and I have no evidence to support this assertion, then I would be arguing an arbitrary claim. An arbitrary claim is a claim that makes no legitimate attempt to appeal to evidence in support of itself, and thus cannot be accepted as knowledge.

Again, the very fact that logic limits what man can accept as knowledge is precisely one of its chief virtues.

As for the portion of this comment that asserts that logic and independent thought are incompatible, its author commits a non sequitur. He is invited to attempt a second time to explain this point.

Again, I refer the reader to Hurley's book on Logic for the basics of this often misunderstood tool of reasoning. Although Star Trek and its offshoots may provide great entertainment, and even some valuable insights, I would encourage you to take each episode with a grain of salt, and stick to reality. You may just want to practice a little more critical scrutiny of the program's dialogues and the principles they infer before rushing to judgments discounting the power and applicability of logic.

I know of no legitimate metaphysical concept that applies to living beings for any kind of 'state' between life and death. Certainly a living being can come close to death, and then survive. But there is no 'place' where man's soul goes into some kind of intermediary stage between life and death. When speaking of human existence (again, man's nature) one recognizes the finiteness of human life (all life, in fact, is finite, temporally speaking; nothing lives forever). Just because one day you will die does not mean that with each passing day you are 'closer to death' in the metaphysical sense, OR in the moral sense (in terms of one's lifetime, perhaps, but this is not a legitimate 'problem' that you are trying to bring up with the morality of rational self-interest by any stretch.)

My point about man's choice to live or die is predicated precisely on the recognition that man's life is not eternal. No man can 'simply exist', as a stone, a lake or a particle of dust does. Existence for man always requires that he address the problem of survival. That is the task of morality.

No, it is not "instinctual for a baby to cry when he is not fed," nor is it "instinctual for a baby to cry when it is hurt," any more than it is instinctual for men to build skyscrapers or develop the internet.

An 'instinct', as I define in my argument, is automatic knowledge. A beaver, for instance, possesses the instinct to build his shelter over a running stream, using the sticks and twigs in his immediate environment as its construction material. This instinct is quite limited, for it cannot expand any further than that: a beaver cannot build four-story duplexes, with hot and cold running water, complete with refrigerator, electrical outlets and in-sink erators, nor can the beaver collect rent from those who would bunk with him in his shelter.

In the case of the baby crying because it's not fed, the baby is responding to his hunger (a primary instance of selfishness, mind you). This reaction is not dependent on knowledge, but physical reflexes, drives and requirements. He cries because his body requires food, a very selfish drive. It does not require knowledge for the baby to cry when it is hungry; crying is a physical reaction to an unmet physical constraint: the need for food.

The same is true for a baby crying because it has been hurt. Again, this behavior, crying, is not dependent on knowledge in order to occur; the baby feels pain (autonomic part of man's nature: his senses and nervous system), and he reacts with the appropriate reflex: crying. Reflexes and drives are not examples of instincts as I define above. The point I was making here is that man does not possess an 'instinct' for self-preservation, for we have no 'instinct' (i.e., automatic knowledge) of how to cultivate agriculture, build homes or get a job, or to speak up when a band of thugs takes over his government.

The problem of man's survival requires rational morality. Recognition of this fact must take into account the recognition that man has no shortcuts to knowledge. Notions such as 'instincts', just like 'faith' and 'revelations', stand in direct contradiction to rationality, and therefore in direct contradiction to rational morality.

Again, there seems to be something quite vague about this point, if I understand it at all. I do not argue that octopi require reason and the morality of rational self-interest. All animals, however, I would say, are naturally selfish on a very basic level, that is: they are the direct and primary benefactors of their own actions, and rightfully so. When an octopus eats (action), he feeds his own belly (benefit). The same with man. When the octopus struggles to survive, he is struggling for the survival of its self. The same is with man.

However, I would caution anyone from confusing an octopus with a man in the context of the current discussion. I do not believe that an octopus can learn and assimilate a system of morality, nor does an octopus need it. Man, however, lacking the instincts of the octopus, or any other animal, does need morality.

If a man is consistently irrational, i.e., he chooses the irrational over the rational every time he is faced with a choice, I would say that he would have a very short life indeed. If your goal, for instance, while driving on a freeway at 55 miles per hour, is to reach a destination (such as the next town), this goal presupposes that you will still be alive when you reach that destination. The rational (and selfish) thing to do would be: drive carefully (what do they say at the DMV? Drive defensively?). However, if a man were driving from, say, Fresno to Merced, and at one point he makes the choice (the irrational choice) to remove his hands from the steering wheel, what would eventually happen? His car would begin to wander the road and he'd eventually wind up in a ditch, possibly dead. If he survives, and he's conscious, he would be faced with a further set of choices: seek help, or, pull out his copy of 'Pulp Fiction' and resume reading.

In all such cases, man has his choices. He can choose to guide his choices rationally, or irrationally.

The key principle here is: are the irrational people you know irrational on a consistent basis, or merely intermittently? Observe them carefully, and you might be able to figure that out.

Okay, let me clarify to those who did not comprehend this.

When I was speaking of morality, I speak of a code of values to guide man's choices and actions. This morality studies man's life as an individual, not his life as it effects others. This last study belongs to the fourth branch of philosophy: Politics. Politics is morality applied to man's interpersonal relationships.

When I speak of morality (not politics), I speak of the code of values that man consults when addressing the decisions that affect his life: should he eat? Should he sleep? Should he wear clothing? Should he bathe? Should he go to school? Should he work? Should he think? Should he endeavor to expand his abilities? Should he pursue values? Should he pursue independence? Should he live? Etc.

The point that WWCKFS brings up is an excellent point, since I used the term rules. I knew this would come up eventually, and in fact I had planned to develop it in a future mailer, but I will explain here briefly.

The term rules as WWCKFS uses it means a regulation or ordinance designed to protect individuals from the actions of others (again, this is not supposed to be a textbook definition). This is a legitimate concept which belongs to the study of politics, which is not the issue at hand at this point.

However, in the instance when I used the term rules in my last mailer, I mean rule-sanctions. I refer the reader to George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God:

Thus, I do not refer to the legitimate sense of 'rules' as a result of political protection policies, but to the illegitimate sense of 'rules' as offered by religious morality.

The morality of rational self-interest operates on a completely different standard and set of principles than the morality of religious philosophy. In religious moral systems, there is the consistent use of physical and psychological sanctions, as defined above, to compel obedience. One follows religious commandments to escape guilt and its alleged consequences: eternal torment. Thus guilt and fear are the 'inspiration' of religious morality.

On the other hand, the incentive to pursue the moral course under a rational code of ethics is the achievement of goals and values, not the evasion of guilt, fear and eternal torments. The man of rational self-interest is not motivated by guilt and fear to pursue moral goals, he's instead acting to achieve those things which he sets out - by his choice - to accomplish for their benefit to his life, welfare and happiness, such as to survive, stay healthy, learn a skill, get a job, bring home a paycheck, enjoy his life. All these things are rational pursuits (as man must incorporate reason to achieve them), and they are selfish pursuit (he is the direct and primary benefactor of his own actions), and therefore, they are moral pursuits, according to this model.

No, no action that involves others is justified merely because you have an urge. Again, to some extent, this involves the application of morality to interpersonal relationships, which is politics, which cannot be addressed until one understands the necessity of morality, its nature as a rational system which man's nature requires of him, and its basic principles, which have just barely been touched upon in my e-mails. The caricature you offer above is not at all what I am advocating. Again, the operative concept in the morality of rational self-interest is the concept rational.

I sincerely appreciate your questions thoroughly. Please ask more, for this will be the only way I can address your understanding specifically.

Tindrbox

_________________________________