Activism

[novella]

chris, that's a fatuous question. Where does either answer get us if we don't know the motives, goals, or effect?

Libre, yes, some activists have political goals, on both right and left.

But, as a citizen, if you were against going to war in Iraq, for example, and now you feel the Administration has completely botched the operation, whatever its goals, is it best to just sit down and shut up, or should you speak your mind, vote, read, write to people, and do your best to positively affect the future? All 'activism' is is a person standing for what he or she believes in and trying to persuade others--isn't it?

 

[ylris611203]

chris, that's a fatuous question. Where does either answer get us if we don't know the motives, goals, or effect?

Libre, yes, some activists have political goals, on both right and left.

But, as a citizen, if you were against going to war in Iraq, for example, and now you feel the Administration has completely botched the operation, whatever its goals, is it best to just sit down and shut up, or should you speak your mind, vote, read, write to people, and do your best to positively affect the future? All 'activism' is is a person standing for what he or she believes in and trying to persuade others--isn't it?

Thank you for calling my question fatuous (foolish, unintelligent, stupid).

The point is, you have to judge things, events etc. on the information you have to hand. A rock star or band who agree to appear at a Liveaid concert will know that this is going to give them a lot of publicity and increase their album sales. We don`t know what their motives are (helping others or helping their sales) but we still have an opinion.

As for the going to war in Iraq example, its not as simple as you suggest. A lot of people with views as in your example, hold these views with the benefit of hindsite....which is a wonderful thing. It is the people who perhaps held those views all along that should be taken more seriously.

For every person who thinks that the Administration has completely botched the operation there is another who thinks they have not. Is that not activism as well.

Also some people believe evil is good and they are standing for what they believe in and trying to persuade others.

 

[ylris611203]

I wasn't aware that I was using an example Please do enlighten me both on the "example" I was using and what exactly the Golden Rule is!

Altruism is the Golden rule

 

[novella]

Thank you for calling my question fatuous (foolish, unintelligent, stupid).

The point is, you have to judge things, events etc. on the information you have to hand. A rock star or band who agree to appear at a Liveaid concert will know that this is going to give them a lot of publicity and increase their album sales. We don`t know what their motives are (helping others or helping their sales) but we still have an opinion.

I don't get the point of judging these particular actions as better or worse than one another, that's all.

As for the going to war in Iraq example, its not as simple as you suggest. A lot of people with views as in your example, hold these views with the benefit of hindsite....which is a wonderful thing. It is the people who perhaps held those views all along that should be taken more seriously.

For every person who thinks that the Administration has completely botched the operation there is another who thinks they have not. Is that not activism as well.

Also some people believe evil is good and they are standing for what they believe in and trying to persuade others.

I'm not suggesting that the point of view is simple or right. I'm also not suggesting that only people with this view should or shouldn't be activists. As I say above, activists exist on the left and the right.

The question is, is it better to do nothing or to act on what you believe in, whatever that might be?

BTW, if I think your question is fatuous, that only means that I believe--for me--that particular question is outside the focus of this discussion and the answer has no bearing on the debate. It's like asking, what's nicer, a rich guy getting a big tax break or a poor guy getting a little tax break. Why judge that in this debate?

Please go ahead and join in here. You are most welcome.

Libre, in my experience, most activists (as opposed to people at dinner parties who spout a lot of hot air) are very precise in choosing their battles and their goals. There is not a lot of 'they' type talk. That's what you get on Fox TV and the like, but people who actually spend part of their time trying to accomplish a goal like making public buidlings accessible to the handicapped or cutting down on the rate of cig smoking among kids or reducing the costs of AIDS drugs for the poor are very very focused in their efforts and do a lot of work themselves.

 

[Shade]

For every person who thinks that the Administration has completely botched the operation there is another who thinks they have not. Is that not activism as well.

No. Activism, which by definition must have an aim, seeks to effect change. If someone thinks the administration is doing a mighty fine job, they're unlikely to take to the streets to protest to ensure nothing changes.

As for the going to war in Iraq example, its not as simple as you suggest. A lot of people with views as in your example, hold these views with the benefit of hindsite....which is a wonderful thing. It is the people who perhaps held those views all along that should be taken more seriously.

Read novella's post again. Her example was of people who disagreed with the invasion all along. So it is factually wrong to say "a lot of people with views as in your example, hold these views with the benefit of hindsight." None of them do. Because novella was only talking about the ones who held that view from the start.

I don't think it was a fatuous question by the way. I thought it was asinine.

Oh really. Do you mean literally all people? Can you name names? Or, are you generalizing.

You're right, I'm sorry. I withdraw the part after the comma in my post above. Feel free to withdraw the wrong parts of your earlier posts.

 

[ylris611203]

Read novella's post again. Her example was of people who disagreed with the invasion all along. So it is factually wrong to say "a lot of people with views as in your example, hold these views with the benefit of hindsight." None of them do. Because novella was only talking about the ones who held that view from the start.

I don't think it was a fatuous question by the way. I thought it was asinine.

I have read Novella`s post again, her words are...if you were against going to war in Iraq. Ok I will beg to differ on her wording, she was personalising the example and I was suggesting that many so called activists are those that have now changes sides with the benefit of hindsite. The invasion was part of a chain of events and to seperate it in a way simplify things to much. I know it was only an example to explain the activists roll, but there are very few activists out there, most people just jump on a bandwaggon and go with the flow.

An activist for animal rights who has a child who needs a life saving drug that has been tested on animals and who refuses the drug could be called a true activist.

Asinine marked by inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgment. So many people hide behind words

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Re the 'purest form' of altruism--I don't get why this concept matters. Philosophically, altruism is unique to man, whether it is pure or not.

Biologically it is not unique only to man. I was merely pointing out that the example veggiedog used was flawed.

But then there may also be a flaw in the above example; if that person does not believe in the Golden Rule.

Altruism is the Golden rule

Since when did people's beliefs on a certain thing decide weither or not it is fact? Your above statement makes no sense whatsoever - does that mean that if someone believes that the world is flat then that makes it so? I know someone who doesn't believe that medicine helps you in any way - does this then make medicine ineffective?

 

[SFG75]

I've been sitting on the sidelines reading and re-reading this thread, a lot of valid points have been addressed by a number of posters. I agree with Libre that activists are selfishly involved in the issues that they push for. I also agree with novella that selfishness in relation to activism isn't necessarily a bad thing. Yes, a straight person who is for gay marriage might be selfish in that they take the issue upon themselves, but they own it in otherways. They could have very strong feelings about the constitution and feel that not allowing it is an attack on the document itself. No matter what, all activism is centered on egoism, no doubt about it. Then again, as pointed out, that isn't such a bad thing.

 

[Shade]

That makes no sense.

egoism: concern for one's own interests and welfare

So if there is also concern for others' interests and welfare, then it is improper to call it egoism.

selfish: chiefly concerned with one's own interest, advantage, etc., especially to the exclusion of the interests of others

If there is any concern for the interests of others, then it cannot be selfish.

My definitions are from Collins Concise.

 

[novella]

I also agree with novella that selfishness in relation to activism isn't necessarily a bad thing. .. . No matter what, all activism is centered on egoism, no doubt about it. Then again, as pointed out, that isn't such a bad thing.

SFG, you are seriously misrepresenting my point of view here. I've cited several cases in which I think activists have clearly acted selflessly, for the greater good. I think one needs to evaluate each case on its merits, and not generalize. These kind of baseless generalizations have no merit.

 

[StillILearn]

I think the article I mentioned above here we go again is pertinent to this discussion. It would certainly appear to demonstrate an inate sense of altruism in human children (not to mention chimps), and this could certainly indicate that altruistic activism in human adults is a normal and natural thing.

The experimenters performed simple tasks like dropping a clothes peg out of reach while hanging clothes on a line, or mis-stacking a pile of books.

Nearly all of the group of 24 18-month-olds helped by picking up the peg or the book, usually in the first 10 seconds of the experiment.

They only did this if they believed the researcher needed the object to complete the task - if it was thrown on the ground deliberately, they didn't pick it up.

"The results were astonishing because these children are so young - they still wear diapers and are barely able to use language, but they already show helping behaviour," said Felix Warneken.

 

[ylris611203]

Biologically it is not unique only to man. I was merely pointing out that the example veggiedog used was flawed.



Since when did people's beliefs on a certain thing decide weither or not it is fact? Your above statement makes no sense whatsoever - does that mean that if someone believes that the world is flat then that makes it so? I know someone who doesn't believe that medicine helps you in any way - does this then make medicine ineffective?

Altruism or The Golden Rule (for example), do to others as you would have them do to you. Would only apply if some one followed the rule or belief. If someone does not follow the rule then Altruism does not apply to them. There is a train of thought that you can not have Altruism between friends and family because you would have a self interest in doing what you were doing. A bit like the rock star example I used a few threads ago.

I understand your flat earth (and medicine) example and no that would not make the earth flat..........................or would it. Because you throw a stone into the air and it falls to the ground and it has done hundreds of times we must not assume it always will......but thats, maybe, for another thread.

 

[novella]

I think the article I mentioned above here we go again is pertinent to this discussion. It would certainly appear to demonstrate an inate sense of altruism in human children (not to mention chimps), and this could certainly indicate that altruistic activism in human adults is a normal and natural thing.

Yeah, I thought that was really interesting, too, StillI, and I meant to respond to it. That study was reported here (NY Times, I think) when it appeared. I think the Great Apes have been observed doing similar behavior, but it's hard to attribute reasoning or emotion to another species.

Still, human sympathy and empathy have evolved somehow . . .

 

[SFG75]

I think the article I mentioned above here we go again is pertinent to this discussion. It would certainly appear to demonstrate an inate sense of altruism in human children (not to mention chimps), and this could certainly indicate that altruistic activism in human adults is a normal and natural thing.

Perhaps we are social creatures by nature? Could altruism be a side product of the necessity and desire to not be alone? Everyone but the unabomber seems to fit that to a "t." We are political animals and we each engage in our own efforts on issues we feel(selfishly mind you) are important.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Altruism or The Golden Rule (for example), do to others as you would have them do to you.

I'm not quite sure that you understand the way in which the concept of altruism is being applied here, so I have quoted an extract of Wikipedia that may help you along:

In the science of ethology (the study of behavior), altruism refers to behavior by an individual that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing the fitness of the actor.

This means, therefore, that altruism refers to when one indivual does something for another which results in the first individual not benefitting at all.

Would only apply if some one followed the rule or belief.

Keeping in mind the above information, this statement is not true at all. If one individual carries out an act that meets the above guidelines, then it is an example of altruism weither the individual wishes to believe it or not.

There is a train of thought that you can not have Altruism between friends and family because you would have a self interest in doing what you were doing. A bit like the rock star example I used a few threads ago.

That's correct - you cannot have altruism within a family. When it is within the family it is called Kin Selection.

I understand your flat earth (and medicine) example and no that would not make the earth flat..........................or would it. Because you throw a stone into the air and it falls to the ground and it has done hundreds of times we must not assume it always will......but thats, maybe, for another thread.

Again, this makes no sense. It seems to me that you are throwing together a whole lot of philosophical theories in order to baffle and confound the reader, but all that comes out is a tangled mess. The theory you have outlined above is to do with cause and effect - a theory that does not apply here unless people's beliefs have something to do with the earth being round. We throw up the stone and therefore expect it to fall down - by applying this theory to my example, it would imply that people believe the world to be round, and therefore we assume it to be so - something which I hope both you and I can see is untrue. By the way that you have related this theory to my example, it seems as though you were suggesting that if enough people believe that the earth is flat then it will become so; an assertion which I do not need to point out is utter rot.

 

[SFG75]

The bottom line is, while these activists might seem to have a social concience, it is really themselves who they are out for.

Like all the rest of us.

Yeah, that's pretty much accurate. I'd argue that the words "they are out for themselves" can apply to things besides money or other favors, it can also be matter of ideas or pride that activists can own. You may not directly benefit from having your local power district implement more solar power technology, but for many activist types, simply being involved in a movement, or being a leader in one, gives them an important sense of identity; "I'm a member of the People to Save the Whales" etc.

 

[novella]

Oh yeah, Mother Theresa was definitely full of herself.

 

[ylris611203]

I'm not quite sure that you understand the way in which the concept of altruism is being applied here, so I have quoted an extract of Wikipedia that may help you along:



This means, therefore, that altruism refers to when one indivual does something for another which results in the first individual not benefitting at all.


Keeping in mind the above information, this statement is not true at all. If one individual carries out an act that meets the above guidelines, then it is an example of altruism weither the individual wishes to believe it or not.


That's correct - you cannot have altruism within a family. When it is within the family it is called Kin Selection.


Again, this makes no sense. It seems to me that you are throwing together a whole lot of philosophical theories in order to baffle and confound the reader, but all that comes out is a tangled mess. The theory you have outlined above is to do with cause and effect - a theory that does not apply here unless people's beliefs have something to do with the earth being round. We throw up the stone and therefore expect it to fall down - by applying this theory to my example, it would imply that people believe the world to be round, and therefore we assume it to be so - something which I hope both you and I can see is untrue. By the way that you have related this theory to my example, it seems as though you were suggesting that if enough people believe that the earth is flat then it will become so; an assertion which I do not need to point out is utter rot.

Oh but I understand completely-ish the way in which the concept of altruism is being applied here; you asked me what the golden rule was.

You said that If one individual carries out an act that meets the above guidelines, then it is an example of altruism weither the individual wishes to believe it or not. Then what if, as you say one individual does something for another which results in the first individual not benefitting at all., what if he un-knowingly benefits?

Thank you for letting me know that I was correct regarding altruism within a family.

I was comparing a philosophical theory with your flat earth example. There are many people who still believe the earth is flat.

One small point...I know I`m being exacting but you said an assertion which I do not need to point out is utter rot, that is pointing it out.

If, altruism refers to one individual doing something for another which results in the first individual not benefiting at all, does self satisfaction count as a benefit?

 

[ValkyrieRaven88]

Libre, the only thing I don't agree with you on is the abortion thing. Mostly because I don't see why the unwed mother doesn't get the pre-natal care, which is free if you go to the right place, and give the baby up for adoption. I just don't see any way to justify abortion. But for everything else, I agree. The people against most things are the people who don't have to worry about what goes wrong when they get their wishes.

 

[StillILearn]

Oh yeah, Mother Theresa was definitely full of herself.

To be fair, Mother Theresa had surely been taught to believe she was pleasing God by her actions and could conceivably be accused of trying to garner points for herself. The human infants and chimps were just helping out because they could.