Subject:
|
Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:06:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
414 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
> So if someone buys my beat-up '78 Pinto for $40,000.00, then he's given me
> $39,999.95 worth of charity? I don't agree with that, either. If a price is
> set and that price is met, then the price is the price: no more, no less.
> "Worth" or "value" in this case are abstracts that are, in my view, subordinate
> to the actual price. Someone might think he scored a super deal on his
> $40,000.00 Pinto purchase, but his assessment is based on his notion of the
> car's value. Once the transaction is complete, the (paid) price is an absolute,
> whereas the value remains subjective and abstract.
> Again, it sounds as if you're using a kind of Randian definition (which
> doesn't invalidate it, but it's not a definition with which I concur, so I'm not
> interested in supporting it).
But if you're saying paying 40k for a 1978 Pinto isn't charity, and that
any exchange where both sides assign a "value" to the exchange, then
altruism or charity can only happen when one side assigns no value
whatsoever to the transaction, which is the definition of altruism Larry
is using.
So how do you define charity and altruism?
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
