Posted by Diarmuid on November 01, 2001 at 11:38:13:
In Reply to: since when is defending virtue silly? posted by isaac on November 01, 2001 at 11:11:04:
If you were confident of your ideas, you would not have written so damn much, I feel. You are multiplying assumptions here like nobody's business, so watch your occam.
Job security of doctors related to degree-wielding money-minded software coders? Don't make me laugh. If a coder fucks up due to being stoned, it gets fixed in version 1.2, if a surgeon fucks up due to exhaustion, he loses his livelihood. Without even mentioning dress codes, hygiene requirements and the like.
Fuck-ups are an expected, accepted part of software making life, the medical profession wants perfection all the time.
The job is stressful, and the doctors dislike the stress (unstressed doctors are better doctors), but they do it because there is a joy in helping people, ditto the nurses. Remember, they cite "helping people" as reasons for doing what they do, it's up to you to prove 'em wrong. Literally all the evidence, direct and circumstantial, points to altruism as the major component in their career choice. You need to make wild-ass assumptions to even foment a little doubt, let alone disprove.
: diarm, the thing about sophistry is that it's only a sophism if it's not valid. and, if it's not valid, a skilled logician should be able to find the flaw. i welcome and encourage criticism of what i say. after all, if there is a flaw in my reasoning, i'd like to be the first to know.
: doctors earn a lot of money, and if you've been following the trends in computer science, you'd see that they also have a HELL of a lot more job security. in fact, in the last few years, there has been a tremendous dropoff in programming jobs, and layoffs abound as companies go under and get swallowed up. (one of the reasons i switched from a straigh-up cs major to a pre-engineering liberal studies major; also so i could write a thesis on the enneagram.)
: however, your main problem with this line of attack is that you're implying that the total self-serving reward of a career is the pay, and then figuring that people who opt for jobs that have a heavier workload and don't pay as well are "altruists". that's just not true. there's a lot more you get from your job than the paycheck. for example, i work in computer support at a university. i would be making a lot more doing EXACTLY the same job anywhere other than here. so why do i stay? because it's convenient, mroe than anything else. they're comfortable with the fact that i'm a student, and i can work my hours around class without any conflict at all. i don't have to go two separate places for work and class. i meet lots of my professors, and work with my friends. and, i don't have to worry about the biggest danger in i.t. professions; i am reasonably assured that this university won't go out of business any time soon, leaving me without a job.
: there's always gonna be a market for medical professionals.
: the nurses that could have been paralegals...
: consider if the nurse in question really enjoys working with people, gets a kick out of that connection they get with another person when they do their job well, and would go crazy having to do paperwork all day. then, the cost/benefit ratio of being a paralegal would outweigh that of beign a nurse. and, if that's the case, then the selfish choice is to persue a career in nursing.
: same with the doctor who isnt' a computer programmer, for that matter. who's to say that he even has the skills required to MAKE IT through 6 or 8 years of computer science training to get a phd? (or an engd, which is actually closer in scope to an md, and much more rigorous than a phd.) it's a whole different kind of problem solving, different kind of science. different sorts of thinking involved. there is a joy in doing what you're good at, what you're interested in. add to that the job security and the great pay, and it's not hard to concieve of a situation where the most self-serving choice is to be a doctor.
: if you wanna see long hours and shit pay, look at someone who starts their own business. my father ran a company that he started for years while i was growing up. they have the workload of a doctor with a sidejob, their pay is never certain and everything they have is usually riding on their skill. sometimes MORE than what they have, if they take out loans from investors who hope to cash in on the business's success. often, they hire a bunch of employees to work for them, and after payroll checks are signed, they end up making less than their secretary, and spending half of that on the business. i dont' think anyone would claim that most entrepreneurs are altruistic. true, there's the POTENTIAL to make a bundle, but most people who run their own company would make a lot more if they worked in upper management of a business that's already doing well. i think it's fair to assume that they get something out of the freedom, don't you?
:
: so, if this is a fantastic work of sophistry, then where's the hole? what false conclusion have i come to, and as a result of what false premise? where is the contradiction, if there is one?
: i have another question for you. what exactly constitutes altruism? is it acting for the benefit of others without considering your own well-being? or is it acting in such a way that benefits others, regardless of whether or not it benefits you? i dont' think that the second definition qualifies. after all, when burger king sells me a whopper, i'm doing something that benefits burger king; buying their product, making them money. that's not altruism, tho, that's commerce. if i walked into a bk, and simply handed them money, they might take it, but it'd be foolish of me, if i got nothing in return. of course, we think nothing of giving handouts to beggars, tho, and a beggar on the street is not nearly as noble an institution as burgerking, from the "helping others" idea. after all, they provide tons of jobs which boost the economy and help train high school kids for the working world, advertising dollars that help pay for my favorite tv shows, and the sourdough bacon cheeseburger is delicious. the beggar doesn't help anyone but himself. the only thing is, burger king has lots of money. and the beggar has none. so, he "needs" it more.
: need is not a valid reason for a handout. if i needed your heart, no other heart would do, or else i'd die, i would still have no claim to your heart. in fact, even if i only needed a kidney and it would not be fatal for you to give it up, and i could only have yours, that alone would not be a reason for you to give it to me. if you were smart, you might consider asking a very high price for it, knowing that i'd pay anything. if you give to a beggar, it's not because of his desire, it's because of yours. you get some pleasure out of doing it, or, you fear some pain if you don't. (essentially the same thing, your eventual well-being is enhanced by doing it.) i'd say, if you give to a beggar just because he asks, not because of anything that he is offering you, that is indicative of faulty ethical premises.
: there are two beggars in new haven that i give to whenever i see them. one of them tells jokes, and he's hilarious. the other is the shakespeare lady. and i have the utmost respect for street performers, but we don't have many cause new haven has a law against panhandling. (but it's only enforced if he's attracting a crowd, so it's really just a law against GOOD panhandlers.) entertainment is valuable, and i don't mind paying for it, so that it'll be there later. but the hoardes of crackheads who tell me that they just need some spare change, cuase it's 2 dollars to get into the shelter, and it's only three dollars to get something to eat, so they just need 4 dollars to get home to the shelter, cause it's cold, and they just need a little help, and please please help a brother out please, it makes me fucking sick. not that they're poor. that they have no concept of what they're asking for, or how to go about getting it. and the reason they never have to learn is because of people who preach altruism and feel bad if they don't piss their money away on someone else's crack.
:
: one more example of so-called "altruism". i tip very well at the diner i go to. typically about 50%. you could claim that that's altruistic, that i'm doing it to help out the waitress who's depending on tips as a substantial part of her income. but that's bullshit. when i go in there, i get *immediate* service, seriously we end up eating faster there than at most fast-food places. my coffee gets filled when i get halfway through the cup. once my friend left his cigarettes there, and the next time we went there, they were returned to him. it's totally self-serving to tip well if you visit a place often.
:
: where are these mathematical proofs that show that 2+2=5? its' an axiomatic system; that doesn't happen, unless you break the rules. where have i broken the rules of reasoning? i am curious. and, i'm not saying that there are, but even if there are some actual examples of true altruism in the behavior of humans, then you still haven't shown that there's anything wrong with being selfish. i would like to see you try to reasonably show that there is.
: isaac