Onyx Shoham Posted August 7, 2013 Report Share Posted August 7, 2013 While talking to my father he reminisced that while growing up with his family, a Latvian pro-soviet emigrant, they had a custom to feed the dog before everyone else stated to eat. The justification was that the dog had no way to feed itself. This is the most ridiculous example of altruism and the morality of sacrifice I could find in my personal knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondhander Posted August 7, 2013 Report Share Posted August 7, 2013 Agreed. And it's not surprising to find it in a communist society, even while the people are suffering. It's just that kind of thinking that got the society into that spot in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted August 7, 2013 Report Share Posted August 7, 2013 Not much context to go on here. If we're just talking about your standard household pet, it's a simple fact that they can't feed themselves. Face value, I don't see it as altruistic, just a bit odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happiness Posted August 8, 2013 Report Share Posted August 8, 2013 Maybe the dog was just the best person in the family and actually deserved to eat first. Harrison Danneskjold 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted August 9, 2013 Report Share Posted August 9, 2013 Maybe the dog was just the best person in the family and actually deserved to eat first. I have never met a mystic-altruist-collectivist dog before, in my entire life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted August 9, 2013 Report Share Posted August 9, 2013 (edited) In spite thousands of words written by Ayn Rand and other Objectivist philosophers people still fail to distinguish between altruism and compassion. Dog cannot feed itself. If man adopted dog he took certain responsibilities on himself. Besides, dog is valuable and feeding dog is sort of trade, that is exchange of values. Edited August 9, 2013 by Leonid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Shoham Posted August 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2013 Leonid In spite thousands of words written by Ayn Rand and other Objectivist philosophers people still fail to distinguish between altruism and compassion. Dog cannot feed itself. If man adopted dog he took certain responsibilities on himself. Besides, dog is valuable and feeding dog is sort of trade, that is exchange of values. This would be purely compassion if it was done on a moral choice. The fact of the matter (that i did not state well enough) is that the dog was fed on dogmatic principle. My dad even pointed out to one time that his family did not have much food to eat yet decided to put priority of the dog first. Frankly i do not think that the family (at least my father) really liked the dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 If he didn't like him why he kept him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Shoham Posted August 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 14, 2013 he answered "someone has to keep him". i dont think he felt too much compassion for him. He probably did it from a sense of duty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted August 17, 2013 Report Share Posted August 17, 2013 Too bad. Sense of duty eliminates compassion because duty has no moral referral. Duty to whom and why? Duty is Kantian term and it presupposes means without ends. Duty denies a beneficiary of the moral action. In this particular case it"s even not a dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.