Thoughts Aloud

I had an exchange on a conservative oriented forum, somewhat over represented with intolerant fundamentalists, which is probably worth sharing here. It began with a fellow named Mark, posting a heroic story about a Marine vet, who lost his life in the process of saving a young lady in a private airplane crash, which they were both involved in. It ended with this remark:

I know that there are individuals out there, like “Thoughts Aloud Dave” who shudder at the mere mention of altruistic acts, as though they are manufactured by others. But it is clear that there are some people who are either born of this mettle, or are raised up with a commanding respect for life, no matter who’s life is at risk, and are willing to lay down their own lives in protecting others. Austin was one such Altruistic man, and I today commit to pray for his family, in honor of that sacrifice.

…which inspired me to reply with:

Given your indoctrination, Mark, I cannot fault you for not comprehending the virtue of selfishness. It is counterintuitive to your worldview; but it is a virtue nonetheless. Any rational human being is incapable of a selfless act. Given the data we have at any particular moment, we will always choose the course of action that we believe will provide us the greatest pleasure or the least pain. It could not be otherwise.

You depreciate the tremendous value Austin placed on his own life, to accuse him of discarding it in an act of altruism. What this hero did, was purely a selfish act. Given the circumstances extant at that time, his ego desperately needed and wanted to save that girl, and he likely would have killed anyone who tried to stop him.

The pain and risk to his own life in the moment, were nothing like the life-long emotional pain he would have suffered, had he not even tried. So give the man the respect he deserves, for his selfish act of valor. He was not committing suicide; he was trying to save the life of someone he cared about. His ego, his entire concept of his own self-worth, would have been utterly destroyed had he done otherwise. He didn’t do it for you, or society, or even for her; he did it for himself. Think about it… â—„Daveâ–º

At this point, another contributer there named Doug, who frequently also finds fault with my ungodly secular conservative / libertarian worldview, sputtered:

Any rational human being is incapable of a selfless act??? You have got to be joking. What about the secret service agents who get shot protecting the president? Is that a selfless act?

…which I easily countered with:

Come on, Doug… That is a pretty easy one. How many SS agents do you suppose love, value, or even respect the Obamunist they are protecting? They have a job to do. They train very diligently in how to do it. That training includes shielding the person they are assigned to protect, with their own bullet proof vested bodies, at the first sign of a threat. Yes, there is a risk that an assailant might kill them in the process, but that is a risk they are willing to take for the pay, perks, prestige, honor, and glory of the privileged position their egos sought in applying for the job. Once part of that elite corps, the dishonor of failing at their mission, would be too painful to endure. Pure selfishness, and thank goodness. Otherwise, one who disliked the individual they are assigned to protect, might not feel altruistic enough to sacrifice his life for a bum. â—„Daveâ–º

Not all that surprisingly, Doug replied with:

I didn’t mean guarding Obama. I have a 15 year old grandson who volunteers at the food bank twice a week. Is that a selfless act? Of course it is. I have a niece who takes in foster kids. Selfless? you bet. I have personally went without to give to others in need. Would you perform a selfless act for your own children? If you wouldn’t you are one sick human being.

I tried to bow out gracefully with:

Doug, go back and read my original remark in this thread carefully. I have had this argument dozens of times over the years, since I learned the virtue of selfishness (there are several good books on the subject), and I have yet to be given an example of a ‘selfless’ act, which I couldn’t easily explain as to why it was selfish, from the perspective of the actor. We have been programed from infancy, to believe that the word selfish is bad and the word selfless is good. To try to contemplate the opposite, is literally unthinkable for most.

I stand by my original argument; but if you cannot open your mind to the possibility that the altruistic propaganda, with which society has programed you, is possibly wrong, there is no point in discussing it further. If Robin-Hood is a heroic figure to you, rather than a thief, because his motive was said to be selfless, then I cannot get through to you, and this is a waste of both our times. â—„Daveâ–º

Doug thought he would have the last word, with a snippy:

You are right. You are wasting your time and ours. For once, I agree with you.

…which just wouldn’t do, of course:

Ours? Speak for yourself, Doug. Not all minds snap shut at the first mention of a counterintuitive idea, which challenges a cherished belief. Some of us acknowledge that learning is a lifelong process, and are intellectually curious enough to open our minds to new ideas, and quite willing to explore them on their merits. Just because it is considered a faux pas in conservative circles, to challenge the beliefs of the publicly pious, yet somehow quite acceptable to denigrate secular conservatives, doesn’t mean that everyone who silently reads these comments, are as close-minded and dogmatic as you and Mark.

Look, Mark challenged me directly in his post, which afforded me the opportunity, if not the obligation, to explain my viewpoint for new readers perhaps unfamiliar with it. It cannot be denied that I did so civilly. It was only you, who reacted with sputtering incredulity, to counter what your mindset considered an absurdity. When I nullified the lame example you chose, in attempting to dismiss my assertion out of hand, you avoided responding to my logic, posed instead a couple of more, and started to get personal.

This is precisely the tactic favored by the altruistic Left, when they wish to evade a discussion of ideas that challenge their smug worldview. If you cannot even see my ‘most pleasure – least pain’ principle at play, when one is nurturing and protecting one’s own children, then you are not thinking rationally; you are simply emoting. If trying to get through your idealogical blinders were my only motive, I would be wasting time for sure; but if I inspire even one other reader to put on his thinking cap, then my efforts are not in vain.

You might say the Enlightenment gods of reason, logic, and capitalism, also inspire their devotes to spread their “good news.” I do my share, and try to do so with an affable demeanor. You might say we are competitors for the minds wandering through here, Doug. I represent the Enlightenment, selling open-minded ideas, reason, logic, objective knowledge, empirical facts, capitalism, tolerance and the individual Liberty necessary to pursue them.

Whether you acknowledge it or not, with your mantra of ‘our God-fearing Christian nation,’ and such; you represent your fearful God, peddling close-minded dogma, mystery, magic, fear, subjective beliefs, altruism, intolerance and the rigid conformity necessary to contain them. All we can do is give it our best sales pitch; what is happening in the mind of another, is one thing that is blessedly still beyond control. The readers will choose for themselves, whether the Enlightenment or the Dark Ages strike them as most appealing. Caveat emptor! 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

I have been accused more than once on that forum of being ‘an agent of the Devil.” Sometimes, they just inspire me to act like one. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

8 Responses to “Enlightenment vs Dark Ages”