addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcredit-cardcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobe--smallglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1launch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

"New York Philosophy" Message Board › Why Does Mexico Hate America?

Why Does Mexico Hate America?

A former member
Post #: 156
I don't think that the self-interest/self-sacrifice distinction is arbitrary so much as I want to open up more space at least for something like benevolence which I don't think fits particularly nicely into that picture (I'm not saying it can't fit at all, just not nicely). I'm also not sure if at bottom this particularly disagrees with what you're getting at.

D-J: Benevolence can occur under either ethic. The difference is whether it is deserved and done willingly.

I'm thinking something like this: self-interest seems to refer more to whether an action should be considered subjectively rational

Something cannot both be subjective and rational. If something is rational then it is able to stand on its own merits.

(which is why I assume you wrote 'rational self-interest' up top).

D-J: Rational self-interest distinguishes between the actions of self-interest that sacrifices others in some way - which is ultimately not in one's interest anyway.
A former member
Post #: 298
David-Joe,

Can you give me an example of altruism and that it is self sacrifice as well at the same time?
A former member
Post #: 14


Perhaps, the long history of the US opposing democratically elected governments, supporting dictatorships, covert and not so covert CIA and military actions (coups, assasinations, embargos) which contravene international and domestic law, outright appropriation of territory, the smothering of local markets and producers by multinational corporations, the insistence on the privatization of natural and communal resources, not to mention the 'structural adjustment programs' and its more recent versions carried out by the IMF, WTO, and World Bank throughout Latin America might have something to do with why Mexicans do not like the 'greatest country on earth.'

I would be happy to suggest some reading material.

Very helpful - that explains why millions have snuck into the USA and want to gain citizenship for themselves and their families.

I am not sure that I understand your point. It appears that this is a rather simplistic view of the reasons for immigration to another country. This sort of thing: 'if the US is so terrible, why do so many persons want to work and live here'. The myth of the American Dream is powerful, and often, the economic and material conditions in a country from which one is trying to flee are such that one seeks more opportunity elsewhere. As the world's sole hegemonic power if not empire, the US has played a role in the conditions in a country like Mexico.
A former member
Post #: 301
I am not sure that I understand your point. It appears that this is a rather simplistic view of the reasons for immigration to another country. This sort of thing: 'if the US is so terrible, why do so many persons want to work and live here'. The myth of the American Dream is powerful, and often, the economic and material conditions in a country from which one is trying to flee are such that one seeks more opportunity elsewhere. As the world's sole hegemonic power if not empire, the US has played a role in the conditions in a country like Mexico.
The U.S. is responsible for the role of the conditions in Mexico?
There is free trade. Trade isn't controlled. Please explain what you just said.
A former member
Post #: 15
I am not sure that I understand your point. It appears that this is a rather simplistic view of the reasons for immigration to another country. This sort of thing: 'if the US is so terrible, why do so many persons want to work and live here'. The myth of the American Dream is powerful, and often, the economic and material conditions in a country from which one is trying to flee are such that one seeks more opportunity elsewhere. As the world's sole hegemonic power if not empire, the US has played a role in the conditions in a country like Mexico.

The U.S. is responsible for the role of the conditions in Mexico?
There is free trade. Trade isn't controlled. Please explain what you just said.
I wrote that the US has played a major role in the economic and material conditions of a country like Mexico. I did not say that the US is solely 'responsible' for these conditions.

As for 'free trade', this is a neoliberal ideological construct. Free trade is free by name only. Trade is not controlled? What about trade barriers, privatization schemes, use of funding or lack thereof as political and economic pressure if not manipulation, protectionist policies for us yet the opening of their markets for our corporations? Although the neoliberal agenda paints a picture of open and balanced competition, what typically results is the dominance of oligopolies. I would recommend checking out Karl Polanyi's 'The Great Transformation...' The Marxist tradition also has a diverse range of critiques.

Another point about neoliberal free trade is that the entire research and development sector in all of the high-tech fields are funded by the tax payer, whereas the profits are taken by private corporations. The war in Iraq is a paradigm case of the socialization of risk and the privatization of profit.
A former member
Post #: 303
If you truly think about it a trade barrier isn't a barrier to free trade it does protect free trade. The only time when there isn't free trade is when there's a monopoly.

The U.S. doesn't own everything in Mexico. That's the only way
she can play any role in the economic and material conditions in Mexico.

Mexico could've gotten some loans to build up the country right?



And about the high tech matter that has nothing to do with Mexico that has to do with a form of government
A former member
Post #: 171
I don't think that the self-interest/self-sacrifice distinction is arbitrary so much as I want to open up more space at least for something like benevolence which I don't think fits particularly nicely into that picture (I'm not saying it can't fit at all, just not nicely). I'm also not sure if at bottom this particularly disagrees with what you're getting at.

I'm thinking something like this: self-interest seems to refer more to whether an action should be considered subjectively rational (which is why I assume you wrote 'rational self-interest' up top). But this leaves open what an individual's interests are. Maybe someone wants to get into an internalist/externalist debate about what is in someone's interest, but from the standpoint of whether her action is rational what seems most important are either (1) her fundamental values or (2) what she believes her fundamental values to be [I'm pretty happy with either of these]. All that is to say, it seems like most things that would intuitively fall into the category of 'self-sacrifice' would be done for the sake of one of these fundamental values. That means that the self-sacrificial action is straightforwardly rational or self-interested.

Seems like a better way to characterize actions may be in terms of what the action is for the sake of. If I'm doing something for the sake of myself it's selfish (and this doesn't mean bad). If I do something for the sake of someone else, it's benevolent (which may or may not involve self-sacrifice). Given that both of those acts are based on my values it seems both can be rational.

I'm also fairly happy saying that we perform a lot of acts that are hard to categorize all together or at least aim at intermediate ends that are worthwhile in themselves.

Hopefully it's clear at this point why I don't particularly think this goes against much of the spirit of the iniital claim.

It also may be worthwhile to wonder whether governments or organizations can in any important sense act intentionally.

Rational action is not subjective at all, its stands on its own. One may choose if there are multiple outcomes but that is all.

Sacrifice is the giving up of values or accepting a lesser value. One acts to keep a value. An individual giving their life to save the person they love is not a sacrifice. This can be shown to be a rational action because the person one loves is fundamental to personal happiness.

You mention benevolence - well, anyone has the right to help anyone they want, however, it can be morally analyzed as to whether the act is moral and therefore rational.

Helping an enemy in times of war for reason of benevolence makes the actor a traitor and this is also irrational because it contributes to the actors own destruction.

It is important not to mix mind and emotion - the mind programs emotions either consciously or subconsciously, which is why philosophy is so important.
A former member
Post #: 23
Sacrifice is the giving up of values or accepting a lesser value. One acts to keep a value. An individual giving their life to save the person they love is not a sacrifice. This can be shown to be a rational action because the person one loves is fundamental to personal happiness.

I am not sure I understand your conception of sacrifice. You say that giving one's life to save a person one loves is not a sacrifice because it can be rational since that person being saved is fundamental to one's happiness. Yet, it seems to me that the happiness to which the person being saved is fundamental no longer exists when one gives one's life for someone else. This is to say that it might be rational, but your reason for it being so is undermined by the fact that the person gives up the very thing that makes it so, i.e. happiness.

It is important not to mix mind and emotion - the mind programs emotions either consciously or subconsciously, which is why philosophy is so important.

This is certainly not an Aristotelian statement. The emotions play a fundamental role in Aristotle's work, but, of course, you know this as a self-proclaimed Aristotelian.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy