A summary of the doctrine of chivalry (and not only towards women)

[fpb]

AS
the purpose of wisdom is to enlighten ignorance
AND AS
the purpose of wealth is to relieve poverty,
SO
the purpose of strength is to defend weakness.

This seems, once stated, all too obvious; but it is really revolutionary as compared with the apparently universal belief that the purpose of strength is to compel weakness.

Comments

[dustthouart.livejournal.com]

The problem is that to Rand (or to Nietzsche and several other philosophers) and their followers, they deny all three.

Libertarians especially deny the second. If you mentioned the second to most people online today, not only would they not think it was a given, you'd probably give some people heart attacks.

Edit: Basically, I think that if you were to poll people, you'd find people more likely to agree with point 1 and point 3 than point 2. But I think you'd still find a depressingly large amount of people who think, in all three cases, "might makes right." Or that there is no morality at all.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I disagree. I would say that the duty of the rich to care for the poor is a commonplace of current popular culture - think of "we are the world" and so on. Both Rand and Nietzsche are really fringe thinkers, although I think a lot more of him than of her, and even most of their followers do not really try to apply their philosophies in real life. Most of them treat them as a philosophical toy, to be put away with the other toys when real life and real human beings make an appearance.

[thefish30.livejournal.com]

It's important not to confuse individual morality with the politics. Libertarianism is all about what the government should and should not do. It has nothing against personal chivalry. (though Rand does)

Similarly, I think most people today (even online) agree heartily with #2 as governmental policy, but are careful not to count themselves among the wealthy.

[larmer.livejournal.com]

thefish30, I concur with your comments.

fpb I have posted this item into LJ with reference back to this post.
One thing to consider is that the saying makes no reference to who benefits. It does not say, 'the purpose of wealth is to help the poor,' but rather 'the purpose of wealth is to relieve poverty,' The wealth I generate helps to relieve me of poverty. My wisdom to know my lack of knowledge causes me to seek knowledge from others thereby reducing my ignorance. I think most readers consider that it is a third party who benefits but it is implied not stated. So the statement perhaps should be adjusted.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

This is not a lawyer's statement. I think most people who read this will understand what I meant.