Empathy for others comes AFTER empathy for myself first. Not everyone is an ethical utilitarian, definitely not me.
That’s perfectly fine, but you can’t build a strong political movement on such open individualism. (This is not a moral statement, by the way; you might merely be open about something other movements secretly believe in, but you at least need to make a show of working for the common good.)
you can’t build a strong political movement on such open individualism.
It’s not really that individualistic of an ethical framework. I would say it’s pretty much in line with how most humans behave. Humans care about themselves, and a group of people they love. This group can be family, friends, and so on. The amount they would sacrifice for someone else depends upon how “close” they feel to that individual/where they rank the interests of that individual in their hierarchy of interests.
Most political movements and alliances throughout history have been built with this understanding.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not justifying normative assertions using descriptive facts. What I am saying, is that most political movements and alliances were forged in spite of ethical frameworks like mine.
The Russian revolution didn’t happen because the serfs were highly utilitarian and radically altruistic. It happened because they believed that life would improve for themselves and the people they cared about if the communists ruled in place of the Tsar.
You can name any revolution throughout history, and I can guarantee that it happened because of shared interests of the revolutionaries and not purely because of radical altruism.
I’m not saying that political movements have to be altruistic in practice. I’m saying the leaders need to at least make a show of working for their followers. People won’t readily follow someone who openly says that empathy for others comes after empathy for themself.
The Russian revolution didn’t happen because the serfs were highly utilitarian and radically altruistic. It happened because they believed that life would improve for themselves and the people they cared about if the communists ruled in place of the Tsar.
Russian revolution was more industrial workers than serfs, but broadly, yes. In other words, they thought the communists would work for their interests. Because they trusted the leaders to work for them, they were ready to make small sacrifices (mostly going on strikes) to support these leaders.
If a movement’s leaders do not gain the people’s trust, their support will not be strong. The communists were preceded by a more radical group called the narodniks, who were mostly middle-class intellectuals, and favoured an agrarian revolution, and later, assasinations of corrupt officials / nobles. Some people sympathised with them, but because they didn’t convince the people that they would work for them (rather than just against the tsar), that ‘sympathy’ didn’t amount to much.
That’s perfectly fine, but you can’t build a strong political movement on such open individualism. (This is not a moral statement, by the way; you might merely be open about something other movements secretly believe in, but you at least need to make a show of working for the common good.)
It’s not really that individualistic of an ethical framework. I would say it’s pretty much in line with how most humans behave. Humans care about themselves, and a group of people they love. This group can be family, friends, and so on. The amount they would sacrifice for someone else depends upon how “close” they feel to that individual/where they rank the interests of that individual in their hierarchy of interests.
Most political movements and alliances throughout history have been built with this understanding.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not justifying normative assertions using descriptive facts. What I am saying, is that most political movements and alliances were forged in spite of ethical frameworks like mine.
The Russian revolution didn’t happen because the serfs were highly utilitarian and radically altruistic. It happened because they believed that life would improve for themselves and the people they cared about if the communists ruled in place of the Tsar.
You can name any revolution throughout history, and I can guarantee that it happened because of shared interests of the revolutionaries and not purely because of radical altruism.
I’m not saying that political movements have to be altruistic in practice. I’m saying the leaders need to at least make a show of working for their followers. People won’t readily follow someone who openly says that empathy for others comes after empathy for themself.
Russian revolution was more industrial workers than serfs, but broadly, yes. In other words, they thought the communists would work for their interests. Because they trusted the leaders to work for them, they were ready to make small sacrifices (mostly going on strikes) to support these leaders.
If a movement’s leaders do not gain the people’s trust, their support will not be strong. The communists were preceded by a more radical group called the narodniks, who were mostly middle-class intellectuals, and favoured an agrarian revolution, and later, assasinations of corrupt officials / nobles. Some people sympathised with them, but because they didn’t convince the people that they would work for them (rather than just against the tsar), that ‘sympathy’ didn’t amount to much.