Altruism - Is it a lie?

[Revan]

Avatar... People talk about giving money to beggers as selfless... ok... I want you to go out there and give $/£5000 to a random begger in the street. Then I might consider you selfless. You only give the amount of money that you don't need.

As for Furls' brother, he sounds like he was an amazing guy; and this sounds disrespectful, but I think we all like to think high of those that are gone. Don't get me wrong Furls, he sounds like one hell of a guy; but he was human, and therefore cannot be Altruisic.

[CovenantJr]

We keep talking about non-altruism as if it's a failing. I don't see that feeling good about doing something good is wrong. Maybe it's not altruistic, but who says altruism is better? You have to feel bad about doing good things to be altruistic? Then I'd rather not be, thanks.

[Revan]

No... I didn't say it was a bad thing. I said it was a selfish thing. But I also said that if the deed is worth doing, it's good that one does it, regardless of the reasons.

[Avatar]

I think you miss my point there Darth. I was saying that while we maybe can ascribe selfish motives to giving money to a beggar, (maybe, and nothing wrong with only giving what you feel you can afford/are willing to part with), I think we are on shakier ground when it comes to the big things, like dying for somebody.

Again, you haven't defined what you mean by altruism, especially from the context of it being a quality unattainable by Humans.

What is altruism? and why can't Humans be it? They seem to manage plenty of other self-contradictory things without too much trouble.


--Avatar

[CovenantJr]

I don't think selfish is the right word. I don't think good deeds are necessarily done entirely (or even predominantly) for our own benefit. Having some benefit from such an act doesn't make it selfish, just not dictionary-definiton altruism.

[Revan]

I think you miss my point there Darth. I was saying that while we maybe can ascribe selfish motives to giving money to a beggar, (maybe, and nothing wrong with only giving what you feel you can afford/are willing to part with), I think we are on shakier ground when it comes to the big things, like dying for somebody.

Again, you haven't defined what you mean by altruism, especially from the context of it being a quality unattainable by Humans.

What is altruism? and why can't Humans be it? They seem to manage plenty of other self-contradictory things without too much trouble.


--Avatar

Altruism is doing something that is purely selfless. And doesn't have any personal gain whatsoever, material or otherwise.

Humans often get a "fell good" feeling about themselves when they do good... whilst that might be good enough for some people, to me it's shallow.

[CovenantJr]

To me it's unfairly judgemental to dismiss people as shallow simply because they enjoy doing good deeds.

[Avatar]

Altruism is doing something that is purely selfless. And doesn't have any personal gain whatsoever, material or otherwise.

Well, in that sense, yes, altruism may be a pure lie. There is nothing that will prevent some sort of psychological reward system kicking in if you do a "good deed". If we consider that to be "personal gain", then there is no altruism, and probably nothing that can be counted as a "good deed".

Personally, I think that the rewards that delineate altruism should be confined to the material. Nothing can quantify the "feel-good" factor for each individual, just as no-one can take the position that they know what someone else is thinking/feeling. As far as I'm concerned, personal gain relates to something tangible. We cannot know how valuable some ethreal "feeling" is to somebody, or how much it contributes to their choices.

Your brain rewards you on the basis of established (learned) responses. What rewards you wouldn't reward me, and vice versa.

Humans often get a "fell good" feeling about themselves when they do good... whilst that might be good enough for some people, to me it's shallow.

Perhaps. But, as usual, we have to settle for what we can get.

Hell, this is a tough one. Do we say that the result is independant of the motivation? Or that the motivation is all-important? And if that is true, does helping others to feel good mean that the result (the person being helped) is tainted?

Usually, I would say that the result is affected by the motivation. But in this instance, I'm not sure. Is this a case of the end actually justifying the means?

Problematic.

--Avatar

ps. I agree with Cj here. How can we call someone shallow for helping others? Do we have a right to say that the fact that you help someone makes you a selfish bastard, because it makes yoou feel good? I think in this case, the good deed outweighs all psychological motivation for reward.
--A

[Revan]

Yeah, I agree that a good deed shouldn't be retracted because it's selfish at the core... but all I'm saying is altruism is a lie. it doesn't exist. not that good deeds are bad things.

[sindatur]

Yeah, I agree that a good deed shouldn't be retracted because it's selfish at the core... but all I'm saying is altruism is a lie. it doesn't exist. not that good deeds are bad things.

Darth, you are definitely a cynic. It looks like you have may some trust issues that need to be dealt with, too.

Altruism: Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
Altruism is a word specifically used to describe a human act, how can it not apply to humans?

I don't believe that those who sacrifice themselves believe themselves lower than the one(s) they sacrifice for.

Using the dictionary description a parent could go without their beer for a month in order to provide school clothes for their child. Their would be nothing selfish about that, the parent is losing their beer money, that's their sacrifice, and it is improving the welfare of their kid. How can you find a selfish motivation for that. I still contend the sacrificing of one's life for others (The good of the many outweighs the good of the few) as alturistic.

Perhaps we are looking at two different dictionaries.

I would jump in front of a bullet and sacrifice myself to save my soulmate's life. Not because I believe myself to be lower, but because of love, unselfish love.

[CovenantJr]

Agreed. Giving your life to save someone else must be altruistic, I think. After all, you gain no satisfaction from the deed, being dead. It's simply a matter of valuing that person's wellbeing above your own. As you say, love.

[wayfriend]

I'm saying is altruism is a lie. it doesn't exist.

Many have been trying to change your mind. Which itself sort of proves it exists, if you ask me.

[danlo]

I believe humans are capable of altruism--but it has taken me many years to finally discover that. Darth will never agree with me, but that's ok. As far as his interperatation is concerned it's a stupid word that never should have been invented. But at least the topic's interesting.

[Avatar]

Many have been trying to change your mind. Which itself sort of proves it exists, if you ask me.

Nice one!

--A

[variol son]

I read the discussion with great interest, and have a few questions.

If I get a good feeling about doing a good deed, does this make it not altruistic, regardless of whether or not feeling good was my reason for doing the good deed?

Does deriving satisfaction from helping others make that help shallow? What if the satisfaction is merely a by-product and not the reason that one offered help?

Can we decide that the deeds of those such as Mother Teresa were not altruistic? Have any of us spoken to her to know her motives, or asked her if she only did what she did out of fear of God's judgement?

If someone can be blinded by a positive outlook on life can't they also be blinded by a negative outlook on life?

Sum sui generis
Vs

[Avatar]

What Darth is saying, and which I agree with to some extent, is that if feeling good is the reason for doing good, it means it's not altruistic in a true sense of the word.

If someone can be blinded by a positive outlook on life can't they also be blinded by a negative outlook on life?

Hell, I like that one too. Very good point Vs.

--Avatar

[variol son]

What Darth is saying, and which I agree with to some extent, is that if feeling good is the reason for doing good, it means it's not altruistic in a true sense of the word.

While this may be true, I'm not convinced that this is what Darth means. It's certainly not my understanding based on my reading of his posts.

Please don't be offended Darth. I'm not trying to be nasty or anything. That's just the way I interpreted what you have been saying. I may be wrong.

Sum sui generis
Vs

[Revan]

Darth, you are definitely a cynic.

You say it like it's a bad thing.

It looks like you have may some trust issues that need to be dealt with, too.

heh. Not really... maybe I do... But I trust certain people with all my heart.

Altruism: Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
Altruism is a word specifically used to describe a human act, how can it not apply to humans?

because humans can't be altruistic; that's why it can't be applied to humans.

I don't believe that those who sacrifice themselves believe themselves lower than the one(s) they sacrifice for.

I do... And so do many others, maybe not on this site, because people here seem to be blind to the fact that humans are selfish... but many psychologists think so to.

Using the dictionary description a parent could go without their beer for a month in order to provide school clothes for their child. Their would be nothing selfish about that, the parent is losing their beer money, that's their sacrifice, and it is improving the welfare of their kid. How can you find a selfish motivation for that. I still contend the sacrificing of one's life for others (The good of the many outweighs the good of the few) as alturistic.

Oh, Really? I've never known a parent who has done this. And I'll wager you haven't either. I know my mother didn't.

The truth is, humans who sacrifice themselves wouldn't do it unless they thought themselves unworthy to the thing they're sacrificing themselves for. You've been watching too many Hollywood movies. Things aren't like that in real life. There are very few that would sacrifice themselves nowdays. Most humans are cowards and sheep, and would freeze up in a crisis; not go "heroically" sacrifice themselves.

Perhaps we are looking at two different dictionaries.

I would jump in front of a bullet and sacrifice myself to save my soulmate's life. Not because I believe myself to be lower, but because of love, unselfish love.

hmmm... Would you really? I would like to think I would to... but you would probably just freeze up. Being too scared to even move. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you wouldn't let any harm come to your soulmate on purpose... But the truth is, you honestly don't know if you'd jump to take a bullet. Unless you've been in that situation before.

I wouldn't allow any harm to come to my gf, I love her with all my heart; So don't go thinking I'm completely cold and heartless [/quote]

[Revan]

If someone can be blinded by a positive outlook on life can't they also be blinded by a negative outlook on life?

Very much so. But I love life as much as the next guy. I'd rather have a negative view point though. It prepares us more for this world.

Please don't be offended Darth. I'm not trying to be nasty or anything. That's just the way I interpreted what you have been saying. I may be wrong.

No probs dude. It's a discussion, this is what we're supposed to do.

[Avatar]

I'd rather have a negative view point though. It prepares us more for this world.

This I must agree with in a way. If you plan for the worst, all your surprises will be pleasant ones.

Take it Easy
--Avatar