Kevin's Watch

Excellent post Xar.

I'm gonna have to go for option 3. We can neither prove or disprove that altruism exists, because true motivations are impossible to determine externally.

Only the person committing the act can actually know what their motivation is.

Personally, I choose to believe that it does exist, but I remain suspicious regarding people's motivations.

--A

Loremaster wrote:And genes make the person. So, you technically agree with me.

No. The gene of your daughter - that you protect - does not make you, it makes your daughter. It's identical to the one you carry, because you gave her a copy. Hence, you are being egoistical on behalf of your genes WITHOUT knowing it. So while seen from a genetic point of view such an action is deeply selfish on the level of the gene, it is completely unselfish seen from the individuals point of view, i.e. no motive, that the person is aware of.

Lore wrote:Though we cannot objectively measure thoughts (at least in modern times), we can at least infer from research.

but, once again true altruism will never offer any data--as I said long ago-an unselfish act is diminished by merely acknowledging it. Schrodinger's Cat, as it were. If motivation is considered a factor then Mother Teresa can't be altruistic: if she believed she was doing God's work then...thankfully there were no psychologists around Jesus! (except for maybe Paul... )

That's a very clever observation, danlo.

Observing an event changes it? I like that idea for altruism.

--A

Lore wrote:That's a very clever observation, danlo.

Spoiler

It's also the only thing that makes sense at the end of the fourth book of the Hyperion Cantos

danlo wrote:

Lore wrote:That's a very clever observation, danlo.

Spoiler

It's also the only thing that makes sense at the end of the fourth book of the Hyperion Cantos

Loremaster wrote:Good post.

If we ignore motivation we are heading into a purely behaviourist analysis, which will lead us nowhere.

Ah, not convinced that approaching altruism from a behavioural point of view is entirely invalid. Indeed, if any field of psychology advocates that pure altruism is possible - it is behavioural. Though the circumstances would be nearly impossible to accomplish; Watson himself said, “Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors”.

Though in it’s conception we can take this as proof that altruism can indeed be taught, trained into a person; shaping a person like Watson conceives of would be highly difficult in it’s execution. But say that it could be easily done; would purely altruistic people be able to be fashioned?

Hmmm, an interesting question indeed.

Coming down as I do primarily on the "nurture" side of the debate, I certainly agree with him, and I do believe that it would be possible.

It would require training though that brought the child up in a "reality" in which altruistic actions were not altrusitic at all, but a matter of course. The way in which everybody (as far as the subject knew) acted like that purely naturally, and no alternative was known.

Conditioning in other words.

--A

Interesting, but largely inconclusive I think. They still don't know why.

--A

I've only skimmed this thread, but I figured Friedrich Nietzsche's take on altruism would interest us. For one, he felt that altruisitic tendencies were somewhat "anti-human," for daring to suggest that another is more important than one's own self. Not sure I agree with that, but hey.

Not to seek one's advantage -- that is merely the moral fig leaf for quite a different, namely a physiological, state of affairs: I no longer know how to find my own advantage.

I do agree with Nietzsche that seemingly altruistic acts are primarily enacted for the doers to feel an inner sense of self-pride and confidence. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Same thing. I've skimmed it, but I think that altruism is real, but can only really exist for short periods, or even for single acts.

I mean, if you lived altruistically, eventually you would give up your live for the sake of others, and it's built into the species to survive.

But altrustic acts? Or periods of ones life? Sure. I think it exists.

The act exists, and the consequences exist, what I'm most interested in is the motive. *shrug*

--A

Interesting discussion

From my experience, it comes down to the type of love we have.

When i was a child, I was very selfish at times - i'd trow a tantrum if
I didn't get my own way. But when i'd calmed down I knew that I was
being selfish and it only caused me to feel guilty and small.

When I had children of my own, then I possesed unselfish love, and in
return I found real happiness. It made me more then I was, it was love
that made altruism a reality. However, it seems the more unselfish I am
the better I feel, and the happier I am with myself.

It is no surprise because it fits in with what I believe in - GOD = PERFECT LOVE
The least will have the most!. The more you sacrifice this life the
more treasure you gain for eternity.

The more unselfish you are the more real power we have.

And what about the people who do not believe in some sort of god or eternity? It is not only the spiritual or the religious that are capable of altruism...

--A

Avatar wrote:And what about the people who do not believe in some sort of god or eternity? It is not only the spiritual or the religious that are capable of altruism...

--A

I think anyone is capable of altruistic acts. There was a time when I would not have thought so. I was raised to think that paganism was a scary thing and that witchcraft was evil etc. Well, there were many times I was in desperate need of help, love and guidance. I did not get it from the Catholic church when I needed it most. When I was in Florida and went to the UU church there I met all kinds of people. I met athiests, agnostics, Buddists, Pagans, Wiccans... you name it, they were there. I had never felt more loved in my life. When I ran into bad times, they were there for me... especially the agnostics and pagans. I have stated numerous times that those Pagans are the most Christian people I ever met! lol

As for me, I try to be altruistic in life. For instance, even if I have very little food at home and no money, I will make those beans and homemade tortillas (or whatever I happen to have, but the bean/tortilla thing happened many times) and share with anyone in my home and even with neighbors that also have no food. What is interesting is that when someone does this habitually, the neighbors start doing the same thing. It's contagious.

I must admit when I am in rush hour traffic my altruism tends to dwindle. If someone in another car is at least polite, I always try to be polite in return. Also, I never said a swear word until I began driving. I do have my breaking point.

I don't think altruism is a lie. Just because something is not so absolute as to be completely without potential flaws, does not mean that it is always flawed.

A lie is always a lie.
A lie cannot sometimes be true and sometimes be a lie.
Sometimes people do good for others for no self benefit other than being true to their own natures.
Being yourself is not in itself inherently selfish.
So being that altruism sometimes is truely altruism, it cannot always be a lie.

Great post Tjol.

--A