Kevin's Watch

Altruism is a lie. I'll tell you why in a moment... but I got into this discussion with Avatar today, so I thought I'd post about it.

Anyway, i want to know if any of you believe that there is an "altruistic human?" (And leave Jesus out of this, because you're wrong in saying that he was anyway, even if he did exist) I certainly don't. Even if a persons actions result in an altruistic result, it doesn't change the fact that the persons actions weren't done in an altruistic reason. Every human actions is selfish to a point; even if it does do good.

I once talked about this with Sarah, and she said not every human is like that; She gave Mother Teresa. And ironically so did Gart in chat. However he and I talked. And though we agreed that the results of her work did contain a certain amount of altruism, the motives behind it might have been quite different. Could be she did the things she did because from her point of view she did it to please God, who might (if displeased) cast her down into the eternal flames - selfish motive. I'm sure she derived satisafcaction in knowing that she was helping people, i.e. it made her feel good (selfish prehaps?)

Listen, I'm not knockig what she did. No-one can deny she did great. Even if it was selfish it doesn't diminish the value of what she did, however.

Sorry to talk so much about her, but several people have presented me with the argument that she was a purely altruistic human. - Rubbish, no she wasn't. Why? What was her flaw? She was human. Who are selfish in most if not all they do.

Altruism is a lie, don't fall yourselfs, humans on the whole are a selfish, money grabbing, gluttonous lot. I mean I've been told of soulless foul people who happen to be rich, but no conscience, commit crimes, then pay the judges off to keep them safe. There are wars and killing for something as trival as oil. They're a murders, rapings, horrid crimes committed every-day. And some people tell me that humans are selfless -yeah right.

Don't get me wrong, I do my damn hardest to do right. And I'm not saying everyone is like this; so don't post any crap saying "Darth, not every human commits crimes!" I already know that - quite annoying me. All I'm saying is that we're selfish.

yes I agree .. But not that it is a lie .. but that we strictly speaking fool ourselves into believing their are truly altruistic acts.

though you'd be hard pressed to argue that Mother Teresa and those who perform truly self-less acts of service are not the nearest thing to true altruism.

Darth Revan wrote:Don't get me wrong, I do my damn hardest to do right.

Thats all any of us can expect for ourselves. To do our best. To try and make the world a slightly better place for having contained us.

Perhaps a more important question is whether or not the good we feel from doing something "good" diminishes the worth of our deed?

--Avatar

Skyweir wrote:yes I agree .. But not that it is a lie .. but that we strictly speaking fool ourselves into believing their are truly altruistic acts.

though you'd be hard pressed to argue that Mother Teresa and those who perform truly self-less acts of service are not the nearest thing to true altruism.

Nearest thing is altruism Sky. This is my point. Altruism does not exist.

No human is altruistic... No matter how much good they do in the world.

Avatar wrote:Perhaps a more important question is whether or not the good we feel from doing something "good" diminishes the worth of our deed?

--Avatar

Prehaps not to ourselves, because humans are generally blind to what's three feet in front of them.

Of course it doesn't diminish the worth of the deed, in practical terms; not at all. But in moral terms? Perhaps.

I'm not sure that it does. As I said and you've quoted, I don't think that anyone acts out of entirely pure motives...but I also think if we're honest with ourselves about our reasons for acting "altruistically", that's about as much can be asked of us.

Gart wrote:I'm not sure that it does. As I said and you've quoted, I don't think that anyone acts out of entirely pure motives...but I also think if we're honest with ourselves about our reasons for acting "altruistically", that's about as much can be asked of us.

yeah, i mean we're human, we can't be expected to have pure motives about anything imo. We're too selfish.

I have to disagree. Things we do out of pity, could often be considered altruistic. We expect nothing in return, nor do we seek any sort of recognition. Altruism does exist, but only when you have absolutely nothing to gain, yet you do the good deed anyway.

Example: When I was 8 yrs old, I was visiting my parents friends in Missouri. I was walking down the gravel road outside of thier home when I saw a golden retreiver that was suffering. Half-starved, with wounds alll along its body, I was so overcome with pity I began to cry.

i ran all the way back to the house and told my parents. We called the Animal Rescue League, and they came to get the poor animal.

I gained nothing, and I did it all for pity I had for the dog....

If you can find gain there, please let me know.

-B

Darth Revan wrote:Could be she did the things she did because from her point of view she did it to please God, who might (if displeased) cast her down into the eternal flames - selfish motive. I'm sure she derived satisafcaction in knowing that she was helping people, i.e. it made her feel good (selfish prehaps?)

Ah. Here's where you need to split some hairs.

There are motives, and there are positive side-effects. The two things are very distinct.

Say I see a Salvation Army pot, and I throw in some money. Do I feel good? Yes. Do I asuage some [self-created] guilt about not being charitable enough? Sure. But that's not why I did it. It's a benefit, yes. It encourages me to do it, yes. But that's not what a motive really is [imho].

Also, does the fact that something does you good cancel out the fact that it does someone else good? When I bring in a box of donuts for the folks at work, I eat one too - does that make it impossible to call this act unselfish? I think that unselfish is not an absolute - it's a sliding scale.

What about firemen and others who regularly risk, and sometimes give, their lives to help other people in peril? Seem fairly unselfish to me.

Is it unselfish to do something that is good for everybody as oppposed to doing something that is good only for yourself? If that is the case then they are unselish. I will not accept that they do it for nothing. They contribute to the general well-being of society by making us all feel safer, and this includes themselves. In return they receive our respect for what they have done. For me this would not be an equitable trade, but maybe they would consider it so.

er... Missing the point aren't you? I know full that good can come from selfish motives. I already said that. Try reading my post fully next time you make a response. All I'm saying is that altruism is a lie. I didn't say it's bad that we're doing things for selfish reason. And if you disagree that human cannot be altruistic by the laws of it's existance.

With the possible exception of barad's post, every reply made here has been accounted for in my first post.

baradakas wrote:I have to disagree. Things we do out of pity, could often be considered altruistic. We expect nothing in return, nor do we seek any sort of recognition. Altruism does exist, but only when you have absolutely nothing to gain, yet you do the good deed anyway.

Example: When I was 8 yrs old, I was visiting my parents friends in Missouri. I was walking down the gravel road outside of thier home when I saw a golden retreiver that was suffering. Half-starved, with wounds alll along its body, I was so overcome with pity I began to cry.

i ran all the way back to the house and told my parents. We called the Animal Rescue League, and they came to get the poor animal.

I gained nothing, and I did it all for pity I had for the dog....

If you can find gain there, please let me know.

-B

OMG!!! a decent argument!!! Thanks Barad heh, at least someone has uttered a post when it hasn't already been answered for...

I don't know enough about the situation.... I think you did it out of hurting inside, could you have honestly left it? You would have felt guiltly. You did it to ease the hurt in yourself, maybe. A bit harsh to call that selfish, but it's a form.... but none could deny you did great Fair play to you Baradakas

Duchess wrote:What about firemen and others who regularly risk, and sometimes give, their lives to help other people in peril? Seem fairly unselfish to me.

I nearly had a heart attack when it came to this post. Is this a joke? Fire-men?! hmm... where to start. Duchess, you know I love you, but do you really think the Firemen would be there if they weren't getting paid for it? They wouldn't be, trust me; this I know for fact.

Disagree with me? Ok then...

Over the past year or more, in the UK, these "altruistic" Firemen have been going on strike, and whoa! You'd never guess why! For money, for them to get paid more. Never moind the fact that over 30 people were killed in fires for the sake of their gluttonous greedy obsession to getting more money. Yeah, they're real hero's, has anyone got a Medal of Heroic's to give these guys? I really think they have earnt it. Yeah right

All sarcasm aside, you can probably tell I'm not a big fan of humanity... I'm sorry about that, but why should I be? Look around you, look in the news, and tell me the reason why I should have faith in humanity.

Darth Revan wrote:er... Missing the point aren't you? I know full that good can come from selfish motives.

I did not read your post at all, I was just replying to the last post here.

Ryzel wrote:

Darth Revan wrote:er... Missing the point aren't you? I know full that good can come from selfish motives.

I did not read your post at all, I was just replying to the last post here.

Riiiight... Well try reading the whole thread, it might help

Baradakas wrote: If you can find gain there, please let me know.

-B

Some people - I have heard - find that doing good deeds actually reaffirms their sense of self. I.e. they feel better about themselves when they are doing good deeds. Thus it could be argued that actually doing a good deed in itself is a reward for them.

Darth Revan wrote:Riiiight... Well try reading the whole thread, it might help

Since you took the trouble of answering my post I have gone back and am doing that right now. We shall see what comes of it. Initially I seem to be in agreement with your first post, but I feel that without actually making sure we are discussing the same thing we might get a bit confused. I feel that I 'kind of' know what altruism is, but if we are to discuss it seriously the semantics needs to be nailed down first.

Having now carefully read your post and the following posts I can answer your question with a simple - no.

We could probably get into a long discussion about what exactly altruism is and all that, but basically I agree with you.

I just want to make one minor reservation. You see, I believe that it is possible for people to do something that they expect no possible reward for at all. I call that: acting irrationally (or out of habit, but habits are usually rational in a very basic way).

Ryzel wrote:Having now carefully read your post and the following posts I can answer your question with a simple - no.

We could probably get into a long discussion about what exactly altruism is and all that, but basically I agree with you.

I just want to make one minor reservation. You see, I believe that it is possible for people to do something that they expect no possible reward for at all. I call that: acting irrationally (or out of habit, but habits are usually rational in a very basic way).

*sigh* Another reason why I... do not like humanity much, they're blind.

But you do make a slightly good point... I disagree, but I've already stated my reason... and think there maybe one case of altruism... That's the instinict that a parents have for they're children... so they might, in a life and death situation.. but that's not them thinking... it's on pure feeling... maybe you're right in that subject... then again, maybe you're wrong.

Ryzel said:

Some people - I have heard - find that doing good deeds actually reaffirms their sense of self. I.e. they feel better about themselves when they are doing good deeds. Thus it could be argued that actually doing a good deed in itself is a reward for them.

Except: I was 8 years old, and no such lofty thoughts existed in my mind at the time, I only felt pity for a helpless creature and sought to help it for its own sake, not my own.

I agree with Revan; the love a parent has for a child is all-consuming and blind. No thought of reward, in any form, at any time exists when they are in danger.

Baradakas wrote:Ryzel said:

Some people - I have heard - find that doing good deeds actually reaffirms their sense of self. I.e. they feel better about themselves when they are doing good deeds. Thus it could be argued that actually doing a good deed in itself is a reward for them.

Except: I was 8 years old, and no such lofty thoughts existed in my mind at the time, I only felt pity for a helpless creature and sought to help it for its own sake, not my own.

I agree with Revan; the love a parent has for a child is all-consuming and blind. No thought of reward, in any form, at any time exists when they are in danger.

Not all parents mind you, mine certainly weren't. Cared only for themselves. *sigh*

Maybe it was your youth that gave you such innocence barad...