Altruism any thoughts?

[Some bullets]

Altruism
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

Is this consider selflessness or should it be consider a crutch to Individualism?

 

[NeutralDrow]

I'm gonna take a page out of Shirou Emiya's book and say it's possible to selfishly pursue selflessness. "Unselfish" with regards to altruism doesn't necessarily mean subsuming the self (though it might depending on one's culture), simply that one doesn't gain the same level of benefit as the affected target.

I've found that I have to clarify that in discussions on altruism, otherwise I get Ayn Rand followers talking smugly at me. Performing acts for the benefit of others that have absolutely no positive effects for the performer isn't altruism, it's insanity. Therefore, a true altruist will always have, at the very least, an inherently selfish sense of satisfaction. Luckily, the real world isn't a straight-up dichotomy, so this amount of selfishness doesn't counteract the ideal of altruism.

As for a crutch to individualism...I can't see why. I'm pretty sure the two concepts are for the most part unrelated.

 

[demotivational fail]

I hate to be a cynic, but I can't believe in altruism. I'm with Freud and his theories that 95% of all human behavior is motivated by the desire for sex. With that in mind, I believe it impossible that this selflessness exists. I believe it more as a crutch to Individualism.

 

[quack35]

I suppose it could be considered selflessness.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I hate to be a cynic, but I can't believe in altruism. I'm with Freud and his theories that 95% of all human behavior is motivated by the desire for sex. With that in mind, I believe it impossible that this selflessness exists. I believe it more as a crutch to Individualism.

Even the theories that are no longer widely accepted or have changed drastically from what Freud first thought (i.e. most of them)? It's been about a century since those "everything is about sex" theories have been taken seriously...

 

[JMeganSnow]

Performing acts for the benefit of others that have absolutely no positive effects for the performer isn't altruism, it's insanity.

Altruism in its most basic definition just means "other-ism" or focus on others just as selfishness just means focus on self. The ethical evaluations that people attach to these terms are a result of *what* is considered to be "for the good of others" or "for the good of self".

The Objectivists you disparage simply know that it is not possible to live your life focused on other people because it doesn't work. If you spend 100% of your time doing things for other people, when are you going to eat and bathe and take care of yourself? Due to the nature of Objectivist epistemology, any prescribed activity that cannot be carried out in its pure form--cannot be adhered to 100%--is rejected as unprincipled and thus in conflict with man's primary means of survival. (Don't ask me to explain this--I'll just send you to read three or four books and listen to a dozen lectures. If you're interested, look it up yourself.)

However, this is not the way the term "altruism" is applied in the context where it is normally used. For instance, according to many philosophers (such as Kant), the ONLY type of moral action is one that is undertaken specifically for the purpose of HARMING yourself to benefit someone else. (And, also, according to Kant, it DOESN'T COUNT if you have ANY INTEREST AT ALL in benefiting that person or even in being moral!--in fact, you have to PREFER that they DIE and PREFER to be a SCUMBAG in order for your action to have moral standing.) This is altruism in its purest philosophical form--sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, destruction for the purpose of destruction and not for any gain of any type. This is the philosophical dead-end of altruist ethics, the final consequence, the ultimate result.

Most people think altruism just means being nice without knowing the wider implications. Objectivists who have studied do know the genetic roots of the term and the wider implications, hence their very common reactions.

So, given that admittedly sparse background info, Altruism is bad. Period. It is the tool of anyone and everyone seeking a rationalization for their desire to destroy--the antithesis of the good.

 

[SharPhoe]

Personally, I've always believed that altruism is simply "good for goodness' sake". That's the definition I stick by, and I like to follow that philosophy.

 

[PTSpyder]

There is no such thing as altruistic deeds. Even the selfless acts one does for others, they are doing because it brings so much joy to those they help, and they in turn receive joy from the knowledge of this fact. Even if they cannot see the end result, the simple act of just KNOWING that you brought joy, help, assistance, whatever to others will make them feel good.

Everything a human being does is for selfish reasons. This is an unarguable truth, the basis for all humanity.

 

[blindey]

Altruism
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

Is this consider selflessness or should it be consider a crutch to Individualism?

I love the topic of altruism, since it's such a personal one to me. It CAN become a crutch, where the person is actually addicted to in a sense (having their self-worth wrapped up in helping others, and become the motivating factor in doing it. I heard people say that it's not altruism if it benefits you, and I disagree. It can benefit you and still be altruistic. The companies that give 5% of every dollar to (insert charity/cause here) IS an altruistic act, because it is a sacrifice to the company, and being it is a large company it's millions of dollars. Even though ti's only a small % of the total revenue, it doesn't matter.

Performing acts for the benefit of others that have absolutely no positive effects for the performer isn't altruism, it's insanity.

The Objectivists you disparage simply know that it is not possible to live your life focused on other people because it doesn't work. If you spend 100% of your time doing things for other people, when are you going to eat and bathe and take care of yourself? Due to the nature of Objectivist epistemology, any prescribed activity that cannot be carried out in its pure form--cannot be adhered to 100%--is rejected as unprincipled and thus in conflict with man's primary means of survival. (Don't ask me to explain this--I'll just send you to read three or four books and listen to a dozen lectures. If you're interested, look it up yourself.)

However, this is not the way the term "altruism" is applied in the context where it is normally used. For instance, according to many philosophers (such as Kant), the ONLY type of moral action is one that is undertaken specifically for the purpose of HARMING yourself to benefit someone else. (And, also, according to Kant, it DOESN'T COUNT if you have ANY INTEREST AT ALL in benefiting that person or even in being moral!--in fact, you have to PREFER that they DIE and PREFER to be a SCUMBAG in order for your action to have moral standing.) This is altruism in its purest philosophical form--sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, destruction for the purpose of destruction and not for any gain of any type. This is the philosophical dead-end of altruist ethics, the final consequence, the ultimate result.

No. Just no. No idea can be held to its standard 100%. Not that that even matters because NO IDEA CAN BE FOLLOWED 100% OF THE TIME. That doesn't make it unprincipled or bad that just makes it you know....realistic. You have to have shades of everything, that is why you can't deal in these absolutist ideas. We developed altruism as an evolutionary trait for a reason: we live in communitties and must cooperate with each other, whether that means being pleasant to the shopkeep down the road so he'll sell you stuff or the person behind the ticket window for a bus to get to the job.

I hate to be a cynic, but I can't believe in altruism. I'm with Freud and his theories that 95% of all human behavior is motivated by the desire for sex. With that in mind, I believe it impossible that this selflessness exists. I believe it more as a crutch to Individualism.

Even the theories that are no longer widely accepted or have changed drastically from what Freud first thought (i.e. most of them)? It's been about a century since those "everything is about sex" theories have been taken seriously...

Indeed...It's been what about 60+~ years since Freud? We know a lot more about the biological and other underpinnings of the person, how they develop and whatnot. *whispers and puts a hand on demotivational fail's shoulders comfortingly* We've moved on... Anyway, I'm not sayin' that Freud isn't influential (I still incorporate a couple of his (modified) theories into practice) but as far as citing him for current things and whatnot, yeah...

 

[NeutralDrow]

Performing acts for the benefit of others that have absolutely no positive effects for the performer isn't altruism, it's insanity.

Altruism in its most basic definition just means "other-ism" or focus on others just as selfishness just means focus on self. The ethical evaluations that people attach to these terms are a result of *what* is considered to be "for the good of others" or "for the good of self".

The Objectivists you disparage simply know that it is not possible to live your life focused on other people because it doesn't work. If you spend 100% of your time doing things for other people, when are you going to eat and bathe and take care of yourself? Due to the nature of Objectivist epistemology, any prescribed activity that cannot be carried out in its pure form--cannot be adhered to 100%--is rejected as unprincipled and thus in conflict with man's primary means of survival. (Don't ask me to explain this--I'll just send you to read three or four books and listen to a dozen lectures. If you're interested, look it up yourself.)

...I think you stopped at "Ayn Rand followers talking smugly" and started writing. That's the only explanation I can think of for why you basically repeated what I said but dressed it up in Objectivist rhetoric.

However, this is not the way the term "altruism" is applied in the context where it is normally used. For instance, according to many philosophers (such as Kant), the ONLY type of moral action is one that is undertaken specifically for the purpose of HARMING yourself to benefit someone else. (And, also, according to Kant, it DOESN'T COUNT if you have ANY INTEREST AT ALL in benefiting that person or even in being moral!--in fact, you have to PREFER that they DIE and PREFER to be a SCUMBAG in order for your action to have moral standing.) This is altruism in its purest philosophical form--sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, destruction for the purpose of destruction and not for any gain of any type. This is the philosophical dead-end of altruist ethics, the final consequence, the ultimate result.

Luckily, I've already explicitly disavowed the Kant style "pure" concept of altruism as insane.

The context where altruism is normally used outside of philosophical circles is just to describe instances of generosity where the giver derives either harm or at least no material benefit, undertaken for its own sake. Normally I'd laugh this off as an instance of definition confusion resulting in argument, but I'm annoyed for some reason.

Most people think altruism just means being nice without knowing the wider implications. Objectivists who have studied do know the genetic roots of the term and the wider implications, hence their very common reactions.

So, given that admittedly sparse background info, Altruism is bad. Period. It is the tool of anyone and everyone seeking a rationalization for their desire to destroy--the antithesis of the good.

...I feel like I just listened to a Scientologist lecture me on psychiatry.

 

[NeutralDrow]

There is no such thing as altruistic deeds. Even the selfless acts one does for others, they are doing because it brings so much joy to those they help, and they in turn receive joy from the knowledge of this fact. Even if they cannot see the end result, the simple act of just KNOWING that you brought joy, help, assistance, whatever to others will make them feel good.

Everything a human being does is for selfish reasons. This is an unarguable truth, the basis for all humanity.

Luckily, as I put forth, the world isn't a dichotomy, and altruism and selfishness aren't diametrically opposed. Acting of the goodness of one's heart should carry a sense of satisfaction in any rational individual.

 

[PTSpyder]

Luckily, as I put forth, the world isn't a dichotomy, and altruism and selfishness aren't diametrically opposed. Acting of the goodness of one's heart should carry a sense of satisfaction in any rational individual.

I agree, and by no means am I trying to cheapen the actions of those who are motivated to help others. However, the concept people carry that there can be such a thing as selfless sacrifice is flawed.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Luckily, as I put forth, the world isn't a dichotomy, and altruism and selfishness aren't diametrically opposed. Acting of the goodness of one's heart should carry a sense of satisfaction in any rational individual.

I agree, and by no means am I trying to cheapen the actions of those who are motivated to help others. However, the concept people carry that there can be such a thing as selfless sacrifice is flawed.

True. It's all in how you define "selfless." There's no such thing as pure (non-irrational) selflessness, but that's such an extreme that's it's almost meaningless to even consider...and to be honest, I kinda disagree on one thing; I don't really think people assume the existence or idyllic nature of such a thing all that often. I think most realize that it's not cynicism to assume that a person or entity gains some benefit from an act of generosity. The usual question is whether the act is a gift horse or a Trojan horse (ulterior motive, that is).

 

[JMeganSnow]

Luckily, I've already explicitly disavowed the Kant style "pure" concept of altruism as insane.

Which is a problem, because you can't apply an impure or unprincipled ideal. Those seeking to apply a "mild" form of altruism will find themselves increasingly pulled toward the logical consequences of their ideals--the logical, ultimate consequence being the Kantian approach. It doesn't work to try to retain altruism by trying to redefine it as something people don't mind. This has been tried with every irrational approach to ethics in history, and the results are always the same.

The unprincipled, "mild" altruists find themselves dominated and destroyed by the principled "hardcore" altruists. This is why the multiculturalist Europeans find themselves helpless against the increasing cultural saturation of militant Islam. This is why the Catholic Church can't seem to do anything about priests who rape children and, in fact, goes out of its way to protect them. This is why "moderate" Christians with no interest in seizing state power find themselves politically locked in with the Religious Right.

The only solution is to abandon attempts to "reform" altruism, recognize it for the poison it is, and dump it altogether.

 

[super_smash_jesus]

Altruism
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

Is this consider selflessness or should it be consider a crutch to Individualism?

How is it a crutch to individualism when it benefits everyone but the individual? All I can say is that in a biological standpoint, any act of altruism is geared towards Kin Selection. Techniacally, each individual in any species main goal is to pass their genes on to the next generation, so protecting a group of people that exhibit the same genes would be kin selection. Thats a biological standpoint of altruism, not necessarily for humans.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Performing acts for the benefit of others that have absolutely no positive effects for the performer isn't altruism, it's insanity.

In that case I am proud to be insane. An insane nice person is much better than a sane sociopath after all.

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

giving to charity is a good thing. it means helping people who are less fortunate than you.

 

[randommaster]

If you go by the definition that an altruistic person gains NOTHING from the act, thenit's quite impossible to be altruistic.

Things like charity, however work off of someone's sense of guilt, and the fact that everyone isn't a total miser. People feel happy when they help others and a few dollars rarely makes that big a difference in someone's life. Donating to charity is altruistic, as long as you aren't doing so for some sort of gift or tax purposes. That being said, I believe that if you donate ato a charity, then receive something, such as a CD or whatnot, without having known that you would be getting something, is still altruistic. Sure, the CD is something that benefits you, but you can't say that the act of giving 67 cents to a hobo twenty years ago isn't altruistic because it caused the atoms in the universe to react in such a way as to make you win the lottery.

There is a limit to how much people will give or receive (it varies) without asking too many questions about the ramifications. Altruism, in a rational sense, is simply not analyzing a situation beforehand to minimize loss and/or maximize gain in some way.

 

[implodingMan]

Altruism, defined in the sense that one is obligated to give to society and help others, seems at first to be completely against the fulfillment of the self.

However, the more I have thought about this, the more I look at it differently. For the basis of my thoughts, keep in mind that I live in Canada. At the present moment I am part of a political community of 30 million people, all of whom pay taxes that pay for public infrastructure and social programs. I directly benefit from these programs, as does everyone else living here. In this sense, I am obligated by the fact that I chose to live in this country to contribute to the public welfare, since I benefit from it. Don't just think of it as yourself buying health care for 30 million people, also consider that 30 million people are also buying health care for you.

If, however, I think that I should not be obligated to put into the public funds, then no one else in the country is responsible to me either, and I would have to stop using all services provided by the government (which would be tricky). I would have to leave the country to keep my morals intact.

But where would I go? There is no state on the planet that has an every man for himself ideology. If you want to live somewhere, you are going to have to have a government, you are going to have a state, and if you are going to support and benefit from that state then you are going to have to be a little altruistic.

 

[lleihsad]

I get a sort of high off of it, which some would argue disqualifies it as altruism.

Still, helping others without any expectation of being payed back counts, I would argue, because the good feeling that comes from it is self-generated, and not given to you for services rendered.

I imagine I'm going to get called an idiot for this, seeing as how misanthropic cynicism is so trendy, these days.