Altruism any thoughts?

[SmartIdiot]

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

Aha, that is a result of mental conditioning. Too many mothers playing emo garbage/The Smiths to their unborn babies instead of Beethoven.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

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.

And your reward for your actions is a heightened sense of ego that permits you to gain the moral high ground in online debates. Congratulations, you are no longer altruistic.

 

[Lord George]

I love selfless, helpful people their one of the easiest types to manipulate into doing what you want. Though deep down there all out to get something for themselves even if its only a good feeling, and since they strive for that good feeling for themselves their being selfish.

 

[cainx10a]

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.

And your reward for your actions is a heightened sense of ego that permits you to gain the moral high ground in online debates. Congratulations, you are no longer altruistic.

Sowwie to dissapoint. But that's exactly what Altruism means, performing acts that would be beneficial for others without getting anything in return or even, involve risks for the helper. Like taking a bullet for a random individual you don't know, or walking into a building on fire to save someone's life.

Not like I will ever consider doing that.

 

[super_smash_jesus]

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

Not true, if you die to save another person, you gain nothing. And no, fond memories don't count as something that can be gained, when you are dead, you are dead.

 

[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.

And your reward for your actions is a heightened sense of ego that permits you to gain the moral high ground in online debates. Congratulations, you are no longer altruistic.

Nope. I just think that being a nice person is better than being a nasty one. It isn't any more complicated than that. Besides which, online debates are daft things anyhow. If I was striving to be a nice person for selfish reasons it would be because I feel better about doing something nice the people I meet every day.

Pro-tip: You shouldn't make assumptions like that based on a single sentence in a forum. You know nothing at all about me, and while you might find something snarky to say about other aspects of my life, "moral internet" isn't one of them.

EDIT: Having said that, I am pretty appalled at some of the responses in this thread. Being a fucking twat of a human being is not something to be proud of, mmkay?

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

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.

And your reward for your actions is a heightened sense of ego that permits you to gain the moral high ground in online debates. Congratulations, you are no longer altruistic.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Nope. I just think that being a nice person is better than being a nasty one. It isn't any more complicated than that. Besides which, online debates are daft things anyhow. If I was striving to be a nice person for selfish reasons it would be because I feel better about doing something nice the people I meet every day.

Pro-tip: You shouldn't make assumptions like that based on a single sentence in a forum. You know nothing at all about me, and while you might find something snarky to say about other aspects of my life, "moral internet" isn't one of them.

You really shouldn't take forum discussions too seriously. The casual nature of my comment was simply an observation in the cyclical nature of debates over altruism once people begin interjecting their personal anecdotes into the conversation straying from objective discourse.

Look how far off topic we are now...

 

[Xvito]

I think that you should start by fixing your own problems before you start fixing others.

 

[CymTyr]

I think trying to say in an educated manner "xxx wrote about it, it must be true!" is not a healthy thing.

Altruism has nothing to do with destruction, and the logic that it does is flawed and outdated.

Modern definitions of altruism consist of kind acts without a material gain. Technically you may be "altruistic" if you give someone a house to live in and then terrorize them as if they belong to you, because you've gained no materials (following your definition of altruism), but this isn't what I would consider altruistic because it involves an ulterior motive in which the person you help suffers as well.

The problem with philosophy is that every philosopher has their own ideas and ideals, as well as definitions. If we had a clear definition of altruism that everyone would agree to, then we could begin to discuss whether it's a crutch or if it's possible to be altruistic at all.

I do not agree 100% with what Kant said, and I refuse to believe that a charity act, with no material gain, is considered destructive in nature. To imply, or even state that acts of giving are in essence self destructive, is to ensure that humanity as a species will not survive the next thousand years due to selfish greed, jealousy, and malice.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

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?

it is selflessness however I believe that selfishness is an over demonized word which is miss characterized as a purely evil thing due to cliched religious moral beliefs. Additionally, those that defend selflessness seem to do so under the assumption that selflessness is always an idealized trait.

in many ways, these words are far too weighted for most people to have an esoteric debate over the topic. already you have people declaring one another insane or greedy and neither is the case.

 

[antipunt]

'Pure/true' Altruism is possible, but it is -extremely- rare. And even in those cases, it is evolutionary misfiring.

For the most part, completely unselfish acts are nonexistent.

 

[randommaster]

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

Not true, if you die to save another person, you gain nothing. And no, fond memories don't count as something that can be gained, when you are dead, you are dead.

You might not have them for long, but putting yourself in harm's way to save someone else will give you the knowledge that you helped someone. Helping them in this kind of situation may even amplify that feeling.

Compare this to shooting yourself, where you will still probably die, but you know that you aren't helping anyone.

 

[NeutralDrow]

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.

Your pride suggests sanity. I suspect you're simply nice.

And your reward for your actions is a heightened sense of ego that permits you to gain the moral high ground in online debates. Congratulations, you are no longer altruistic.

I disagree, because...

Humans are inherently selfish. And why shouldn't we be? Every single complex organism on earth is concerned for itself first, everything else second. Self-preservation, it's hardwired into the secret of life itself.

*cough*

Every act is a selfish one, even if it benefits others. So altruism truly only exists when the needs and welfare of ourselves, and our children, are taken care of first.

To the bolded part, I would say "exactly," but to a different interpretation. Selfishness and altruism aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

I can imagine exceptions to the last part, depending on personal inclination and cultural ideal (a culture than places vast importance on treating guests and travelers well, for instance). In U.S. cultural context, you are correct, though seeing to personal needs doesn't necessarily disprove generosity.

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.

You can't apply an unprincipled ideal simply because that's an oxymoron. It's possible to be principled without being idealistic, but a person who claims an ideal whose principles they don't follow at all is just paying lip service.

It's perfectly okay to redefine concepts. It's easier to redefine "altruism" to a virtue of generosity than come up with a new word that doesn't mean the illogical extreme (specifically, the Slippery Slope and Perfect Solution fallacies) you point to.

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.

...you do realize those "hardcore altruists" you mention aren't altruists at all, correct? I think we switched to a different subject altogether, when you're bringing up the Salafist and Wahabist schools of Islamic thought and the Immoral Minority. Unless you're suggesting generosity necessarily leads to hypocrisy.

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

Altruism doesn't need reform. Just stop bringing up philosophical extremes and it does well for itself.

 

[GloatingSwine]

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.

Falls apart at the gene selectionist level.

A gene for producing altruistic behaviour can prosper in the gene pool because it becomes likely to be on the recieving end of far more benefit from other copies of genes for altruism than it expends in performing altruism of it's own.

It also follows that genuine altruism is favoured over "apparent" altruism, because the expenditure required to overcome genes for detecting defaulting easily exceeds that of actually being genuinely altruistic.

Also, by this logic, no person should ever attempt to breed, because breeding has an inherent cost to the individual which affects that person's potential survival (even for men, there is some expenditure of energy which may be required to survive.) This is the root of the pleasure response to sex. A bribe to the body from the genes to make it seek out an activity with no apparent short term benefit.

But then, since you're using a definition of altruism which is not shared by anyone other than your fellow Randroids, you really can't be expected to engage in conversations about it.

 

[Lukirre]

Many altruistic people behave in such a way so that people will view them as such.
It's really difficult for most humans to not perform a positive action without hoping for something positive in return.

 

[Delicious]

Here's how I see it, altruism is giving for the primary sake of helping others. Ie, "I will help them because they need it", as opposed to "I will help them so they will feel obligated to help me in return".

Keep it simple folks, because if you don't the term quickly becomes undefinable.