Altruism
Message boards :
Politics :
Altruism
Message board moderation
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 thorin belvrog  Send message Joined: 29 Sep 06 Posts: 6418 Credit: 8,893 RAC: 0 
|
R/B wrote: Bloody altruists To me, Altruism is the ideal ethic system. According to Wikipedia, Altruism is: _____________________________________________________ Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and central to many religious traditions. In English, this idea was often described as the Golden rule of ethics. Some newer philosophies such as egoism have criticized the concept, with writers such as Nietzsche arguing that there is no moral obligation to help others. Altruism can be distinguished from a feeling of loyalty and duty. Altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (for example, God, a king), a specific organization (for example, a government), or an abstract concept (for example, patriotism etc). Some individuals may feel both altruism and duty, while others may not. Pure altruism is giving without regard to reward or the benefits of recognition. [...] Advocates of altruism as an ethical doctrine maintain that one ought to act, or refrain from acting, so that benefit or good is bestowed on other people, if necessary to the exclusion of one's own interests (Note that refraining from murdering someone, for example, is not altruism since he is not receiving a benefit or being helped, as he already has his life; this would amount to the same thing as ignoring someone). [...] On a somewhat related note, altruism is often held  even by non-altruists  to be the kind of ethic that should guide the actions of politicians and other people in positions of power. Such people are usually expected to set their own interests aside and serve the populace. When they do not, they may be criticized as defaulting on what is believed to be an ethical obligation to place the interests of others above their own. [...] In common parlance, altruism usually means helping another person without expecting material reward from that or other persons, although it may well entail the "internal" benefit of a "good feeling," sense of satisfaction, self-esteem, fulfillment of duty (whether imposed by a religion or ideology or simply one's conscience), or the like. In this way one need not speculate on the motives of the altruist in question. Humans are not exclusively altruistic towards family members, previous co-operators or potential future allies, but can be altruistic towards people they don't know and will never meet. For example, some humans donate to international charities and volunteer their time to help society's less fortunate. It can however be argued that an individual would contribute to a charity to gain respect or stature within his/her own community. Account frozen... ID: 651452 ·  |
Scary Capitalist  Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0 
|
I'm glad you posted this topic. It'll give me a little 'playtime' in between cleaning up the messes altruists like you make. And if I'm lucky...one or two rational folks will drift in. See 'have you been a HERO today' thread. That's a starter. You looooove the fact you can call egoists ....eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil. don't you? This will be fun. ========================================================================== There's only one caveat. You have to use logic. Do that and you're fine Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing! 
ID: 651458 · |
Fuzzy Hollynoodles  Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 9659 Credit: 251,998 RAC: 0 |
I have noticed a weird variety of altruism which has become very common these days, where feelings of altruism are being withdrawn from family members, neighbors, and people in your own community and are being spread to the masses of unknown. That it's more important to save people from far away from the different plagues which haunt them than being interested in people closer, whom might be just tormented. How often don't we hear that people can die in their own apartments and nobody react before the smell becomes too bad, where a body can have been lying for weeks and months? Nobody noticed that the deceased hadn't been seen in the community for just as long time, where there is a huge concern about people's, as in anonymous, wellbeing? When you ask people when they have spoken with their neighbors, they often answer "never" or "I don't know", where you can see the same people be helpers at second hand stores, where the profit goes to charity to help homeless people or charities in underdeveloped countries. They care about people, they just don't care about the people close to them, as in their neighborhood or community. I read recently about people who have reacted to the great collections for the unhappy victims for known disasters saying "hey, what about the homeless and suffering in our own town?". Yes, it gives you a nice and warm feeling inside to give a small amount of money to the collector at the door collecting money for charity in some country abroad, but the shelter next door, have you ever visited that one and talked with the people using it? Since Robert has been brought up here, his declared philosophy about altruism is self-care. Yes, you need to take care of yourself before you are able to take care of others, you need to satisfy your own needs before you can satisfy the need of others, but it's like people in general have leaped over a link, they care for themselves first and foremost, which is good, but then they leap over the people near in their own network and community and then they care about the great anonymous masses. I wonder, is this true altruism? When you care for people close to you, you need to get involved and to be engaged in them and their life and problems. Is it really so hard that we choose to care about the anonymous masses because with the people in those you don't need to get personally involved. You don't cry when that mother in Somalia is burying her dead child, because you don't stand next to her at the grave. If you care about your neighbor, you stand next to them at the grave when they have lost one of their dear ones, and you can't resist being involved. You get involved in your friends' and neighbors' lives as your own, you cry with them when they are sad and in mourning, you laugh with them in their happy times. You don't get involved emotionally in the masses. How come we apparently can't contain the engagement and involvements in the people close to us, that we can't bear to participate emotionally in their lives? Are we so emotionally crippled that we can't bear to be empathic to them? That it's easier to engage ourselves in strangers and their problems because that doesn't cost us a thing, we can shrug their problems off us when we log out from the message board or turn off our tv or close the newspaper? Yes, this makes me wonder. We are participating in this project on this message board, and some are very concerned about unknown people out there, that they all should come and join us here in our cyber community. I have one question for you: "Have you talked with your family, your friends, and your neighbors today?" If you are able to care about the community around you, your family, your friends, your neighbors, your colleagues at work (maybe the person sitting at the desk next to you is having serious problems in her personal life, have you asked him/her?), after you have taken care of yourself and your own needs, then you can concentrate on the masses, the hunger in the world, the drought, the civil wars, etc. If you are able to engage yourself emotionally in people close to you and participate in their lives in a positive way, also when things get tough, if you are able to touch other people's lives, to make a difference, that is altruism in my view. "I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me 
ID: 651503 · |
|
thorin belvrog Send message Joined: 29 Sep 06 Posts: 6418 Credit: 8,893 RAC: 0
|
Well, as Jesus said: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' That means to me, that you shall give the same respect and value to the people around you as you give to yourself. So helping people in other countries whilst ignoring the person next door is - imho - dissembling. How can a society build up houses for the homeless in other countries while they have a lot of homeless people in their own towns? Account frozen... ID: 651545 · |
|
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0
|
Well, as Jesus said: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' That means to me, that you shall give the same respect and value to the people around you as you give to yourself. So helping people in other countries whilst ignoring the person next door is - imho - dissembling. How can a society build up houses for the homeless in other countries while they have a lot of homeless people in their own towns? Try to force me. I don't accept any of that feel good nonsense definition of 'altruism' that you give. I submit to you that only a proper egoist...or someone acting egoistically is capable of even helping another that is desperately in need of some sort of aid. It is not normal for a person to spend his life in a constant state of emergency. Except of course when he's plagued by altruistic forces left and right... I've never met a person, man or woman, that is heroic that has not been SELFISH. I want that selfishness. I've never met a woman attracted to me or any man because of his 'selflessness'. It's the worse sort of characteristic you could ever impart to a child. What a horror...! Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing!
ID: 651701 · |
|
thorin belvrog Send message Joined: 29 Sep 06 Posts: 6418 Credit: 8,893 RAC: 0
|
Well, as Jesus said: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' That means to me, that you shall give the same respect and value to the people around you as you give to yourself. So helping people in other countries whilst ignoring the person next door is - imho - dissembling. How can a society build up houses for the homeless in other countries while they have a lot of homeless people in their own towns? Was Mother Teresa, who saw her call in serving "the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone", selfish or an egoist? Are people in general who give up their life and income to help others acting egoistically? Are the "Doctors Without Borders" acting egoistically? Are people selfish when they volunteer as fire fighters? Are people selfish who go to other states and areas to help people in need? People for example who helped the victims of Katrina? Are those selfish who volunteer in rescue missions and soup kitchens for the poor? Is someone a proper egoist who stops at an incident to give First Aid to a stranger who is injured before calling an ambulance? No, they aren't. They help people whom they never met before, and whom they maybe never will meet after that, without demanding or even expecting a reward. These examples act altruistic, selfless, human. They act as every human should act. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." said Kant. And it would be a poor world when everyone did care only about themselves, but it would be a better world if everyone would be altruistic. Account frozen... ID: 651846 · |
OzzFan     Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28
 |
No, they aren't. They help people whom they never met before, and whom they maybe never will meet after that, without demanding or even expecting a reward. These examples act altruistic, selfless, human. They act as every human should act. Actually, they are. It has been psychologically proven that humans help others out of a selfishness to make themselves feel better. Every single human helps another because they like that feeling of "doing good". That feeling is a personal feeling. That feeling is their reward. That isn't to say that people should stop helping others. But at least realize that there is a certain amount of selfishness going on in the helping of others. It isn't all purely for goodly reasons. And it would be a poor world when everyone did care only about themselves, but it would be a better world if everyone would be altruistic. God, I hope not. I'm tired of my brother pushing his ideals upon myself because of his altruism. I don't want his help, and I don't want his "cure". I shouldn't have to put up with it now that I am a grown man, and I won't put up with it. ID: 651919 · |
|
thorin belvrog Send message Joined: 29 Sep 06 Posts: 6418 Credit: 8,893 RAC: 0
|
No, they aren't. They help people whom they never met before, and whom they maybe never will meet after that, without demanding or even expecting a reward. These examples act altruistic, selfless, human. They act as every human should act. You see, the deed itself, the knowledge to have helped others, to have done good, to have brought happiness is their only reward - and not any material thing which drive pure egoists. They care because they feel right to care (and that's not a "helper syndrome" as the psychologists also often like to accuse, as if it were a kind of illness). Altruism is not a syndrome, not an illness; it's the pure humanity. And every human feels better after having done something human. As I told about my late grandpa in another thread: the happy eyes of the kids after he repaired their bikes, and the knowledge to be still useful to do good was all he got and wanted as reward. Account frozen... ID: 651951 · |
|
Fuzzy Hollynoodles Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 9659 Credit: 251,998 RAC: 0 |
No, they aren't. They help people whom they never met before, and whom they maybe never will meet after that, without demanding or even expecting a reward. These examples act altruistic, selfless, human. They act as every human should act. Yes, what people are getting from being altruistic is the feeling that they are good. And I have noticed that very few people are being altruistic anonymously, they very often stand up and announce it somehow. Either as a trust fund carrying their name, or physically with a uniform, Mother Theresa had her sari, the fire fighters have their uniforms etc. so they do get recognition from other people somehow. In fact I have met very few people who have kept it as a secret what they do for others in different ways, this has been the most impressive to me, that they have managed to keep it as a secret, and then how much a difference they have been for those people, whose lives they have touched. They are the true heroes, the unsung heroes, those who have deserved their honour the most. I have been so lucky to meet a few of these people in my life, not as benefactors towards myself but to others, and I was impressed so see what they did to help people. (Allow me to point to my friend Rocky as one of those people, I know he would have protested against me telling this back when he lived, but I don't think he would mind if I do now. He touched a lot of people's lives, some of them owe him their life.) I think most of the times I have seen people pretend they are altruistic, they have had some kind of neurotic complex to feel better than others, those people they want to help. They are most to be found in shelters dealing with the lowest in society, the homeless, the alcoholics, the drug abusers, the prostitutes, and they are the worst. Then it's beneficent in the worst sense of the word, real "Lady Bountiful"'s, most of them from Christian organizations. And I have often thought it must be hell on earth to have to receive help from some of those people, who only do it so they can feel better about themselves. That they have to see that there are some who are worse off than themselves. I once discussed with a couple of them where I told them, that we all could be in that situation, if we had no safety net, no social network, if coincidences were bad, if everything just wasn't right, every one of us could have been homeless walking the streets. They didn't get my meaning at all, they just looked at me and told me that that could never happen to them! If that is the attitude, that a social deroute only happens to some and they have deserved it somehow, that is the most patronizing attitude I have met in my life! According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs there are deficiency needs and growth needs, where you, first when you have reached the levels of self-actualization and self-transcendence, in my opinion are able show true altruism. And I sure don't want anybody else pushing their ideals on me let alone their perception of what is good for me. Thank you, but no! "I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me
ID: 651956 · |
Rush  Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0 
|
You see, the deed itself, the knowledge to have helped others, to have done good, to have brought happiness is their only reward - and not any material thing which drive pure egoists. They care because they feel right to care (and that's not a "helper syndrome" as the psychologists also often like to accuse, as if it were a kind of illness). Altruism is not a syndrome, not an illness; it's the pure humanity. And every human feels better after having done something human. Duh, that's called egoism. You are an egoist if you derive happiness or reward from your actions. As all human beings are different, it doesn't matter what the reward is as long as the individual is happy with it. Your grandfather was the epitome of an egoist--he repaired those bikes because he felt good about himself, he derived personal reward from it. If he felt like hell doing it, if it made him feel terrible, or guilty, or crappy, he wouldn't have done it. Similarly, Mother Teresa gained international fame, a nearly fawning Vatican, personal audiences with nearly ANYONE (celebrities, politicians, et cetera) she wished, and she derived great personal satisfaction and a sense of well being from here work. That's pure egoism. Different people work for different types of personal gain, that you happen to agree or disagree about their personal choices does not mean they aren't egoists. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... 
ID: 651978 · |
|
Fuzzy Hollynoodles Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 9659 Credit: 251,998 RAC: 0 |
You see, the deed itself, the knowledge to have helped others, to have done good, to have brought happiness is their only reward - and not any material thing which drive pure egoists. They care because they feel right to care (and that's not a "helper syndrome" as the psychologists also often like to accuse, as if it were a kind of illness). Altruism is not a syndrome, not an illness; it's the pure humanity. And every human feels better after having done something human. Rush, I agree with you as far as Maslow's deficiency needs are being met, that altruism at that state is egoism, that you give to get some emotional needs covered. An exchange situation. But after you have reached the state of self-actualization, and also to a point self-transcendence I'll say that you then have satisfied your own needs to such a level that you then will start to have a surplus which you can start to give out to others, true altruism, which has nothing to do with egoism as a psychologically need in the sense I think you use the term. Please correct me if I'm wrong. "I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me
ID: 651994 · |
John McLeod VII  Send message Joined: 15 Jul 99 Posts: 24806 Credit: 790,712 RAC: 0
|
I had a sociology professor that said that altruism had foots in our ancient past. We used to live in small commuinties that were mostly made of relatives. It actually makes genetic sense to die to save 3 children or 3 siblings or 9 cousins. Of course if there is no danger of actually dying, then it always makes sense to help. Note that that this is based on small communities that are genetically linked, but this is where it comes from.   BOINC WIKI ID: 652038 · |
|
Scary Capitalist Send message Joined: 21 May 01 Posts: 7404 Credit: 97,085 RAC: 0
|
OOoooooo...Ooooooo...now we're in danger of turning this into the Egoism thread. I like it. Let's argue next about survivors/flourishers...I like that circle. Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data! I did NOT authorize this belly writing!
ID: 652148 · |
Es99  Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 
|
Duh, that's called egoism. You are an egoist if you derive happiness or reward from your actions. As all human beings are different, it doesn't matter what the reward is as long as the individual is happy with it. Your grandfather was the epitome of an egoist--he repaired those bikes because he felt good about himself, he derived personal reward from it. If he felt like hell doing it, if it made him feel terrible, or guilty, or crappy, he wouldn't have done it. Please explain to me what egoistic benefits someone gets when they sacrifice their life to save another. Seeing as they are dead..I can't quite see the pay back. Reality Internet Personality ID: 652245 · |
Gavin Shaw  Send message Joined: 8 Aug 00 Posts: 1116 Credit: 1,304,337 RAC: 0 
|
Duh, that's called egoism. You are an egoist if you derive happiness or reward from your actions. As all human beings are different, it doesn't matter what the reward is as long as the individual is happy with it. Your grandfather was the epitome of an egoist--he repaired those bikes because he felt good about himself, he derived personal reward from it. If he felt like hell doing it, if it made him feel terrible, or guilty, or crappy, he wouldn't have done it. Maybe for some it is knowing (or hoping) that the person they saved will be indebted to them and will repay this debt by helping the deceased's family? Whether that is egoistic or not, that is debatable. As for whether that is what goes through people's minds, again probably rarely if ever. But for those that maybe religious, perhaps the payback is in the afterlife. Like atonement for their sins. My 2 cents (Aus), which today is roughly equal to 1.78 cents (US), as the Aus dollar hit 89 US cents today (they think it will break through 90 US cents soon). Never surrender and never give up. In the darkest hour there is always hope. ID: 652270 · |
Hev  Send message Joined: 4 Jun 05 Posts: 1118 Credit: 598,303 RAC: 0
|
Duh, that's called egoism. You are an egoist if you derive happiness or reward from your actions. As all human beings are different, it doesn't matter what the reward is as long as the individual is happy with it. Your grandfather was the epitome of an egoist--he repaired those bikes because he felt good about himself, he derived personal reward from it. If he felt like hell doing it, if it made him feel terrible, or guilty, or crappy, he wouldn't have done it. They go to heaven.. ID: 652271 · |
|
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0
|
Maybe for some it is knowing (or hoping) that the person they saved will be indebted to them and will repay this debt by helping the deceased's family? But the payback being for the benefit of one's family is not an egotistical act. After all...death by it's very nature puts a pretty good end to the ego. (Unless you believe in the afterlife..but atheists have been known to sacrifice their lives for others) Reality Internet Personality ID: 652293 · |
|
MAC Send message Joined: 12 Feb 01 Posts: 203 Credit: 58,346 RAC: 0 
|
I had a sociology professor that said that altruism had foots in our ancient past. We used to live in small commuinties that were mostly made of relatives. It actually makes genetic sense to die to save 3 children or 3 siblings or 9 cousins. Of course if there is no danger of actually dying, then it always makes sense to help. Note that that this is based on small communities that are genetically linked, but this is where it comes from. That makes sense. Besides that I am an egoist. Helping someone makes me indeed feel good. Doesn't even matter if I will have a later benefit or someone else is watching. Meh, maybe I am just stupid, but I like it :p When it comes to financial issues or to the investment of serious time or effort I only help people, who would do the same for me, though. And helping others can pay off even in the economy. If work would pay out for the average guy his buying power would rise which should help the economy. Therefore the elite paying a bit higher and fair (see also Warren Buffet bet) taxes could gain them even more money. Right now globalisation is a problem, but in the end that system can't work, anyways - because it destroys itself by destroying the ecological and economical basics it's based upon. ID: 652339 · |
|
thorin belvrog Send message Joined: 29 Sep 06 Posts: 6418 Credit: 8,893 RAC: 0
|
Strange thing is: All altruistic people I know or of whom I read never intended to gain merits for their help. The merits or rewards were just a side-effect, which often even embarrassed these people. Their only intention was to offer their skills, experience and knowledge to help people who they felt to be in need. It's a matter of empathy and compassion. Of sheer charity. Of sympathy for the fellow human. Of love. Like a car-driver who is picking up a hitch-hiker to help them get faster from A to B (taken as an example: I know about the risks nowadays), or someone who sees an incident and goes there to help the injured person, or someone who gives a beggar something to eat, or someone who offers a homeless a shelter to sleep - these people don't care whether they know those people in need personally or not. They feel sympathy for those people and just help, just like the Good Samarita. It's even proven by social-psychologists: According to C. Daniel Batson's 'empathy-altruism hypothesis' for example, if you feel empathy towards another person you will help them, regardless of what you can gain from it. Relieving their suffering becomes the most important thing. They go to heaven..To those who believe in Heaven, that's a side-effect at helping others, but not the reason to help. The reason to help is that they see people who are in need of help they can offer, and offer them this help just to decrease their misery, to make them less unhappy. As I read elsewhere: "I had so much luck in life, I just want to share what my life has give me." Sure there are people who help only to gain merits, who help to feel "greater", to gain the feeling of people becoming dependent of them - but these are no altruists in my eyes. _______________________________________________________________________ Even animals can act altruistic in the meaning of selfless help. That's just natural, and has been watched often by sociobiologists. Some animals offer their own lives to let others survive, other animals do hunt or gather to feed other individual animals which doesn't help themselves but the entire group (/herd/pack/whatever) in the long run. Account frozen... ID: 652344 · |
Jeffrey  Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0 |
Seeing as they are dead..I can't quite see the pay back. Amen... ;)  It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 652393 · |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.