Altruism

[Volya]

Do you believe altruism exists?

I believe it does, and I think I am altruistic. I do good things. However, you could argue that the only reason I do good things is because I believe in the concept of Nirvana, and therefore I'm only doing it to 'get in' as it were.
I think that even if I did not believe in any sort of after-life, I would still do good things and help others, simply because it is the morally right thing to do.

Is altruism truly altruism if you are only doing it to gain some sort of spiritual enlightenment?

[Delta40]

I think you're talking more at a what goes around comes around level. If you do good things, good things will happen in return. It's a balance world view we use to protect our own interests. It's not altruistic and not evil either. We're just as likely to revoke our charity where it suits us or ration it accordingly as we judge others.

I know others on this thread will enlighten you and I more about the topic...

[Paulclem]

Do you believe altruism exists?

I believe it does, and I think I am altruistic. I do good things. However, you could argue that the only reason I do good things is because I believe in the concept of Nirvana, and therefore I'm only doing it to 'get in' as it were.
I think that even if I did not believe in any sort of after-life, I would still do good things and help others, simply because it is the morally right thing to do.

Is altruism truly altruism if you are only doing it to gain some sort of spiritual enlightenment?

'get in'

Apparently, Enlightenment is not a place but a state of mind/being. For example, The Buddha didn't depart anywhere once he had achieved Enlightenment, and he died as we all do. The difference between him and us is that he wasn't reborn into samsara.

On altruism, you have to start somewhere. Are there naturally giving people around whilst others are not, or is it that people who are giving have become better at giving? Taking a longer view than one act, if you habitually give, and nurture the right reasons, then it will become more and more natural to you, just as Mr Angry, who becomes angry every day, finds it very easy to become angry.

[Buh4Bee]

I believe it exists. I have seen many people around me give for no other reason than because they can and believe it is the right thing to do. I can give you at least ten examples of people who give, even when they receive nothing but aggravation back. These people are not doing it because they feel good afterward, but because they value helping others. Some of these people have no faith that an afterlife exists- getting into Heaven isn't their source of motivation.

[Volya]

'get in'

Apparently, Enlightenment is not a place but a state of mind/being. For example, The Buddha didn't depart anywhere once he had achieved Enlightenment, and he died as we all do. The difference between him and us is that he wasn't reborn into samsara.

I did write 'get in' in speech marks, because It was also meant to apply to Christians, Jews and any other religions that believe that if you do good things you are rewarded.

[Paulclem]

I did write 'get in' in speech marks, because It was also meant to apply to Christians, Jews and any other religions that believe that if you do good things you are rewarded.

I understand. Nirvana is not a heaven, and so applying the two concepts together is incorrect. I'm sorry to be pedantic but I can't help myself on this topic. :D

[cacian]

I think one must act as one feels. I am sure being of help to anyone who needs regardless of profit or benefit, must oblige not because it is the ticket to paradise but because one feels they can and will.
And yes I have seen done many times where people helped others in time of needs.
It happens all the time.
Being nice for a reason is silly. Only be nice because it feels better inside.

[BienvenuJDC]

In respects to Christianity (which I understand better than any other religion), a Christian who matures in the faith will eventually learn that the best motivation for anything is love. Unconditional love (agape) motivates one to do good without receiving any merit whatsoever. I believe it exists, and I see it in my God.

[Volya]

I think one must act as one feels. I am sure being of help to anyone who needs regardless of profit or benefit, must oblige not because it is the ticket to paradise but because one feels they can and will.
And yes I have seen done many times where people helped others in time of needs.
It happens all the time.
Being nice for a reason is silly. Only be nice because it feels better inside.

^Being nice because it makes you feel better IS a reason. You should be nice, because it is the morally right thing to do. There is no other true reason.

[Shevek]

I tend to share J.S. Mill's view of altruism, in that even the most selfless martyr has his or her own considerations in mind. This is not to undermine the concept, but I just don't see the point in aspiring to absolute selflessness. There are peoples such as the Tiv of West Africa who give resources to any newcomer who settles in their village without expecting recompense. But if they observe that newcomer X has gifted very little while accepting a great deal, they will generally shun newcomer X. Were you to thrust an idea of absolute selflessness upon the Tiv, requiring them to give even to those who provide nothing to the material well-being of their neighbours, their society could very well crumble. Compare this to Western capitalist society where altruism has been erased as a moral obligation in much of everyday life (except for some circumstances where someone is, say, trapped in a burning building -- but even then saving another person is always called "heroism" and not altruism). It's a great concept, but how many people practice it, let alone feel obligated to?

I recognize the importance of altruism as an ideal in Christianity and other religions, but I doubt it exists among us mere flesh and blood.

[Paulclem]

The Tibetans use the example of a mother who would give her life to protect her child as an aspiration for us all. Such selflessness is also apparent in some animals so perhaps it's not as rare as you suggest.

It is very difficult to become completely selfless, but it is also not necessarily about giving everything you have away. In fact if such a thing were to encourage avarice in others, then that would be defeating the purpose of altruism - to truly help others.Any fool can give their wealth away, but to do so skillfully so that the money, or whatever, is used in the best possible altruistic way requires wisdom.

[Buh4Bee]

Why does altruism have to be defined by a tenant of religion? There are individuals who value humanity as a sphere to make bettering. Such concepts can be found in the philosophical writing of Camus. One of the existential points of The Plague was fatalism. We can't necessary control or change what happens, but we can try to make things better. Camus had no faith or religion, but he did believe humanity.

[billl]

Why does altruism have to be defined by a tenant of religion? There are individuals who value humanity as a sphere to make bettering. Such concepts can be found in the philosophical writing of Camus. One of the existential points of The Plague was fatalism. We can't necessary control or change what happens, but we can try to make things better. Camus had no faith or religion, but he did believe humanity.

I also don't see why it has to be a way of life, or a particularly significant element in a culture. It can be an occasional or singular action.

In the end, I think altruism can occur, and it'd be nuts to suggest that the word had no useful application. There are a variety of examples of "truly altruistic" acts in any case: things such as anonymously leaving food where a homeless person will later find it, taking an injured stray animal to the vet for treatment and sheltering, a soldier sacrificing their life for that of comrades, and so on--unless one wants to define the exercise of one's free will to be a "selfish" act, and lean on that as a disqualifier for altruism (i.e. "they did it to feel better about themselves" might be a selfish act in some cases, but the desire to make things better for another might simply be something a person feels to be worthwhile, and so they do it).

[Shevek]

Why does altruism have to be defined by a tenant of religion? There are individuals who value humanity as a sphere to make bettering. Such concepts can be found in the philosophical writing of Camus. One of the existential points of The Plague was fatalism. We can't necessary control or change what happens, but we can try to make things better. Camus had no faith or religion, but he did believe humanity.

This sounds more like humanitarianism than altruism to me. Humanitarians (loosely defined) focus on improving all of humanity, whereas altruism, as I understand it, refers more to one's individual actions. To be altruistic you need not think of humanity as a whole, but you must sacrifice your needs and desires for others in your immediate social circle (family, friends, neighbours etc.) It's not simply the bettering of humanity -- although that could end up being a result of altruistic behaviour. If altruism is to mean anything it must require sacrifice by the altruist, and as far as I know Camus did not urge sacrifice.

The reason I associate altruism with religions and cultures is simply because the myth of the altruist is so enduring, and takes on many different manifestations.

[Buh4Bee]

Shevek:
I agree with what you are saying, but what I'm saying is not at a humanitary level. It's at the level where it calls people to work on the frontlines. Just as an example, I'll use The Plague. The main character (Dr. Rieux) sacrifices himself to help cure the sick during a plague. He even puts his mother at risk, because he feel called to do this work and he is capable (ready, able and willing). His actions are about helping the sick, in the field with messy hands. This character has no religion, but feels compelled to do it, because he is a good man.

I have met other people who are often religious, that help others by choice of work or through means of volunteering. There are a lot of organizations out there that are not supported by religion filled with people who work in messy fields, because they fell called to do the work as they are ready, willing, and able. Such organizations might be the Peace Core. So as Bill says, it can be a lifestyle choice, but it can also be bound to a simple act of kindness. I just see a lot of people who are kind and lack any connection to religion. In fact, most of the staff that I work with has no connection to religion. It is a very rare thing these days for me to meet an individual that is active and goes to church on a regular basis.

[Shevek]

I absolutely agree you don't need to be religious to help others. I really don't see anything in your above post I disagree with, except for the suggested existence of altruism as a lifestyle choice. Some devote their lives to the aid of others while some choose to ignore others' plights -- there are degrees of selflessness (and selfishness) one can adopt, then, but I am still a skeptic about pure, absolute altruism outside religious myths.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

In respects to Christianity (which I understand better than any other religion), a Christian who matures in the faith will eventually learn that the best motivation for anything is love. Unconditional love (agape) motivates one to do good without receiving any merit whatsoever. I believe it exists, and I see it in my God.

Unless it involves a man loving another man, or a woman another woman. Then they should burn in Hell for their unconditional love. (Juniper isn't that active lately--someone must take the mantle.)

[cacian]

^Being nice because it makes you feel better IS a reason. You should be nice, because it is the morally right thing to do. There is no other true reason.

Well yes it is a reason but it is a natural reason that boost your confidence and well being. It is about knowing that you are valued in your efforts to help whenever something comes up. I am sure the more you are aware of people's needs the more you are attended to yourself.
It works both ways. Nature is such that your actions are in a way your wealth. What I mean it is always the case you help someone and you will always be helped too. It takes two and works both ways.

[Volya]

That is not true though. A lot of the time, you may help people and never be helped in return.

[Paulclem]

I absolutely agree you don't need to be religious to help others. I really don't see anything in your above post I disagree with, except for the suggested existence of altruism as a lifestyle choice. Some devote their lives to the aid of others while some choose to ignore others' plights -- there are degrees of selflessness (and selfishness) one can adopt, then, but I am still a skeptic about pure, absolute altruism outside religious myths.

Anyone can develop altruism, though religions also actively promote it. Catholic good works, charity in Islam and Christian denominations, compassion in Hinduism and Buddhism. Whether we agree with all the aspects of various religions, it is still a positive aspect of them.

The pure altruism you refer to is an aspiration for most, though whether someone has realised this is difficult to say. The fact that it is an aim suggests it can and has been achieved.

[Volya]

Would Jesus be the best example of a true altruist?

[Paulclem]

Would Jesus be the best example of a true altruist?

I'm a Buddhist, so I'd go with The Buddha. :D

I jest. Lots of religious and social icons lead altruistic lives, and I don't suppose there's a league table of altruists. Just the fact that they have demonstrated the possibility is very encouraging.

I admire Bill Gates for donating the greater part of his wealth to AIDS research. He's still a wealthy man, but it's not often that you see such an example from those with the ability to do that. Paul Newman impressed me as well, and Jamie Oliver, on a smaller scale, with his attempts to help those less fortunate. He gets a lot of stick unjustly in my view.

[Volya]

I'm a Buddhist too but I never really thought of the Buddha as an altruist.
He's more of a teacher.

I could not consider Bill Gates or Jamie Oliver altruists, since although they've done good things, you cannot be sure they have no other motives. Also, they could do even MORE to help others (Bill Gates especially, I'm sure he has lots more money stored up still).

[cacian]

Would Jesus be the best example of a true altruist?

I don't know I have never met Jesus but since he was a prophet I guess he was a kind of altruist but also had faults and weaknesses just like any others person. As for him being the son of god I would doubt that very much.

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't know I have never met Jesus but since he was a prophet I guess he was a kind of altruist but also had faults and weaknesses just like any others person. As for him being the son of god I would doubt that very much.

What faults do you know Jesus had?

[Paulclem]

I'm a Buddhist too but I never really thought of the Buddha as an altruist.
He's more of a teacher.

I could not consider Bill Gates or Jamie Oliver altruists, since although they've done good things, you cannot be sure they have no other motives. Also, they could do even MORE to help others (Bill Gates especially, I'm sure he has lots more money stored up still).

It could be argued that The Buddha was he supreme altruist, as his aim was to teach - correct - the path to achieve Enlightenment and end suffering for all beings, whereas a more limited view of altruism is to give with good intention, but this will not solve the ultimate problem of suffering, and it will be a short term remedy, (given the context of reincarnation and countless lives of suffering).

A non Buddhist would obviously nominate another religious figure as the supreme altruist.

you cannot be sure they have no other motives

No-one can be sure of anyone's motives, but in my view, not only is he funding research that could help to prevent or cure millions, but the money is helping the more deprived areas of the world and helping to relieve their suffering now. I've heard him criticised because of Microsoft's marketing, products etc etc, but that is really a side issue. Perhaps only Governments are able to do as much as he's doing, and good for him if he's still got plenty of cash. I'm on here now because of the work he did with Microsoft.

[Shevek]

The main issue I have with Gates is that his foundation has become enormously powerful. This would be beneficial were the foundation concerned with just grants and poverty relief, but a lot of this money is used to build public-private partnerships which don't necessarily have the interests of developing countries at heart. On this note, I wouldn't say Microsoft is a side issue seeing as how the company has lobbied internationally to strengthen intellectual property laws which include generic drug patents. These agreements stifle competition and increase the price of pharmaceuticals for the poorest people. Gates's partners in the pharmaceutical industry have a lot to gain from this.

[cacian]

What faults do you know Jesus had?

I know not Jesus. I have not had the pleasure of meeting him in person but going with I know about humans I am guessing he was exactly the same.
No one is perfect and alsp a fault or a weakness could it be anything from not liking a certain somebody or self doubting himself in other areas of one's personality.
This is a total guess.

[Paulclem]

The main issue I have with Gates is that his foundation has become enormously powerful. This would be beneficial were the foundation concerned with just grants and poverty relief, but a lot of this money is used to build public-private partnerships which don't necessarily have the interests of developing countries at heart. On this note, I wouldn't say Microsoft is a side issue seeing as how the company has lobbied internationally to strengthen intellectual property laws which include generic drug patents. These agreements stifle competition and increase the price of pharmaceuticals for the poorest people. Gates's partners in the pharmaceutical industry have a lot to gain from this.

No doubt there's equivocation when dealing with business - I know nothing of it except that it is an imperfect world. I think the fact that he's doing all that is in itself creditable. He could have just gone on building billions.

[BienvenuJDC]

I know not Jesus. I have not had the pleasure of meeting him in person but going with I know about humans I am guessing he was exactly the same.
No one is perfect and alsp a fault or a weakness could it be anything from not liking a certain somebody or self doubting himself in other areas of one's personality.
This is a total guess.

Jesus was not only human, He was also God. Since He was without sin, He was able to die for the sin of mankind.

[Volya]

Jesus was not only human, He was also God. Since He was without sin, He was able to die for the sin of mankind.

I don't really believe in THAT version of Jesus.
However I think that even if he was not the son of God, he was probably still a very altruistic person, since much of the Bible must be based on true events of Jesus helping others.

[cacian]

Jesus was not only human, He was also God. Since He was without sin, He was able to die for the sin of mankind.

You mean he was killed then died.

[Quatermain]

This thread drifted off-topic at a fairly impressive rate.

As far as altruism goes, I don't think people are capable of pure altruism. I think that people can have an altruistic strain to their motives, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the circumstance and the person. But I don't think it's ever the only or even primary motivation.

[cacian]

This thread drifted off-topic at a fairly impressive rate.

As far as altruism goes, I don't think people are capable of pure altruism. I think that people can have an altruistic strain to their motives, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the circumstance and the person. But I don't think it's ever the only or even primary motivation.

Ah it is all about instinct and how one human looks at another.
It is natural to be kind and fortuit towards one another. It is part of our biological self to try and get on by promoting kind gestures towards each other because we live together on this earth.

[Quatermain]

Ah it is all about instinct and how one human looks at another.
It is natural to be kind and fortuit towards one another. It is part of our biological self to try and get on by promoting kind gestures towards each other because we live together on this earth.

What are you, new to this planet? That's not at all how it works here. The selfless gesture and act of kindness is the exception, not the rule.

[cacian]

What are you, new to this planet? That's not at all how it works here. The selfless gesture and act of kindness is the exception, not the rule.

I am no new to this planet but I can assure you there nice people around it is just a question of being aware of it.
Not all are monsters like in movies or books.
You are not the only one who has had bad time remember.All of us have had our share and we still do but it does not stop us from being nice or decent. Decent poeple exist.

[Quatermain]

I am no new to this planet but I can assure you there nice people around it is just a question of being aware of it.
Not all are monsters like in movies or books. You are not the only one who has had bad time remember.All of us have had our share and we still do but it does not stop us from being nice or decent. Decent poeple exist.

I wasn't asserting that decent people don't exist. I was countering your absurd claim that being kind and "fortuit"(?) was the natural state of humanity, as well as being some sort of biological imperative. Even the most cursory acquaintance with history should be enough to belie that notion.

[Volya]

I've found that people are more likely to be bad than good. When I encounter a stranger, very rarely do I find that they are nice, accepting people.

[Shevek]

I've found that people are more likely to be bad than good. When I encounter a stranger, very rarely do I find that they are nice, accepting people.

Does not being nice or accepting mean they are bad?

[Volya]

In general, yes.

[Paulclem]

In general, yes.

I think that living in a city, you have to adopt a certain indifference - unless something happens around you. Imagine the problems getting to work - or school - if you knew everyone in the city in the same way that peope in a village know each other.

I don't think this indifference is necessarily bad - we've all probably experienced the kindness of strangers.

[Desolation]

In general, yes.

I used to feel that way too...Now, I'm not so sure.

Looking around at the world, I think it's easy to jump on the "Everyone is an *******" train, and I can't really blame anyone for feeling that way. But, I don't think it does enough to address the fact that there are really, truly, abysmally terrible people in the world who actually do very bad things, and that the vast majority of the people you meet on the street do NOT fall into that category. To some extent, pushing all the strangers who might not be as friendly as you'd like them to be under the umbrella of "Bad People" even trivializes the fact that some seriously ****ed up people are out there doing seriously ****ed up things.

Besides, when you meet a stranger, you don't really know what their life is like...You don't know the panorama of circumstances that has lead them to that moment. Life is hard on everyone, after all, and there's always the possibility that they are going through a really rough time, or even just a mildly annoying day, and don't really feel like stopping and making jovial chit-chat.

So, that's all to say, most people really aren't as bad as we tend to make them out. I think most are basically good and innocent, actually.

[Clopin]

There are a lot of *******s walking around who are just made that way by stupidity. They should be pitied I guess.

[Shevek]

I think that living in a city, you have to adopt a certain indifference - unless something happens around you. Imagine the problems getting to work - or school - if you knew everyone in the city in the same way that peope in a village know each other.

I don't think this indifference is necessarily bad - we've all probably experienced the kindness of strangers.

Yeah. That they aren't warm and accepting the second you meet them is not a basis to judge anyone. I don't really like talking to strangers who approach me on the street because I'm usually trying to get to the bus on time. And at the bus stop, quite frankly I don't want to know strangers' opinions on how hot/cold/rainy it is outside. I already know.

[cacian]

I've found that people are more likely to be bad than good. When I encounter a stranger, very rarely do I find that they are nice, accepting people.

What is your definition of bad and what is a stranger?
Bad is a variant of many things.
Getting to know someone is nice. Ignoring somoene because they are different for example is bad.

[Alexander III]

I used to feel that way too...Now, I'm not so sure.

Looking around at the world, I think it's easy to jump on the "Everyone is an *******" train, and I can't really blame anyone for feeling that way. But, I don't think it does enough to address the fact that there are really, truly, abysmally terrible people in the world who actually do very bad things, and that the vast majority of the people you meet on the street do NOT fall into that category. To some extent, pushing all the strangers who might not be as friendly as you'd like them to be under the umbrella of "Bad People" even trivializes the fact that some seriously ****ed up people are out there doing seriously ****ed up things.

Besides, when you meet a stranger, you don't really know what their life is like...You don't know the panorama of circumstances that has lead them to that moment. Life is hard on everyone, after all, and there's always the possibility that they are going through a really rough time, or even just a mildly annoying day, and don't really feel like stopping and making jovial chit-chat.

So, that's all to say, most people really aren't as bad as we tend to make them out. I think most are basically good and innocent, actually.

Agree

[JuniperWoolf]

Me too. Everyone is on the defensive when they're out in public with a bunch of people they don't know, it doesn't tell you anything when you're looking at a person in that state. I find that once you get around the outer shell of someone they're almost always lovable.

[Volya]

JuniperWoolf; when I am out and about in public, I pass by many people my own age. When they are on their own, they rarely speak to me. When they are in a group, inevitably as they walk past me, I will be assaulted with a barrage of insults and the occasional shove. These aren't one-off incidents, in happens more or less everytime they're in a group. Sure, a lot of it is just due to the fact that they're in a group, and it's just them trying to seem cool. But to me, if somebody does something like that, even if it's just because there friends are doing it, then they are NOT a nice person. I know, this does not mean EVERYBODY in the world is a bad guy. Nor does it mean that the people who do so are all evil bastards. It just shows to me, than in general, most people are not inherently good.

[JuniperWoolf]

Kids basically do what their friends are doing even if they don't want to, and some of them even come to regret their behaviour as they get older. You can't judge a person's existential worth, or inherent goodness or whatever, based on when they were teenagers and they took the piss out of a kid in a private school uniform.

Also, "nice" isn't the opposite of "bad." I know a few individuals who's character really contain the best of humanity, really just fantastic people at the very core of their being - but some are a bit gruff, some like to tease (for the lulz), some are introverted to the point of appearing cold, you wouldn't use "nice" as an adjective to describe them. On the other hand, there are those who absolutely exude politeness, sickeningly sweet "niceness," who are, in fact, at the core of their being, pure ****ing evil.

So, "good" vs. "bad" isn't the same as "rude" vs. "nice."

[Clopin]

Kids basically do what their friends are doing even if they don't want to, and some of them even come to regret their behaviour as they get older. You can't judge a person's existential worth, or inherent goodness or whatever, based on when they were teenagers and they took the piss out of a kid in a private school uniform.

I think you can, or somewhat. Some people do things specifically to be mean and some people do not.

Edit - That said, yelling "fag" at some kid in a school uniform isn't really a calculated assault on your self esteem.

[Volya]

How do their actions when they were a teenager not count? Doing something because your friends are doing it only shows that you are weak-minded. Of course, I know that just insulting somebody doesn't make them an evil person. However it's enough in my eyes to make them 'not good'.

Oh and Juniper, I don't go to a private school. A lot of the time they are wearing similar uniforms to mine (the only real change is colour), they just wear it a lot more scruffily.

[Alexander III]

When I was 15, I was rather evil. You grow out of it.

[Scheherazade]

I believe it exists. I have seen many people around me give for no other reason than because they can and believe it is the right thing to do. I can give you at least ten examples of people who give, even when they receive nothing but aggravation back. These people are not doing it because they feel good afterward, but because they value helping others. Some of these people have no faith that an afterlife exists- getting into Heaven isn't their source of motivation.I agree with this very much from a personal point of view.

I donate my hair and offer little (anonymous) financial aid to students regularly not as a way of reserving seats in a heaven I do not believe in or in hope of offsetting the balance of my less-than-nice deeds but simply because I know I am capable of them.

I am not sure if feeling good about those deeds makes them less valuable; I cannot deny that I do feel good about myself... Not in an arrogant way but simply because I prove myself that I am capable of good as well bad.

[Paulclem]

How do their actions when they were a teenager not count? Doing something because your friends are doing it only shows that you are weak-minded. Of course, I know that just insulting somebody doesn't make them an evil person. However it's enough in my eyes to make them 'not good'.

Oh and Juniper, I don't go to a private school. A lot of the time they are wearing similar uniforms to mine (the only real change is colour), they just wear it a lot more scruffily.

Unfortunately it is an old story repeating itself. Many of us have had the same kind of treatment at one time or another. The only consolation is that like us, you will get to a place where it doesn't happen as people grow up and you lose the uniform. It will stop. : )

Edit: Much as I like using the phone to access the net, I still suffer from sausage finger mistypes. Bah.

[Volya]

Ah it doesn't bother me xD
I was just using it as an example of the inherently bad or good nature of people.

[Paulclem]

Impossible to tell that from teens unfortunately. You'll have the encounter - sometime in the future - with some idiot who picked on you at school, and you'll find they've turned into a normal, likeable bloke. I encountered Baz on a small, fenced in path years after leaving school. Instead of demanding every spice on me - (gimme all your sweets in Yorkshire lingo) - he seemed pleased to see me.

[Dodo25]

If you keep asking for ultimate justification, every altruistic act will end up stemming from a motive that benefits the doer in some way. That can be simply the motive of doing "what is right", thereby feeling good about not having done what is wrong. If we define altruism in a way that would exclude any such consideration, then altruism won't exist. But it would also be quite a silly, useless concept.

If we define altruism meaningfully, then I'm quite convinced that it's real. Personally, I dedicate my life to reducing as much suffering as possible, and I even act with that in mind when no one is there to watch my behavior. I'm often puzzled at this myself, actually. But that's how it is, I think intellectual consistency is the driving force for me (I'm specializing in ethics).

[OrphanPip]

I've been watching a cbc documentary on the moral development of children, and thought it had some interesting things to say about how children begin to determine what is fair, when to tell the truth, and who is one of the group or different.

I'm not sure the video is available outside of Canada, but you can read a bit about the research covered in the doc on the page.

http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episode/born-to-be-good-1.html

[YesNo]

http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episode/born-to-be-good-1.html

It reminds me of Justin Barrett's Born Believers which is a survey of developmental psychology's attempts to understand what very young children think of "superhuman agents" prior to being taught anything specific about a particular God.