Altruism

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?

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

'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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

'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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

^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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.