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.
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.)Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Last edited by Mutatis-Mutandis; 09-13-2012 at 10:38 PM.
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.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
That is not true though. A lot of the time, you may help people and never be helped in return.
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.
Would Jesus be the best example of a true altruist?
I'm a Buddhist, so I'd go with The Buddha.
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.
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).
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.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
What faults do you know Jesus had?
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
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.
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.
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.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
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.
Jesus was not only human, He was also God. Since He was without sin, He was able to die for the sin of mankind.
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
