Altruism, a possibility, a hope, or just stupid

[Triskele]

heres where i have my question, i have been talking with a few friends and pretty much what we have surmised is that there really is no such thing as altruism, what we percieve to be altruism is really enlightened self interest, whether kind acts are made because they will get you into heaven, appease a guilty concience, make you feel good for an act well done, or just help your community, it seems to me that there is a base motive at the root of all charity. please, continue this, i would love to hear other peoples thoughts on this matter, in no way is this thought of mine complete

[Neo_Sephiroth]

heres where i have my question, i have been talking with a few friends and pretty much what we have surmised is that there really is no such thing as altruism, what we percieve to be altruism is really enlightened self interest, whether kind acts are made because they will get you into heaven, appease a guilty concience, make you feel good for an act well done, or just help your community, it seems to me that there is a base motive at the root of all charity. please, continue this, i would love to hear other peoples thoughts on this matter, in no way is this thought of mine complete

Hmm...Yes...Yes...I see what you're getting at.

Altruism is the act of being unselfish and/or having a deep devotion of helping out others.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that the people who follows the path of "altruism" do so because they want and/or is expecting something out of their good deed?

Hmm...Well, that is true for some, if not most, people in this world. I, however, do believe that there is such a thing as "altruism". You see, there are those out there in the world today that perform good deeds and expect nothing of it.

No five minutes of fame, expecting to get into Heaven, appease a guilty conscience, and so on. They do it just for sake of not seeing another human being getting hurt or suffer.

Oh, crap...I said "sake"....Oh, well, if you're going to bring that up...Then it's just silly.

Beside, "altruism" would still exist because there are those who still performs good deeds everyday...I think...

Umm...Anyway, the only way "altruism" would not exist is if no one perform any good deeds in the world at all.

Also, there are those who can see benefits from performing a good deed but still does not do so. Why? Probably because they don't care. Which also brings "altruism" to exists because of "egoism". The ones who sees an opportunity to help out those in need of assistence but does not do so because he/she values himself/herself more than that of the one in need of assistence also contributes to the existence of "altruism".

[Neo_Sephiroth]

Wait... You're saying that, because of the existence of egoism, altruism is a sort of inevitability? I'm confused here. How do egoists create altruism?

I have to go to class, so that is all I can say at the moment. Thoughts?

Hmm...Altruism...Egoism...

No, wait...Okay...I'm drawing blank.

But lets see what I can pull out of this blank head of mine.

Egoism is basically self-interest. Cares only for oneself. Only help others in need (If he/she does so at all) if it benefits himself/herself.

Altruism is basically a caring and/or devotion of the welfare of others. Help those in need of assistence im, if not all, many different situations...Possibly naive...But that's not the point. Also expects nothing (Hopefully...But highly doubtful for most people) in return.

Okay...Now that I got that cleared up...Lets go!

Example: A hot chick is shopping in the grocery store...And I happen to "accidently" bump into her and she drops her purse, bags, and various produce.

There are two dudes are standing nearby that saw the incident.

Now, one of them is thinking "Should I help her out? What do I get out of it? Nah. She can pick those things up herself. Besides, she not THAT hot." So he walks passed her without lending a hand. Egoism? I think so.

The second dude, however, goes in to help. "Oh! Here, let me help you with those" *Picks up her falling things and whatnot*

Hot Chick: "Thank, you" *Smiles* Continues with her shopping.

Kind Dude: "No, problem" *Continues with looking at Maxim's magazine*

So, basically, if "Egoism" exists as you just saw from the example above, "Altruism" must exists as well.

Altruism can only exists if someone (Egoist) ingnores someone who's in need of assistence and/or require some assistence to make the process easier...But if another person (Altruist) saw someone in such a situation and helps out...It is because of Egoism.

For Egoism is born out of self-interest and selfishness(Choose to ingnore)...All the while, Altrism is born out of love, devotion, and caring for the welfare of others.(Choose to help)

Ugh ...Dude...I'm going to have to quit for today, man. If I go any further I'll probably confuse myself and forget what I was talking about...More then I already am, at least.

[kilted exile]

Wow, Jamesian, reading that all I could think of was Scrooge querying whether the workhouses and poor law were still in operation.

I dont know what to say about that really (truly lost for words) Street People live terrible, miserable lives a fair percentage also have large psychological problems with schizophrenia and paranoia. They do not trust the hostels and people at the shelters. They truly are desperate, people who are the most in need are the ones most likely to ask for help, their pride has been broken and this is a last resort. These are not weak people, the problem is people's perception of them as a useless druggie or alcoholic - they are people: sons, daughters, mothers, fathers.

Not giving them money is not helping them, it is speeding their deaths.

**apologies for dragging things off-topic

[SaGe]

heres where i have my question, i have been talking with a few friends and pretty much what we have surmised is that there really is no such thing as altruism, what we percieve to be altruism is really enlightened self interest, whether kind acts are made because they will get you into heaven, appease a guilty concience, make you feel good for an act well done, or just help your community, it seems to me that there is a base motive at the root of all charity. please, continue this, i would love to hear other peoples thoughts on this matter, in no way is this thought of mine complete

My thoughts are essentially the exact opposite of your own (or the thoughts for you and your friends, for the altruistic irony). I think that everyone is altruistic to at least some degree whether their actions are decided by a need to fulfill the will of others and provide them with satisfaction or a need to appease others in order to elevate one's own ego or sense of self-worth. I think that, despite a few exceptions (I hate to allude to Ayn Rand but the Howard Roark/Francisco D'Anconia/John Galt types), anyone who actively participates in modern, civilized society exhibits altruism.

[Eagleheart]

If the requirements of altruism include self-effacement, then it remains in the domain of aesthetics indeed. The problem I see is that the demands of altruism are extending to a state in which the doer is no longer a separate individual, as every conscious motive is relegated to the "base and selfish"...Lack of self-interest I hold will soon seem to be equated with lack of personality...Totally effacing the interest of the doer is possible in one only condition- non-existence...It is altruistic to help someone, knowing you will feel better yourself and you are helping two persons, which makes you all the more altruistic. I think love and concern for others can only occur in relation to love and concern for yourself/as a member of the human race/ Lack of altruism is not concern for yourself, but concern Only for yourself...

[*Classic*Charm*]

These are not weak people, the problem is people's perception of them as a useless druggie or alcoholic - they are people: sons, daughters, mothers, fathers.

I have to agree with Jameison and contradict the above statement.

I don't disagree that these are people. Clearly they are, but perception is the result of an impression. If one gives the impression of being idle and dependant, that is how they will be percieved by others. To clarify: For example, if I were to walk up to you and say something pointedly rude, and you later came across others of the same lifestage and situation as I and they also made pointedly rude comments, would you not come to the general conclusion that people who fit those criteria are upfront and rude? I'm not making any assumptions or judgements about you personally, simply that people are apt in general to turn first impression into a more permanent view if offered no contradiction. So, in the case of what Jameison was describing, if a person were to ask for money after having not earned it, the impression they give is that they are unwilling to work for what they believe they deserve. When others do the exact same thing as him or her, that leads to the perception that they are all alike. What I'm getting it is that the people- the sons, daughters, mothers, fathers- are contributing to the perception by not breaking out of it. If a person does not want to be percieved as "a useless druggie or alcoholic", than it is up to that person to give a different impression. I believe that a person's unwillingness to give a good impression and break a perception is weakness.

If a person gives a bad first impression, and offers no opportunity to reverse it, then the one whom he or she approaches has every right to deny them.

I am only applying this opinion to the example offered by Jameison.

[kilted exile]

I don't disagree that these are people. Clearly they are, but perception is the result of an impression. If one gives the impression of being idle and dependant, that is how they will be percieved by others. To clarify: For example, if I were to walk up to you and say something pointedly rude, and you later came across others of the same lifestage and situation as I and they also made pointedly rude comments, would you not come to the general conclusion that people who fit those criteria are upfront and rude? I'm not making any assumptions or judgements about you personally, simply that people are apt in general to turn first impression into a more permanent view if offered no contradiction. So, in the case of what Jameison was describing, if a person were to ask for money after having not earned it, the impression they give is that they are unwilling to work for what they believe they deserve. When others do the exact same thing as him or her, that leads to the perception that they are all alike. What I'm getting it is that the people- the sons, daughters, mothers, fathers- are contributing to the perception by not breaking out of it. If a person does not want to be percieved as "a useless druggie or alcoholic", than it is up to that person to give a different impression. I believe that a person's unwillingness to give a good impression and break a perception is weakness.

I would suggest that most peoples impreesion of the homeless is not by any actual interaction with them the impression we are given of them by sections of the media leads to an already prejudiced opinion if we ever do interact with them, and are unwilling to allow them a chance to prove the impression wrong.

Also, just because someone is on drugs or has an alcohol addiction it doesnt make them any less human.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I would suggest that most peoples impreesion of the homeless is not by any actual interaction with them the impression we are given of them by sections of the media leads to an already prejudiced opinion if we ever do interact with them, and are unwilling to allow them a chance to prove the impression wrong.

Good point. I will agree with you there. Most people are far too inclined to judge from secondhand knowledge, and far too self-important to allow themselves to be educacted to the contrary.

Also, just because someone is on drugs or has an alcohol addiction it doesnt make them any less human.

I never meant to imply that. Never. If I offend, it is entirely unintentional.

[Triskele]

c

Why must the motive be "base"? Can we really establish that self-interest is a bad thing??

no no, i do not think that base equates bad, nor do i argue that hedonism is a morally bad thing, but does that necessarily change the fact that most acts of "altruism" are actually done out of a need to feel morally superior, or some other personal motive.

it should also be considered that no one who receives such unearned rewards can be expected to have any respect for it. That is to say, it fairly "grows on trees" for them, if they can obtain it, so why bother to spend the hours and effort earning it? And, if such is the case, and an endless supply of funds "charitably" given for the sake of assuaging an unearned moral guilt on the part of the general public are available to one, then one certainly need not feel obligated to spend it discriminately.

the very nature of this situation is based on a few things that might not necessarily apply. consider the lack of dignity inherant in begging. for many people, begging is not even an option due to the degredation that results from it. also consider the lifestyle that results from begging/life on the street. you see, in assuming that these people beg to support a life of laziness and liesure, you assume not only an economic superiority to them, but also a moral superiority in that you are willing to work for money, and they are so lazy, have no work ethic, etc. so the example i think is perhaps a little biased in regards to your station in life as compared to them. but you also get at one of my basic premises, in that you may not actually be doing good in your charity, if such is true, than my case follows, that you are giving not for them, but for the feeling of moral superiority you gain from such a transaction.

I am of the opinion that what is good for the country is generally good for a individual citizen, and it can hardly be good for the country to have a great pool of hard-working people being "oppressed", so to speak, by poverty.

actually, you are i think wrong in this statement, for the economic benefit of a capitalist nation such as america, there needs to be a pool of untapped labor to keep wages, and thus all prices from skyrocketting. migrant workers, though bad for individual citizens, are actually a boon to the major corporations upon which the monetary strength of this nation lies.

Wait... You're saying that, because of the existence of egoism, altruism is a sort of inevitability? I'm confused here. How do egoists create altruism?

actually i am saying the exact opposite, in that with the existance of egoism, altruism, acts commited solely in the interest of others, necessarily cannot exist due to the inherant psychological benefit of that sensation that you have a moral superiority, and also the knowledge that your act of charity may benefit you financially in the future.+

My thoughts are essentially the exact opposite of your own (or the thoughts for you and your friends, for the altruistic irony). I think that everyone is altruistic to at least some degree whether their actions are decided by a need to fulfill the will of others and provide them with satisfaction or a need to appease others in order to elevate one's own ego or sense of self-worth. I think that, despite a few exceptions (I hate to allude to Ayn Rand but the Howard Roark/Francisco D'Anconia/John Galt types), anyone who actively participates in modern, civilized society exhibits altruism.

but in saying such you, i think are actually agreeing with me, it is the degrees that separate altruism from enlightened self interest, i am not saying that kindness has no place in this world, but merely that you do in fact benefit in some way from this kindess. altruism in my mind, is the shining and unadulterated kindness, committed without any thoughts of the self, and the merest hint of a thought to onesself, defines it as enlightened self interest rather than altruism

If the requirements of altruism include self-effacement, then it remains in the domain of aesthetics indeed. The problem I see is that the demands of altruism are extending to a state in which the doer is no longer a separate individual, as every conscious motive is relegated to the "base and selfish"...Lack of self-interest I hold will soon seem to be equated with lack of personality...Totally effacing the interest of the doer is possible in one only condition- non-existence...It is altruistic to help someone, knowing you will feel better yourself and you are helping two persons, which makes you all the more altruistic. I think love and concern for others can only occur in relation to love and concern for yourself/as a member of the human race/ Lack of altruism is not concern for yourself, but concern Only for yourself...

oooh, very good, i like where this is going, but i do have to interject. in realizing that you help yourself, i think that whether or not that is a good thing matters not, what matters is that you thought also of yourself, which means it is not altruistic. i think, thank you for the thought.

well, i think that is a fairly decent run, i fear now that i must return to my long delayed homework, sorry fellow thinkers, but the inevitable draw of the entralling possibility more high school homework gives me hope in these dark times.

[cuppajoe_9]

The Selfish Gene is a good discussion of the genetic basis for altruism.

[Triskele]

haven't read it, who is the author and what is the basic premis of this work.

[dramasnot6]

I am afraid that “[elevating] one’s own ego or sense of self-worth” is not in the interest of the great impersonal “others” – and therefore not altruistic. I am afraid also that I have never measured my sense of self-worth by what I have done for others, and cannot imagine the placement of priorities that would lead to this. If you hold this deep belief in living and working for the sake of others – with no thought for yourself – then it gradually follows that you must be totally dependant on others as well; good luck with that one. Incidentally, in light of this, you should hardly “hate” alluding to someone who, in fact, escaped from communist Russia and gave no end of thought to such matters. One always does well to look to those concerned with being right than to those concerned with proving they are.

I very much agree with you here Jamesian. I do think that helping those who are most loved and closest to you contributes to measure of one's altruism, but only because I also hold the belief that love makes someone part of yourself. I greatly support the helping of strangers in need for the good of humanity, but don't think this has anything to do with self-worth or that one's morals should be judged by this alone. We shouldn't do things JUST for the good of others or to appear a certain way ,if we ourselves are reluctant to do these things. In a way it is more selfish then moral, although "selfish" may be too harsh a word.

[Adudaewen]

Any good Christian knows that good deeds will get you into heaven about as fast as a "camel through the eye of a needle" to borrow a Biblical phrase. Altruism does exist. I have been fortunate enough to experience it first hand through my mother. She does things all the time for the less fortunate, and most of the time, no one ever finds out that it is her. She's not doing it for honorable mention, but because she has, as she says, "so much in a world where so many have so little." And that is the heart of a good Christian act, to do things because we are able, not because we are obligated in order to gain eternal life.
As for the homeless, I would never begrudge a person a hot meal, but trust is something that has to be earned. I would buy the meal myself and bring it to them, or blankets or clothes or whatever they are in need of. But I probably wouldn't give them cash. It may make me cynical, but at least I know their everyday need is being met, rather than wondering if they are getting drunk or high with my money.

[dramasnot6]

Any good Christian knows that good deeds will get you into heaven about as fast as a "camel through the eye of a needle" to borrow a Biblical phrase. Altruism does exist. I have been fortunate enough to experience it first hand through my mother. She does things all the time for the less fortunate, and most of the time, no one ever finds out that it is her. She's not doing it for honorable mention, but because she has, as she says, "so much in a world where so many have so little." And that is the heart of a good Christian act, to do things because we are able, not because we are obligated in order to gain eternal life.
As for the homeless, I would never begrudge a person a hot meal, but trust is something that has to be earned. I would buy the meal myself and bring it to them, or blankets or clothes or whatever they are in need of. But I probably wouldn't give them cash. It may make me cynical, but at least I know their everyday need is being met, rather than wondering if they are getting drunk or high with my money.

Christian beliefs of Altruism are specific to people of that religion. Everyone has their own beliefs of what is "moral" and how to behave well, but what I think is more important to question is if there is a general standard of altruism for all of human kind?