| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371943 is a reply to message #371463] |
Fri, 13 February 2009 09:27   |
 |
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
Perhaps if the desire to act is based on compassion and the act is a good deed, or something noble, then it's OK for it to be based on self, because you have to love yourself, and if we are all indeed one, then the perception of self is flawed anyway.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371946 is a reply to message #371463] |
Fri, 13 February 2009 10:05 |
|
|
That's one way to look at it. By being selfish, you're being selfless, as long as the deed/intent is good, because we're all inter-connected.
I'm not sure I would go with that for myself. I follow what's essentially the ethics of care. I still hold others in regard, but my family, friends, myself, and even my pets come before others in what I'm morally responsible for.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #372192 is a reply to message #371908] |
Sun, 15 February 2009 01:25 |
bisen11
Messages: 797
Registered: December 2004
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| reborn wrote on Fri, 13 February 2009 02:41 |
After contemplating this, I have to come to the conclusion that my original position is wrong.
The very definition of a selfless act is flawed. Because simply it means you have to act, the process of acting means you have to want to do it, and the act fulfills that want. Even if you don't want to do it, you do it for some reason, and this reason is gratified by your act.
If there is no reason for your action, then there is no intent to do a selfless deed. Without the intent, it cannot be a selfless act.
The burden of this knowledge is greater then you might think.
I gave this a great deal of contemplation through meditating on the subject. I used to believe that the pursuit of enlightenment was a selfless act, it's motivation driven by the want to free people from suffering. But this is not a selfess act.
The consequence of knowing there is no selfless act is troublesome for me, I am having difficulty digesting it.
If there is no such thing as a selfless act, my nature is based on self. Then what is the meaning of life?
Am I to assume that I must defy my nature, which is impossible, or accept my nature and act accordingly.
I cannot possibly believe that anything I do which I used to deem as a good deed is selfless, I did it for my own benefit, it was driven by my nature of self.
Perhaps I should make knowledge my pursuit, experiance of life maybe. Even if I make my pursuit in life a noble one, it is still driven by my nature of self.
I must therefore conclude that there is no meaning to life, if there is indeed an afterlife then there is nothing I can do to justify my existance, it's just a pointless exercise.
I might aswell accept my nature and try to enjoy myself. Perhaps if there is a creator then this was there intention, and this is the best thing I can do with my life, as I am incapable of anything else anyway.
Or maybe despite knowing that I perform these acts for my own benefit in some way, I should continue anyway because I believe it's the right thing to do.
It's quite perplexing, and I must thankyou for making me challenge it. Although it is almost equally as easy to not thankyou and curse you for this knowledge. But I do not believe that ignornace is bliss.
|
How would reflexes/instincts fit into this? Say a guy with a ladies purse is running down a street and you have no time to think. Perhaps you reflexivly take the guy out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #372253 is a reply to message #371463] |
Sun, 15 February 2009 11:29 |
bisen11
Messages: 797
Registered: December 2004
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
So altruism is meant to include the subconscious. Which is something that no one can ever actually know what it's thinking. That sounds like a circular argument to me.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #372473 is a reply to message #372253] |
Tue, 17 February 2009 11:35 |
 |
Ma1kel
Messages: 956
Registered: July 2005
Location: Kingdom of the Netherland...
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| bisen11 wrote on Sun, 15 February 2009 14:29 |
So altruism is meant to include the subconscious. Which is something that no one can ever actually know what it's thinking. That sounds like a circular argument to me.
|
There's no argument and the reasoning isn't circular.
Dutch to English
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #372526 is a reply to message #372473] |
Tue, 17 February 2009 23:59 |
bisen11
Messages: 797
Registered: December 2004
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Ma1kel wrote on Tue, 17 February 2009 13:35 |
| bisen11 wrote on Sun, 15 February 2009 14:29 |
So altruism is meant to include the subconscious. Which is something that no one can ever actually know what it's thinking. That sounds like a circular argument to me.
|
There's no argument and the reasoning isn't circular.
|
In that case. Provide me with the research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
