Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Debate on Altruism.
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371807 is a reply to message #371463] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 12:11   |
 |
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
OK, I have some more thoughts on the subject and as I have compassion for all sentient beings, I would like to extend this to the animal kingdom...
If you can agree it is fair to assume that an animal has less intellect then humans, and also does not have the psychological capacity for complex emotions and reasoning, or at least most do not. Then it is safe to assume that altruism does exist amongst animals, as they have been seen risking there own life for that of another, or the collective good. Would you agree?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371810 is a reply to message #371463] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 12:19 |
 |
Ma1kel
Messages: 956
Registered: July 2005
Location: Kingdom of the Netherland...
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Lets say we have a hypothetical situation. A man is locked up into a cage and will die if you don't press the button. You press it and save his life. This man will still be in the cage. Helping this man does not benefit you in any way, you don't feel any satisfaction nor do you believe in karma.
You were altruistic without being selfish. Selfish would be not pressing the button because it costs you time. You did use some of your time to press the button without any returns.
Dutch to English
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371811 is a reply to message #371463] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 12:46 |
|
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
I can't believe I am disagreeing with you, but by jball's logic, and one I am beginning to follow, you wanted to push the button. For whatever reason you wanted to push the button, you still wanted to push it. In pushing that button you fulfilled this want, therefore the exercise was in some way self serving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371816 is a reply to message #371463] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 13:08 |
|
|
@Spoony:
You deny that it's the case, but it has to be true. You don't just do things to do things. There's something pushing you to do it. You must gain something from it. Whether it be experience, pleasure, or an avoidance of something negative.
Would your dad have given if it made him feel like shit afterwards? WHY did you do all of that administrating? Even if you didn't end up benefiting it, you had to have had some goal to achieve.
@ma1kel: Altruism is being selfless. Doing what you desire is not selfless.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
[Updated on: Thu, 12 February 2009 13:39] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371817 is a reply to message #371463] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 13:08 |
|
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
The definition of altruism states that the act or concern has to be selfless. Whilst the action has good meaning, it is not done without a self serving purpose.
I'm going back-and-forth allot on this, I was tempted to suggest that both statements are correct depending on your interpretation of any example at all; If you view it from an egoistic point of view or not.
However, this is a weak flim-flam arguement. Probably not as bad as what I was previously thinking of suggesting, which then starts to redefine the question by trying to challenge the very meaning and definition of altruism.
Certainly is a tricky one. I am going to give it some further contemplation through meditation.
Jball, come on dude, animal kingdom was a nice example I thought. Any thoughts on it?
[Updated on: Thu, 12 February 2009 13:10] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371823 is a reply to message #371817] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 13:20 |
|
|
| reborn wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 15:08 |
The definition of altruism states that the act or concern has to be selfless. Whilst the action has good meaning, it is not done without a self serving purpose.
I'm going back-and-forth allot on this, I was tempted to suggest that both statements are correct depending on your interpretation of any example at all; If you view it from an egoistic point of view or not.
However, this is a weak flim-flam arguement. Probably not as bad as what I was previously thinking of suggesting, which then starts to redefine the question by trying to challenge the very meaning and definition of altruism.
Certainly is a tricky one. I am going to give it some further contemplation through meditation.
Jball, come on dude, animal kingdom was a nice example I thought. Any thoughts on it?
|
Sorry, I was going to respond to that question, but then I noticed ma1kel's responses, and thus forgot about yours. 
I think with less intellect, animals are less prone to be selfish in the way we consider selfishness, but if I'm not sure there's altruism still. There's still some goal, some desire. Maybe.
Even though I'm arguing in favor of psychological egoism, I'm still not entirely convinced. I once thought that as an evolutionary process, we have moved beyond psychological egoism and into the realm of being altruistic, but I can't shake the idea that we control our thoughts and actions, and even biological instincts are geared towards self-preservation which are clearly in self-interest.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371825 is a reply to message #371463] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 13:29 |
|
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
I'm not convinced animals have the capacity for desire, but are driven by self preservation. The act of risking or giving it's own life for another animal directly conflicts with it's instinct for self preservation, yet examples are evident. Surely this is an example of altruism?
Unless animals do have the capacity for desire, the intellectual capacity for reason and higher thought. Which would incidently mean they are just as self centered as us humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371832 is a reply to message #371463] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 14:00 |
|
Ma1kel
Messages: 956
Registered: July 2005
Location: Kingdom of the Netherland...
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
It seems to me that you are altruistic out of self-interest (wanting to fulfill the desire of altruism) but not selfishness, which would be gaining from it without thinking about the subject.
I do agree that it's self-interest of fulfilling the desire of acting in the very least (at it's core) when performing the act of altruism. You can add some to this like karma and dopamine.
As in every action you do being out of the self-interest of fulfilling the action.
Dutch to English
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371861 is a reply to message #371853] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 16:31 |
 |
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| CarrierII wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 14:39 |
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 21:41 |
Who says you did it to make yourself feel like an awesome person? You desired to give her some french fries because she wanted some. You still chose to do it, thus acting in self-interest.
|
How is giving away food self interest, on any level?
|
Possibility of fornication?
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371864 is a reply to message #371853] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 16:41 |
|
|
| CarrierII wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 17:39 |
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 21:41 |
Who says you did it to make yourself feel like an awesome person? You desired to give her some french fries because she wanted some. You still chose to do it, thus acting in self-interest.
|
How is giving away food self interest, on any level?
|
The desire to give the food is ultimately self-interest over the concern of others.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371875 is a reply to message #371864] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 17:58 |
Muad Dib15
Messages: 839
Registered: July 2007
Location: behind a computer screen,...
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 17:41 |
| CarrierII wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 17:39 |
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 21:41 |
Who says you did it to make yourself feel like an awesome person? You desired to give her some french fries because she wanted some. You still chose to do it, thus acting in self-interest.
|
How is giving away food self interest, on any level?
|
The desire to give the food is ultimately self-interest over the concern of others.
|
How? That makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
The manliest post on the internet
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371878 is a reply to message #371875] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 18:03 |
 |
BlueThen
Messages: 2402
Registered: February 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 18:58 |
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 17:41 |
| CarrierII wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 17:39 |
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 21:41 |
Who says you did it to make yourself feel like an awesome person? You desired to give her some french fries because she wanted some. You still chose to do it, thus acting in self-interest.
|
How is giving away food self interest, on any level?
|
The desire to give the food is ultimately self-interest over the concern of others.
|
How? That makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
|
Fulfilling that want, I assume.
Personally, I think that this entire argument is pointless and stupid. Who cares if people are donating to charity to make themselves look good? They're still donating, aren't they?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371879 is a reply to message #371463] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 18:12 |
|
|
Nobody is making the argument that people are evil because there's no such thing as altruism. It's just a philosophical principle that people always put their desires/self-interests first. Whether it's the desire to help someone or wanting to shoot someone in the face.
Again, the entire point of me even saying "Altruism doesn't exist" was to derail the "Racism" thread. Why altruism? It was in Fobby's huge image.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371908 is a reply to message #371463] |
Fri, 13 February 2009 00:41 |
|
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371915 is a reply to message #371816] |
Fri, 13 February 2009 04:33 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 14:08 |
You deny that it's the case, but it has to be true. You don't just do things to do things.
|
So far so good...
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 14:08 |
There's something pushing you to do it.
|
Losing me...
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 14:08 |
You must gain something from it.
|
...lost me.
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 14:08 |
Would your dad have given if it made him feel like shit afterwards?
|
Haven't I already answered this? I guarantee he could've spent it on something he really would've enjoyed, another European holiday with my mother perhaps. They love them, and the amount he spent would've probably paid for at least one. If he felt any personal satisfaction from the donation it was almost certainly trivial by comparison, and it definitely didn't impact his decision.
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 14:08 |
WHY did you do all of that administrating?
|
Because nobody else could be bothered. I never cared about anything I might have stood to gain as a result, and it certainly gave me more annoyance than satisfaction - as I knew it would before I even started it.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371920 is a reply to message #371915] |
Fri, 13 February 2009 05:07 |
|
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 13 February 2009 06:33 |
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 14:08 |
WHY did you do all of that administrating?
|
Because nobody else could be bothered. I never cared about anything I might have stood to gain as a result, and it certainly gave me more annoyance than satisfaction - as I knew it would before I even started it.
|
J_ball is asking why you did it, he isn't asking why other people didn't.
To act means you had to have a desire to act, performing the act fulfilled that desire.
You cannot act without motivation, whatever that motivation is, it is being satisfied by the act.
[Updated on: Fri, 13 February 2009 05:08] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371938 is a reply to message #371908] |
Fri, 13 February 2009 08:24 |
|
|
| 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.
|
I think you're looking at this the wrong way. You're looking at in black and white. Either you're completely selfless or you're an egomaniac. I don't think that's true. I think it all boils down to the intent and desire. Yes, you HAVE intent and desire, and you can't shake that, but what makes the desire to do good any less noble and moral than being completely "selfless"? I think actually DESIRING to help others is more noble than walking through life as someone who doesn't act in a way that fulfills a desire to help others.
Besides, if you can't respect yourself, you cannot respect others. Thus, self-preservation is the first step in forming relationships with others and the world. It's a good thing, and without it, we would never have progressed as a species or a society.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Jun 01 06:26:45 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01197 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
