Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Debate on Altruism.
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371655 is a reply to message #371615] |
Wed, 11 February 2009 15:15   |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 11 February 2009 13:27 |
| cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 11 February 2009 12:50 |
You're still deriving pleasure from it in some form. Like I said above, it makes you feel a sense of accomplishment, you like the feeling of helping someone knowing you made their day/year/life, etc...
|
No, I just said:
"Regardless if it makes your life easier or harder."
Meaning regardless of your own feelings in the matter.
To reiterate: What if you do something to make life easier for someone else, regardless of your own feelings and regardless if it makes your life easier or harder.
Like acting as if it was second nature. Having no ulterior motive to do it other than to do it? Having no intention of helping anyone nor having any intention of accomplishing anything?
Why do you keep on talking as if doing something for the sake of someone else is some chore you have to go out of your way to do?
|
If you can give me an example, I'd appreciate it.
When did I EVER say that doing something nice for someone else is a chore? That just proves you have no clue what this debate is even talking about. The point I'm making by saying that altruism doesn't exist is that people's actions are ultimately motivated by some self-interest, be it physical or emotional. This is not to say you CONSCIOUSLY act in self-interest, but you wouldn't do it (consciously or subconsciously) if you wouldn't benefit from it in any way. This isn't a bad thing. Egoism is vital to self-preservation.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371662 is a reply to message #371463] |
Wed, 11 February 2009 16:15 |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
Unfortunately I can't give you an example without making myself look like an elitist. But maybe I can put it another way:
Do you have any sort of 'routines' in your life? Like what you do in the morning when you wake up? Or your general way of dealing with people you don't know? Or a way of doing a specific chore or something? ect. If you do, do you have any ulterior motives to doing it that way? For example, it is the way you got used to doing them.
Well, if you can have those sorts of routines for doing certain things and acting certain ways, then why can't you do the same with acting in a kindly manner to others? Simply putting others first out of reflex rather than out of charity or for personal gratitude. The only ulterior motive being "it's how I know how to act."
Would you consider that a personal beneficial reason?
| Quote: |
When did I EVER say that doing something nice for someone else is a chore?
|
I never said you did. What I said was:
| Quote: |
Why do you keep on talking as if doing something for the sake of someone else is some chore you have to go out of your way to do?
|
| Quote: |
That just proves you have no clue what this debate is even talking about.
|
Well, you are right about one thing. It does prove something.
However, what it proves is that you don't understand my position in this thread.
I'm not even debating on topic, if you haven't realized. But if I was, I would be on the same side as you are. We are in agreement. I evem said so 2 or 3 of my posts ago. The only thing that I disagree with is your point that people require a selfish motive to want to do something. (Positive or negative)
Seriously, if you don't believe me, go check my first post!
| Quote: |
I can't agree with this. Although I somewhat agree with your statement, your point is easily contradicted.
|
I'm agree with you that altruism can't exist. But I am just disagreeing with that one single point you made. I'm not arguing on the same topic as everyone else, only against a single point you made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371729 is a reply to message #371463] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 00:38 |
 |
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
To believe that altruism does not exist, is to say that all Bhuddists are driven by personal, selfish motivations. This is not true.
I'm compelled to do something when I see the needs of other people. This is not out of a feeling of guilt, or to relieve my own guilt, because I feel none. It isn't to make me feel better about myself through charitable actions, I just feel the need to free people from suffering. This feeling comes from empathy, and the empathy comes from meditation, which leads me to strive towards freeing people from suffering.
Besides, believing that altruism doesn't exist must mean you do not believe in unconditional love, surely?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371735 is a reply to message #371463] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 02:48 |
SSADMVR
Messages: 274
Registered: June 2006
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
|
Ehh, you´re dumb. There is no possiblilty to have empathy with a person you never met or seen in your life. You can´t picture the person, it´s just an empty space in your mind. The reason you think you feel empathy for these people is because it´s been taught to you that, that is the way to feel if you´re a decent human being.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371738 is a reply to message #371735] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 03:27 |
|
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| SSADMVR wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 04:48 |
Ehh, you´re dumb. There is no possiblilty to have empathy with a person you never met or seen in your life. You can´t picture the person, it´s just an empty space in your mind. The reason you think you feel empathy for these people is because it´s been taught to you that, that is the way to feel if you´re a decent human being.
|
Meditation enhances the interdependence, integration, and cohesion of self.
The path to enlightenment and the pursuit of freeing all man-kind from suffering gives you empathy with the world.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371740 is a reply to message #371729] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 04:03 |
|
|
| reborn wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 02:38 |
To believe that altruism does not exist, is to say that all Bhuddists are driven by personal, selfish motivations. This is not true.
I'm compelled to do something when I see the needs of other people. This is not out of a feeling of guilt, or to relieve my own guilt, because I feel none. It isn't to make me feel better about myself through charitable actions, I just feel the need to free people from suffering. This feeling comes from empathy, and the empathy comes from meditation, which leads me to strive towards freeing people from suffering.
Besides, believing that altruism doesn't exist must mean you do not believe in unconditional love, surely?
|
Okay, how about this. Say you see someone that you're compelled to help, but you choose to just ignore the situation instead of acting on it. Would you feel guilt for your lack of action? If so, you're clearly acting out of self-interest.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371752 is a reply to message #371463] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 05:59 |
|
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
I do not choose to help people out of some feeling of guilt, because I do not feel any. Nor do I do it out of some sort of self gratification by feeling that my charitable deed somehow makes me a better person. I just as equally do not feel guilty about choosing not to help someone, I do not feel ashamed or have any sense of moral wrong. It is as it is, and it's all part of the journey, so no, I feel no guilt.
I really feel that you under estimate compasion and empathy.
If you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, then that's fine, it's just the internets afterall. But if you're serious about not believing in altruism, and are willing to look at another point of view, then a very good example would be to research a little about the lesser vehicle and the greater vehicle, or just Buhddism in general.
Even the pursuit of enlightenment is sought for the purposes of freeing other people from suffering.
I will agree though that true cases of selflessness tend to be rare.
Nice debate, some interesting points of views.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371757 is a reply to message #371463] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 06:28 |
|
|
You can't have empathy without feeling SOMETHING in some form.
1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
If you don't feel guilty about NOT doing something, then it's NOT empathy, and it's NOT altruism. It's, once again, done in self-interest.
Besides, if you don't feel, how in the HELL is that enlightenment? That sounds a lot more like sociopathy.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371758 is a reply to message #371571] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 06:29 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Wed, 11 February 2009 08:30 |
Oh, give me a break. You cannot possibly think those are two examples of altruism.
Doing something for the good of others and not expecting anything in return still gives someone something in return. A sense of accomplishment, a civic duty fulfilled, or just the joy of giving.
Just because something could have been done instead doesn't change the fact that some benefit was gained. It makes it less practical, maybe, but not altruistic.
|
That wasn't what you said.
| Quote: |
Then, you're not doing it out of altruism. You're doing it, so that it benefits you in some way.
|
This implies that the reason a good deed is done is to reap the benefits (sense of accomplishment etc) - which is very often false. It certainly is in the two examples I mentioned.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371765 is a reply to message #371463] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 07:17 |
|
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 08:28 |
You can't have empathy without feeling SOMETHING in some form.
1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
If you don't feel guilty about NOT doing something, then it's NOT empathy, and it's NOT altruism. It's, once again, done in self-interest.
Besides, if you don't feel, how in the HELL is that enlightenment? That sounds a lot more like sociopathy.
|
I've never heard anyone compare it to sociopathy, you made me laugh out loud. But less humoursly, this is not the case.
My motivation in helping people comes from a desire to free people from suffering.
You could argue that because I desire this, then there is in a certain sense a form of ego. There is something in it for me...
My desire has been gratified by my good deed. Which is what I think is your point and what you are trying to argue. Which is most cases is likely to be true.
However, my desire is only to see people freed from suffering, nothing more. That sentence is important to understand. I only wish for all sentient life's freedom from suffering, which is a perfect case and exact example of altruism, infact it is pretty much the definition of it.
Any happiness, or joy I feel from this act is merely a by-product, my real desire is there freedom from suffering; a selfless act. My motivation, my reasoning for doing it, is purely to free them from suffering.
I guess it comes down to if you can believe that someones motivation can be the other persons happiness, and if you feel better for doing this, then this is just a by-product and not the motivation for doing such acts.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371770 is a reply to message #371463] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 08:01 |
|
|
The thing is, you CAN'T have an unselfish concern for someone else and their well-being. You said it yourself, it's your motivation and desire to see them free from suffering.
Yes, joy and happiness that you gain from it is a by-product. It wouldn't make sense if it wasn't. You don't feel the same sense of accomplishment if you simply think "today, I'm going to help someone".
Basically, I don't see how you can perform an unselfish act. You'd basically have to unknowingly perform an act that benefited someone in some way. Though, you then wouldn't perform that act consciously OR subconsciously, so it doesn't really count.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371772 is a reply to message #371463] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 08:13 |
bisen11
Messages: 797
Registered: December 2004
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
I sent my freind a birthday present in the mail a few days ago and not for any kind of reward.
I've been tutoring my younger sister in algebra recently because I care about her. I'd rather just be lazy and surf the internet.
Altruism exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371775 is a reply to message #371761] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 08:35 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 07:35 |
Well, that's not what I meant.
|
Then clarify it for me.
If I do a good thing and end up feeling good because of it or getting some other benefit, am I thereby demonstrated to be "selfish" even if I wasn't expecting the benefit, or if it had absolutely no bearing on my decision to perform the good deed?
I got a reward, so therefore I'm selfish in doing the work which earned it, even if I didn't know I'd get the reward or didn't care?
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371782 is a reply to message #371770] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 10:14 |
|
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 10:01 |
The thing is, you CAN'T have an unselfish concern for someone else and their well-being. You said it yourself, it's your motivation and desire to see them free from suffering.
Yes, joy and happiness that you gain from it is a by-product. It wouldn't make sense if it wasn't. You don't feel the same sense of accomplishment if you simply think "today, I'm going to help someone".
Basically, I don't see how you can perform an unselfish act. You'd basically have to unknowingly perform an act that benefited someone in some way. Though, you then wouldn't perform that act consciously OR subconsciously, so it doesn't really count.
|
My desire is to see them freed from suffering. My desire is not to see them freed from suffering because it makes me happy, I know you are debating the reasoning for the desire has to come from a selfish motivation, however my reasoning for this desire comes from compassion.
I realise you think that this feeling of compassion is the selfish act, by relieving there suffering I feel better, because I want to see the end of there suffering. However, my feeling better about the situation is not my motivation, my motivation is the desire to see them freed from suffering.
You believe the mere act of fulfilling your desire is a selfish one, even if the desire is a selfless notion?
And really, by your definition there is no such thing a selfless notion, because every thought we have is basically about ourselves in someway?
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I can see your point of view.
By this reasoning, does that mean that no Christian would get into Christian Heaven? There love for Christ and the Holy Father is not not selflessly given, but rather out of hope of favour? Or a place in heaven, some after-life reward, or just because it makes them feel good to worship. Or irrelevant of there motivation, the mere acts of Christianity themselves are enough to grant entry, God loves them anyway regardless of there reason for worship?
Infact, if no one is capable of a selfless act, does that mean that no religions God's love for its followers in unconditional? The deity itself loves you because he has a desire that needs to be fulfilled too?
Do humans only marry eachother, not out of love, but out of selfishness? They do not really want to spend there lives making the other person happy, but really only want to feel good because they are making that person happy, or perhaps even less noble desires.
If I stop someone from throwing themselves off a bridge to commit suicide, I talk them into choosing life. I do this because I don't want them to die, I don't want them to die because I value life, and because O got what I wanted, this is selfish?
You've given me allot to think about, I hope you're not right, I feel that you probably aren't, but I'm not as sure as I once was.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371789 is a reply to message #371463] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 10:31 |
|
|
I think you misunderstand the concept of self-interest a little bit. You are insinuating that all selfishness is a bad thing and that it's a corruption of sorts. I don't believe that, at all. It certainly can BE a corruption of the mind/soul/heart, etc..., but I don't feel that it has to be.
I assume that in Buddhism, you live your life in a way to be enlightened among other things. You're acting in self-interest, but it's not "selfish" in the way that the world sees selfishness. You're not trying to put yourself above anyone else, and you're certainly not trying to push anyone down. You're simply trying to progress as a person, and helping others along the way. Certainly bettering yourself is not "selfish", but it is acting in self-interest.
Of course, acting in a self-destructive manner IS a selfish act, and selfishness is a negative form of egoism.
Like I said, acting in self-interest doesn't have to be done with the intent to reap the benefits. That's the difference between someone you can see as moral versus someone as immoral. It's what one seeks to get out of it.
You brought up love. People don't get into love because it's "what humans do". You have a desire to be with someone and make them happy. If you can do that, then you succeed in your desire. You benefit from the sense of fulfillment, and you benefit from getting love in return (hopefully) from your partner.
Edit: Of course, there's also people who like relationships to control someone else, but then that's just an obvious case of egoism. Then there's arranged marriages which is to not shame one's family/culture/religion by refusing.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
[Updated on: Thu, 12 February 2009 10:47] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371791 is a reply to message #371463] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 10:54 |
|
reborn
Messages: 3231
Registered: September 2004
Location: uk - london
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
In it's simplest form that I can think of, you're saying that whatever you do, you do it because you want to do it. Whether that want is to free someone from suffering or not, you are still fulfilling that want. That actually makes sense to me, I need to contemplate this. I'm not sure if this is a clever twist of words, merely semantics, or you are in fact right.
I am extremely curious if you believe in a God, or some deity. And if so, do you believe they are capable of a selfless act?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371798 is a reply to message #371779] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 11:24 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 10:07 |
If there was no benefit, you wouldn't do it. You feel like it's the right thing to do, so you fulfill that desire to do the right thing.
|
This is just wordplay; by this non-logic doing anything can be considered selfish. To do a thing (unless perhaps something of pure instinctive reflex, like pulling your hand away from something you didn't know was really really hot) you first desired to do it, so by fulfilling your desire to do it, you acted selfishly.
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 10:07 |
Either that or you were attempting to avoid guilt that you would have if you didn't do something.
|
I don't really think that's applicable.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371799 is a reply to message #371463] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 11:35 |
|
|
That is the point of what I'm saying, Spoony. That's the entire point of psychological egoism. Nothing is selfless.
In conventional terms, sure, there are selfless acts. You're putting someone else's well-being in front of your own. However, there's still something to be gained from it, and you do the acts because of that.
@reborn: Ultimately, yes, you would do it because you want to do it. Either you do it because you gain something positive from it, or you avoid something negative.
As for a god, I believe in a personal god, but I don't really know the characteristics of the god. As for ANY god... I'm not sure if it's possible. If the god thinks and acts as humans do, no, I can't say I think it's possible. If we talk in terms of the Judeo-Christian god, no, He's not capable of being altruistic, either.
Personally, I wouldn't know how any supernatural being would go about avoiding any self-interest. As a human, I can't fathom it, but I'm not going to say that it's supernaturally impossible.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Debate on Altruism. [message #371801 is a reply to message #371799] |
Thu, 12 February 2009 11:57 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 12 February 2009 19:35 |
That is the point of what I'm saying, Spoony. That's the entire point of psychological egoism. Nothing is selfless.
In conventional terms, sure, there are selfless acts. You're putting someone else's well-being in front of your own. However, there's still something to be gained from it, and you do the acts because of that.
|
The last eight words are where the problem is for me. It's plainly not the case in either of the two examples I gave.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed May 15 12:10:05 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01260 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
