- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
It is alright to be just a Linux user
|
|
Comments (181)
161 earlier comments in the full thread.
jdixon -
>But they act because they want what they believe to be the result of that action.
I think he's also drifted away from any meaningful defnition of altruism. Altruism does not require you not to want the result of your action. It requires that you act for the benefit of others, without regard for your own well-being. That is true even if the end result of the action ends up enhancing your own well-being.
Some mighty twisted and silly arguments in this thread, departing mightily from the actually meaning of altruism. You'd think no action is altruistic unless you got shot in the process.
>But they act because they want what they believe to be the result of that action.
I think he's also drifted away from any meaningful defnition of altruism. Altruism does not require you not to want the result of your action. It requires that you act for the benefit of others, without regard for your own well-being. That is true even if the end result of the action ends up enhancing your own well-being.
Some mighty twisted and silly arguments in this thread, departing mightily from the actually meaning of altruism. You'd think no action is altruistic unless you got shot in the process.
> You'd think no action is altruistic unless you got shot in the process.
Aye. Yet the most common reason I've seen for actions which might be considered altruistic is not that you get some benefit, but rather that it doesn't cost you anything to do it. Holding the door for the person behind you doesn't cost most people anything. Unless you're on a tight schedule, stopping to help someone with a flat or dead battery doesn't cost you anything. There's normally no benefit to you, but it doesn't hurt you. That's reason enough for most people to do it.
Aye. Yet the most common reason I've seen for actions which might be considered altruistic is not that you get some benefit, but rather that it doesn't cost you anything to do it. Holding the door for the person behind you doesn't cost most people anything. Unless you're on a tight schedule, stopping to help someone with a flat or dead battery doesn't cost you anything. There's normally no benefit to you, but it doesn't hurt you. That's reason enough for most people to do it.
I think it's in that, and correct me if I'm wrong, you see that doing good for the sake of doing good equates to altruistic behavior. That may well be a meaningful definition for you, personally I see it as meaningless. In that it lowers the bar on altruism, which IMHO takes a special definition of character, to anyone with a free half hour and small modicum of ambition.
It's a difference of degrees, the comment of getting shot in the process is not too far off the mark of where my bar for altruism is. It's does not need to meet the requirements of a sanctioned miracle, but it's pretty close. I need not subscribe to your lesser theory, if I interpreted it correctly, nor you to mine, the truth may well be somewhere in between, I dont think I see us disagreeing on calling something a good deed, just whether or not it was altruistic.
It's a difference of degrees, the comment of getting shot in the process is not too far off the mark of where my bar for altruism is. It's does not need to meet the requirements of a sanctioned miracle, but it's pretty close. I need not subscribe to your lesser theory, if I interpreted it correctly, nor you to mine, the truth may well be somewhere in between, I dont think I see us disagreeing on calling something a good deed, just whether or not it was altruistic.
azer -
Boy! You people are cold.
In my view, a guy who mentors a kid because he thinks people should give back is engaging in an altruistic act, and the very definition of the word would support me in that.
Altruism requires nothing more than selfless sacrificial acts, not heroism or sainthood.
Doing little niceties because it doesn't cost you anything does not rise to that level, because there is little or no cost involved.
Boy! You people are cold.
In my view, a guy who mentors a kid because he thinks people should give back is engaging in an altruistic act, and the very definition of the word would support me in that.
Altruism requires nothing more than selfless sacrificial acts, not heroism or sainthood.
Doing little niceties because it doesn't cost you anything does not rise to that level, because there is little or no cost involved.
> Doing little niceties because it doesn't cost you anything does not rise to that level, because there is little or no cost involved.
I'm willing to grant the point, but by the strict definition of term (given somewhere above), they do. That's why I used the example. Whether or not that is a good working definition, or even the one most people use is a debatable matter.
We seem to have two trends here. On the side of those who claim there is little or no altruism, they consider any trifle to be a reward for the act (even making you feel good) sufficient to render the act non-altruistic. On the other hand, we can consider any act done out of kindness for no reward (no matter how minor) to be altruistic. In both cases, the results is to render the terms meaningless.
I will grant that for an act to truly be considered altruistic, there most be some effort or cost involved. But it's also true that considering "making me feel good" an adequate reason for performing an act which may entail personal danger or considerable financial cost (thus attempting to remove it from the category or altruism) is unreasonable.
And on that note, I have a long drive to make, so I'll drop out of the conversation for the reaminder of the day.
I'm willing to grant the point, but by the strict definition of term (given somewhere above), they do. That's why I used the example. Whether or not that is a good working definition, or even the one most people use is a debatable matter.
We seem to have two trends here. On the side of those who claim there is little or no altruism, they consider any trifle to be a reward for the act (even making you feel good) sufficient to render the act non-altruistic. On the other hand, we can consider any act done out of kindness for no reward (no matter how minor) to be altruistic. In both cases, the results is to render the terms meaningless.
I will grant that for an act to truly be considered altruistic, there most be some effort or cost involved. But it's also true that considering "making me feel good" an adequate reason for performing an act which may entail personal danger or considerable financial cost (thus attempting to remove it from the category or altruism) is unreasonable.
And on that note, I have a long drive to make, so I'll drop out of the conversation for the reaminder of the day.
Well for some reason you guys have made a long arc around the point that the whole dichotomy between altruistic and self-interested, selfless and selfish, may actually be false. Nobody even agreed nor disagreed with that, yet IMHO what I keep seeing is the evidence of confusion caused by trying to desperately stick to this dichotomy.
Like Dinotrac, why would you call anyone cold if for some weird reason their "bar" of altruism is lower? I guess you see the label "altruist" as one that is desirable and good and must be applied to someone every time he does something you feel is good or else we're "cold" about it.. I don't know how to say this.. there really seems to be a deep chasm between our mentalities. I don't measure people's goodness by how "selfless" they are. I recognize that no act would be made if it wasn't for, even if deep and subconscious, reason based on the values of the individual in question.
I feel you simply skipped the last arguments I had to make for it and went on with the superficials of the issue, no offense. Though at least you inspired me to write an article about this (possibly on my blog or soon to be opened site about individualism) where I'd start with clear cut definitions and then examine human action bottom up, from the deepest mental processes I know of involving the subconscious to the conscious. I simply feel I'm not even getting through to anyone (and I assume Bob as well) here.
Cheers
Like Dinotrac, why would you call anyone cold if for some weird reason their "bar" of altruism is lower? I guess you see the label "altruist" as one that is desirable and good and must be applied to someone every time he does something you feel is good or else we're "cold" about it.. I don't know how to say this.. there really seems to be a deep chasm between our mentalities. I don't measure people's goodness by how "selfless" they are. I recognize that no act would be made if it wasn't for, even if deep and subconscious, reason based on the values of the individual in question.
I feel you simply skipped the last arguments I had to make for it and went on with the superficials of the issue, no offense. Though at least you inspired me to write an article about this (possibly on my blog or soon to be opened site about individualism) where I'd start with clear cut definitions and then examine human action bottom up, from the deepest mental processes I know of involving the subconscious to the conscious. I simply feel I'm not even getting through to anyone (and I assume Bob as well) here.
Cheers
Lib, actually, something that Dino said I completely agree with:
> Altruism does not require you not to want the result of your action. It requires that you act for the benefit of others, without regard for your own well-being. That is true even if the end result of the action ends up enhancing your own well-being.
I see the problem here as one of intent. If the intent of the one who acts is to benefit others, the fulfillment of that intent gives them satisfaction.
It is not "selfless" because the of the fulfilled intent. The "self" initiated the action for a specific reason, the "self" is satisfied.
I don't understand the attachment to "selfless". So long as "selfless" must be part of the definition of "altruistic", then an altruistic act can only occur by accident.
Take the "selfless" out of it as Dino did in this isolated paragraph, let "altruistic" mean actions taken specifically with regard for the benefit of others, and I don't think there's any argument here at all.
> Altruism does not require you not to want the result of your action. It requires that you act for the benefit of others, without regard for your own well-being. That is true even if the end result of the action ends up enhancing your own well-being.
I see the problem here as one of intent. If the intent of the one who acts is to benefit others, the fulfillment of that intent gives them satisfaction.
It is not "selfless" because the of the fulfilled intent. The "self" initiated the action for a specific reason, the "self" is satisfied.
I don't understand the attachment to "selfless". So long as "selfless" must be part of the definition of "altruistic", then an altruistic act can only occur by accident.
Take the "selfless" out of it as Dino did in this isolated paragraph, let "altruistic" mean actions taken specifically with regard for the benefit of others, and I don't think there's any argument here at all.
I remain calloused, probably because one of the daily annoyances is getting stuck at a 4 way stop on the road, not because the other guy is being a jerk, but because you have 3 or 4 people trying to let the other guy go first and it's the guy who gets annoyed first goes first. When you live with that kind of interpersonal decency on a daily basis its an easy reminder that being nice is not the same as being altruistic.
Thanks Bob,
Well, that's if accepting such definition of altruism, in which case I agree there isn't much of an argument left. But such definition of altruism doesn't involve selflessness or sacrifice of self which is what I included in the definition of altruism and which I think most people include. AFAIK, altruism and selflessness are generally considered synonymous and since so much "goodness" is attributed to selflessness altruism is considered moral, which results in viewing selfishness as the opposite and thus immoral.
That's where the biggest reason for my hung up lies. This dichotomy easily misleads people into a trap of considering all self interested pursuits as immoral, and since all human pursuits effectively ARE for self interested, it's like calling every living and breeding human being evil. The ultimate moral thing then becomes to simply kill yourself in order to, indeed altruistically, save resources for consumption by others. This extreme of modern morality would have the whole human race suicide. No wonder Ayn Rand's John Galt called it "The Morality of Death".
The reason this extreme never occurs is because people somehow deep down know it is a lie. They have to keep a facade of selflessness when necessary to be accepted in this upside down society, but remain quietly self-interested individuals. They cannot not to be. They are human. And it almost makes me want to weep when I see philosophies and organizations bandied about which effectively seek to dehumanize people like this. I've had enough of it and I am going to help change the thinking of many people. If I seem hot headed sometimes, that's why. If someone fails to understand, well I'm sorry. Can't win everyone.
Cheers
Quoting:Take the "selfless" out of it as Dino did in this isolated paragraph, let "altruistic" mean actions taken specifically with regard for the benefit of others, and I don't think there's any argument here at all.
Well, that's if accepting such definition of altruism, in which case I agree there isn't much of an argument left. But such definition of altruism doesn't involve selflessness or sacrifice of self which is what I included in the definition of altruism and which I think most people include. AFAIK, altruism and selflessness are generally considered synonymous and since so much "goodness" is attributed to selflessness altruism is considered moral, which results in viewing selfishness as the opposite and thus immoral.
That's where the biggest reason for my hung up lies. This dichotomy easily misleads people into a trap of considering all self interested pursuits as immoral, and since all human pursuits effectively ARE for self interested, it's like calling every living and breeding human being evil. The ultimate moral thing then becomes to simply kill yourself in order to, indeed altruistically, save resources for consumption by others. This extreme of modern morality would have the whole human race suicide. No wonder Ayn Rand's John Galt called it "The Morality of Death".
The reason this extreme never occurs is because people somehow deep down know it is a lie. They have to keep a facade of selflessness when necessary to be accepted in this upside down society, but remain quietly self-interested individuals. They cannot not to be. They are human. And it almost makes me want to weep when I see philosophies and organizations bandied about which effectively seek to dehumanize people like this. I've had enough of it and I am going to help change the thinking of many people. If I seem hot headed sometimes, that's why. If someone fails to understand, well I'm sorry. Can't win everyone.
Cheers
> it's like calling every living and breeding human being evil.
You're not Catholic, obviously. :^)
I agree with you, the problem is the delusion that "benefiting others" for some reason requires "detrimenting one's self". It may even be the source of much of the anti-capitalist tendencies to assume that someone who is wealthy must have gotten that way by exploiting others.
It does seem that people with that gut reaction cannot be convinced of its falsity. Cheers indeed.
You're not Catholic, obviously. :^)
I agree with you, the problem is the delusion that "benefiting others" for some reason requires "detrimenting one's self". It may even be the source of much of the anti-capitalist tendencies to assume that someone who is wealthy must have gotten that way by exploiting others.
It does seem that people with that gut reaction cannot be convinced of its falsity. Cheers indeed.
On the subject of "altruism", I submit this little article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7791278.stm
"Decades after a notorious experiment, scientists have found test subjects are still willing to inflict pain on others - if told to by an authority figure."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7791278.stm
"Decades after a notorious experiment, scientists have found test subjects are still willing to inflict pain on others - if told to by an authority figure."
So Bob -
When drunken louts go into a French museum and slash a painting, how does that reflect on the artist?
When drunken louts go into a French museum and slash a painting, how does that reflect on the artist?
Hahahaha. I'd say the act has only the most passing relation to the artist at all, any more than driving a Chevy in a demolition derby is a comment on General Motors.
I believe in individual responsibility first. A drunken lout is responsible for his actions, the artist for theirs. Let's hope the artist kept backups! :^)
I believe in individual responsibility first. A drunken lout is responsible for his actions, the artist for theirs. Let's hope the artist kept backups! :^)
dino, I'd call it improving the quality of art in existence. Most of what people call art, they really dont like that much, but the pretentious people have convinced them that it has some value. The Mona Lisa, if done today, would be one of those un numbered prints that grace the walls of so many no star hotels that are trying for the 'we have some class' look.
Wow, this thread really has digressed beyond repair. Here is a little more contribution.
@Bob
@Libervis
@Bob
Quoting: It is not "selfless" because the of the fulfilled intent. The "self" initiated the action for a specific reason, the "self" is satisfied.You seem to think that just because an action has a reason, it ceases to be selfless. As others have noted, that the "self" is satisfied or not is besides the point (for instance, the "self" may be dissatisfied due to not being able to execute the action properly).
@Libervis
Quoting: The whole dichotomy between selfish and selfless is completely false.Only because you have not been careful in understanding/articulating their respective meanings.
> that the "self" is satisfied or not is besides the point
I didn't say that the "self" had to be satisfied BY the act, only that it is impossible for a deliberate action to be taken without the "self" concluding first that the act will, right or wrong, achieve more desired results than not acting.
The problem I have with "selfless" is that the only "selfless" act is accidental. Everything else, regardless of its outcome, gets filtered through the "self".
If we restrict "altruistic" merely to a higher regard for others than for one's self, there is no argument. It is the inclusion of "selfless" which has generated such heat.
I didn't say that the "self" had to be satisfied BY the act, only that it is impossible for a deliberate action to be taken without the "self" concluding first that the act will, right or wrong, achieve more desired results than not acting.
The problem I have with "selfless" is that the only "selfless" act is accidental. Everything else, regardless of its outcome, gets filtered through the "self".
If we restrict "altruistic" merely to a higher regard for others than for one's self, there is no argument. It is the inclusion of "selfless" which has generated such heat.
You did say "fulfilled intent" and that "the self is satisfied", so the two combined can only have the meaning which I deduced. Anyway since now you have watered it down to:
Quoting: "self" concluding first that the act will, right or wrong, achieve more desired results than not actingthere is no argument that most deliberate actions are chosen since they are supposed to have more desired results. However, your definition of "selfless" is quite useless:
Quoting: Everything else, regardless of its outcome, gets filtered through the "self".Action being "filtered" by the self (since it has been initiated by it) has little to do with it being or not being selfless. At least none of the usually accepted meanings remotely resemble yours.
krisum -
Yes, "useless" is a good choice of words. If we wish to torture the language sufficiently, we can destroy any word. Eventually, utility matters.
Yes, "useless" is a good choice of words. If we wish to torture the language sufficiently, we can destroy any word. Eventually, utility matters.
That coming from a lawyer ... it's a christmas miracle.
/humor
/humor
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Possibly. But many times even they can't tell you what that reason is. I don't think it's an axiom which can be taken as universally true.
> But they act because they want what they believe to be the result of that action.
Again, you're attempting to judge the motives of another person. Something which time and again has been shown to be a futile effort. As I noted earlier, you cannot know the heart of another person.
You are, of course, free to disagree. :)