Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Morality & Society Altruism -- a load of piffle?

I can hardly be in a position to define a word for a motivation that I do not think exists, Ardy. In other words, I am not trying to prove the existance of that which I consider non-existant.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

And you know this .... how exactly?

I am not seeking to define it, Ardy. I presented several definitions of others who were supportive of 'altruism'. If you have more -- without engaging in a complete dilation of definition -- that you think are valid, bring them on.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Thank you, Phil. And I also appreciate your signature line.

Some time ago I came up with a sententia which expresses much the same thought:

Your mind is not your friend.

It sometimes flickers among my thoughts when I read certain postings.

I think many people need to be altruistic toward themselves.

...and maybe eat fruit more often.

Except for the very last of your examples, none of the others necessarily fits the "more formal" definition, iss. It's no wonder you think altruism is a "load of piffle." People don't engage in public service selflessly. They make their choices based on what excites them, inspires them, gives them a sense of wholeness or appeals to their sympathies. People generally engage in political activities that are similarly beneficial to them. And often people's choices of charities is based on personal connections - relatives, loved ones, or one's own experiences. None of those represent any sort of self-denial.

It's only when the "must" is added on that we begin to see the influence of Comte. And even then, if one is imposed upon to engage in altruistic actions, the irony is that it would no longer be considered altruistic because one is not doing it willingly. That's the point of departure from Comte's definition to the modern usage.

Of course they are! At least, in part. That's exactly my point. A point you are apparently unwilling to concede based on the narrow, myopic view that any vestige of self-interest in one's actions precludes defining them as "altruistic".

You are of course entitled to define it any way you like, and dismiss it summarily. But the rest of humanity is entitled to accept the more colloquial definition because, for the sake of effective communications, it is helpful to take the meaning of words as they are commonly used.

Why do you insist on denying the validity of other people's experiences?

A thought interestingly presented in T. S. Elliott's Becket play--Murder in the Cathedral, I think it's called.

Setting aside for the moment the curtain of mysticism being generously applied, much as you might want it to "seem" "natural", you apparently did what rewarded you, motivated by a desire to interact with those you say you benefited, more than you were motivated to not interact with them. It was to your greater satisfaction than not to do so. What you did may have been a good thing to do, but this thing called altruism did not enter into it.
Yours,
Issodhos
P.s. The toy thingie? I too often wondered about that until I figured out what the answer was.;-)

I guess that must be true, since you say so.

-

Numan, a question: what is the value of humoring slugs?
Purely a philosophical inquiry.