The more formal usage is seen in such things as public service, charitable activities, political activities and even the idea that society must be redesigned to be based on altruism.
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.
Whether it be Mother Theresa, Save the Children, community organizers, Habitat for Humanity, etc., they are motivated to satisfy their own needs, desires, and expectations.
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.
How does one voluntarily do what one chooses to do and then try to claim it is not motivated by a satisfaction to self?
Yours,
Issodhos
Why do you insist on denying the validity of other people's experiences?
