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

Good discussion...
Am inclined to go along with Ardy... in seeing this as as a personal thing (if I read him correctly).

Seems as if Altruism requires some degree of personal sacrifice, when it comes to the practice thereof, but as an ideal... as "altruistic", isn't it akin to "do unto others"? And further, isn't this a matter of personal perception?

How about this for argument's sake...
Perhaps GWB's vision of "Freedom" could be said to be altruistic. Would the view of an Iraqi be the same, or would it be more "altruistic" to be left to the ideals of the Sunni or Shia... which doesn't interpret "freedom" in the same manner, but may relate more to the tenets of the faith, and the government that they have lived with, and understand.

In any case, I see "altruism" as a personal perception, which I think is inextricably wound with empathy.

There are many actions in life that have no positive or negative consequences for the actor. For example, yesterday I found a pair of eyeglasses in my cart at the grocery store. I would not have been condemned nor charged any cost for ignoring them and leaving them there. I also gained no advantage from turning them in at the store. Nobody there knows my name or where I live and the person whose glasses they were will, if reunited with the glasses will never know who turned them in. So I gain no advantage from dropping them at the customer service desk as I passed by it on the way through the store.

Common civility neither expects nor welcomes reward.

The root notion behind common civility is that we all benefit by its practice, a concept that existed before Comte and that survives him. That he chose to put a "special" label on it and add some moral burden to persuade others to follow it neither aggrandizes nor diminishes the concept.

Sadly, we have some who must label everything, then must spend large amounts of time attacking the labels.

For pointless endeavor, I prefer golf.

I would say that altruism is a social value judgement that we are each individually, and collectively better off in a society where we act according to the (modified) golden rule (thanks to itstarted) IE people should try to act independently of their narrow interests when those narrow interests would cause them to act in a manner that they would not encourage others to act if they had no narrow interest.

This definition makes no claim that the individual has no interest in the final outcome since it assumes that generally everyone will be better off if everyone abides by this principal... although it is understood that in any specific situation the instantaneous results might be narrowly less favorable for you.... IE someone incorrectly gives you too much change at a garage sale and you have to decide whether to return the excess money.

So, your 'argument' is that my view is narrow and myopic because I provided several definitions from different people without making up one of my own? I would suggest that you are not in a position to know what definition the rest of humanity accepts. I would encourage you to provide other working definitions from which to argue if that will make it easier for you to get to where it is you want to go, stereoman.
Yours,
Issodhos

If Stereoman is not in a position to know what definition the rest of humanity accepts, then how, pray tell, are you in a position to tell us what motivates the actions of all people?

Are you identifying this as "altruistic", or are you simply working a strawman, loganrbt? When did advantage enter into the conversation? How does the fact that you did something nice speak for or against the issue of "atruism"?
Yours,
Issodhos

I am not familiar with the concept of atruism. Are you introducing a new topic?

Oh, there are many motivators, loganrbt. But, I do not think this thing called "altruism" is one of them.
Yours,
Issodhos

For you, I am certain it is not. But you have gone beyond that point, insisting it is not for anyone else either. At a minimum, an incredibly powerful suggestion of omniscience.

No, my 'observation' is that you provided several definitions but steadfastly refused to consider any except the one that is most alienated from contemporary experience.

Agreed. That is why I consulted a dozen or so different dictionaries.

Thanks for that. Very altruistic of you, iss.