Altruism
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 9,368
Likes: 0
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 10,221
Likes: 0
From: Logged Out
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
I guess a true altruist is either dead, anonymous or only accessible through faith. *
* and scoobynet
* and scoobynet
Last edited by JTaylor; Jul 5, 2011 at 09:23 PM. Reason: ETA snet's true altruist.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
JT, I can't answer for your Mother, though what she does is simply top shelf and it isn't something she needs to keep telling people at every available opportunity making it more worthy in my book. My Mother did the same then moved onto another avenue equally daunting, all costing her financially too. Now she looks after several oldies in a non formal capacity, because she can. Does she 'need' to care? Possibly. However, it isn't necessary to her existence. I believe it is normal, she taught me so. The kind of 'normal' children today and even their parents never experienced or recognised, hence the mess this country is in.
Some people are born to put others first and certainly if their circumstances allow, it is made easier, it is natural. I can honestly say I've helped others to my cost on many occasions but then I never entered into helping to gain and a loss in someway is just that, a loss, no biggie.
Regardless of an individuals take on a truly altruistic act, you'll always have others being suspicious and if you like, pedantic where the word truly is concerned.
Some people are born to put others first and certainly if their circumstances allow, it is made easier, it is natural. I can honestly say I've helped others to my cost on many occasions but then I never entered into helping to gain and a loss in someway is just that, a loss, no biggie.
Regardless of an individuals take on a truly altruistic act, you'll always have others being suspicious and if you like, pedantic where the word truly is concerned.
People should continue to to perform "giving without gain" acts, doesn't matter whether they are pedantically (
) and analytically, the "truly" altruistic acts or not.So far suspicious ones are concerned, a true compassionist (if not "pure" altruist) will never cease to be compassionate to others, regardless of all those doubting minds.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 10,221
Likes: 0
From: Logged Out
Spoon, I can understand that it becomes a second nature to be charitable, if you have been brought up with such values, and if you were born with compassion for others. This second nature still has something to do with some gain. It could be simply an act to make oneself feel better. I may have helped others like you have, with no expectation of any return whatsoever. but why did I help them at first place??? Its because It hurt me to see them hurt. I wanted to take their hurt away so that I stopped hurting. So, there was a gain for me. I may not call it "purely" altruistic, but I would certainly recognise it as a compassionate act.
People should continue to to perform "giving without gain" acts, doesn't matter whether they are pedantically () and analytically, the "truly" altruistic acts or not.
So far suspicious ones are concerned, a true compassionist (if not "pure" altruist) will never cease to be compassionate to others, regardless of all those doubting minds.
People should continue to to perform "giving without gain" acts, doesn't matter whether they are pedantically (
) and analytically, the "truly" altruistic acts or not.So far suspicious ones are concerned, a true compassionist (if not "pure" altruist) will never cease to be compassionate to others, regardless of all those doubting minds.
I suspect the only true altruistic acts are committed by those that are dead. Doing something for others that you didn't have time to think about and in doing so losing your life.
Failing that, only a robot could perform a truly altruistic act without feeling some sort of personal wellbeing, even if that wasn't the original motive for a human.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 10,221
Likes: 0
From: Logged Out
In animals, altruistic behaviour is often proportional to the genetic closeness of the giver to the receiver. Children first, brothers and sisters next, etc.
"Nice" behaviour often occurs in populations, but usually because it is part of a stable mixture of behaviours. Mutualistic behaviour is often the most beneficial behaviour for all parties concerned, but there are great rewards to be reaped by any individual who bucks the trend by receiving favours without reciprocating. If that (genetically determined) behaviour becomes too prevalent, however, the whole population may suffer and mutualistic behaviour regains the upper hand.
"Nice" behaviour often occurs in populations, but usually because it is part of a stable mixture of behaviours. Mutualistic behaviour is often the most beneficial behaviour for all parties concerned, but there are great rewards to be reaped by any individual who bucks the trend by receiving favours without reciprocating. If that (genetically determined) behaviour becomes too prevalent, however, the whole population may suffer and mutualistic behaviour regains the upper hand.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
She is totally selfless, would give her last penny away to help someone else, is only to eager to help the elderly making sure they are getting the best out of life, and will always put her own requirements last in the queue.
She is wholly respected by all who know her.
That should be enough to be going on with!
Les
She is wholly respected by all who know her.
That should be enough to be going on with!
Les
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
She is totally selfless, would give her last penny away to help someone else, is only to eager to help the elderly making sure they are getting the best out of life, and will always put her own requirements last in the queue.
She is wholly respected by all who know her.
That should be enough to be going on with!
Les
She is wholly respected by all who know her.
That should be enough to be going on with!
Les
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
With I-though intervention, my comments were generic, not person-specific.
Even the dead ones would have a desire to fulfill i.e. saving someone's life. So, there was a transaction in their pre-thought.
Yes, one will have to be a superhuman or a feelingless robot to be "truly" altruistic. For the humans that actually invented this word known as altruism, they are fine accepting and declaring that they are compassionists, and that is good enough IMO. It is rare to find a true compassionist, nevermind a true altruist.
I suspect the only true altruistic acts are committed by those that are dead. Doing something for others that you didn't have time to think about and in doing so losing your life.
Failing that, only a robot could perform a truly altruistic act without feeling some sort of personal wellbeing, even if that wasn't the original motive for a human.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 10,221
Likes: 0
From: Logged Out
Picture a child running into the road, car travelling towards said child at speed. Adult immediately turns and runs pushing child clear but gets hit him/herself. Was there pre-thought involved or just a reaction?
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Even if it is an immediate response or a reaction of the kind that you exemplify, the response has a reason behind it. Reasoning is a cognitive process for a normal human brain, hence it can't escape the process of pre-thought. By all means, the adult in your example wouldn't just remain a compassionist, but close to the notion of God to my eyes and mind. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter whether the action is "truly" altruistic or not. Any compasionate act performed for others with none other than spiritual, emotional, and moral gain is noble in my opinion.
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
As I said earlier, looking at altruism through the lense of social or neuro-biologists can lead to a rather gloomy and nihilistic worldview where acts of heroism and martyrdom and greater good are reduced to the desires of selfish genes. I think it's probably best to accept that altruism is the opposite to egoism and that the former adds the value to the human condition that the latter takes away.
Last edited by JTaylor; Jul 9, 2011 at 12:34 AM.
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Even if it is an immediate response or a reaction of the kind that you exemplify, the response has a reason behind it. Reasoning is a cognitive process for a normal human brain, hence it can't escape the process of pre-thought. By all means, the adult in your example wouldn't just remain a compassionist, but close to the notion of God to my eyes and mind. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter whether the action is "truly" altruistic or not. Any compasionate act performed for others with none other than spiritual, emotional, and moral gain is noble in my opinion.
I think the fallibilty of human nature may restrict true altruism, this may be due to genetic/evolutionary reasons.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Les
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 10,221
Likes: 0
From: Logged Out
That kind of reaction was an immediate response. Had any thought gone into it you'd have left it well alone.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 10,221
Likes: 0
From: Logged Out
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
What has brought that upon at random; after such a long time, James? What have you done now?
Not sure.
Dig deeper into your soul.
Not sure.
Dig deeper into your soul.
