Would you like that to be done to you one day? I mean, if you become homeless?

 

Indeed. , course you'd need keep your religious leanings closely under wraps in the Taylor household

 

That will do.

No further questions.

 

I swapped a tyre for an old lady the other day. Good deal, I thought.

 

is there anything truly abiding to the defenition?

how can a thought through act not have a subsequent, reaction be that physical or emotional.
i give money to charities and homless people - and i dont walk away to never ever think of it again - i usually have a feeling of somekind of well being for a short time atleast and then its dismissed to the unused part of my mind, untill the same situation appears again - then i usually act the same again,

thats not true alturism by any stretch, but how can it be any other way?

 

I bet.

 

I'm beginning to regret it, now. She keeps harping on about her lumbago, and expecting me to go out for more cat food.

She doesn't even have a cat.

 

Come on. Be altruistic now. Keep looking after her without expecting her to stop moidering for your sake.

It needn't be.

Just because no act is purely altruistic, does it have to be the total opposite of it i.e. selfish to the bone? Is the gaining in return so bad; may it be physical, emotional or spiritual? IMO not at all. As long as we keep helping others, that's all what matters. The guy who fixed my fence and accepted my money for it was also an angel to me for that time, and the money I gave him would go toward his family expense. Nothing altruistic about it and nothing wrong with that. I helped my neighbour with some stuff that required vision efficiency, as she is a registered blind now. I gained a warm feeling by helping her. Not purely altruistic, and that is fine.

I don't think its a matter of concern that the altruistic acts in their purest form do not exist. A desire to execute a pure altruistic act makes it non-altruistic automatically. Think about it.

 

James ,

Your Mum sounds like a great lady, be proud of her.

Chip

 

I am, Chip, very much so! She puts me to shame.

 

I've let some ugly birds nosh me off, I did it to boost their self esteem. That's quite altruistic.

 

Oh, Ding!


I reckon this kid's wish is quite altruistic>

 

Very good!!

 

Haha.

 

I suppose if I did and I told you lot would it be altruistic anymore?

 

Ive considered doing this numerous times before. Im quite a trusting person but Im not sure I could go through with kicking them out the next day when I get up for work lol

 

What am I supposed to find? The deep down reason for helping someone for no personal benefit?

She needed some help so I help. Not sure if there is anything more to it, does there have to be?

 

What would you consider to be completely selfless? Maybe if you could answer that, you would know if you have seen any such acts, or if you are likely to.

From reading about this, very briefly and picking up a a previous comment you made, you have altruism and egoism. Looking at both definitions, on the one hand there is an unselfish concern for others/their well being, on the other valuing everything only in reference to one's personal interest/selfishness. A very basic understanding on my part, would be to take the view that the initial thinking would determine which category an act would fall into. If a person was to act without thinking about what they might get out of it, then it would fall into the altruistic category, it doesn't matter if they gain any sort of 'reward' after the fact, whether emotionally or materialistically. Just as, if a person was to act only considering what they would/could gain, then I suppose that would fall into the egoism category, even if the end result was a good deed being done.

I personally think it's a little ridiculous to argue the point that if someone thinks they are doing something that might help another, it makes them selfish, which by definition is the case here.

Truthfully, I'm not sure it really matters what 'box' people are placed in. Who are we to decide if somebody's motives are pure or not, and does it really make any difference, in the grand scheme of things?

 

I missed this post before.

Mrs Leslie will take care of an elderly person to an extraordinary degree when they are unable to look after themselves .

The last thing she would ever accept is any kind of reward for doing it.

She always thinks of other people before herself. A really above average person!

Les

 

If not even a little desire to be treated by others in the same way, then some compassion for others at the least?


Edd, what you did was fantastic. Was it humbling? Was it rewarding? If you say you don't know, then you simply aren't aware of how you felt. If you certainly felt absolutely no emotion and simply helped like a robot, then you are a robot with no feelings. I think the chances of latter are feeble, what do you think?

All compassionate acts are executed to satisfy something deep down inside; even if they are executed at the risk of your own life, and even if you end up being dead to feel anything deep down inside afterwards. It is your compassion that drives you
to help others without thinking of your own welfare. Compassion encompasses sympathy for others in need as well as a strong desire to take away their suffering. This compassion of yours receives instant gratification when you take a leap to save someone's life at the cost of your own. Now, even if you died in the act, you had already received something in return i.e. gratification for your compassion- prior to you dying.


The word ‘altruism’ is generally used for the act when there is no apparent expectation in return. We were talking about the total absence of any reward in the purest form of altruism, and this altruism does not exist. Anyhow, does a helping act have to be 'purely' altruistic? I think not. As I said before, as long as we keep helping one another without thinking too much about it being truly altruistic in every sense, isn’t that sufficient?

 

Yes, many times. I never keep a note or share it though

 

I think the concept of a truly altruistic act is problematical for the reason's identified in previous posts. Perhaps the only act where one cannot gain anything is to give one's life for someone else.

However, that's a bit extreme and such occasions are mercifully rare!!

To be honest, I think a realistic view is that an act of kindness or anything else that might be deemed altruistic should be judged by it's impact on others. A good deed is, more often than not, not diminished for the person on the receiving end just because the deed do-er is getting something out of it themselves.

 

A good dead

Haven't decided about euthanasia, personally

 

Opps!

The only good deed is a dead deed, Tel!

Think about it!

 

It doesn't make them selfish, Lisa, it's just that the act is rarely (if ever) entirely selfless.

 

We could analyse all the philosophical aspects we can think of in minute detail when it comes to this. It's an interesting subject, but I still just 'go with the flow' in the real world. It's nice to be nice... .

The problem for me comes around the area of law. When a government legislates with altruistic intentions based on a particular moral angle: that's when there really is a need to think about this stuff, because the laws made by the state then affect the way we can all live our lives and how we're free to act. Even the most subtle legislation regarded completely unrelated to everyday life does this to some extent.

 

Should add that I meant that is when it has to be discussed. The rest of the time, it's probably best to just take it at face value.