Is True Altruism Possible?

[suckmymuscle]

  I was thinking about selfishness the other day, and about how we define all morality by interpreting relations between the Self towards others. Most of what passes for selflessness is a convenient form of selfishness. Consider the businessman who invests his money to improve schools around the area his industry is based. He does it because it improves his self-image if not his image as perceived by others. It could also be because the children will be his future corporate drones, and better trained drones will make him more money. Even if genuinelly cares about the children, it is because he perceives that a life with employment at an office or factory is the best life possible, because to him it is. If to the children in their hearts their ideal life would be to be a musician living on the road outside corporate life is irrelevant to him, because it is not what he regards as the ideal life.

  Now consider philantropy. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have given billions to charity. Have they done it because they truly care about the indigent and destituted? Or have they done it because it improves their imagine with the public, which might lead them to make in profits more money than they have given to the charities? Warren Buffet is a an old man, and he knows his time is almost up. Maybe all those billions are eseentially to buy people to like him, so that he might survive death if only in name. Since he can't live forever enjoying the good life, his only chance for immortality is to survive in the memories of people as a good man. Pure selfishness. The Christians likewise are good towards others because they hope they will be rewarded by eternal life in paradise.

  Now try to imagine altruism in it's purest form. You don't want someone to burn to death in a burning building, or starve or be tortured because you wouldn't want it to happen to you. You transfer to others your own ego. So it seems that even in it's purest form, altruism is a form of self-concern.

  So altruism appears to be at worst a convenient form of selfishness where you benefit others to some degree but hope to benefit from this act more and try to convince yourself that you are benefitting others to the same degree, and at best it appears to be a form of narcissism, where you turn others into extensions of yourself and don't want them to experience that pain because you can and don't want it to happen to you.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[johnnynoname]

not to flame but Tbombz already does the "know it all " gimmick


fail.

[wes]

 

[A Professional]

There are special forces guys that risk their lives to save each other or others. They can't improve their image this way because they aren't allowed to discuss their missions. You could make the argument that they reap that benefit within the very small circle of their unit/commanding officer--but this seems like a stretch.

[Mr. Magoo]

yes, read Joseph Butler/James Rachels/etc

Welcome to the 18th century....

[suckmymuscle]

What about special forces guys that risk their lives to save each other or others. They can't improve their image this way because they aren't allowed to discuss their missions. You could make the argument that they reap that benefit within the very small circle of their unit/commanding officer--but this seems like a stretch.

  Yeah, but they are thinking about how it improves their self-image(badass, tough, competent, etc) and how proud it makes them to belong to an elite unit that few men are tough enough to join and how they have an ogligation to protect the weak because they are better(stronger, tougher, etc) than them, etc. It seems like a form of narcissism where they show concern towards others because the others being weaker boost their self-image as being stronger. This is one of the noblest forms of selflessness, and it is still pretty self-serving...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Tre]

The answer is 'yes'.  

A car is heading towards your child in the street.  You hurl yourself into the path of the car in order to save your child and you do it without a moment's hesitation.

Now, when that same car is heading for a child you don't know and your reaction is exactly the same - and also absent any hesitation - that's true altruism, because you've sacrificed your life to ensure the continuance of someone else's bloodline.

[lesaucer]

What about special forces guys that risk their lives to save each other or others. They can't improve their image this way because they aren't allowed to discuss their missions. You could make the argument that they reap that benefit within the very small circle of their unit/commanding officer--but this seems like a stretch.

you could say they do it simply to make them feel better about themselves, so in reality yes they save others, but the only reason they do it is to feel better, then they would do it to improve themselves only, not for others

[lesaucer]

 Yeah, but they are thinking about how it improves their self-image(badass, tough, competent, etc) and how proud it makes them to belong to an elite unit that few men are tough enough to join and how they have an ogligation to protect the weak because they are better(stronger, tougher, etc) than them, etc. It seems like a form of narcissism where they show concern towards others because the others being weaker boost their self-image as being stronger. This is one of the noblest forms of selflessness, and it is still pretty self-serving...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

basically what i just said except its not a french canadian who typed it lol

[A Professional]

 Yeah, but they are thinking about how it improves their self-image(badass, tough, competent, etc) and how proud it makes them to belong to an elite unit that few men are tough enough to join and how they have an ogligation to protect the weak because they are better(stronger, tougher, etc) than them, etc. It seems like a form of narcissism where they show concern towards others because the others being weaker boost their self-image as being stronger. This is one of the noblest forms of selflessness, and it is still pretty self-serving...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Perhaps this is why the Christian cult spread. Jesus, if he actually existed, is the only person that was altruistic in the truest sense. He sacrificed his life for the sins of mankind according to legend.

But if you conceive of humans or life as not separate entities--but eyes of a whole. We are not selfish, because in helping others we are helping life in it's entirety. This is a very abstract way of thinking about it... Otherwise, yes, most actions are partially selfish. You would have to dissolve the ego entirely to act unselfishly. Outside of Jesus, perhaps a self-immolating buddhist monk is the closest thing that exist. The will to live--the ego--is selfishness.

But extreme selfisness, somewhat ironically, doesn't serve the self. It's self-defeating.

[suckmymuscle]

The answer is 'yes'.  

A car is heading towards your child in the street.  You hurl yourself into the path of the car in order to save your child and you do it without a moment's hesitation.

Now, when that same car is heading for a child you don't know and your reaction is exactly the same - and also absent any hesitation - that's true altruism, because you've sacrificed your life to ensure the continuance of someone else's bloodline.

  But you are saving the child because it will enhance your self-image as well as your image in the eyes of others after you die. It is the same reason why young men sacrifice themselves in war, knowing that they will be praised for their deeds and remembered as something better than a mere man. Immortality forever in the minds of many. At worst - if there is no afterlife -, you will be remembered in the minds of all as someone of great valour who's life had great meaning, and at best, you will be rewarded with a better place after you die and a great sense of self-worth. Pure selfishness. But I agree that sacrficing yourself to save someone else's kid is more selfless than doing it to save your own kid. But according to evolutionary psychology, sacrificing yourself to save other people's kids makes sense to some degree since throughout most of Human history people who lived in close proximity tended to be relatives. So you would be sacrificing yourself for your own genetic interest.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

you could say they do it simply to make them feel better about themselves, so in reality yes they save others, but the only reason they do it is to feel better, then they would do it to improve themselves only, not for others

  Ugh...my answer came before yours......

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[lesaucer]

  Ugh...my answer came before yours......

SUCKMYMUSCLE

lol, im a extremely slow typer when i write in english, try to make as much sense as i can..and i usually dont read new answers that pop when im finally posting, it seems i should tho

[Tre]

 But you are saving the child because it will enhance your self-image as well as your image in the eyes of others after you die. It is the same reason why young men sacrifice themselves in war, knowing that they will be praised for their deeds and remembered as something better than a mere man. Immortality forever in the minds of many. At worst - if there is no afterlife -, you will be remembered in the minds of all as someone of great valour who's life had great meaning, and at best, you will be rewarded with a better place after you die and a great sense of self-worth. Pure selfishness. But I agree that sacrficing yourself to save someone else's kid is more selfless than doing it to save your own kid. But according to evolutionary psychology, sacrificing yourself to save other people's kids makes sense to some degree since throughout most of Human history people who lived in close proximity tended to be relatives. So you would be sacrificing yourself for your own genetic interest.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

No. 

In my example, there is no conscious thought whatsoever.  You save your own child in order to protect your DNA.  There is an underlying selfish motivation there that does happen subconsciously, regardless of what a person might think while performing the sacrificial act.

You do not, however, save the child you do not know - for the sake of discussion, assume there is no relation - to protect your own DNA.  Given that there is no thought, there can be no expectation of being held in high regard by the family of the child spared from certain death, nor is there an expectation of any other rewards in the afterlife.  That's true altruism, because the life of another is saved without any thought (at all) of reward.  The only motivation is to save the life of another.

And for the record, though I would sacrifice myself as described to save another's child, I most likely would not do the same to save another adult...or even a teenager. 

[dr.chimps]

Is true altruism possible!?  How about 'Is altruism possible,' Lou Grant?    Cripes.

[The Abdominal Snoman]

There are special forces guys that risk their lives to save each other or others. They can't improve their image this way because they aren't allowed to discuss their missions. You could make the argument that they reap that benefit within the very small circle of their unit/commanding officer--but this seems like a stretch.

I don't think its a stretch. Especially in the 21st century where these people(navy seal types) are looked at as the best of the best in movies/media. Even if it was just one other person knowing "the secret", that could be enough to support a massive ego. Just the fact that at family get together's the words "I can't talk about what I do" gives a person so much power.

[A Professional]

No.  

In my example, there is no conscious thought whatsoever.  You save your own child in order to protect your DNA.  There is an underlying selfish motivation there that does happen subconsciously, regardless of what a person might think while performing the sacrificial act.

You do not, however, save the child you do not know - for the sake of discussion, assume there is no relation - to protect your own DNA.  Given that there is no thought, there can be no expectation of being held in high regard by the family of the child spared from certain death, nor is there an expectation of any other rewards in the afterlife.  That's true altruism, because the life of another is saved without any thought (at all) of reward.  The only motivation is to save the life of another.

And for the record, though I would sacrifice myself as described to save another's child, I most likely would not do the same to save another adult...or even a teenager.  

I think it's still not an example of pure altruism though.
Reason being, imagine if you, the child, and the car were the only things in existence.
There was no society there to influence you, perceive you as a coward, etc.
If you sacrificed yourself, you would be trading your existence for that of the child.
The child and the car/driver would be the only entities in existence.

I don't think you would do it.

Society has influenced you to save that child, because you don't want to be looked at as the one that 'let it happen'.

I still think the only selfless people are Jesus or Buddhist that have dissolved their ego to the point that they can self-immolate.
And this is precisely why these people are held in such a high regard.

[tbombz]

of course altruism stems from self-interest. self interest and selfishness are two different things. one is necessarily negative, the other positive.

[tbombz]

I think it's still not an example of pure altruism though.
Reason being, imagine if you, the child, and the car were the only things in existence.
There was no society there to influence you, perceive you as a coward, etc.
If you sacrificed yourself, you would be trading your existence for that of the child.
The child and the car/driver would be the only entities in existence.

I don't think you would do it.

Society has influenced you to save that child, because you don't want to be looked at as the one that 'let it happen'.

I still think the only selfless people are Jesus or Buddhist that have dissolved their ego to the point that they can self-immolate.
And this is precisely why these people are held in such a high regard.

whether there are other people in existence or not, giving your life for someone elses is necessarily altruistic, regardless of religous or moral/social beliefs.  im not sure if you were implying otherwise. just that id point that out.

if we are to take the story of jesus as presented, he was also acting out of self interest.

[The Abdominal Snoman]

The answer is 'yes'.  

A car is heading towards your child in the street.  You hurl yourself into the path of the car in order to save your child and you do it without a moment's hesitation.

Now, when that same car is heading for a child you don't know and your reaction is exactly the same - and also absent any hesitation - that's true altruism, because you've sacrificed your life to ensure the continuance of someone else's bloodline.

Must see video of a Honey Badger and its baby.

[A Professional]

whether there are other people in existence or not, giving your life for someone elses is necessarily altruistic, regardless of religous or moral/social beliefs.  im not sure if you were implying otherwise. just that id point that out.

if we are to take the story of jesus as presented, he was also acting out of self interest.

You didn't understand what I said.

The point of this thread is whether true altruism (defined in this case as acting out of 100% unselfish interest exist).

In the example I presented, I don't think anyone would help the child about to be hit by a car, because there is no society to pass judgement and create values like, 'brave', etc.

I'm not a practicing Christian so I'm not familiar with the entirety of the Jesus story.

[tbombz]

all action is necessarily based on self interest. theres no escaping it. even in your scenario above, the person gives up their life because they feel its the right thing to do and couldnt live with themself otherwise. its in their best interest, at least in their mind, to die than live with guilt.

[The Abdominal Snoman]

The Life and Death of Kevin Carter(Now famous photographer)who was broke and committed suicide seems to fit into this thread

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/kevin_carter/sudan_child.htm

[A Professional]

all action is necessarily based on self interest. theres no escaping it. even in your scenario above, the person gives up their life because they feel its the right thing to do and couldnt live with themself otherwise. its in their best interest, at least in their mind, to die than live with guilt.

Wow.
I was arguing that very point. I said in my scenario, they would NOT give up their life.
You seem to have taken what I read and comprehended an entirely different way twice--even after I pointed out that you didn't understand.
How does it feel to be so dumb, dumbass?  
I mean, it's seriously shocking how retarded you are.
And what's scary is how sincerely you believe your retarded arguments.

[The Abdominal Snoman]

I read somewhere that humans and other animals have an instinct to preserve their species.  This is what gives you the motivation to save a child even though it isn't your kid.  It is a preservation instinct that has evolved over time.

This Honey Badger video shows exactly what your talking about