Altruism

[intjguy]

What is your take on altruism and its place in the world? Does it belong here in America?

[InkStrider]

It's phony.

It shouldn't have a place anywhere.

Truth.

[Atlast]

Concern for the welfare of other is essential, but wishing to serve a specific body or organization can often be deceptively harmful to the welfare of others, as in military service. Altruism should be replaced by a simple love for the human race. We primarily have self interest and murderous nationalism in America. One requirement for altruism fulfilled, the other left empty...

[Beautiful sky]

There are people who perform it to make themselves look good; out for the glory, money, advocacy for research prior to something important happening to someone they care about rather than the cause itself. Not putting their money where there mouth is. I'm not looking to get anything out of it or be thanked for it. I feel bad when other people suffer; I improve the self within me by doing/improving the world around me, my premise is to truly help people and live up to the ideals of humanism/human kindness/ human way of being.

[intjguy]

It's phony.



It shouldn't have a place anywhere.

Please elaborate.

[Creepy-male]

Selfishness and Selflessness are actually the same thing since we are all connected.

That's my POV on this

[Absurd]

Hey Ashton and Pinky, how the hell can you both or at least one of you claim altruism is bollocks and ride realism at the same time? I mean, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

[Atlast]

Self-interest and tribalism are biological imperatives in human beings; broad altruism isn't so much, and generally devolves into a considerably deadly ethos in practice.

In very eusocial animals like ants, altruism works out nicely—something rooted in the fact that they lack reproductive independence, etc. That is, the success of the colony as a whole is centralized around the queen, who is the only that can reproduce.

Humans OTOH, have a high degree of reproductive independence, which makes our social organization exceedingly different and fundamentally incompatible with altruism in extremis.

But American self interest is as a whole not informed or educated (as it would need be to have a general positive affect); many buy certain products like education, food, etc. and act out of a desire to become rich, or healthy, or whatever, but are only emptying their pockets. Reproductive independence also strikes me as a temporary social thing as opposed to a human thing, because different communities have had different social structures.

A community concerned for the welfare of all and a different one which is primarily concerned with the self can both function at high levels of innovation, collaboration, progress, whatever you want out of it. They are just remarkably different in how they must be set up and carried out. It would probably be more practical to pursue changes that adhere to the model of self interest, because that is the model (albeit not set up correctly) held today.

[Creepy-pokeball]

You cant just "set up" a model onto humanity or a piece of it. Its like saying, "I want to see pumkin pie in the sky," and then waiting for it to actualize. Its not gonna happen.

[Taknamay]

Altruism exists. However, as soon as the person starts to ask, "What do I get out of helping people?" then that person loses their altruistic ethic.

[Creepy-male]

Altruism exists. However, as soon as the person starts to ask, "What do I get out of helping people?" then that person loses their altruistic ethic.

See I think that could potentially be BS

I think people help other because it satisfies themselves, I don't understand why it does any benefit to not enjoy the process of helping others -- like you're supposed to run around slavish fulfilling people's needs with your tail tucked between your legs. What's the point in that?

I think its perfectly fine to enjoy the process, helping others helps you, and that is how symbiotic relationships are developed. They exist everywhere in natural organic systems. Fish have been observed to clean algae/plankton/whatever off of whale's teeth. It's not that the fish are serving the whale like slaves, cleaning their teeth, they see an opportunity to feed and they capitalize on it -- the whales don't mind because it benefits them. That kind of symbiosis is very natural and organic and exists within human society as well. I think that it's our higher cognitive processing that gives us the illusion of altruism -- that we are doing something for someone else and not for ourselves, but I think our primal brain is very much in tune with the idea of survival and self-interest. I think mental clarity comes from the connection that selfishness and selfless are one within the same since we are all connected in a symbiotic relationship with our external environment.

[Pa3s]

A little egoism is necessary for everyone but too much makes you look like a dick. It's basically the same with altruism, a little is good but if you always help they are likely to take advantage of you. I'm actually in that kind of situation. Last semester, I often helped that one guy who couldn't really work with the computer program because of his lack of experience. Because he always asked me, I also helped him most of the time. (Also, my idiotic conscience tells me to help people if i can.) This semester, we're dealing with new software. I don't think that I'll invest nearly as much time in this as I did before. I'm not his private teacher and I really got other shit to do.

I mean I'm all for cooperation but if the others are assholes, I don't mind being one, too.

[Absurd]

I don't know what's so hard about it. I mean, I hear people blabbing realism this, realism that without even knowing what it is. "Hey, look at me in wonder, I am speaking about realism so I must be this type and not the other, blah blah fucking blah." Don't make me laugh people. Alright, I changed my mind, go ahead. Entertain me.

Egoism isn't the antithesis of altruism but of idealism. As an idealist, you and you, and you subordinate your interests to the interests of your ideals. Me, on the other hand, the egoist am not fooled by any ideals. I can be damn altruistic if I like it and will sacrifice myself for others, because I like it so. I do not demand gratitude nor glory in return.

I think some people are phony.

[mu4]

There is no problem between self-interest and altruism. Self interested is just +1 while altruism is +many. These are all positive additions to the system.

The problem is malice, and the negative consequences to others that this sort of action represents.

Most actions contains a component of negative and positive consequences in regards to human welfare within the system that it is occuring.

IMO, ideally the highest quality actions are those that adds welfare to many without requiring self-sacrifice or malice. However, due to the competing nature of individuals within society, this is highly unlikely to occur. Selfish goals are a given unless one chooses self-sacrifice, and even those are usually entertained under some selfish psychological parameters.

Altruism is not opposed by self-interest or self-sacrifice, but by malice and the willful harming of others.

People confuse malice for self-interest and altruism for self sacrifice and that is not the case. Ultimately it's very hard to separate the consequences of actions into purely self-interested/altruistic/malicious/self-sacrificing measurements. Every action contains a measure of each consequence which can be interpreted differently by the affected parties.

I choose to advocate minimizing malicious consequences and self-sacrificing consequences while maximizing selfish and altruistic consequences. This is largely the ethical and moral system that is in place for much of the secular world and one that promotes peace and cooperation. However, should circumstance force one to enter conflict with malicious individuals, it would be necessary to adapt a more malicious intent towards these individuals.

[marooned]

Altruism arose in social animals who have to work together to survive. However it soon took on an emotional life of its own. Through empathizing with the plight of another and able to relate to it as though it is one's own plight, one may wish to help another through their plight as if it was ones own (the mind in fact cannot differentiate between who's plight it actually is at this point--on an emotional level anyway, even though the rational mind comprehends the difference). In this way it goes beyond a matter of being selfish or not (it both is and isn't). It becomes an ingrained need to help another so as to satisfy the pain of empathy one will feel if one does not. It's recognizing need and working to fulfill it just for its own sake out of an inborn emotional imperative. If enough members of the "community" are aided when needed, then the community as a whole survives (the social species survives). So altruism is necessary and inborn and whether its deemed to "belong" or not and isn't going away. I think it began with the simple idea of "I help you; you help me." Anyway I think the world would benefit from working together more to solve the wide spectrum of human problems in our societies, obviously. It's socially stupid not to. Of course being a self-centered creature, I do nothing. But most people exhibit altruism in their day-to-day lives among those they know and care about (so not like the world is bereft of it).

[Creepy-male]

I don't see any problems with people who adopt viewpoints of pure selfishness or pure selflessness, what I find interesting is the way these pure elements mix in some people's psychologies.

Sadist => I'm doing everything out of self-interest, but everyone around me should do things out of selflessness towards me

Masochist => I'm doing everything out of selflessness for everyone else, but they are doing things out of their own self-interest

People who are characterized as "self-interested", a.k.a. egotistic/megalomaniacs/narcissists actually have a different thought process that leads to their condition than just the assertion that everyone is out for self-interest. They are closer to the "sadist" viewpoint I put above -- they believe people should serve them, but they don't serve anyone else. This is usually based of the idea that they are innately superior than the world they live in, a "god complex", they characterize the opposite pole, masochism, when cognitive dissonance upsets their "god complex" they become fixated on the idea of life being unfair -- they make excuses for why they can't manifest their innate superiority in reality, they also justify sadism through this as they can connect to the suffering the masochist undertakes.

Selfish vs Selflessness has a corollary to Sado-Masochist thinking, it's possible to resolve the poles or to have a fractured and unstable psychology which bounces between the extremes chaotically out of balance/stability.

[Taknamay]

See I think that could potentially be BS

I think people help other because it satisfies themselves, I don't understand why it does any benefit to not enjoy the process of helping others -- like you're supposed to run around slavish fulfilling people's needs with your tail tucked between your legs. What's the point in that?

I think its perfectly fine to enjoy the process, helping others helps you, and that is how symbiotic relationships are developed. They exist everywhere in natural organic systems. Fish have been observed to clean algae/plankton/whatever off of whale's teeth. It's not that the fish are serving the whale like slaves, cleaning their teeth, they see an opportunity to feed and they capitalize on it -- the whales don't mind because it benefits them. That kind of symbiosis is very natural and organic and exists within human society as well. I think that it's our higher cognitive processing that gives us the illusion of altruism -- that we are doing something for someone else and not for ourselves, but I think our primal brain is very much in tune with the idea of survival and self-interest. I think mental clarity comes from the connection that selfishness and selfless are one within the same since we are all connected in a symbiotic relationship with our external environment.

I'm not saying it's immoral to ask what one gets in return. I'm just saying that it defies the definition of altruism, which is assisting a someone without any expectation of a return.

When asked whether altruism exists, I am concerned with the definition of altruism first and foremost.

[intjguy]

Interesting answers everyone.

Self-interest and tribalism are biological imperatives in human beings; broad altruism isn't so much, and generally devolves into a considerably deadly ethos in practice.

In very eusocial animals like ants, altruism works out nicely—something rooted in the fact that they lack reproductive independence, etc. That is, the success of the colony as a whole is centralized around the queen, who is the only that can reproduce.

Humans OTOH, have a high degree of reproductive independence, which makes our social organization exceedingly different and fundamentally incompatible with altruism in extremis.

Funny how you mentioned the ants. What is your take on the demonstration of the Japanese altruistic ethos to the tsunami as they try and "come together as one body" according to this video. i.e. Radiation workers working to death, not a single report of looting..

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/japan-v...ry?id=13135355 (begins playing at the top after a while)

[intjguy]

Limited altruism on a local scale when it's geared towards helping your friends and neighbors, is fine. It's just when altruism gets taken to goofy extremes of, "blah blah, we must do X to better society!" or "I want to help humanity as a whole!" that it gets counterproductive and repressive. Human compassion doesn't operate intelligently when sentiments are directed abstractly like that.

Which brings me to another question. Say an altruistic ****** rose up and convinced everyone to work together and cure world hunger. The objective is a success - world hunger is eliminated. Would the world be a better place? Yay or nay?

[Atlast]

I think you're taking a few things for granted here:

1) That your stereotype of so-called American self-interest is accurate, i.e., that it merely revolves around aimless materialist-consumerism, etc.
2) That you somehow know better about how they "should" be informed and educated.



Reproductive independence isn't a temporary thing—unless you're talking 'temporary' in terms of many millions of years. Or, unless we somehow massively restructure our genetic code to be any different, at which point we likely wouldn't even be justifiably human.



Again, you're presumptously alluding to castles in the sky about how you believe it ought to be, rather than how it actually is.

Well, in response to two criticisms, finding a problem in how any system is run doesn't necessarily mean you have a better replacement, although I have and will continue to give it a lot of thought and effort. Also, my conception of the American is no doubt off, but how does one gain an understanding of the average person from a 300 million pool? I suppose he doesn't - but he can evaluate their actions as a group, and I see plenty of ill situations brought about by mass consumption of products that no one cares to research, leading to my general understanding of them as a mindless materialistic blob. Doesn't mean they're not altruistic, I suppose, but it certainly isn't a beneficial kind.

Also, I haven't done an in depth study of biology + structure of animal societies or their psychological/physical relation to human behavior, so what you're saying about reproductive independence may very well be right. I'll look into that, but assuming it's true that still doesn't mean there doesn't exist a problem with overwhelming self interest without the proper societal (primarily economic) system to handle it and direct it for the good of all.

[marooned]

I personally think "selfishness" self-interest can enhance altruism. I mean it's hard to imagine or understand someone else's plight if you don't have a concept of yourself (if you aren't "self-aware"). So you are both selfish and altruistic because you are aware of yourself (this leads to being aware of others and that others have a sense of themselves just as you have a sense of yourself... and so you then would imagine what it might be like to be someone else and in their situation and actually think about it this). Altruism then goes beyond just the emotional imperative or impulse--it becomes a thought out decision. Perhaps this is second-level altruism (and I'm not sure if it is more or less "altruistic" than a simple instinctive impulse that isn't thought about, or possibly even understood conceptually). Second-level altruism seems to be most exhibited by species like humans, dolphins, chimps, etc. who also tend to exhibit the most selfishness (and cruelty) and are more self-aware in the sense of being able to think about themselves and know they are a "self" and recognize themselves in a mirror. Sometimes an altruistic act is not simply an instinct or impulse in such creatures, but an actual thought-out decision involving awareness of implications in reference to the self (e.g. thinking about what it means to expect something in return, having a concept of what is "selfish" and so on).

So maybe first-level altruism seems more like "true (or pure) altruism" because there is little thought of the self involved on the automatic impulse (the emotional imperative). Some self-sacrificing acts would qualify as first-level altruism (flinging oneself into danger automatically to save another with no thought of oneself and what might happen to the self as a result). But I think second-level altruism involves selfishness self-interest and thoughts of the self and consideration of consequences to the self... but since it's still rooted in the same emotional imperative, is it any less altruistic? Is it more altruistic because one is actually able to think of negative consequences to the self and do it anyway so as to help another? Would logically reasoning out a win-win rather than acting on impulse make it less altruistic? It could be more altruistic because empathy is enhanced through having a concept of oneself that one can think about and then imagine what it's like to be someone else, or in their situation (maybe this would strengthen the impulse). Awareness of consequences to actions would perhaps yield more altruistic acts because one doesn't simply respond to the plight of others in the moment, but can understand a long-term plight where they might seem okay now, but they will not be later unless something is done. To have a strong concept of self and attachment to this concept and just let it all go so as to aid someone else seems like a larger sacrifice than doing this when not having such a strong concept/attachment to begin with. Maybe first-level altruism is more "pure" not diluted by thoughts and considerations and impacts to the self; but it is also more blind.

[Absurd]

I personally think "selfishness" can enhance altruism[...]So you are both selfish and altruistic because you are aware of yourself (this leads to being aware of others and that others have a sense of themselves just as you have a sense of yourself...

Correct.

[Atlast]

I don't understand why you people are conflating self-interest with selfishness. It isn't the same thing.

You are all diseased.

If that is the main fault of our arguments, could you distinguish for us?

[marooned]

I fixed my post just for you, Ashton.

[mu4]

Semantic stuff that don't really matter in the meaning of things. I use a different term for selfishness that comes at the expense of others and that is malice. Self-interested behavior that benefits oneself without hurting other is ok. I don't think any actions is devoid of consequences that don't contain some level of benefit/harm to oneself and others, due to our fallible knowledge and the chain of events that will occur based on our actions.

Certainly self-interested altruism exists, and it's obviously viable and part of our social organizations.

[anndelise]

According to one of the brain books I have,

Altruism
The notion of altruism assumes that people can do things for others with no motivation of a direct rewrd for themselves. However, brain scans show that doing "good" thing is personally rewarding. One fMRI study was conducted while participants made or withheld donations to real charities. The participants could keep any donations they refused to make. The result showed that both keeping the money and giving it away activated the brain's "reward" pathways. Giving away money also enhanced activity in areas concerned with belonging and group bonding.

So, if we wanted altruists, we'd need
* the person to feel a sense of connection and bonding with [desired group]
* a personalized reward system (a linkage between the altruistic action, the desired group, and/or the person's values/ideals.)

[Trevor]

it's ok as long as it isn't fake

[Creepy-male]

yea I agree about the semantics aspect of selfish and self-interest.

It's just semantics, I'm guessing the links you put in basically amount to: self-interest - neutral connotations, selfish - negative connotations.

[Atlast]

yea I agree about the semantics aspect of selfish and self-interest.

It's just semantics, I'm guessing the links you put in basically amount to: self-interest - neutral connotations, selfish - negative connotations.

Oh, ha! If that's what you were referring to above Ashton, I assure you, I mirror lucid on this point. However, I see most American self interest indirectly inflicting harm across the world, so I see where you may have read a prejudice in my words. This could be offset through education about what kinds of businesses one contributes to.

EDIT; ok, it wasn't semantics. I wasn't able to obtain your distinction from the articles you referenced, so maybe I'll get around to reading Adam Smith's work. I planned on doing that some time or another anyway... I know ignorance is no excuse.

[Creepy-male]

No, it isn't just semantics.

You shit.

How is it not semantics when we are talking about clarifying the difference in meaning of two words.

[mu4]

How is it not semantics when we are talking about clarifying the difference in meaning of two words.

Most people aren't using selfishness as being different then self-interest. Most people when they think of selfishness, it's not malice, when I was using it like that, it certainly wasn't referring to malice or negligent egoism, which I myself differentiated. Ultimately the way I was using selfishness more a synonym for self-interest, which I find perfectly ok. I even changed my original post so it would be logically consistent with the accepted terminology.

Anyway's self interest is compatible with altruism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest makes some attempts at bridging that compatibility which is a form of self-interest that largely associated with Adam Smith.

Also, Adam Smith was pro many of the so-called altruistic(more enlightened self-interest) mechanism that exist in our society today like progressive taxation.

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Call it what you will. Good of many, enlightened self-interest, altruism, but there is a benefit humanity has found by facilitating processes which benefit more than a few individuals. I don't think there's a need to fight over the word use.

Ultimately, nobody practice a perfect altruism or selfishness, since there are often unforeseen consequences which can occur, all we usually get to do is guide some short term results towards some goal which is meaningful to some of the people around us.

[Gilly]

There is no problem between self-interest and altruism. Self interested is just +1 while altruism is +many. These are all positive additions to the system.

The problem is malice, and the negative consequences to others that this sort of action represents.

Disagree. This is what politicians and people out to gain power by hiding behind labels like "non-profit" and such would love you to think. There is really not that much malice in the world; the greater evil comes from people's lack of independence in understanding the consequences of their actions, or, more acutely, their lifestyles.

Good will for other humans is a natural social imperative and is perfectly healthy. Unfortunately our culture has seen fit to condition us with self-interest, which is something that IS innate, and does not need to be conditioned, unless conditioning goes too far in the opposite direction. Unfortunately most people see the world as a battle for good and evil and feel the need to take a strong stance; what they don't realize is that the real battle is inside themselves, and they project it onto the world, because they have no other way to frame their broad-spectrum beliefs except by framing them inside their own internal experience. This leads to drastically distorted worldviews and levels of either self-interest or self-neglect that are obviously unhealthy.

Of course, when people are raised well, this isn't really a problem, but unfortunately in our culture, being raised well means you find a 100k+ job and have a wife and 2 kids with a bigger house and more cars and gadgets and bullshit than you need, which, in the big scheme of things, isn't good for the world, unless the technology fueled by our economic policy happens to save the world, which isn't impossible, but is a pretty fucking huge longshot.

Most actions contains a component of negative and positive consequences in regards to human welfare within the system that it is occuring.

IMO, ideally the highest quality actions are those that adds welfare to many without requiring self-sacrifice or malice. However, due to the competing nature of individuals within society, this is highly unlikely to occur. Selfish goals are a given unless one chooses self-sacrifice, and even those are usually entertained under some selfish psychological parameters.

Altruism is not opposed by self-interest or self-sacrifice, but by malice and the willful harming of others.

People confuse malice for self-interest and altruism for self sacrifice and that is not the case. Ultimately it's very hard to separate the consequences of actions into purely self-interested/altruistic/malicious/self-sacrificing measurements. Every action contains a measure of each consequence which can be interpreted differently by the affected parties.

I choose to advocate minimizing malicious consequences and self-sacrificing consequences while maximizing selfish and altruistic consequences. This is largely the ethical and moral system that is in place for much of the secular world and one that promotes peace and cooperation. However, should circumstance force one to enter conflict with malicious individuals, it would be necessary to adapt a more malicious intent towards these individuals.

Congratulations on feeling safe, coward.

[FDG]

I can't express any opinion about universal altrusim - everyone should do as he-she pleases.

Personally speaking, I enjoy acts of service towards people I love, or towards people I like, but I'm rarely altruistic beyond that point. It would require an amount of effort I'm unwilling to extert.

(ftr I don't see "carrying the bag of a small woman with a kid during a train transfer" as altruism, thus all those very basic occurrances are left out)

[marooned]

(ftr I don't see "carrying the bag of a small woman with a kid during a train transfer" as altruism, thus all those very basic occurrances are left out)

I do. I mean really why would you do that. I would also see holding the door open for someone who's carrying a lot of stuff as an act of altruism. I think that would be an impulse, e.g. if I notice someone carrying a load of heavy stuff and I happen to be in the position to open the door for them, I just do it automatically and am happy I did. I don't think acts have to be "big" to be altruistic. This is kind of what I'm trying to say by it being "inborn." No one taught me to do this and although I'm a somewhat socialized person, I don't really even have social thoughts about something like that. I don't think, "I'll look like an ass if don't hold the door open for that person, so I guess... sigh... I'd better" because I don't care how I look in such a situation. It's mainly just that I know if I was in that position it would really help if someone would open the door for me, and that this person is on some "mission" that they're trying to accomplish and there are these obstacles in the way, one of which I could easily clear out of the way so they can get on with their "mission" that is necessary or important to them. I'm pleased at the thought of people's missions running efficiently and smoothly and I sympathize with others who are trying to accomplish goals and admire their hard work in doing so. I don't go out of my way to help others by any means as I tend to fear people's needs and fear being engulfed by them, but I can do small things. And sometimes I might be motivated to do bigger things. So maybe this is very like anndelise's informative post... through simple empathy or sympathy my mind temporarily considers the other person as in my "social group" (for this moment in time, they are like me; I could be in their situation; it must suck to be in their situation and I could do one small thing that would make it suck less) and so I then aid the person and some strange social/reward something is triggered in my brain so I feel good about having done it. It's an unavoidable impulse to some extent where actually going against it would be more difficult than going with it. If, however, I'm also carrying loads of heavy things, I then may become entirely unconcerned with their problem because I'm consumed with my problem and I hate carrying heavy things and everyone else can go to hell. I mean I might try to be less selfish, but I'm suffering and it's hard to push myself beyond that.

[Korpsy Knievel]

I do. I mean really why would you do that.

Perhaps to make a positive impression on a woman who obviously puts out.

[marooned]

Perhaps to make a positive impression on a woman who obviously puts out.

Well then it wouldn't even be in consideration as possibly altruistic. It's then a cause/effect manipulation disguised as a "helpful"/"altruistic" act, involving a fair amount of disrespect.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Well then it wouldn't even be in consideration as possibly altruistic. It's then a cause/effect manipulation disguised as a "helpful"/"altruistic" act,

Observe the phrases, "A rising tide lifts all boats," or "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." Both strongly imply rewards for those who work to realize those ideals. Many acts of supposed altruism are meant to profit the benefactor as much as the beneficiary, materially, emotionally, spiritually, politically, and in innumerable other ways. This hardly goes without notice in individuals who are conscious of their actions' motivations, nor is altruism necessarily an autonomous response.

involving a fair amount of disrespect.

If the life of a woman and her child are improved by a relationship developing from a chance meeting with a man who saw fit to give a moment's assistance, then I see nothing malicious in such a gesture. Neither is fucking in itself somehow wrong or harmful. Examine your own sexual attitudes for why disrespect somehow entered into the picture.

[marooned]

Observe the phrases, "A rising tide lifts all boats," or "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." Both strongly imply rewards for those who work to realize those ideals. Many acts of supposed altruism are meant to profit the benefactor as much as the beneficiary, materially, emotionally, spiritually, politically, and in innumerable other ways. This hardly goes without notice in individuals who are conscious of their actions' motivations, nor is altruism necessarily an autonomous response.

What is your problem? I think you're just a moron who makes innumerable assumptions about what others think. If you had read all of my posts in this thread and thought about it more, I doubt you would have responded in this way. I find you presumptuous and full of yourself. I took FDG's post within a certain context. He said he didn't consider helping someone carry something to be altruism because it is a "basic occurrence." You're the one who added in a motivation that wasn't implied by his post. If that was the "motivation" it's not altruism, and wouldn't even be considered as such (it would have been irrelevant to include in his post).

Also "do unto others as they would do unto you" implies respecting others and treating them as you feel you deserve to be treated. It's a simple matter of "would you like to be treated the way you're treating someone else? you wouldn't? then stop fucking doing it."

I'm not going to adopt some cynical attitude of "altruism? no, it's not real" just because humans happen to have reasoning minds and understand concepts of rewards.

If the life of a woman and her child are improved by a relationship developing from a chance meeting with a man who saw fit to give a moment's assistance, then I see nothing malicious in such a gesture. Neither is fucking in itself somehow wrong or harmful. Examine your own sexual attitudes for why disrespect somehow entered into the picture.

Oh please. I can't see how someone doing something for you just so they can get an opportunity to get into your pants can really respect you, especially if you're considered "easy" to them. Maybe you should examine your attitudes regarding respect.

[Korpsy Knievel]

What is your problem? I think you're just a moron who makes innumerable assumptions about what others think.

Freak out much? You're a laugh riot. I made a simple rejoinder to a single post instead of reading the whole fucking thread. Go have a nice cup of cocoa and let your heart-rate fall back to normal so you're rested up for your next over-reaction.

[Taknamay]

I don't think that's true. I genuinely think it's possible for a person to help someone else just because they want to, not because it makes them feel good per se, or not because it is mutually beneficial per se, or even beneficial to us as a society per se. I think that a "desire" to help people does not have to come from any other type of emotion, but rather can be an impulse in and of itself.