Altruism

[Creepy-male]

Because words bear connotations that directly influence how they get operationalized in the mind.

Self-interest doesn't preclude altruistic acts; it's more about situationally choosing to act either in the immediate interest of self and/or others, acknowledging that there really isn't any such thing as selfless altruism, i.e.:

1) You help someone because it makes you feel good.
2) You come to a mutually beneficial agreement with someone because it's rational to do so.
3) You save your own hide when need be because there's little sense in exuberant self-sacrfice.

Etc.

Whereas espousing (selfless) altruism as a virtue is a problem because it tends to induce funky consequences on a person's worldview that lead to goofy deleterious memes like Utilitarianism, Collectivism, etc.

OK ok sure, I just meant it was semantics because we are talking about it abstractly and not observing any particular behavior in action.

[Beautiful sky]

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.

I agree, I do this, but my mom, an INTp, almost keeps a log of what goodness was done to who and expects an equal value of what she does to be returned to her, while I require nothing of such acts. I do things because I want to not because I expect things in return. If the person does give me things in return, I appreciate it, but I don't sit there and cross it off on the balance sheet.

[Gilly]

Because words bear connotations that directly influence how they get operationalized in the mind.

Self-interest doesn't preclude altruistic acts; it's more about situationally choosing to act either in the immediate interest of self and/or others, acknowledging that there really isn't any such thing as selfless altruism, i.e.:

1) You help someone because it makes you feel good.
2) You come to a mutually beneficial agreement with someone because it's rational to do so.
3) You save your own hide when need be because there's little sense in exuberant self-sacrfice.

Etc.

Whereas espousing (selfless) altruism as a virtue is a problem because it tends to induce funky consequences on a person's worldview that lead to goofy deleterious memes like Utilitarianism, Collectivism, etc.

...as well as crazy people like Paul Farmer who bring healthcare and global attention to people who would otherwise be dropping like fruit flies.

[Aquagraph]

I pretty much skimmed this thread and I don't know what thoughts have been presented, but here's my thoughts on the matter:
First of all: the ideal altruist would be somebody who wouldn't profit (satisfaction, wealth, anything) from being 'selfless' any way. Let's scrap that unreal ideal and talk about the common altruist who gets kicks for walking the old lady across the street.

Self-interest and tribalism are biological imperatives in human beings

Yes, nice that you said tribalism. I look out for my pack, therefore I'd say I'm an altruist. My self-interest is the high I get from helping another and the power I receive when helpful to respectful people who will surely remember the time I scratched their back. Not to forget that helping is an essential part of the seduction process and through them I will receive social contacts (friends, homegrowers, dealers, somebody with a car, hairdresser etc), invitations to events, sexual satisfaction, you name it. I say it's pretty good deal for just being nice, though I'm usually being helpful just because I like him/her and thus I don't consider it a a conscious deal, but as an form of altruism.

WARNING: Altruism is demeaning to the ego if not consumed in moderation.
I have seen too much people who forget to think about themselves and thus harm the whole environment in their confusion. Recent case went to the subway.. ..head on.

Interesting fact is that in the 19th century USA, there were a whole lot of charity for social welfare, propably due to low taxes and thus more money to spend and a higher need for public services.
And taxation is forced theft in the name of altruism. Nevertheless, I sympathize the Robin Hood mind set.

[Reuben]

Hi. Join the pack.

[tcaudilllg]

People do that which they think will bring the greatest rewards. Period.

[Taknamay]

Really? Are you sure that some people do not knowingly act against their own interests?

[Timmy]

Birduism is way cooler than altruism. Altruism belongs on a dusty book-shelf in a musty cellar, lodged between Living History: Hillary Rodham Clinton and sanctimony.

[Aquagraph]

Howewer, it is, I'm just happy that we are a species that gets kicks out of being helpful.

[Creepy-male]

Really? Are you sure that some people do not knowingly act against their own interests?

How is it even possible to act against your own interest, that's implying your actions are not the result of your own willpower.

[Creepy-pokeball]

The usage of altruism can become, disgustingly, a part of social prowess, rank, and power. Its very odd. Maybe it is what happens when other perceived sources of power or control (such as money, among other things) over one's own world are either not enough or not meaningful to them. And, maybe, also, it is what happens as a tool to reach said other sources of power or control. Its so very contradictory and deceitful. Sometimes I wonder if those within such enactments are even aware of it.

[Reuben]

People do that which they think will bring the greatest rewards. Period.

So having periods will bring the greatest reward? Wow you're really brilliant, no wonder April has one every month. Oh, is that why you stalk her?

[Taknamay]

How is it even possible to act against your own interest, that's implying your actions are not the result of your own willpower.

EDIT: Never mind, that sort of detracts from my original point. Consciously, we only act in our "interest" but that is a very broad term that covers a lot of things. Unconsciously, we act against our interests all the time.

[Creepy-male]

EDIT: Never mind, that sort of detracts from my original point. Consciously, we only act in our "interest" but that is a very broad term that covers a lot of things. Unconsciously, we act against our interests all the time.

Alright if its unconscious then how can you actually take ownership of that action in order to claim you are acting against your self-interest.

[Taknamay]

You're right, that doesn't really count. Ignore that post then, let me make a different point entirely.

I actually agree with you that people consciously act in their own "interest." However, that interest can be self-destructive in nature. That's really what I was trying to get across.

[Absurd]

So having periods will bring the greatest reward? Wow you're really brilliant, no wonder April has one every month. Oh, is that why you stalk her?

Oi mate, no, not oi mate, get the fuck out of me quadra, you cunt and cunt of a cunt cunt. No hair is to be fallen off April.

[Ave]

Yes, it belongs in America. Btw, why question it in America specifically? I've seen more altruism in the U.S. than certain European/other countries. This from what i've observed/experienced personally.

Altriusm doesnt truly exist, hence your observation is skewed.

[Ave]

Altruism should be replaced by a simple love for the human race.

Love for the human race is bland.

[Gilly]

The usage of altruism can become, disgustingly, a part of social prowess, rank, and power. Its very odd. Maybe it is what happens when other perceived sources of power or control (such as money, among other things) over one's own world are either not enough or not meaningful to them. And, maybe, also, it is what happens as a tool to reach said other sources of power or control. Its so very contradictory and deceitful. Sometimes I wonder if those within such enactments are even aware of it.

Is that really a problem if the good they do for people/the world at large outweighs the negative impact of their pomp? What's the real problem with this?

I don't see how being altruistic nets you "power" of any serious kind in our system. Maybe you can provide an example?

[Creepy-male]

The kind of power extracted through symbiotic relationships feeds both parties power, the kind of negative or destructive power you may be referencing is usually when one attempts to ascend there individual power to a certain point where this vastly exceeds others. Typically the entire idea of power = corruption is usually a consequence of that quick and immediate rise to power of an individual and not a consequence of the slower and more gradual process of growth/evolution that natural systems organically undergo.

Even this idea that humans are too powerful and will deplete the earth is a consequence of the idea of humanity vastly exceeding other lifeforms on the planet in terms of power.

[Creepy-male]

You're right, that doesn't really count. Ignore that post then, let me make a different point entirely.

I actually agree with you that people consciously act in their own "interest." However, that interest can be self-destructive in nature. That's really what I was trying to get across.

Sure a person's interest can willfully be self-destructive, and there are many interesting reasons why a person would do this.

In fact I see this as one of the negative consequences behind over-emphasis of altruism on individuals, when this kind of behavior is conditioned into children at young ages, it can potentially create a complex where they feel guilty for not helping others and fixating on themselves too much. This guilt may drive them to self-destructive impulses, destroying themselves internally in order to constantly supply others with help in order to alleviate anxiety and guilt. The greatest tragedy of this complex is that in the process of all this self-loathing the people around them begin to feel bad for all the stress the individual undertakes, and the positives of their service turn to negatives. This creates a greater void of guilt and anxiety in the individual which drives them to more self-destruction, which continually feeds the process.

It's interesting to note here the e8 to e2 integration/disintegration link.

I think the most spiritually/mentally healthy thing to do is the purge this conditioning and realize how self-interest is not always at the expense of another person but can actually be the beginning of mutually beneficial bonds between people or their environment. Many people have probably been through this process at one time in there life, and have torn down the barrier once tension mounted to a critical point, however there are many that haven't and many more that don't make it out when that tension mounts and they get stuck in a state of deep self-loathing.

It's somewhat tragic but I personally believe the problem is social conditioning, if there was more exposure to this kind of discussion, I think people would greatly benefit, some cultures are deeply steeped in the idea of service to the point where this kind of mentally gets conditioned early on when they are children and first interact with "authority".

[Sam Rockwell]

I can't dispute that I act altruistically, hoping that others will follow suit. You could say that I act selflessly for selfish reasons.

[Ave]

I can't dispute that I act altruisticly, hoping that others will follow suit.

hah

[intjguy]

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.

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/1762...de_peuter.html

Even ants pick up their dead.

[Ave]

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/1762...de_peuter.html

Even ants pick up their dead.

Yeah, especially ants. I think thats what he was saying.

[intjguy]

Just saying, the link I posted it pretty gruesome and lacks a looottttt of fuckin altruism.

[marooned]

I was thinking of responding to your post, k0rpsey, but it's gone. Anyway I think it was a bit of an over-reaction. Sorry.