Originally Posted by Odlov
Hardly.
Altruism is essential for survival of social animals, especially ones that rely on society as heavily as humans. Many people before you have died for freedom of expression and speech out of their convictions, for example. Because of them, you now have free access to various information (Ayn's books being one example).
Tell me, ever so well-versed in philosophy, Odlov, why does anyone choose to help another? Because he/she get's something out of it. Whether it be a sense of well being, or whether it be some sort of monetary payment years later. Egoism is the root of all morality. I don't see why you don't understand that.
I disagree with altruism used in the sense of putting others before yourself while you're alive. Once you're dead, you're no use to yourself.
[doc]
Getting back to the topic, I don't see how it could be considered in our best interest to destroy the environment we live in. To people who don't believe that pollution could affect your health in your lifetime, take a look at the Cuyahoga River:
This was 1952, the last one in 69. Without environmental regulations, the quality of life in cities would be dramatically worse.
That and there's the whole peak oil thing, which is a direct incentive to invest in alternative technologies. I really don't see how altruism fits into this at all.
This was 1952, the last one in 69. Without environmental regulations, the quality of life in cities would be dramatically worse.
That and there's the whole peak oil thing, which is a direct incentive to invest in alternative technologies. I really don't see how altruism fits into this at all.
[Inq]
Need help with anything? Have a question? PM me! I'll try my best to help you.
Originally Posted by Galt
Tell me, ever so well-versed in philosophy, Odlov, why does anyone choose to help another? Because he/she get's something out of it. Whether it be a sense of well being, or whether it be some sort of monetary payment years later. Egoism is the root of all morality. I don't see why you don't understand that.
Was Jesus an altruist because he sacrificed himself? Oh, no, because he died for what he thought was a good cause... Who does your ethical model leave to be called an altruist? One who sacrifices his well-being for something he sees as wrong? You've implicitly defined selfish into analytic truth. You are saying nothing, like A=A. Words like "selfishness" and "selflessness" exist for a reason; to express something.
Last edited by Odlov; Apr 25, 2010 at 07:15 PM.
Originally Posted by Odlov
Was Jesus an altruist because he sacrificed himself?
Oh, no, because he died for what he thought was a good cause... Who does your ethical model leave to be called an altruist.
One who sacrifices his well-being for something he sees as wrong? You've implicitly defined selfish into analytic truth. You are saying nothing, like A=A. Words like "selfishness" and "selflessness" exist for a reason; to express something.
Think of a bunch of random people and each of them we'll assign a letter. Altruism would tell you that "A" should be striving to do things for "B" and not "A." But then it also says "B" should be doing things for "C" and not "B." So "A" does something for "B" (say, "A" gives "B" an apple), but then "B" is supposed to not keep things for "B" and instead pass them on too and so the apple gets passed along to "C" again too. But "C" is also obligated to do and give up for the sake of "D" and so on and so fourth. Altruism, if practiced consistently, winds up with everybody working for nobody's benefit.
That's altruism. That's pointless and fucking circular. That's irrational.
Originally Posted by Odlov
Point being: getting emotional satisfaction out of something that jeopardizes your life is not egoism. Your definition of egoism is not a common one.
No. Your definition of altruism is not a common one.
edit: Now, I'm going to sleep.
Last edited by Galt; Apr 25, 2010 at 07:21 PM.
[doc]
Originally Posted by Galt
Think of a bunch of random people and each of them we'll assign a letter. Altruism would tell you that "A" should be striving to do things for "B" and not "A." But then it also says "B" should be doing things for "C" and not "B." So "A" does something for "B" (say, "A" gives "B" an apple), but then "B" is supposed to not keep things for "B" and instead pass them on too and so the apple gets passed along to "C" again too. But "C" is also obligated to do and give up for the sake of "D" and so on and so fourth. Altruism, if practiced consistently, winds up with everybody working for nobody's benefit.
That's altruism. That's pointless and fucking circular. That's irrational.
How shallow. Not only does your example completely ignore the mental satisfaction aspect of self, but it also ignores the difference in individual needs of those hypothetical people. Maybe A, B, and C don't need an apple anywhere near as much as D does.
By your logic, a mother should just drown her baby because it's another mouth to feed.
And no, there is no real difference between a mother helping her child because it satisfies her natural urges and a man helping another man because it satisfies his.
"Self" applies to one's ego more than anything else.
Now let me show you an example.
A and B are stuck on an island. A is bigger and stronger, and knows how to hunt. He also happens to be a complete douchebag, and eats everything he kills by himself. B chose a different path in life; he is neither physically fit nor skilled in hunt. Since he can't get food, he dies. Later A gets a nasty infection in his leg from a lizard bite. Alas, B who has knowledge of herbs and medicine is dead...So A dies as well, for being such a good objectivist.
This is a basic demonstration of evolutionary benefit of altruism - distribution of resources and services in order to sustain more life. Human society is a network.
So, if altruistic acts bring altruist happiness and someone else tangible benefit, why in the world is it "irrational"?
Last edited by Odlov; Apr 25, 2010 at 10:39 PM.
