Originally posted by divegeester As I don't believe altruism exists it is unlikely that I would do something I didn't want to do. You need to view me and altruism the way you view yourself and God.
To be honest, I'm a little surprised your haven't backed down from this position. I honestly can't separate Christianity and a call to be altruistic in nature.
Say for example a neighbour's house was on fire and their child was trapped upstairs. Obviously 'no one' would 'want' to rush into a burning building and put their own life at risk, but many faced with such a scenario would do exactly that and demonstrate altruism as it is commonly understood (to put others first despite possible disadvantage to oneself). This kind of selfless act occurs all the time in the world, so I don't understand any argument that altruism doesn't exist.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke Say for example a neighbour's house was on fire and their child was trapped upstairs. Obviously 'no one' would 'want' to rush into a burning building and put their own life at risk, but many faced with such a scenario would do exactly that and demonstrate altruism as it is commonly understood (to put others first despite possible disadvantage to ones ...[text shortened]... ccurs all the time in the world, so I don't understand any argument that altruism doesn't exist.
But it's not selfless; they do it out of a sense of duty and friendship possibly to their neighbour.
If the same person was walking down a street in another country and saw a house of fire they most likely would NOT rush in. That is the difference.
Originally posted by divegeester But it's not selfless; they do it out of a sense of duty and friendship possibly to their neighbour.
If the same person was walking down a street in another country and saw a house of fire they most likely would NOT rush in. That is the difference.
But what if 'the same person was walking down a street in another country and saw a house of fire' and DID rush in. (As some people would, and have). Would this not be a suitable demonstration of altruism and a Gazumption of your view that altruism doesn't exist?
And again, I do not believe a degree of self interest or 'sense of duty' stops an act from being altruistic, in the commonly understood sense. Indeed, I would say that your definition of altruism which seems to require 100% selflessness is a personal misunderstanding of what it actually means to be altruistic.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke But what if 'the same person was walking down a street in another country and saw a house of fire' and DID rush in. (As some people would, and have). Would this not be a suitable demonstration of altruism and a Gazumption of your view that altruism doesn't exist?
And again, I do not believe a degree of self interest or 'sense of duty' stops an act ...[text shortened]... ire 100% selflessness is a personal misunderstanding of what it actually means to be altruistic.
No that would not necessarily constitute altruism. My example was trying to provide contrast to your your "neighbour" example and show that "running into a burning house" is not a controlled experiment/example because there is neighbour involved. Even you would have to agree that "running into the burning house" of a complete stranger is less likely, so...if it is less likely to happen WHY? It is less likely to happen because there are other "self interest" forces in play. The neighbour factor. Such as it is.
To your second point, yes I've acknowledged and suggested several times that it is the definition of altruism we need to establish. If altruism can be defined as being acts of kindness towards another living thing with little or no apparent self interest, then I could probably subscribe to that.
Originally posted by divegeester If altruism can be defined as being acts of kindness towards another living thing with little or no apparent self interest, then I could probably subscribe to that.
We equally have to define 'self interest'.
I say that parenting is not inherently self interest.
Yes, one may parent because they want someone to look after them in their old age.
Yes, one may parent because they like having children around and it makes them happy.
But when one parents primarily because they love their children and want them to succeed, I do not call that 'self interest' and I do call it 'altruism'.
Originally posted by twhitehead We equally have to define 'self interest'.
I say that parenting is not inherently self interest.
Yes, one may parent because they want someone to look after them in their old age.
Yes, one may parent because they like having children around and it makes them happy.
But when one parents primarily because they love their children and want them to succeed, I do not call that 'self interest' and I do call it 'altruism'.
I now believe you on this. Earlier I honestly thought you were being ridiculous and trolling because for me, I think parenting is a classic example of apparent altruism which is actually very much driven by self interest.
I'm sorry I jumped to the wrong conclusion, but with our history and your often sharply oblique posting style I assumed you were taking the piss.
Obviously you weren't and it's interesting that we view parenting so differently in this context.
If altruism can be defined as being acts of kindness towards another living thing with little or no apparent self interest, then I could probably subscribe to that.
Splendid. Abandon your definition of altruism immediately and subscribe to mine, and we'll say no more about it.
Altruism ~ Nature or Nurture?
06 Oct '16 12:19
YouTube
Back to Top