What The Good Samaritan did

I’ll say this: the OP is indicative that doctrine is less important than actions, that actions have an effect, that your (apparent) enemy may be your helper, that Christ was trying to tell us this.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Impossible to tell.

Hmm. If that was not an act of altruism, what is?

Please explain how it could be interpreted as not an act of altruism.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Are you merely voicing a subjective opinion <snip>

It is obviously subjective. It is his own personal belief about Christianity.

If you fancy objective statements, try doing some math problems in the Puzzles forum.

Originally posted by @bigdoggproblem
Hmm. If that was not an act of altruism, what is?

Please explain how it could be interpreted as not an act of altruism.

GoaD and I have been debating the definition of altruism for a while. It is my contention that altruism in its purest sense does not exist. This is not to deny the Good Samaritan his place in gospel truth, it is more about the nature of motivation itself.

Originally posted by @divegeester
GoaD and I have been debating the definition of altruism for a while. It is my contention that altruism in its purest sense does not exist. This is not to deny the Good Samaritan his place in gospel truth, it is more about the nature of motivation itself.

🙂

For my part, an altruistic act is one that puts others first and 'might' put the doer in danger for no personal gain. I do not believe altruism needs the prefix 'purest sense' nor does altruism in the common understanding have to be void of any personal satisfaction or motivation. In this way, I could help a stranger for no personal gain, feel good about it, and still have been altruistic in my behaviour. The deciding factor for altruism is that the well being of others is put before our own and that this is our primary motivation.

The good Samaritan therefore was certainly altruistic and an example to be emulated by both Christian and non-Christian alike.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
🙂

For my part, an altruistic act is one that puts others first and 'might' put the doer in danger for no personal gain. I do not believe altruism needs the prefix 'purest sense' nor does altruism in the common understanding have to be void of any personal satisfaction or motivation. In this way, I could help a stranger for no personal gain, feel ...[text shortened]... as certainly altruistic and an example to be emulated by both Christian and non-Christian alike.

I am not unhappy with your definition. And I think altruism is easier to comprehend from a humanistic perspective rather than a spiritual one.

Originally posted by @divegeester
What “this”?

Sorry I honestly don’t get your question.

I was addressing dj2. Sorry for confusion. He’s just not aware of the flaws in his questions, or doesn’t really care.

Originally posted by @bigdoggproblem
It is obviously subjective. It is his own personal belief about Christianity.

If you fancy objective statements, try doing some math problems in the Puzzles forum.

So it is equivalent to him saying blue is prettier than pink. No real use to anyone.

Originally posted by @js357
I was addressing dj2. Sorry for confusion. He’s just not aware of the flaws in his questions, or doesn’t really care.

Agreed. The point of the OP is that Jesus described goodness without referring to doctrine.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Agreed. The point of the OP is that Jesus described goodness without referring to doctrine.

What is the point if this 'goodness' is merely subjectively 'good'?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So it is equivalent to him saying blue is prettier than pink. No real use to anyone.

No; your example is not at all equivalent. Both are subjective, but only one is trivial: your color example being that one.

Originally posted by @divegeester
GoaD and I have been debating the definition of altruism for a while. It is my contention that altruism in its purest sense does not exist. This is not to deny the Good Samaritan his place in gospel truth, it is more about the nature of motivation itself.

Is that the old chestnut of, 'If I feel good from helping others, then it was selfish'?

I think so long as the primary motivation of the act was helping others, then it is not selfish, even if it makes the actor feel good for having done it. It's supposed to be satisfying to help people. That's something that helps us bond with others.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What is the point if this 'goodness' is merely subjectively 'good'?

Once outside of your incredibly small operating zone you seem to have difficulty processing other ideas.

Originally posted by @bigdoggproblem
Is that the old chestnut of, 'If I feel good from helping others, then it was selfish'?

I think so long as the primary motivation of the act was helping others, then it is not selfish, even if it makes the actor feel good for having done it. It's supposed to be satisfying to help people. That's something that helps us bond with others.

Do you feel that calling another POV “an old chestnut” somehow adds weight to your own POV?

My POV is that there is no such thing as altruism based on the fact that doing good things for others makes us feel good, it is a reward in itself. I will go so far to say that Christ’s work of redemption was not altruistic as he did it for himself.

I’m not criticising good works nor those who do them, I’m just arguing that altruism, if described as doing something for someone with absolutely no reward, benefit or good feeling for oneself, doesn’t exist.

One poster in here claimed that it was altruistic for them to look after their own children. Complete nonsense of course.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Do you feel that calling another POV “an old chestnut” somehow adds weight to your own POV?

My POV is that there is no such thing as altruism based on the fact that doing good things for others makes us feel good, it is a reward in itself. I will go so far to say that Christ’s work of redemption was not altruistic as he did it for himself.

I’m no ...[text shortened]... d that it was altruistic for them to look after their own children. Complete nonsense of course.

"I’m just arguing that altruism, if described as doing something for someone with absolutely no reward, benefit or good feeling for oneself, doesn’t exist."


But who describes altruism in such a manner?! It's like saying love, 'if described' as a feeling that literally makes the heart explode, doesn't exist.

What's wrong with accepting the common understanding of the word altruism, which doesn't define it as ' doing something for someone with absolutely no reward, benefit or good feeling for oneself.'

As the dog said, you are meant to feel good about doing something good for others. The good feeling validates the altruistic act, it doesn't take anything away from it. And even as an atheist I view the whole redemption thing as a perfect example of altruism; to give up ones life for the benefit of others.