Originally posted by @dj2beckerIt is obviously subjective. It is his own personal belief about Christianity.
Are you merely voicing a subjective opinion <snip>
If you fancy objective statements, try doing some math problems in the Puzzles forum.
-Removed-🙂
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.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemSo it is equivalent to him saying blue is prettier than pink. No real use to anyone.
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 @dj2beckerNo; your example is not at all equivalent. Both are subjective, but only one is trivial: your color example being that one.
So it is equivalent to him saying blue is prettier than pink. No real use to anyone.
-Removed-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.
-Removed-"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.