Is genuine altruism possible?

Nobody knows about it as you are doing it (perhaps)

This can be taken two ways.

0 Replies

Our local newspaper has a Christmas Wish List every year. Many send donations to the newspaper to buy things that are on the wish list, and often times, I see the donors list that says "anonymous." Can that be considered pure autruism?

0 Replies

Locke, the man still gets compensation - moral compensation from himself. That's not selfless. Altruistic, maybe, but since everyone is defining alruism as selflessness, than no, it wouldn't be in this case. I believe altruism stems from the selfish desire to follow one's moral code, regardless of what others think, and from the selfless act of wishing happiness on people because they share something in common.

JL - words have forms too - in meaning. Imagine that we're talking in meaning and not words. Words are there for the sake of convenience.

Twyvel - must you see yourself in order to know you are there? What do you mean by "more than one self"?

A side note about altruism - I vaguely remember seeing this list in Sunday school once, a long time ago (this is Jewish Sunday school), about the levels of holiness in altruism. I don't remember how they went, quite, but I do remember that anonymous altruism was considered much higher than known altruism, and it was even better when both parties were anonymous. So there's the perspective of organized religion to throw into the mix.

0 Replies

Locke

If nobody knows about it doesn't exist. Concepts, events, influences, experiences etc, have to have a subject that knows them. They have to exist somewhere.

Meaning is subjective.

0 Replies

cicerone, I don't think so. The donor could be thinking how great s/he is.

0 Replies

rufio

How can both parties be anonymous? Doesn't the donor have to know s/he's giving?

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Katuu - as I said earlier in the thread, selflessness does not necessarily benefit anyone - in fact, it rarely does.

Why doesn't it? I see no logic or reason behind the statement. I knew a man...who once showed me how to be happy. He didn't do it for himself. This was selfless. I, once having been self-centered and depressed, now know how wonderful life can be. The same man once made a lighted sign for a barbershop and left it at the door for it to be found by the man. In this case, the barber never knew who gave him a sign for his establishment. This sign, if not just a benefit to the barber as a happy feeling caused by the thought that there are still nice people in the world, also announced the name of his business, possibly helping him out of financial bind. To say it doesn't benefit anyone is illogical, is it not?

0 Replies

If someone sets up a trust fund and the funds are distributed to a variety of organizations through a third, forth, or fifth party the donor could take pleasure in setting up the fund and "giving", but individual donations would have no one that has selfish feelings as rewards.

Pure altruism?

0 Replies

truth
Yes, Rufio, I think that our actions are selfish. We have the feeling of a self that must prosper, be safe, be loved, be content, etc. As such all our actions are in some way "motivated" to serve such needs. BUT, and this is a very big but (pardon the expression) I wish to repeat an earlier statement: We generally commend acts that serve one's needs by BENEFITTING OTHERS and condemn acts that serve one's needs by harming others. Both kinds of acts are motivated, i.e.,they are intended consciously or not to benefit the self, but one is altruistic or benevolent and the other malevolent.

0 Replies

So a person does a good act...

So that good act may make the person doing the act feel good in knowing that someone else may benefit...

Who can really say, other than the person doing the "selfless" act, if they did it to feel good over it, or if they did it so that another person could feel good? I suppose it is an unexplainable or unsupportable statement that, when I was young, my grandmother bent over backwards to see to it that I was happy. She spoiled me horribly, is the truth of the situation. And she did this at her complete expense, and only for me...never for herself or a good feeling. I only know because I recognize her for it in a way that maybe only I could. I do see the point, though, that someone may do a good deed for the good feeling, but I also see the possibility of a truly selfless act that is done out of love.

0 Replies

Twyvel

"If nobody knows about it doesn’t exist."

What a nice peice of existentialist crap. Besides, the guy who did it knows about it.

"consciousness cannot observe itself though subject—object observing, i.e. there’s nothing to observe."

That's what I mean when I say that we know ourselves without observation.

"How can both parties be anonymous? Doesn’t the donor have to know s/he’s giving?"

Mutually anonymous. An anonymous giver giving to an anonymous receiver, rather than an anonymous giver giving to a known receiver or vice versa.

In your example, I'm sure that there would be plenty of selfish reasons if the donators knew where they were donating their money. But I'm sure that if the organization stole the "donations" it would be completely selfless, yes.

Katuu

"Why doesn't it? I see no logic or reason behind the statement."

Logically, "selfless" means without the self. All that implies is that an action is done without the self in mind - it says nothing about others. I say that it rarely involves others, since human beings are so connected to each other - what benefits one often benefits others as well. Take altruism, for example.

JL

I suppose there's no difference between helping and harming another human being if you have no moral code, but I can't think of anyone who does. The other option is, if you aren't a human yourself, you are probably less likely to empathise with humans because the only quality they share with you is life. Otherwise, I think that most (sane) people wouldn't take much pleasure in harming others.

0 Replies

Katuu, why would you name a reason for your actions if it didn't make you feel good? Why would you say that you were doing something for a reason if you didn't feel that reason justified the action? I maintain that the only truly selfless acts are the acts done for no reason at all.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Quote:

What a nice peice of existentialist crap. Besides, the guy who did it knows about it.

Please hold the crap comments until you know what you talking about.

The statement, ""If nobody knows about it [it] doesn't exist."

Was in response to Locke's scenario:

Man1 knowns Criminal is going to set off a biological bomb in a nearby town. No one else knows Criminal plans to do this, and there is no proof whatsoever. if Criminal's plan succeeds, thousands will die, but Man1 wont. Man1 knwos it would be illegal to do something to try to stop Criminal, because n one else knows about his plan, and it is completely perfect so no one will ever find out. Man1 confronts Criminal, kills him, and dies in the struggle. Police records show Man1 attacked Criminal with no reason and goes down in the books as a psycopathic killer.

There's no human in physical existence that knows about this so called altruistic act of Man1, as he and the Criminal are dead. Get it?

Meaning, understanding, knowledge, concepts etc. do not exist independent of subjects.

Besides that that anything exists independent from an observer is pure guesswork. But that's another issue, which you apparently are not nearly ready to consider or be opened minded about.

Quote:

Quote:
That's what I mean when I say that we know ourselves without observation.

It's quite obvious that you don't understand what I'm talking about.

If, "ourselves = consciousness'then we do not know ourselves because consciousness cannot be observed. (in the usual sense of knowing, i.e relatively, dualistically). If you are referring to another knid of knowing; directly or nondually etc. then say so.

Quote:

In your example, I'm sure that there would be plenty of selfish reasons if the donators knew where they were donating their money. But I'm sure that if the organization stole the "donations" it would be completely selfless, yes.

My idea was that it could be double blind. The donors don't know where the money is going or who is getting it so the altruism would not be connected or directed to the receivers of the gift.

0 Replies

rufio says...
since human beings are so connected to each other - what benefits one often benefits others as well

why would you name a reason for your actions if it didn't make you feel good?

I maintain that the only truly selfless acts are the acts done for no reason at all.

...

Connected how? In the case of leaving something at someones doorstep because they needed whatever it was for whatever reason (and you don't even have to know the reason to know that someone needs something unless you just have to have proof and not take their word). Sure, this may benefit plenty who live in the house. So it does benefit others...how does this change it into being a selfish act?

Why would I name a reason for actions if it didn't make me feel good? Because I'm not self-centered. Are we talking about only in perspective of altruism? I have done things for others and if I named a reason, it wasn't meant to make me feel good. Such as if I wash dishes for a friend after she moves and there are tons of dishes to be done. She's at work and I drive over and do the dishes because I know it's a lot of work and I had some free time. The reasoning was that I had free time, and I wanted to help my friend out. I never questioned whether it would make me feel good, plain and simple. How can you guys not see that as an altruistic act?? Please, pick it apart for me and explain? Do you say that simply because the act may have made me feel good in the process while my FOCUS was on my friend that it was not selfless? And I was never repaid or asked for repayment in any form...
I suggest we completely forget heroism here, selflessness can be in even a simple, small, friendly act (like helping a person on the side of the road or forming a study group for a person who's having trouble...or even washing dishes for your friend).

A quote by William Penn comes to mind...so if you need reasoning behind altruism that has nothing to do with the self, how's this for reasoning?
"I expect to pass through this world but once. Any good, therefore, that I can do, or any kindness or abilities that I can show to any fellow creature, let me do it now. Let me not defer it or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again."
What else can I say to wake you up to the POSSIBILITY of a friendly, selfless person, or even society?

And if something is done without reason, I question it's good to anyone...please note my quote in the signature...

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Mutually anonymous. An anonymous giver giving to an anonymous receiver, rather than an anonymous giver giving to a known receiver or vice versa.

twyvel wrote:

My idea was that it could be double blind. The donors don't know where the money is going or who is getting it so the altruism would not be connected or directed to the receivers of the gift.

I confess I'm somewhat baffled by this notion of "altruism." I'm comfortable with the idea of anonymous donations, but I just can't quite grasp the concept of an anonymous recipient. If the donor doesn't know the destination of the donation, how can the donor be sure that the donative act was even accomplished, or had the desired effect?

Let's look at it this way: I am motivated, by a generous impulse, to give away $100, but I wish to do so anonymously. I furtively throw a $100 bill on the street, acting on the well-founded assumption that someone will undoubtedly pick it up. Certainly, I am an "anonymous donor," in that no one sees me drop the bill, and there's no way to trace the bill back to me. And I suppose there's no way for me to identify the person who retrieves the bill. So is that an act of altruism?

What if the person who finds that $100 bill is a multi-millionaire? What if the person who finds the bill uses the money to buy a gun with which to rob and murder others? What if the person who finds it posts a notice in the newspaper, seeking to return the $100 bill to its rightful owner? What if no one finds it and it's thrown into the garbage? In those cases, is my act an act of altruism?

0 Replies

Twyvel, I don't care what you apply that statement to, it's still wrong. Does everything that happens need an observer? Was the world flat for all those years that we refused to believe it was round? Does everything whose existance only you know about cease to exist when you die? People who made history are dead - does that mean that the history no longer exists?

Knowing does not imply observing. If I had meant to say observering, I would have said observing.

The donors of the money would know they were giving a gift, and probably what they were giving it for. They would feel good about the giving. If they didn't feel good about the giving, their wouldn't give.

Katuu - giving is a selfish act because you do so of your own free will. You wouldn't do something of your own free will that you didn't want to do.

The reason you did your friend's dishes wasn't because you had free time. I'd guess that you don't go looking for dishes to do every time you have free time. You did your friend's dishes because you knew it would save HER time, and you WANTED to save her the time and effort. Helping friends makes people feel good, because they are friends, and they connect with them and empathize with them. It was an altruistic act, but not a selfless one.

"And if something is done without reason, I question it's good to anyone"

You're beginning to understand.

Joe, typically donating to soup kitchens and the salvation army and so forth will ensure that only poor people will get your money, but you won't know any of the people specifically. The reason this is optimal in Judaism is because the person receiving might feel shame, and it is wrong to shame another human being. But I digress... this is not MY belief.

0 Replies

joefromchicago

Quote:

I confess I'm somewhat baffled by this notion of "altruism." I'm comfortable with the idea of anonymous donations, but I just can't quite grasp the concept of an anonymous recipient. If the donor doesn't know the destination of the donation, how can the donor be sure that the donative act was even accomplished, or had the desired effect?

Quote:

Let's look at it this way: I am motivated, by a generous impulse, to give away $100, but I wish to do so anonymously. I furtively throw a $100 bill on the street, acting on the well-founded assumption that someone will undoubtedly pick it up. Certainly, I am an "anonymous donor," in that no one sees me drop the bill, and there's no way to trace the bill back to me. And I suppose there's no way for me to identify the person who retrieves the bill. So is that an act of altruism?

What if the person who finds that $100 bill is a multi-millionaire? What if the person who finds the bill uses the money to buy a gun with which to rob and murder others? What if the person who finds it posts a notice in the newspaper, seeking to return the $100 bill to its rightful owner? What if no one finds it and it's thrown into the garbage? In those cases, is my act an act of altruism?

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Locke, the man still gets compensation - moral compensation from himself. That's not selfless. Altruistic, maybe, but since everyone is defining alruism as selflessness, than no, it wouldn't be in this case. I believe altruism stems from the selfish desire to follow one's moral code, regardless of what others think, and from the selfless act of wishing happiness on people because they share something in common.
Quote:

ive been saying something along those lines, that moral compensation is stil compensation

[email protected] wrote:
even something as small as a good feeling
Quote:

that is just the best scenario i could think of, the most perfect altruism that i think is possible, but i agree, moral compensation is not selfless, and if that how you define altruism, then it is impossible

0 Replies

ok, obviously i dont know how to quote, sorry

0 Replies

Is genuine altruism possible?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know