Is genuine altruism possible?

truth
You too,Locke? Can't you accept the definition of sound as an experience that requires for its generation, ears, temporal lobe, and all the physical events you describe so precisely? You actually feel comfortable with the notion of an unheard sound? Could you also accept the notion of REDNESS without sight and sweetness without taste buds? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Twyvel, if the receiver benefits than, unless the giver is emotionally unstable, he will feel good about helping another human being.

If any of you have something you think I am overlooking, or denying unreasonably, feel free to post why. Until you do, I am going with what seems most likely at this point. Why don't you try making a point instead of senseless chatter? I did not change my opinion, EVER.

0 Replies

joefromchicago

Quote:

So, in my above hypothetical, if Donor drops a $100 bill on the street and it is picked up by a homeless person, Donor's act is altruistic, but if the bill ends up in the garbage the act is not altruistic?

If the 100$ is accidentally drop in my view it's not altruistic in nature.

Dropping it intentionally is equivalent to giving it to an anonymous person, because in both situations you have no idea of where the money will end up; how it will be spent or who will pick it up.

Is altruism based on who gets the donation?

Locke,
As I said my position is that sound is a function and product of our brains.

0 Replies

rufio

Quote:

if the receiver benefits than, unless the giver is emotionally unstable, he will feel good about helping another human being.

0 Replies

rufio says...

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.
...

self·ish [ sélfish ]
adjective
1. looking after own desires: concerned with your own interests, needs, and wishes while ignoring those of others
2. demonstrating selfishness: showing that personal needs and wishes are thought to be more important than those of other people

self·less [ sélfləss ]
adjective
thinking of others first: putting other people's needs first

So maybe now we can clear up this misunderstanding of the word selfish and selfless.

An act is not selfish when you do something for someone else because you have chosen to out of free will (or want to, as you put it). The act is selfish when the motive behind the act is concerned with only yourself and nothing else.

In other words, the factor that categorizes something as selfish or selfless in not that you have chosen or even want to do something for someone, but rather the motive driving that desire, choice, or want to do something. Can it be any clearer than that?

An example, the motive behind the reason I washed my friends dishes was so that SHE didn't have to and it would make HER life easier. Yes, I chose to do this and so the choice is central to ME, but the motive driving the choice is HER. Therefore, the act is selfless.

On the flip side, let's say the reason I washed her dishes was that I chose to do so. The motive behind the reason is that I was going to later ask her to wash my car and remind her that I washed her dishes, and therefore she owes me. The motive has to do with something I want or will try to get out of the situation. Therefore, this is a selfish act.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

If the 100$ is accidentally drop in my view it's not altruistic in nature.

In my hypothetical I stated: "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." So the $100 bill is dropped intentionally, not accidentally.

twyvel wrote:

Dropping it intentionally is equivalent to giving it to an anonymous person, because in both situations you have no idea of where the money will end up; how it will be spent or who will pick it up.

So it's Donor's intent that is crucial here? How does that square with your previous statement: "It's not altruism if it provides no benefit." If the $100 bill ends up in the garbage, the recipient certainly does not benefit, because there is no recipient. Yet the intent remains the same. So is it altruistic regardless of the "success" of the act?

twyvel wrote:

Is altruism based on who gets the donation?

I'm trying to determine if that's your position or not.

0 Replies

Don't think of it like "the goal is to feel good". Think of it as "you do it because it feels good". Same sentence, but it sounds much better now, doesn't it? All altruistic acts (and indeed, anything that is purposeful) is selfish like that. If things didn't feel good, we wouldn't do them. We're not going in circles. You're just not reading my posts.

Katuu, when I talk about selfless and selfish, I am using more exact definitions than your dictionary. I mean what I say, and nothing more. Every time you want something, your motive is for yourself. You can say that your motive is the thing you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the reason that is your motive is because it brings you pleasure.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Don't think of it like "the goal is to feel good". Think of it as "you do it because it feels good". Same sentence, but it sounds much better now, doesn't it? All altruistic acts (and indeed, anything that is purposeful) is selfish like that. If things didn't feel good, we wouldn't do them. We're not going in circles. You're just not reading my posts.

Katuu, when I talk about selfless and selfish, I am using more exact definitions than your dictionary. I mean what I say, and nothing more. Every time you want something, your motive is for yourself. You can say that your motive is the thing you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the reason that is your motive is because it brings you pleasure.

Do you think of all possibilities before you post? What about the possibility that something may not feel good when you choose to do it? How about going to the dentist? This is something you chose to do and by YOUR definition selfish, but ...it sure can be painful...and does it bring you pleasure (although note that since usually the motive driving someone to go to the dentist would be selfish since it has to do with reasons central to themselves, such as YOURSELF is in pain and YOURSELF needs help)?

Those were not my definitions, those were definitions written by people before us which, besides the logic of the fact that the motive is what classifies an effort as selfish or not and that motive can be either concerned with yourself or someone else, is enough proof for me that there was a use for these words...meaning that selflessness is possible. Period.

How do you deny that a motive can be selfless if a motive is what drives you to do something (or makes you WANT to do something as you say it)...not forgetting that the motive may be something that has to do with someone other than yourself.

BTW, what are your definitions of selfish and selfless??

Do you deny that a motive is what drives us to do something, whether we choose to do it or not? There must be a reason behind why you choose to do something. If you don't disagree with that, then bu all logical means, you must understand that this reason, or motive, behind why we do something can be "selfless" by definition (which is to bring someone elses needs to the forefront whether it makes you feel good or not).

katuu

0 Replies

And also, while that feeling good may exist after doing a selfless act (or even may not but we haven't considered that possibility) it is only a byproduct of a motive that is driven by someone other than yourself.

0 Replies

A small quibble, JLN--certainly red is a conceptual thing, and sweetness is a similar concept, but only exists as the experience of the reaction of taste buds. Sound, however, describes a perturbation in the physical world, which would be "observable" by instrumentation in the absence of any human observer. Additionally, that perturbation is replicable, in the classic imperical sense--it is not unreasonable to state that if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it nonetheless makes a sound. I will refrain from all the cheap jokes i love to make about that thought experiment.

0 Replies

I am a firm believer in genuine altruism, but only after doing a cost/benefit analysis.

0 Replies

I have a problem with isms in general.

0 Replies

truth
Rufio and Setanta, I am only trying to make the point that BOTH the objective events of air disturbance, taste bud stimulation and retinal stimulation (whatever these "objective physical measurable events" are) AND their corresponding brain functions are required for there to be what I would call THE SENSATION of sound, redness, and sweetness. I think Twyvel overstates the position in asserting that "sound is a function and product of our brains." That is true, but only half of the truth of the matter. We cannot have sounds without air disturbances, sensation of redness without something before our eyes that reflects the red end of the light spectrum and sweetness without our tastebuds encountering something like sugar--UNLESS, of course, we are suffering a brain tumor or hypnotic suggestion(both of which could account for purely subjective experience sans objective stimuli). So, please understand me. Regarding our understanding of the mechanics of experience, I am arguing against a purely objectivist and purely subjectivist perspective. I DO say, however, that from a philosophical perspective, ALL our experience and knowledge of the external world, boils down to phenomena, i.e., our experience and human conceptual constructions of the world.

0 Replies

joefromchicago

Quote:

So it's Donor's intent that is crucial here? How does that square with your previous statement: "It's not altruism if it provides no benefit."

Quote:

If the $100 bill ends up in the garbage, the recipient certainly does not benefit, because there is no recipient. Yet the intent remains the same. So is it altruistic regardless of the "success" of the act?

3. If donor's intent to give does not reach its goal the altruistic act is not achieved.

Quote:

Is altruism based on who gets the donation?

Quote:
I'm trying to determine if that's your position or not.

0 Replies

You misunderstand me, katuu. Anything that you know will benefit you makes you feel good. You go to the dentist and feel better for having done it because you know that your teeth are clean now. In fact, most decisions aren't based on the moment. Altruism can actually be quite unpleasant at the time.

Selfless - without the self in mind
Selfish - with the self in mind

When you choose to help a friend instead of a stranger, or when you choose to help anyone instead of lounging around doing nothing, you choose to do so because it feels good. Unless someone is mentally ill, all motives are selfish, because by making a choice, we are really deciding what is best for us. It is not possible to have an unselfish thought - our thoughts come from our selves.

Setanta - thank you for clearing up this tree nonesense.

JL - clearly sensations do not exist without something to create them. No one is saying that they do.

0 Replies

truth
Rufio, I am acknowledging the side of the equation you recognize, but you do not acknowledge the other side--the role of the brain, mind and culture.

0 Replies

Actually, in another thread, i have established that if a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one around to hear it, the other trees scorn their fallen comrade unmercifully . . .

0 Replies

What do you mean, JL?

Lol, Setanta.

0 Replies

Satanta

Quote:

it is not unreasonable to state that if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, it nonetheless makes a sound.

rufio

Quote:

Setanta - thank you for clearing up this tree nonesense.

_________________
Actually it's not "cleared up" at all

The Missing Link of Quantum Mechanics
by Lee Herald

According to two articles from The Arizona Republic the physicists of Quantum Mechanics, who study subatomic particles, have asked the ultimate question. ". . . whether this (observation) is the only act of creation that is needed to bring the whole universe into existence." In an attempt to answer this question my theory follows these excerpts from the two articles.

SCIENTISTS TRY TO EXPLAIN PARTICLES' IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOR, By Walter Sullivan, The New York Times, in The Arizona Republic, December 2, 1984

" Quantum mechanics . . . indicates that properties usually attributed to matter have no real existence until measured . . .

. . . the features of the atomic world become real only when we look at them . . .

Until then . . . they are . . . in an uncertain state, wavering between alternate forms of polarization.
Only when measured does the polarization become real. Which form will be recorded is completely indeterminate . . .

THE MEANING OF LIFE - Some deeply disturbing things about reality, brought to you by your friends who study quantum mechanics, By Philip L. Harrison, Arizona Magazine, The Arizona Republic, June 23, 1985

The theory's centerpiece, the so-called Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, states simply enough that the behavior of subatomic particles is not predictable . . .

According to the physicists . . . (uncertainty) actually is the nature of reality . . .

There is no way of knowing where a particle is, and thus its true nature, because we change it by merely looking at it . . .

By observing it, we force the atom to make a choice . . .

But it would be wrong to dismiss this as having no particular meaning for the so-called everyday world.
For in a very special sense, this act of observation is an elementary act of creation.

The Ultimate Question, therefore, is whether this is the only act of creation that is needed to bring the whole universe into existence.

Is the universe "nothing more" than billions upon billions of observations?

And if this is so, what is it about observing that forces something to come into existence in a particular way?"

0 Replies

con'd

LEE HERALD'S THEORY

http://www.authorzone.com/view_articles.php?&articleid=197

0 Replies

Is genuine altruism possible?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know