Is genuine altruism possible?

Actually this is not true. Impurity does exist, it's been demomstrated repeatedly.

I was joking with Joe about why I "know" that purity doesn't exist. I don't "know" but it hasn't been found yet. We haven't yet found any purity, each time we look we simply find impurity.

IMPURITY DOESN'T EXIST ?



I feel that in Human Level Impurity only exists in reality and Purity exists in concept or as an Aim.Materially speaking also, all elements never existed in "Pure Form".All our actions if we notice are only actions intended for another combination.We always try to deduct all actions in terms of a single label.We start actions with known and hidden agenda.Just as we've no choice or control over the outcome of our actions we also don't have any choice in our motives.It's also true that we pick up various motives in the course of action.If things turnout to be different from our original understanding of the issue at hand then we may even give up the first intention.

We human beings can never be Pure by choice.We're yet to achieve the power of choosing.It has got to be earned First.This applies in various degrees for all of us.At our level we therefore can aim or work for good intentions only! This is where, we can begin.

I'm sorry if you misunderstood the nature of my hypotheticals. I was, I assure you, attempting to engage in something like a Socratic dialogue, not a "silly game."

You had said, cicerone imposter, that "good actions" are good if they benefit people, regardless of the actor's motivations. My response was an attempt to determine what you meant by "good actions." If there is something universally "bad" about hitting someone on the head, then it is "bad" in all situations, including situations where both the "bonker" and "bonkee" desire that particular action. In the same fashion, rescuing a drowning person from a lake (presumably a universally "good" action) may not necessarily be "good" if it is undertaken for evil motives.

In response, you accused me of playing "silly games." If that is the sole defense for your position, then that's pretty much an admission that you have no defense. On the other hand, if you have an actual argument -- something more than the "sez me" that you have so far offered -- then I'd be willing to discuss it. Until that time, however, I won't annoy you with any more "silly games." Indeed, rather than risk incurring your displeasure again, I will not bother to respond to anything you post.

Re: IMPURITY DOESN'T EXIST ?

Are you then denying that humans have free will?

How charming . . .

Can you explain under what circumstances risking one's life to save a drowning person might be undertaken for "evil" motives? I'd be really interested to see what contortions that produces.

quote, "I will not bother to respond to anything you post." Likewise.

truth
Twyvel's double denial is bound to be misunderstood by most. Tell me if I'm wrong, Twyvel, but it seems to me (from what I've learned about your general orientation) that it is not a matter of a completely unadulterate thing or state (purity) VERSUS a condition that is alloyed or adulterated. This dualism is what you are questioning; you are noting that the CONCEPTS, pure and impure, only make sense with reference to each other. That neither is desciptive of the world, only of our dualistic model of it. Is that it?

truth
Setanta, agreed. I can't imagine saving someone's life for "evil" motives. But that is not the question addressed here. We are talking about the possibililty of purely SELFLESS motives in ALTRUISTIC actions, not EVIL motives in GOOD actions. I'm afraid that YOU have (innocently, of course) contorted the issue.

No, JLN, i was referring to this:

truth
Setanta, Oh!

JLN, We can agree that trying to identify acts as good or bad has many complexities. Timing, the act itself, and the future consequences are three variables of many variables that plays into how we perceive good or bad acts. Even "honest mistakes" must be considered. "Genuine altruism" is not a pure concept, because it's impossible to determine the motivations and anticipated final result of any act, nor its good or evil intent.

We are all as altruistic as we want to be. There is also no such thing as a true vacuum.

I'd argue that the interior of the skulls of many prominent politicians would refute your last contention, Cav, but this ain't one a them political slander threads . . .

Hee hee...

Altruism, like most dogmatically defined concepts is designed to give people something to strive towards. The fact that it is not achievable is precisely the point. The longer you keep trying, the longer the idea controls you. These are the preferred weapons of choice from a church near you. Need I mention faith?

Craven de Kere wrote:

Aristotle is dead and gone, perhaps its past time for the furneral.(along with Plato)

Re: truth

Let me offer two possible situations:

(1) Victim, suffering from an extremely painful and incurable disease, decides to commit suicide by jumping into the lake. Rescuer, who is Victim's enemy and who knows of Victim's condition and decision, rescues Victim solely in order to prolong Victim's suffering.

(2) Rescuer wishes to murder his rival, Victim. He sees Victim in the lake and, deciding that Victim's drowning would deprive him of his opportunity, rescues Victim solely for the purposes of torturing and killing Victim himself.

In the foregoing situations, it is unlikely that we would praise Rescuer for his actions (which were undertaken for reprehensible or "evil" motives), even though in each case Rescuer's act of rescuing Victim, considered solely as an act, is indistinguishable from a rescue performed with genuinely altruistic motives. Yet the rescue undertaken to help Victim deserves our praise, the rescue undertaken to harm Victim earns our condemnation.


The point here is that we cannot look at an action and judge it solely on the basis of that action -- i.e. we cannot create a class of "good actions" that are always good, regardless of motivations, since an action performed for the noblest reasons looks exactly like an action peformed for the basest reasons. Which is why actions devoid of motivation (e.g. automatic actions, as fresco pointed out before) are non-moral, i.e. they merit neither praise nor condemnation. As such, we need to explore motivations in order to determine if an action is truly "altruistic."

EDIT: I want to make it clear, JLN, that I'm not taking issue with any position you've taken. This is more of a follow-up to cicerone imposter's previous posts.

twyvel,

So if everything in the universe exists therefore there is nothing that doesn't exist? That would fail to separate reality from imagination.

Caveat: It's possible that i miss your point entirely.

Given that you posit that we cannot consider soley the act, the two hypotheticals you mention could well result in the failure of the evil intent of the rescuer, which would mitigate in the same degree the putative evil.

These are really stretchers. As has been pointed out at great length here, purity and perfection are likely impossible of attainment. Given that circumstance, one would in the overwhelming number of cases assume altruism in the drowning/rescuing hypothesis--the instances you have offered are likely to be very rare indeed, given the frequency with which people, especially children, are in danger of drowning each year.

The stated question is whether or not genuine altruism were possible. Absent a definition of genuine, i believe for reasons i've already stated that it is. Were one to define genuine in this case as from "purely" unselfish motives, the foregoing discussion of purity and prefection pretty much moots the point.

Craven de Kere

My point was as JLNobody has mentioned. We live in a (mental) world of dualities, opposites, contrasts etc., but the dualities are our own creations.

e.g. An "existent" has no opposite.


Yes JLNobody, you state it well.